“Is the president going to have the authority to decide if the Supreme Court has deliberated too little on a case?” CitizenLink quotes Yoo writing on the matter. “Does Congress have the right to decide whether the president has really thought hard enough about granting a pardon? Under Obama’s approach, he could make a recess appointment anytime he is watching C-SPAN and feels that the senators are not working as hard as he did in the Senate (a fairly low bar).”

CitizenLink identifies Yoo only as “a law professor at the University of California at Berkley, who is well known in legal circles for advocating executive power.”

Yoo is perhaps one of the most controversial figures in U.S. legal history. His torture memos were eventually disavowed by the Bush justice department. The Office of Legal Counsel where Yoo worked repudiated them as unsound and dangerous. After a five year inquiry, the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility reported that Yoo had “committed intentional professional misconduct when he advised the CIA it could proceed with waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques…” During the inquiry, Yoo told investigators the “president… had the constitutional power to order a village to be ‘massacred.’” Three years ago, Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón Real launched an investigation of Yoo for war crimes.

By contrast, the Obama appointments this week can be seen in context less as any kind of historic overstep and more as just another strategic move in a Capitol Hill chess game.

The appointments come after three years of deep congressional dysfunction and after the president in recent months vowed to act where he can to use executive orders to bypass congressional obstructionism.

“We’re not going to wait for Congress… Where they won’t act, I will, through a series of executive orders… We’re going to look every day to see what we can do without Congress,” he told a crowd in October gathered on the downtown Denver Auraria Campus.

The argument against the appointments is that the Senate was not in fact in recess when Obama made them. The White House says the Senate was “in session” in name only, opening up for do-nothing 30 second meetings in order mainly to keep the president from appointing Cordray to head the two-year-old leaderless Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB), which was created by Congress over the objection of bank lobbyists to protect credit card holders, for example, from gouging interest rates and fees.

Republican senators have for months blocked confirmation of Cordray, who is a Republican and a former attorney general of Ohio. The senators say they do not object to Cordray but only to how the CPFB is organized. Its financing, for example, comes from the Federal Reserve, which means Congress can’t influence the agency by controlling its budget. Yet, in two years, none of the senators have introduced legislation to rework the CPFB, leading most observers to conclude that, on one hand, the Republicans, acting on behalf of the banks, don’t want the bureau to ever functionally exert its regulatory mission and, on the other, don’t want to go on record with that stand in an election year where the commitment of lawmakers to represent the interests of their constituents instead of the interests of corporations is being seriously called into question.

Jon Stewart on Thursday laid out the controversy in typical succinct and damning fashion:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (FLORIDA INDEPENDENT/ Cooper Levey-Baker)

Former presidential contender and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has teamed up with Citizens United to promote “fetal personhood,” a movement sweeping the country in the form of amendments that aim to define as beginning at the moment of conception.

Huckabee acts as narrator in Gift of Life, a film that promotes legislative action meant to overturn the landmark abortion rights act Roe v. Wade. He spoke about the film during a segment that aired last Saturday on his eponymous Fox News program, saying he had a recent discussion with his 5-year-old grandson about his passion for abortion issues.

Huckabee says that the film, which he helped produce, will remind voters that, “while the economy and jobs are center stage, treating every human with worth and dignity is still essential in selecting a leader.” Throughout the film, Huckabee espouses his support for fetal personhood bills, which have become increasingly divisive. Though supporters argue they only want to outlaw abortion, critics have argued that defining life in such broad terms could lead to a variety of unintended consequences and have wide-ranging impacts on cancer research as well as in vitro fertilization.

The issue is even more urgent, Huckabee says, because of the recent FDA approval of over-the-counter sales of the Plan B pill — which Huckabee called “a drug that kills a developing baby.”

The personhood movement has had its setbacks recently — an attempt at an amendment in Florida never yielded enough signatures for ballot placement and, despite support from state legislators, a personhood amendment in Mississippi on the state’s November ballot failed.

A Personhood Florida spokesman told The Florida Independent that, despite those recent setbacks, his group would again attempt an initiative for 2014.

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore)

Republican presidential favorite Newt Gingrich has pledged his support for the controversial anti-abortion movement known as “fetal personhood,” by signing a pledge that has yet to be signed by opponent Mitt Romney.

Personhood USA, the group behind “fetal personhood” petitions that have appeared in states across the country, announced yesterday that Gingrich had signed its pledge. In doing so, he opposes ”assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings” and agrees to “work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development.”

“To the best of my knowledge, I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human beings at every stage of development are persons with the unalienable right to life,” Gingrich pledged.

In November, Gingrich said he would support a national personhood bill, which would define life as beginning at the moment of conception. He clarified his words earlier this month, telling ABC News’ Jake Tapper he believes life actually begins at “successful implantation,” not fertilization.

Other pledge signers include presidential contenders Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has yet to sign the pledge, adding ammunition to those who have criticized him for being a “flip-flopper” when it comes to hot-button issues like abortion. In a Thursday morning appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani blasted Romney for changing his positions on both abortion and health care reform.

Romney refused to sign a different anti-abortion pledge earlier this year, arguing it was “too broad.”

According to new information, a provision in the Affordable Care Act has helped 2.5 million young adults gain health insurance since the law took effect.

It was previously estimated that about 1 million young adults under the age of 26 were affected by President Obama’s health care reform law, but new reports suggest it was more than twice that number.

The Associated Press reports:

Under the health overhaul, children can remain on their parents’ health insurance plans until they turn 26, and families have flocked to sign up young adults making the transition to work in a challenging economic environment. But the fate of President Barack Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment remains uncertain, with the Supreme Court scheduled to hear a constitutional challenge next year, and Republican presidential candidates vowing to repeal it.

“The increase in coverage among 19- to 25-year-olds can be directly attributed to the Affordable Care Act’s new dependent coverage provision,” said a draft report from the Health and Human Services Department. “Initial gains from this policy have continued to grow as … students graduate from high school and college.” A copy of the report was obtained by The Associated Press.

…

Using unpublished quarterly statistics from the government’s ongoing National Health Interview Survey, analysts in Sebelius’ policy office determined that nearly 36 percent of those age 19-25 were uninsured in the third calendar quarter of 2010, before the law’s provision took effect.

That translates to more than 10.5 million people.

By the second calendar quarter of 2011, the proportion of uninsured young adults had dropped to a little over 27 percent, or about 8 million people.

The difference — nearly 2.5 million getting coverage — can only be the result of the health care law, administration officials said, because the number covered by public programs like Medicaid went down slightly.

While most of the health care reform law does not go into effect until 2014, the provision in question went into effect last fall and most employer health insurance plans started following through with this change on Jan. 1, the AP reports.

Florida Rep. Daphen Campbell, D-Miami Shores (Photo: myfloridahouse.gov/Meredith Geddings)

Florida Rep. Daphne Campbell, D-Miami Shores, has been inadvertently caught up in the ongoing controversy over the decision by home improvement giant Lowe’s to pull advertising from the TLC show All-American Muslim, a decision made due to pressure from the Tampa-based Florida Family Association.

After the move by Lowe’s, hackers associated with the group Anonymous targeted the website of the Florida Family Association, which had petitioned its supporters to call on companies that advertise during All-American Muslim to pull out of their advertising contracts.

On Monday, a hacker with the Twitter handle @ihazcAnNONz uploaded a list of the Florida Family Association’s email subscribers, a list that includes at least three accounts associated with state Rep. Campbell. Two of those email addresses were used during Campbell’s campaign for District 108.

But rather than lend her support to the Florida Family Association cause, Campbell says she had no idea she was on the subscription list and isn’t sure how she came to receive the group’s emails, according to an aide.

Lawmakers in other parts of the country have blasted Lowe’s (the only company  to publicly comment on its ad removal), arguing that the decision to pull ads from All-American Muslim is “bigoted”  and irresponsible. Some groups, like People for the American Way, have called for a boycott of the home improvement company.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the controversy surrounding the show, it appears that advertising spots for All-American Muslim are becoming a hot commodity. Just yesterday, music and fashion mogul Russell Simmons tweeted that he had purchased the show’s remaining ad spots.

(Photo: Flickr Creative Commons/www.BackgroundNow.com)

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Photo: Flickr/ryanjreilly)

During a speech given in Texas last night, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder criticized legal challenges launched by states — including Florida — against the section of the Voting Rights Act that requires approval of election laws in certain areas. Holder also affirmed the need for vigilance against laws aimed at rolling back voting rights.

According to a draft of his speech released to the press, Holder also said that he was taking a “thorough” look into Florida’s controversial new elections law.

“We’re also examining a number of changes that Florida has made to its electoral process,” he said, “including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, as well as changes to early voting procedures, including the number of days in the early voting period.”

“Although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state-law changes,” he continued, “I can assure you that it will be thorough — and fair. We will examine the facts, and we will apply the law. If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change. And where a state can’t meet this burden, we will object as part of our obligation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”

Florida has not been the only state facing scrutiny from the federal government. Holder also mentioned interest in other states such as Texas and South Carolina. Both states were among several that enacted new photo ID requirements to vote.

Holder said during his speech (according to the prepared remarks):

Despite this history, and despite our nation’s long tradition of extending voting rights – to non-property owners and women, to people of color and Native Americans, and to younger Americans – today, a growing number of our fellow citizens are worried about the same disparities, divisions, and problems that – nearly five decades ago – LBJ devoted his Presidency to addressing. In my travels across this country, I’ve heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from many Americans, who – often for the first time in their lives – now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation’s most noble, and essential, ideals.

As Congressman John Lewis described it, in a speech on the House floor this summer, the voting rights that he worked throughout his life – and nearly gave his life – to ensure are, “under attack… [by] a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.” Not only was he referring to the all-too-common deceptive practices we’ve been fighting for years. He was echoing more recent concerns about some of the state-level voting law changes we’ve seen this legislative season.

Since January, more than a dozen states have advanced new voting measures. Some of these new laws are currently under review by the Justice Department, based on our obligations under the Voting Rights Act.

Holder also spoke about recent challenges to the Voting Rights Act, specifically the section of the law that requires federal “preclearance” of election laws in certain areas. In October, Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning launched a legal complaint against that requirement.

In his filing, Browing argued that federal preclearance requirements for state election laws are “unconstitutional” and that “subjecting Florida counties and other jurisdictions covered exclusively under the language minority provisions of the [Voting Rights Act] to pre-clearance is not a rational, congruent, or proportional means of enforcing the Fourteenth and/or Fifteenth Amendments and violates the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.”

Last night, Holder said:

Despite the long history of support for Section 5, this keystone of our voting rights laws is now being challenged five years after its reauthorization as unconstitutional in no fewer than five lawsuits. Each of these lawsuits claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2011 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary.

I wish this were the case. The reality is that – in jurisdictions across the country – both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common. And we don’t have to look far to see recent proof.

Holder described recent problems with Texas and Louisiana’s redistricting efforts, which he said “failed to show the absence of discrimination.” Holder said, “To those who argue that Section 5 is no longer necessary — these and other examples are proof that we still need this critical tool to combat discrimination and safeguard the right to vote.”

The attorney general also announced that the issue of protecting voting rights in the country was a moral imperative that required public support.

“As concerns about the protection of this right and the integrity of our election systems become an increasingly prominent part of our national dialogue, we must consider some important questions,” he said. “It is time to ask: What kind of nation — and what kind of people — do we want to be? Are we willing to allow this era — our era — to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended? Are we willing to allow this time — our time — to be recorded in history as the age when the long-held belief that, in this country, every citizen has the chance — and the right — to help shape their government, became a relic of our past, instead of a guidepost for our future?”

Holder said new legislation that was formerly introduced in the Senate by then-Sen. Barack Obama, would be reintroduced by Sens. Charles Schumer and Ben Cardin. The law “would establish tough criminal penalties for those who engage in fraudulent voting practices — and would help to ensure that citizens have complete and accurate information about where and when to vote,” he said.

“Despite so many decades of struggle, sacrifice, and achievement — we must remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our most basic and important right,” he concluded. “Too many recent actions have the potential to reverse the progress that defines us — and has made this nation exceptional, as well as an example for all the world. We must be true to the arc of America’s history, which compels us to be more inclusive with regard to the franchise. And we must never forget the purpose that — more than two centuries ago — inspired our nation’s founding, and now must guide us forward.”

The GOP-sponsored “Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act,” which extends payroll tax cuts and extends but reduces unemployment benefits through 2012, passed in the U.S. House Tuesday night, but it will not pass in the Senate.

The bill — filed by Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., and cosponsored by five other Republicans, including Rep. Ilena Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami — also cuts “$8 billion from the Harkin Prevention Fund“ and reduces “Medicaid spending by more than $4 billion.”

CBS News reports today that the “measure would keep 160 million workers from seeing their payroll tax jump on Jan. 1 from this year’s 4.2 percent back to its normal level of 6.2 percent,” and would “also renew expiring extra benefits for long-term jobless people.”

The National Employment Law Project said Tuesday the House vote, which includes cuts to unemployment insurance, “will hurt millions of unemployed workers and their families and will further damage the economy.”

The Employment Law Project adds that the House GOP bill would:

• Cut federal unemployment benefits by more than half in 2012, eliminating 40 weeks of payments.
• “Allow the last leg of the federal unemployment insurance extension – the 13 to 20 weeks of Extended Benefits (EB) that are available in the hardest-hit states – to expire, mostly over the course of the first half of 2012.”
• Cut extended benefits in states with unemployment rates higher than the national average, which stands at 8.6 percent.

The Law Project report indicates that under the GOP bill approved Tuesday night, Florida’s unemployed workers would see their unemployment benefits cut by 40 weeks.

Politico reports that the bill, which also “calls for construction of the controversial Keystone KL oil pipeline,” “is dead on arrival in the Democratic Senate and faced a veto threat anyway.”

According to The New York Times, “members of both parties said the payroll tax cut would put money in the pockets of consumers, increasing the demand for goods and services and shoring up a weak economy,” adding that the House bill “would extend jobless benefits for some of the unemployed, while reducing the maximum number of weeks of benefits that a worker could receive.”

The Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy at Florida International University said Tuesday that “if congress does not renew the Extended Benefits (EB) and Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) programs by January 1, 2012, tens of thousands of Floridians currently receiving unemployment benefits funded by the federal government will be cut off.”

The Research Institute, known as RISEP, adds that in Florida, “unemployment has been consistently decreasing since the end of 2010, but labor force participation rates have been decreasing as well. At the end of 2010, the labor force participation rate was 62.7%, but by October 2011, the percentage of working-age population in Florida looking for jobs decreased to 61.8%.”

The RISEP report (.pdf) also argues that whatever Congress decides to do, a law signed by Gov. Rick Scott in June, “will further reduce the number of weeks of federally funded benefits that unemployed workers will be eligible for”:

Last spring the Florida legislature reduced the maximum number of weeks of unemployment from 26 weeks to 23 weeks, depending on how high the unemployment rate is. Starting January 1, the approximately 15,000 people per week who file initial claims for unemployment benefits will be eligible for only 23 weeks of benefits. The state estimates this change will save the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund $103 million annually, representing a savings to employers but a loss to families and businesses which depend on UC benefits.

In a statement announcing her decision, Sebelius said that although “the science has confirmed the drug to be safe and effective with appropriate use, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately. ”

“I do not believe that Teva’s application met that standard. The label comprehension and actual use studies did not contain data for all ages for which this product would be available for use,” she said.

Reproductive rights advocates immediately denounced the decision. Numerous groups have already released statements and written letters to Sebelius and the White House expressing disagreement with the decision.

The Washington Post reports that now a group of U.S. senators have written a letter to Sebelius requesting an explanation.

According to the letter:

We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision.

As numerous medical societies and patient advocates have argued, improved access to birth control, including emergency contraception, has been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies. Nearly half of all pregnancies that occur in the United States each year are unintended. Keeping Plan B behind the counter makes it harder for all women to obtain a safe and effective product they may need to prevent an unintended pregnancy.

We ask that you share with us your specific rationale and the scientific data you relied on for the decision to overrule the FDA recommendation. On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women’s health will be based on medical and scientific evidence.

President Obama has publicly supported Sebelius’ decision.

In a ranking of one (best) to 50 (worst), Florida ranks 42nd in the nation. About 84,000 children in Florida were homeless in 2010, a report (PDF) from the group says.

The study, “America’s Youngest Outcasts 2010″ (PDF), also found that “more than 1.6 million children or one in 45 are homeless annually in America [which] represents an increase of 38 percent during the years impacted by the economic recession (2007 to 2010).”

The report is based on 2006-2010 “data and research on the extent of child homelessness, child well-being, risk for homelessness, and state policy and planning efforts.”

According to the report:

Data from the original report showed that more than one in 50 children were homeless annually in America. That dropped to one in 63 in the recovery from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and has increased since.

“The Recession has been a man-made disaster for vulnerable children,” said Ellen L. Bassuk, MD, President and Founder of The National Center on Family Homelessness and Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “There are more homeless children today than after the natural disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which caused historic levels of homelessness in 2006. The Recession’s economic devastation has left one in 45 children homeless in a year—an increase of 38% from 2007 to 2010.”

The report finds that children experiencing homelessness in America suffer from hunger and poor physical and emotional health as well as limited academic proficiency in reading and math. The constant barrage of stressful and traumatic experiences has profound effects on their development and ability to learn.”

The report also points out that “planning and policy activities to support these vulnerable children remain limited.”

“Sixteen states have done no planning related to child homelessness, and only seven states have extensive plans,” the reports says.

Florida ranked 35th in a 2010 state policy and planning ranking, according to the group’s Florida report. According to that study, the state has just over 4,000 housing units for homeless families — that list includes emergency shelters, transitional housing, HUD homes and permanent supportive housing. Florida also has a state housing trust fund and an active Interagency Council on Homelessness, but fails to have a “state 10-year plan that includes children and families.”

Earlier this year, Gov. Rick Scott vetoed  $12 million dollars from the state’s general revenue fund to the National Veterans’ Homeless Support Group for “homeless housing assistance grants.” The item was one of many public assistance programs Scott vetoed.

Florida faces another revenue shortfall this year, which puts all public assistance programs at risk for more budget reductions.

“In the face of this man-made disaster, there must be no further cuts in federal and state programs that help homeless children and families. Deeper cuts will only create more homelessness that will cost us more to fix in the long run,” Bassuk said in a statement included in the new report. “We can take specific action now in areas of housing, child care, education, domestic violence, and employment and training to stabilize vulnerable families and prevent child homelessness.”

Last month, Florida’s child homelessness epidemic received national attention. 60 Minutes shed light on the issue and took a hard look at a county in Florida that reported 1,100 homeless students in its K-12 schools.

Responding to the broadcast, state legislators announced a bipartisan effort to combat Florida’s homelessness crisis. State Rep. Betty Reed, D-Tampa, and Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, announced that they “filed legislation for the 2012 Florida legislative session that seeks to raise awareness and funding to help combat homelessness.”

The Supreme Court of the United States Blog wrote Monday: “Adding further to the historic rank of the Supreme Court’s current Term, the Justices on Monday took on the searing constitutional — and political — controversy over state power to strictly limit the way undocumented immigrants live their lives in the U.S.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) “welcomes the decision by the United States Supreme Court to review Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.” The group not only welcomed S.B. 1070 but also helped draft the law through its affiliate — the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

FAIR, according to Open Secrets, spent more than $3.4 million from 1998 through 2011 to lobby Congress on immigration-related legislation, like a proposed House GOP sponsored resolution that “would have prohibited the U.S. Department of Justice from using any funds to sue Arizona in an effort to strike down its new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.”

“We believe that SB 1070 is a legitimate effort by a state to partner with the federal government in assisting in the enforcement of our immigration laws,” said FAIR President Dan Stein.

The National Immigration Forum wrote Monday: “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will clarify once and for all that only the federal government has the authority to create and enforce immigration law. We believe Arizona’s SB1070 is misguided and unconstitutional and expect the Supreme Court to use this opportunity to slam the brakes on other state-based immigration laws that are in conflict with our Constitution and core American values.”

According to Open Secrets, the Forum has spent more than $1.5 million since 1998 to lobby Congress on issues related to comprehensive immigration reform.

The American Spectator, a publication that “serves as a resource and an outlet for a host of both young and established conservative writers and thinkers” writes today: “Health care reform isn’t the only major policy battle the Obama administration will fight before the Supreme Court. The justices will also hear a case in which the Obama Justice Department asks them to overturn Arizona’s SB 1070, a controversial law empowering state and local police to detain suspected illegal immigrants in the course of their normal work.”

The Spectator, adds:

“We won 5 to 3 on the E-Verify case,” [former Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce, one of the architects of S.B. 1070,] says. “The same issues and constitutional principles are at stake here. I expect we’ll win 5 to 3 again.” (Justice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, recused herself in the last case and will do so again in the forthcoming one.) Indeed, the Supreme Court found that Arizona immigration law fell “well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the States.”

The National Council of La Raza ”hopes that by intervening in this case, the Supreme Court will affirm that the federal government is responsible for immigration enforcement and that states do not have the right to usurp that authority by establishing their own immigration laws.”

La Raza is a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization that according to Open Secrets spent more than $5.6 million to lobby Congress from 1998 through 2011 on immigration, as well as other issues: the federal budget, economic development, education, health issues, housing and law enforcement and crime.

The Supreme Court of the United States Blog added: “The Arizona measure, and one in Alabama that goes even further, were passed by state legislatures with the specific intent of making life so difficult for undocumented aliens that they would choose to leave the state. Other states are also passing similar measures.”