Nuclear Cartoon

Obama vetoes measure against swifter union elections

President Obama on Tuesday vetoed a measure passed by the Republican-run Congress blocking the National Labor Relations Board from streamlining the process for union elections, saying government should not make it harder for workers to be heard in the workplace.
Obama also announced a fall White House summit on worker rights.
The NLRB rule, set to take effect on April 14, would shorten the amount of time between when an election is called and when it is held by eliminating a 25-day waiting period.
Republicans and business groups opposed the rule, arguing that it would limit the ability of businesses to prepare for what some critics have dubbed "ambush elections." Opponents also said workers wouldn't have enough time to make informed decisions about whether to join a union.
In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Obama called the labor board's changes "common sense" and "modest" before he vetoed a resolution the Congress passed to nullify the rule.
"Unions historically have been at the forefront of establishing things like the 40-hour work week, the weekend, elimination of child labor laws, establishing fair benefits and decent wages," Obama said. "And one of the freedoms of folks here in the United States is, is that if they choose to join a union, they should be able to do so. And we shouldn't be making it impossible for that to happen."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, criticized Obama's decision.
"The NLRB's ambush election rule is an assault on the rights and privacy protections of American workers," Boehner said. "With his veto, the president has once again put the interests of his political allies ahead of the small-business owners and hardworking Americans who create jobs and build a stronger economy."
The rule was a victory for unions, which have long complained that the process is too long.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, using language similar to Obama, has said that the board's "modest but important reforms" will help reduce delays and make it easier for workers to vote on forming a union. Using language similar to Boehner, Trumka has called lawmakers' attempt to overturn the rule "a direct attack on workers and their right to be heard in the workplace."
The NLRB rule also permits some documents to be filed electronically instead of by mail, and generally delays legal challenges by employers until after workers have voted on whether to unionize. The rule will also require employers to supply union organizers with workers' email addresses and telephone numbers.

Iran nuclear talks resume in Switzerland day after missing deadline

Talks between Iran and six world powers on the future of Tehran's nuclear program resumed in Switzerland Wednesday after missing a deadline to produce the framework of a permanent agreement.
Secretary of State John Kerry, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier met with Iran Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in Lausanne early Wednesday, according to the Associated Press. Their French, Russian, and Chinese counterparts had all left overnight, leaving their deputies in charge. It was not immediately clear what effect their departures would have on negotiations.
Tuesday's talks had stretched into Wednesday morning local time before negotiators broke up, promising to meet a few hours later. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said earlier Tuesday that that enough progress had been made over six days of intense bartering to warrant an extension of the self-imposed deadline, though she noted "there are several difficult issues still remaining."
The deadline to agree on the outline of a permanent deal had already been extended twice before Tuesday, and it was not clear what would happen if an agreement was not reached by the end of Wednesday. The deadline for all the details of a comprehensive agreement to be settled is the end of June.
As the talks broke up late Tuesday, Zarif said that solutions to many of the problems had been found and that documents attesting to that would soon be drafted. That sentiment was echoed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who was quoted by Russia's TASS news agency as saying that "all key aspects" of a potential deal had been agreed upon.

More on this...

• Iran backs away from uranium concession ahead of deadline

Other officials were more skeptical. Asked how high the chances of success were, Steinmeier said: "I cannot say." And Hammond said Iran might still not be ready to accept what is on the table.
"I'm optimistic that we will make further progress this morning but it does mean the Iranians being willing to meet us where there are still issues to deal with," Hammond told British reporters. "Fingers crossed and we'll hope to get there during the course of the day."
The uncertain direction of negotiations could soon trigger renewed pressure from Congress on the Obama administration.
Congressional lawmakers had agreed to hold off on pursuing new sanctions legislation while negotiations were underway in advance of the initial March 31 deadline.
But according to reports, the talks may only result in a general statement that pushes off the hard decisions until June.
And patience may be wearing thin on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., the lead Republican sponsor of the legislation imposing new sanctions on Iran if talks fail, on Tuesday renewed his call for the bill.
"Rather than rush headfirst into a disastrously bad deal, the administration should work with Congress to shift the burden of accepting a good deal onto Iran," Kirk said in a statement to FoxNews.com.
"The president could do that by signing into law the Kirk-Menendez legislation, which would empower the president to impose new sanctions if Iran fails to meet the major June 30th deadline or if Iran is not complying with the interim deal."
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., had co-sponsored the legislation, and along with other Democrats agreed to put the effort on hold while talks played out. If he and other Democrats join Kirk in pressing anew for the sanctions bill, the Obama administration has warned it could create turbulence for the talks themselves.
But supporters of the legislation argue it would only apply more -- and needed -- pressure on Iran to negotiate in good faith.
Prior to Tuesday's extension announcement, the Associated Press reported that, the sides were preparing to issue only a general statement agreeing to continue talks in a new phase aimed at reaching a final agreement to control Iran's nuclear ambitions by the end of June.
After intense negotiations, obstacles remained on uranium enrichment, where stockpiles of enriched uranium should be stored, limits on Iran's nuclear research and development and the timing and scope of sanctions relief among other issues.
The joint statement would have been accompanied by additional documents that outline more detailed understandings, allowing the sides to claim enough progress has been made thus far to merit a new round, the officials told the AP.
The softening of the language from a framework "agreement" to a framework "understanding" appeared due in part to opposition to a two-stage agreement from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Earlier this year, he demanded only one deal that nails down specifics and does not permit the other side to "make things difficult" by giving it wiggle room on interpretations.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been meeting with his Iranian counterpart Zarif since Thursday in an intense effort to reach a political understanding on the issue.
Kerry and others at the table said the sides have made some progress, with Iran considering demands for further cuts to its uranium enrichment program but pushing back on how long it must limit technology it could use to make atomic arms. In addition to sticking points on research and development, differences remain on the timing and scope of sanctions removal.

Defense rests in 1st phase of Boston Marathon bombing trial

BOSTON –  Lawyers for Boston Marathon bomber Dzkokhar Tsarnaev rested their case in his federal death penalty trial Tuesday after presenting a brief case aimed at showing his late older brother was the mastermind of the 2013 terror attack.
The defense admitted during opening statements that Tsarnaev participated in the bombings. But Tsarnaev's lawyer said he was a troubled 19-year-old who had fallen under the influence of his radicalized brother, Tamerlan, 26.
Closing arguments will be held April 6.
The defense has made it clear from the beginning of the trial that its strategy is not to win an acquittal for Tsarnaev but to save him from the death penalty.
If the jury convicts Tsarnaev — an event that seems a foregone conclusion because of his admitted guilt — the same jury will be asked to decide whether he should be executed or spend the rest of his life in prison.
During its brief case, the defense called a cell site analyst who showed that Tsarnaev was at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth when Tamerlan purchased components of the two bombs used in the 2013 attack, including pressure cookers and BBs.
Tsarnaev's lawyer told jurors that it was Tamerlan who shot and killed MIT police Officer Sean Collier three days after the bombings. Tamerlan died after a gun battle with police hours after Collier's slaying.
Prosecutors called more than 90 witnesses over 15 days of testimony, including bombing survivors who described losing limbs in the attack. Three people were killed and more than 260 were wounded when two pressure cooker bombs exploded near the marathon finish line on April 15, 2013.
Jurors saw gruesome autopsy photos of the three killed: 8-year-old Martin Richard, a Boston boy who had gone to the marathon with his family that day; 23-year-old Lingzi Lu, a graduate student from China who was studying at Boston University; and 29-year-old Krystle Campbell, a 29-year-old restaurant manager.

Arkansas passes 'religious freedom' bill similar to new Indiana law, sparking more protests

Arkansas lawmakers on Tuesday approved a religious-freedom bill similar to the one recently passed in Indiana that critics say creates the potential for businesses and others to legally discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.
The state’s Republican-led House gave final approval to the bill, which prohibits the state and local governments from infringing on a person's religious beliefs without a "compelling" interest.
The measure now goes to Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who has said he will sign it into law.
Doug McMillon, the CEO of Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, issued a statement Tuesday pressing Hutchinson to "veto this legislation," and adding that the law would "undermine the spirit of inclusion" in the state.
"[It] does not reflect the values we proudly uphold," McMillon's statement read.
Indiana GOP Gov. Mike Pence signed a similar bill on Thursday, and 19 other states have comparable measures on the books.
Companies and lawmakers across the country denounced the Indiana law as discriminatory against gays, lesbians and others --and ordered that official business and travel there either be curtailed or stopped.
This week, hundreds of protesters filled the Arkansas Capitol urging Hutchinson to veto the bill, which is almost identical to the Indiana bill.
Both appear to state that a person could deny another person a service, based on a religious belief, and use that circumstance as a legal defense.
One frequently used example is a baker refusing a wedding cake order from a gay couple.
Pence and the leaders of the state’s Republican-led legislature have argued their bill does not legalize discrimination and is similar to a 1993 federal law signed by President Clinton and to legislation in 19 other states.
And it has been supported by such social conservatives and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
However, the Indiana Republican lawmakers vowed Monday to clarify the law -- just before a front-page Indianapolis Star editorial with the giant headline “Fix This Now.”
Prior to the passage Tuesday of the Arkansas bill, the White House repeated its opposition to the Indiana law.
“This kind of public outcry … is indicative of how this piece of legislation flies in the face of values that people all across America strongly support,” said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. “Governor Pence falsely tried to suggest the law is the same as the 1993 law. That is not true.”
Earnest also said the Indiana law was a “significant expansion” of law.