Federal judges find Texas gerrymandered maps on racial lines

AUSTIN, Texas –  Federal judges found more problems in Texas' voting rights laws, ruling that Republicans racially gerrymandered some congressional districts to weaken the growing electoral power of minorities, who former President Barack Obama set out to protect at the ballot box before leaving office.
The ruling late Friday by a three-judge panel in San Antonio gave Democrats hope of new, more favorably drawn maps that could turn over more seats in Congress in 2018. But the judges in their 2-1 decision didn't propose an immediate fix, and Texas could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Republicans hold two of three congressional districts ruled newly invalid and were found to have been partly drawn with discriminatory intent. The GOP-controlled Texas Legislature approved the maps in 2011, the same year then-Gov. Rick Perry signed a voter ID law that ranks among the toughest in the U.S. Courts have since weakened that law, too.
Judges noted the "strong racial tension and heated debate about Latinos, Spanish-speaking people, undocumented immigrants and sanctuary cities" that served as the backdrop in the Legislature to Texas adopting the maps and the voter ID law. Those tensions are flaring again over President Donald Trump's executive orders on immigration, and Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is also demanding tough crackdowns on so-called sanctuary cities.
"The record indicates not just a hostility toward Democrat districts, but a hostility to minority districts, and a willingness to use race for partisan advantage," U.S. District Judges Xavier Rodriguez and Orlando Garcia wrote in their opinion.
Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did not immediately remark on the ruling.
An attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund welcomed Friday's ruling.
"The court's decision exposes the Texas Legislature's illegal effort to dilute the vote of Texas Latinos," said Nina Perales, the group's vice president of litigation and lead counsel in the case. "Moving forward, the ruling will help protect Latinos from manipulation of district lines in order to reduce their political clout."
Hispanics were found to have fueled Texas' dramatic growth in the 2010 census, the year before the maps were drawn, accounting for two out of every three new residents in the state. The findings of racially motivated mapmaking satisfied Democrats and minority rights groups, who are now pushing a separate federal court in Texas to determine that the voter ID law was also crafted with discriminatory intent.
Texas was forced ahead of the November election to weaken its voter ID law, which allows concealed handgun licenses but not college student IDs, after a federal appeals court found that the requirements particularly hampered minorities and the poor.
The Obama administration had brought the muscle of the U.S. Justice Department into Texas to help challenge both the maps and voter ID law. But barely a month after Trump took office, the federal government reversed course and announced it would no longer argue that Texas purposefully discriminated against minorities with its voter ID law.
It was not yet clear whether the Trump administration will also drop opposition to Texas' maps. But U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, in a blistering dissent, had strong words for Obama administration attorneys after they joined the case.
"It was obvious, from the start, that the DoJ attorneys viewed state officials and the legislative majority and their staffs as a bunch of backwoods hayseed bigots who bemoan the abolition of the poll tax and pine for the days of literacy tests and lynchings," Smith wrote. "And the DoJ lawyers saw themselves as an expeditionary landing party arriving here, just in time, to rescue the state from oppression, obviously presuming that plaintiffs' counsel were not up to the task."
The stakes in finding discriminatory intent are higher because it provides a window for opponents to argue that Texas should be forced to resume having changes to voting laws "pre-cleared" by the Justice Department or a federal court. A 2013 U.S. Supreme Court ruling did away with preclearance by striking down a key provision in the federal Voting Rights Act.
The congressional districts voided by the panel belong to Democrat Lloyd Doggett and Republicans Will Hurd and Blake Farenthold. Hurd's district, which runs from San Antonio to El Paso, has been a rare competitive swing district in Texas in recent years.

AG Sessions asks remaining 46 US attorneys to resign

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has asked the remaining 46 U.S. attorneys who served under the Obama administration to resign, the Justice Department announced Friday, describing the move as part of an effort to ensure a "uniform transition."
The department said some U.S. attorneys, as in prior transitions, already had left the department. Now, "the Attorney General has now asked the remaining 46 presidentially appointed U.S. Attorneys to tender their resignations," a spokeswoman said.
“Until the new U.S. Attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our U.S. Attorney’s Offices will continue the great work of the Department in investigating, prosecuting, and deterring the most violent offenders,” the statement added.
Department of Justice spokesperson Peter Carr told Fox News late Friday night: “The President called Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein tonight to inform them that he has declined to accept their resignation, and they will remain in their current positions.”
However, no additional guidance was given on U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara, who was appointed by then-President Barack Obama and assumed the role of Manhattan U.S. Attorney in 2009. Bharara met with Trump in November and said after the meeting that he had agreed to stay on.
It is customary, though not automatic, for the country's 93 U.S. attorneys to leave their positions once a new president is in office. Incoming administrations over the past several decades typically have replaced most U.S. attorneys during the first year or two.
The Obama administration allowed political appointees of President George W. Bush to serve until their replacement had been nominated and confirmed. One U.S. attorney appointed by Bush, Rod Rosenstein of Maryland, remained on the job for the entire Obama administration and is the current nominee for deputy attorney general.
But Sessions' actions are being closely scrutinized by Democrats after a rocky start to the AG's time at the DOJ.
Weeks after his tight confirmation vote on Feb. 8, it emerged that Sessions had met twice with the Russian ambassador last year -- despite testifying during his confirmation hearing he had no communications with the Russians. Sessions later clarified his testimony, while recusing himself from any investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 campaign.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, issued a statement late Friday saying: “I’m surprised to hear that President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have abruptly fired all 46 remaining U.S. attorneys.  "
“In January, I met with Vice President Pence and White House Counsel Donald McGahn and asked specifically whether all U.S. attorneys would be fired at once. Mr. McGahn told me that the transition would be done in an orderly fashion to preserve continuity. Clearly this is not the case. I’m very concerned about the effect of this sudden and unexpected decision on federal law enforcement," she said.
U.S. attorneys are responsible for prosecuting federal crimes in the territories they oversee. They report to Justice Department leadership in Washington, and their priorities are expected to be in line with those of the attorney general. The federal prosecutors are nominated by the president, generally upon the recommendation of a home-state senator.

Trump, Pence follow ObamaCare replacement rollout with weekend offensive

The White House is trying this weekend to rally support for the ObamaCare replacement plan -- with Vice President Pence in Kentucky and President Trump using the bully pulpit and old-reliable Twitter.
"The ObamaCare nightmare is about to end,” Pence said at a business routable in Kentucky, with protesters outside the venue and as the GOP replacement bill moves through the House and heads toward the Senate. “Here are the heartbreaking facts: Today, Americans are paying $3,000 more a year on average for health insurance since the day ObamaCare was signed into law.”
Kentucky has emerged as a battleground in the early efforts by Trump and GOP House leadership to pass the American Health Care Act, with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul helping lead conservative opposition to the bill, introduced Monday.
“Kentucky is a textbook example of ObamaCare’s failures,” said Pence, citing premium increases in the state as high as 27 percent and Louisville-based Humana Inc. planning to exit Kentucky's ObamaCare exchange next year.
Trump and practically every elected Washington Republican campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
Former President Obama’s signature health care law has insured roughly 11 million Americans since its 2010 inception but some Americans have since struggled with rising premium costs and dwindling policy options.
“We are making great progress with healthcare,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning.
He also used the presidential weekly address this weekend to make his case.
"Seven years ago this month, ObamaCare was signed into law over the profound objections of the American people,” said Trump, who plans to rally support next week at a stop in Nashville, Tennessee. “House Republicans have put forward a plan that gets rid of this terrible law and replaces it with reforms that empower states and consumers."
To be sure, Trump, known for his real estate and international deal-making before becoming president, realizes that getting the replacement bill to his desk for signature will require backing on several fronts -- including support from the most conservative members of his party.
Since the bill was released earlier this week, Trump has hosted key GOP committee leaders at the White House and had dinner Wednesday with conservative firebrand Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. Trump has also invited members of the House Freedom Caucus, a conservative wing of the Republican House, to the White House for bowling and pizza.
While House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., should get the minimum 218 House votes to move the bill to the Senate, Trump and fellow Republican leaders in Congress have essential no chance of garnering any Democratic support.
“Tonight, Republicans revealed a Make America Sick Again bill,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said after the GOP House leaders released their replacement bill.
Opposition by elected Democrats has been outmatch only perhaps by voters, who have pounded congressional Republicans at recent town hall events over concerns about losing health insurance as a result of repeal and replace efforts.
After releasing their long-sought bill, House Republicans this week swiftly pushed it through two key committees.
They hope to pass the legislation in the full House during the week of March 20, then send it to the Senate where it would need the support of 51 of 52 Senate Republicans to reach Trump’s desk for signature.
Meanwhile, Democrats are accusing Republicans of trying to rush the bill through Congress before the public can figure out what it does. And they say the GOP should at least wait until the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office releases its report, which could come by Monday.
The GOP legislation would eliminate the current mandate that nearly all people in the United States carry insurance or face fines.
And it would use tax credits to allow consumers to buy health coverage, expand health savings accounts, phase out an expansion of Medicaid and cap that program for the future, end some requirements for health plans under Obama's law and scrap a number of taxes.
Conservatives argue that the legislation doesn't do enough to uproot ObamaCare. And some Republicans accuse Ryan and fellow House GOP leaders of moving too quickly.
Democrats paid a price for their lengthy process in passing the bill. As the months dragged on, public opposition grew. Over Congress' August recess in 2009, that rage overflowed at similar town halls, which helped spawn the Tea Party movement that gave the GOP control of the House the next year.

Travel Ban Cartoon

New Trump travel ban can't be enforced on Syrian family trying to flee to Wisconsin, judge says

Hawaii first state to sue to block new travel ban/guess where Obama is from:-)

A federal judge on Friday blocked President Trump 's administration from enforcing his new travel ban against a Syrian family looking to escape their war-torn homeland by fleeing to Wisconsin.
The ruling is likely the first by a judge since Trump issued a revised travel ban on Monday, according to a spokesman for the Washington state attorney general, who has led states challenging the ban.
The Syrian man filed a new complaint on Friday afternoon, alleging the new order is still an anti-Muslim ban that violates his freedom of religion and right to due process. He asked Conley to block its enforcement against his family.
U.S. District Judge William Conley said there were daily threats to the Syrian man's wife and child that could cause "irreparable harm." He issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement against the family. The order doesn't block the entire travel ban. It simply prevents Trump's administration from enforcing it against this family pending a March 21 hearing.
KELLYANNE CONWAY: NEW TRAVEL BAN 'WILL PASS LEGAL MUSTER'
“The court appreciates that there may be important differences between the original executive order, and the revised executive order. ... As the order applies to the plaintiff here, however, the court finds his claims have at least some chance of prevailing for the reasons articulated by other courts,” Conley wrote.
A Syrian Muslim man who was granted asylum and settled in Wisconsin has been working since last year to win U.S. government approval for his wife and 3-year-old daughter to leave the devastated city of Aleppo and join him here. The man, who is not identified because of fears for his family's safety, filed a federal lawsuit in Madison in February alleging Trump's first travel ban had wrongly stopped the visa process for his family.
After the Trump ban was blocked the first time, the approval process restarted for the Syrian family and they're now preparing to travel to Jordan for visa interviews at the U.S. embassy, the last step before U.S. customs officials decide whether to issue them visas. But the family doesn't have dates for the interviews yet and Trump's new travel ban goes into effect March 16, stirring fears that the process could halt again before visas are issued, according to the Syrian man's attorneys.
Government attorneys argued during a teleconference with Conley on Friday that the new ban may not apply to this family anyway, although they did not go into details. There are various exemptions and waivers in the new ban including some that give consular officers flexibility to decide cases. Conley acknowledged that the family's situation is murky but still issued the order, saying the man seems to have a good chance of winning the case.
The U.S Justice Department is defending the ban. Spokeswoman Nicole Navas said agency attorneys were reviewing the Syrian man's complaint and declined further comment on it and Conley's order.
Trump issued an executive order in January banning travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria, from entering the United States. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Washington state blocked the entire order on Feb. 3.
The revised order issued Monday removed Iraq from the list of countries and would temporarily shuts down the refugee program. Unlike the first order, the new ban would not affect current visa holders and removes language that would give priority to religious minorities. Hawaii filed a lawsuit challenging the new ban Wednesday; other states with Democratic attorneys general plan to sue next week.
According to the Syrian man's lawsuit, he fled his country to avoid near-certain death at the hands of two military factions, one a Sunni-aligned group fighting against President Assad 's regime and another group fighting in support of Assad. The pro-Assad forces thought he was sympathetic to the other side and the anti-Assad army targeted him because he was a Sunni and traveled to pro-Assad areas to manage his family's business.
Both sides tortured him and threatened to kill him, the lawsuit said. The pro-Assad forces also threatened to rape his wife. He came to the United States in 2014 and was granted asylum last year. He then began filing petitions seeking asylum for his wife and daughter.

Tomi Lahren: Lack of Outrage Over Samantha Bee Shows 'Hypocrisy of the Left'

Tomi Lahren, host of "Tomi" on The Blaze TV, said there is a double standard when it comes to criticisms of media hosts and comedians when they cross the line.
She referenced comedian Samantha Bee's montage of "Nazi hair" at CPAC, in which one of the subjects shown was actually a young man with stage-4 brain cancer.
Bee subsequently apologized when the man was identified, but Lahren said if Bee was conservative, she would have been criticized doubly as harsh.
"Do you think if this was a conservative host... do you think the left would've called for them to step down or resign?" Lahren asked.
She said Bee should not be fired over the incident, but asked Democratic strategist Jessica Tarlov whether the left has shown the same outrage over the incident.
Tarlov said she and others have called for right-wing radio host Alex Jones to step down after he called Michelle Obama a transvestite on his program.
Lahren said there was more weight to Bee's case than others:
"This is about throwing around the term "Nazi" and "fascist." Those are pretty heavy labels to throw around," Lahren said.
She said the lack of outrage across the political spectrum for Bee's montage is an example of the "hypocrisy of the left."

Study: Hillary Clinton ran one of the worst campaigns in years

A new study by the Wesleyan Media Project has found that the 2016 presidential campaign run by Hillary Clinton is without a doubt one of the worst-run political operations in years.
Interestingly, the directors of the study dispute the argument that “advertising doesn’t matter” in elections. Clinton’s failure to advertise in certain key states, they argue, was the biggest reason for her defeat by Donald Trump.
The study also backs the view that Clinton’s focus on identity politics and emphasis on condemning her opposition contributed to a campaign message devoid of substance with no clear message on policy.
Published in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the study found that one candidate in particular, Hillary Clinton, “almost ignored discussions of policy.” The study states the lack of advertising effectiveness “may owe to the unusual nature of the presidential campaign with one nonconventional candidate and the other using an unconventional message strategy.”
Clinton, who was widely predicted to win by the mainstream media, suffered unexpected losses in states where she failed to air ads until the final week before the polls. In contrast, Trump advertised in these states (Wisconsin and Michigan) for weeks before he won.

Four times Republicans faced outrage for things Dems did first

Since President Trump’s inauguration, Republicans have triggered a steady churn of outrage from the left over perceived gaffes, errors and omissions.
Some of it has been rightly deserved (see: erroneous Trump tweet on Gitmo prisoners). Some of the desk-thumping, however, has more than a hint of hypocrisy -- as that outrage machine was largely silent when similar comments were made by the Obama administration.
Here are just a few examples of statements met with thunderous criticism when uttered by Republicans, yet crickets when made by Democrats:
Carson vs. Obama
HUD Secretary Ben Carson, speaking to department employees earlier this week, sparked outrage when he referred to slaves as “immigrants.”
"That's what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity," Carson said. "There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."
The NAACP and Chelsea Clinton were both among those offended by Carson’s comparison. Actor Samuel L. Jackson tore into Carson in an R-rated tweet.

Immigrants??? https://t.co/f0RH7iXBrn

— NAACP (@NAACP) March 6, 2017

This can't be real. Slaves were not & are not immigrants. 2017. https://t.co/8CuUvnR2Mf

— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) March 6, 2017

The problem was, then-President Barack Obama made a similar comparison before.
"It wasn't always easy for new immigrants. Certainly, it wasn't easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves," he said at a 2015 naturalization ceremony.

Lots of nastiness directed @RealBenCarson - but in 2015 President Obama also referred to the slaves as immigrants https://t.co/0sinrwgQs3 pic.twitter.com/OSzfbrweHb

— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) March 7, 2017

The Federalist went so far as to dig up 11 times Obama had referred to slaves as immigrants, and noted there was barely a peep of outrage each time. What changed?
Lay off the iPhones
Twitter was apoplectic when Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, recently said Americans may have to choose between buying a new iPhone and health insurance.
"Well, we're getting rid of the individual mandate. We're getting rid of those things that people said that they don't want. ... Americans have choices, and they've got to make a choice," he said on CNN. "So rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care.”
Chaffetz was accused of everything from being OK with poor people dying to “reviving the ‘poverty is a choice’ argument."
Yet the criticism glossed over similar remarks made by Obama in 2014.
Asked in a Spanish-language town hall about those who said they can’t afford premiums, Obama speculated about someone making $40,000-$50,000 a year, who thinks an insurance option that costs $300 a month is too much.
“I guess what I would say is if you looked at that person’s budget and you looked at their cable bill, their telephone … cell phone bill, other things that they’re spending on, it may turn out that they just haven’t prioritized health care because right now everybody is healthy," he said.
Shame-rock
Some were put out after the Trump team recently put out green versions of his famous “Make America Great Again” hats, branded with a four-leaf clover. While said clover is considered a symbol of good luck, some Irish news outlets and others on Twitter grumbled that the three-leaf clover was more appropriate.
“The shamrock is a three-leaf sprig of clover and is associated with St Patrick's Day,” The Irish Independent complained. “The four-leaf clover is a plant, that's rarer in abundance. It's also a sugary, oat piece that's usually found in a box of Lucky Charms cereal.”
Yet Obama did something similar in 2012 when his campaign produced an “O’Bama” shirt with a four-leaf clover. While the error was noted, it produced little outrage, and even some apologists.
“I think that’s creative license,” Kevin O’Neill, a professor of Irish History at Boston College, told The New York Times.” If you can add an apostrophe, why not a leaf.”
Omission Outrage
A Trump White House statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day provoked condemnation when it left out any reference to Jewish people – the main target of Hitler’s genocidal atrocities.
“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror,” the statement said.
A number of Jewish groups were critical of the omission. But former Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine, D-Va., went further by comparing the statement to Holocaust denial.
“President Obama, President Bush always talked about the Holocaust in connection with the slaughter of Jews. The final solution was about the slaughter of Jews. We have to remember this. This is what Holocaust denial is,” he said.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer blasted the controversy as “nitpicking.” He said: "To suggest that remembering the Holocaust and acknowledging all of the people -- Jewish, gypsies, priests, disabled, gays and lesbians -- it is pathetic that people are picking on a statement."
But Kaine’s comments in particular were striking considering his former running mate – former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – released a statement in 2013 that also did not mention the Jewish people.
The statement said: "Each year, we gather together to commemorate the victims of one of the worst tragedies in human history. Indeed, almost 70 years after the end of World War II, we continue to honor those lives that were brutally taken during the Holocaust by the Nazis. This machinery of systematic extermination also took the lives of Roma, gays, persons with disabilities, and others deemed inferior or undesirable by the Nazis."
The statement did condemn Holocaust denial, while also mentioning other genocides, including in “Cambodia, Srebrenica, Rwanda and Darfur.”