Immigration: As LA rebuffs Trump's order, others embrace it

Los Angeles mayor expands protection for immigrants

Los Angeles went a step further than the rest of the country Tuesday in shielding illegal immigrants from immigration officials: It passed a directive forbidding firefighters and airport police from cooperating with federal immigration agents.
The directive was yet another attempt by the city to rebuff the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. The Los Angeles Police Department already prohibits police from even asking a suspect’s legal status – even with probable cause.
It follows a wave of similar measures across the country by cities and states that are vowing to not only resist the president’s tough immigration measures – but outright defy it.
DHS NAMES LOCAL JAILS THAT WON'T HOLD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
“In Los Angeles, we don't separate people from their families because it's inhumane,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said Tuesday. “In Los Angeles, we don't demonize our hardworking neighbors just because they speak another language or come from another country. That's un-American.”
There are about 300 jurisdictions that don't cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to turn over illegal immigrants.
President Trump has threatened to withhold federal funds from these so-called sanctuary cities. The administration has refused to tell Fox News if, when or how they plan to do so.
But while states like New York and California are pushing to defy the president’s immigration policies, others are embracing them.
WHITE HOUSE BLAMES MD. SCHOOL RAPE ON LAX BORDER, SANCTUARY POLICIES
Several states are attempting to leverage the power of the purse to force more liberal cities to cooperate with ICE. Lawmakers in Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Texas introduced bills to penalize sanctuary cities. On Tuesday, Mississippi became the first state to approve such a bill. The governor has vowed to sign it.
By contrast, lawmakers in California are close to passing legislation that would prohibit police or jails from even talking to ICE, a move critics say is a clear violation of federal law.
That proposal is opposed by several sheriffs who oversee jails, including LA Sheriff Jim McDonnell.
"We look to be able to strike that balance between public safety and trust," said McDonnell, who oversees the nation's largest jail.
"We do a better job because we work together than we otherwise would; counter-terrorism is a great example."
McDonnell is one of the few politicians opposing the bill because it would prohibit jail officials from even identifying violent criminal aliens for deportation.
"We can allow ICE access to those individuals. That's a system that by and large works very well for us at this point and one of the main reasons I look at Senate Bill 54 as something that is unnecessary."
McDonnell also told the Los Angeles Times that the proposal before state lawmakers would hurt immigrants – not help them. He told the Times that if immigration officials cannot go to the jails to pick up illegal immigrants then they will fan out through the streets to find them.
“They are going to have no choice but to go into the communities and arrest not only the individual they are seeking but also people who are with that person, or other people in the area who are undocumented,” McDonnell told the Times. “That is something none of us want.”

ObamaCare replacement bill in jeopardy after conservatives, moderates fail to reach deal

House Republicans' ObamaCare replacement plan was in peril early Thursday after lengthy leadership and committee meetings failed to produce an agreement that would shore up support among conservative members.
"We have not cut the deal yet," said House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. The committee spent 13 hours in session Wednesday without setting up a formal rule governing debate on the health care bill, which had been expected to be voted on by the full House Thursday.
Sessions said he suspected that House Republicans would try to agree on a path forward for the bill when they meet in conference Thursday morning.
The Rules Committee, usually tightly controlled by GOP leadership, had been expected to let the chamber vote on revisions that top Republicans concocted to win votes. These include adding federal aid for older people and protecting upstate New York counties -- but not Democratic-run New York City -- from repaying the state billions of dollars for Medicaid costs.
Instead, the meeting broke up without any of the amendments being voted on.
While the committee was in session, House Speaker Paul Ryan was meeting with moderate Republicans from Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maine and New York as well as members of leadership. One of those moderates, Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., issued a statement Wednesday saying he would oppose the bill.
"I believe this bill, in its current form, will lead to the loss of coverage and make insurance unaffordable for too many Americans, particularly for low-to-moderate income and older individuals," Dent said before calling for House Republicans to "step back from this vote and arbitrary deadline to focus on getting health care reform done right to ensure that American families have access to affordable health care."
However, another Pennsylvania Republican, Lou Barletta, said he had switched from "no" to "yes" after Trump endorsed his bill to use Social Security numbers to hinder people from fraudulently collecting tax credits. Barletta, an outspoken foe of illegal immigration, said he had been promised a vote next month on the measure by Ryan.
The talks had focused on language to placate conservatives demanding repeal of ObamaCare's requirements that insurers pay for so-called "essential health benefits" — specified services like maternity care, prescription drugs and substance abuse treatment.
Earlier Wednesday evening, the leader of the House Freedom Caucus sounded a note of optimism after President Donald Trump huddled at the White House with 18 lawmakers, a mix of supporters and opponents.
"Tonight is an encouraging night," said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who for days has said he has the votes to kill the measure. "But I don't want to be so optimistic as to say the deal is done."
The Republican legislation would halt Obama's tax penalties against people who don't buy coverage and cut the federal-state Medicaid program for low earners, which the statute expanded. It would provide tax credits to help people pay medical bills, though generally skimpier than the aid Obama's statute provides. It also would allow insurers to charge older Americans more and repeal tax boosts the law imposed on high-income people and health industry companies.
In a count by The Associated Press, at least 26 Republicans said they opposed the bill and others were leaning that way, enough to narrowly defeat the measure. The number was in constant flux amid eleventh-hour lobbying by the White House and GOP leaders.
Including vacancies and expected absentees, the bill would be defeated if 23 Republicans join all Democrats in voting "no."
In a show of support for the opponents, the conservative Koch network promised Wednesday night to spend millions of dollars to defeat the health care overhaul, the influential network's most aggressive move against the bill.
Moderates were daunted by projections of 24 million Americans dropping their health coverage in a decade and higher out-of-pocket costs for many low-income and older people, as predicted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
In addition to Trump's powow at the White House, Vice President Mike Pence saw around two dozen lawmakers. Participants in the Pence meeting said there were no visible signs of weakened opposition and described one tense moment. Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, said White House chief strategist Steve Bannon told them: "We've got to do this. I know you don't like it, but you have to vote for this."
Weber said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, bristled.
"When somebody tells me I have to do something, odds are really good that I will do exactly the opposite," Barton said, according to Weber.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said that talk of deleting the insurance coverage requirements had converted him into a supporter. But before the late talks, others were skeptical.
"We're being asked to sign a blank check," said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., who's been an opponent. "In the past, that hasn't worked out so well."
Some Republicans were showing irritation at their party's holdouts, all but accusing them of damaging the GOP.
"At some point we have to cowboy up and prove we can govern," said Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. "Otherwise we're just going to be the `no' party and some people are OK with that, it appears."

London attack: UK police arrest 7 in massive pre-dawn raids

British police said Thursday that six homes were raided and seven arrests were made in connection to the terror attack that left five dead, including the attacker and a police officer.
Armed police carried out the raid in the central city of Birmingham, about 130 miles north of London. Police said they believed the attacker acted alone and was “inspired by international terrorism.” The identity of the attacker has not been released.
UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon added that the assumption is the attack was related to “Islamic terrorism in some form.”
The chaos unfolded on the Westminster Bridge near the Parliament building when an SUV mowed down pedestrians on the bridge. London metro police counterterrorism Chief Mark Rowley said that 29 people were hospitalized and seven were in critical condition.
British Prime Minister Theresa May called the attack a “sick and depraved” act, but did not elevate the terror threat level, which was already at severe.
Three civilians were among those killed. Rowley identified the officer as Keith Palmer, 45, who had served as an officer for 15 years.
Rowley said Wednesday it was still “too early” to release the name of the attacker, but added that officials "think we know who the attacker is and are working to establish who his associates are."
Armed and unarmed patrols have been stepped up as a precaution across the country, he said.

Rep. Maxine Waters Cartoons

Rep. Maxine Waters veiled threat to Trump: 'Get ready for impeachment'

Some Democrats are calling for President Trump's impeachment

A California Democrat seems to think that President Trump shouldn't get too comfortable in the White House, and is repeating her claim that impeachment is a very real possibility.
"Get ready for impeachment," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., wrote on Twitter early Tuesday. Waters didn't add any kind of context as to what may have inspired the declaration, or whether she was referring to President Trump, specifically.
But the impeachment of President Trump is an idea she's brought up plenty of times before.
Waters was asked over the weekend about a March 16 tweet in which she included a picture of what she called "Trump's Kremlin Klan." When pressed on whether her constituents still care "about this Trump-Russia connection," Waters told MSNBC's Joy Reid that the presidency could unravel over this issue alone.
DEMS ALREADY CRANKING UP TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TALK
"I think in the final analysis they are going to have to move away from [President Trump]," Waters said of right-wing conservatives. "And we will see that [President Trump] will be in a position where he will meet the criteria for high crimes and misdemeanors, and I maintain that’s where impeachment comes in.”
Some have noted that Waters' latest tweet also comes less than 24 hours after the directors of both the FBI and the National Security Agency confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that they have seen no evidence to support President Trump's claim that President Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower.
In February, Waters suggested that the president was "leading himself to impeachment" over what she called his "unconstitutional" executive order on immigration. At the time, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer responded by suggesting that it's comments like that one that make "you realize that [lawmakers] really missed the message that voters sent this November."
The issue of impeachment even came up during Tuesday's confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Judge Gorsuch whether he believed President Trump could be impeached if he starts "waterboarding people." The president has suggested that he would leave the issue of waterboarding up to his generals, but that the practice "absolutely" works.
While he said he wouldn't speculate on the issue, Judge Gorsuch pointed out that "the impeachment power belongs to this body." He added that "no man is above the law."
The House has the sole power to impeach an official, and the Senate is the sole court for impeachment trials. An impeachment is a charge, not a conviction.
According to the House of Representatives website, "the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency."
MAXINE WATERS ON TRUMP'S CABINET: THEY'RE A 'BUNCH OF SCUMBAGS'
Impeachment proceedings have been initiated by the House more than 60 times, but less than one-third have led to full impeachments. Outside of the 15 federal judges impeached by the House, just two presidents (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), a cabinet secretary and a U.S. senator have also been impeached.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Conservatives rebuff Trump, say they have votes to derail health bill

President Trump flashed the thumbs-up Tuesday on Capitol Hill, where he pressured House Republicans to pass an ObamaCare replacement bill -- but despite White House optimism about a deal coming together, conservative members later said they’re still voting no and could derail the chamber vote set for Thursday.
“It’s not a personal decision. It’s a policy decision,” North Carolina GOP Rep. Mark Meadows, leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told Fox News. “We have a difference of opinion.”
Meadows said 21 of the influential caucus’ 30-plus members still intend to vote against the bill, crafted by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and his leadership team.
Trump repeatedly has tried since the bill was introduced several weeks ago to win over Meadows -- from inviting him to the White House and his Mar-a-Lago Florida resort last weekend to calling him out Tuesday in a closed-door meeting.
“Oh Mark, I'm going to come after you,” Trump told Meadows to laughter, according to several reports.
The White House and Meadows later downplayed the comment, with the congressman saying he and the president have a good relationship and that he also got a visit Tuesday from Vice President Mike Pence.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the president was just having some “fun” with Meadows, an early supporter in Trump’s 2016 White House race.
Still, those who attended the roughly 40-minute, closed-door meeting thought Trump was dead serious when he said many House Republicans got elected on a vow to repeal and replace ObamaCare and they could lose re-election in 2018 if they don’t fulfill the promise.
Trump’s blunt warning signaled his and Ryan’s escalating efforts to get the requisite 218 votes to pass the legislation in the GOP-led chamber, then send it to the GOP-led Senate.
Late Monday, Ryan and his team announced changes to their bill, the American Health Care Act, to shore up support from the GOP's rank-and-file, including moderates, and with voters who now rely on ObamaCare.
The change, in a 43-page manager's amendment, would pave the way for the Senate, if it chooses, to make the bill's tax credits more generous for people ages 50 to 65, so they could better afford the insurance. The bill reportedly sets aside $85 billion over 10 years for that purpose.
The measure also would curb Medicaid growth and allow states to impose work requirements on some recipients.
Ryan said Monday the amendment was the result of an "inclusive approach" involving the White House and congressional Republicans.
But even if the bill clears the House, it faces problems in the Senate.
Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, a Trump supporter, said he cannot support the House bill, despite the proposed changes.
He said they “do little to address the core problem of ObamaCare: rising premiums and deductibles, which are making insurance unaffordable for too many Arkansans.”
President Obama’s signature health care law has provided insurance for at least 11 million Americans but has struggled to survive as customers face rising premium costs and fewer policy options.
Still, the replacement plan has no Democratic support.
Meadows indicated Monday that his group will not oppose or support the bill collectively, so members can vote on their own.
However, Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, a founding Freedom Caucus member, said Tuesday that the group’s opposition remains “very strong.” And he sounded pessimistic about Republican leaders’ down-the-road promises on tax relief and insurance deregulation.
“This bill doesn't do what we told the American people we were going to do,” he said.
Meadows brushed aside concerns about losing in a GOP primary next year.
“I serve at the will of 750,000 people in western North Carolina. I’m going to be a no even if it sends me home,” he said. “I don’t know of too many people who can challenge me on the right.”
Despite giving the thumbs-up before the Capitol Hill meeting, Trump appeared to leave with just cautious optimism, saying negotiations continue and “I think we'll get the vote Thursday."
The president will apparently continue to meet with House Republicans until the vote deadline, which includes talking with the moderate Tuesday Group and attending a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner.
New Jersey GOP Rep. Tom MacArthur a Tuesday Group member who supports the bill, said after the White House meeting that most of the 12 other members also seem to be supportive but still have concerns. 

Unscathed: Gorsuch aces his hearing, 'doesn't give a whit about politics'

Neil Gorsuch is an impressive witness, a judge out of central casting who says all the right things, with great earnestness, about judicial independence.
Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee smoothly insisted that he would have no problem ruling against the president who appointed him and has respect for court precedent—including Roe v. Wade, which he noted has been “reaffirmed.”
The Democrats tried to rough him up at yesterday’s confirmation hearing, in part by bringing up his role in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, but it was mainly polite sparring that left Gorsuch with few scratches.
“Goodness no, Senator,” he told Dianne Feinstein when asked, based on a note he wrote in a case about torture techniques, if he believed an administration could ignore the law.
And when Feinstein asked whether he would always favor big corporations over the little guy, Gorsuch insisted “from the bottom of my heart that I’m a fair judge.” And he told Orrin Hatch that “a good judge doesn’t give a whit about politics.”
Gorsuch also stressed that he has dissented equally from judges named by Republicans and Democrats.
I’ve watched a zillion confirmation hearings. Whatever you think of his record, Gorsuch put on a clinic in how to testify without losing your cool. He said “gosh” and “golly” and then quoted Hamilton and Socrates.
To be sure, Trump picked Gorsuch because he has a solidly conservative record. The hearings are a kabuki dance in which both liberals and conservatives duck specifics while promising to be impartial on the high court.
And Gorsuch probably would have had smooth sailing if Democrats weren’t still furious at Mitch McConnell and company for refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing last year—a move that Democrat Pat Leahy called “shameful” at the hearing.
Leahy turned up the temperature, saying it appeared that Trump “outsourced your nomination” to “far-right special interest groups.” But Gorsuch deflected his repeated attempts to get him to take a stand on a religious test and surveillance, drawing a laugh when he said “I admire the various ways” the senator kept trying to draw him into pending cases.
An emotional moment came when Dick Durbin confronted Gorsuch over an allegation that he asked his law students if they knew a woman who had taken maternity benefits and left the country. Gorsuch said passionately that he was discussing the ethics of employers asking female applicants if they plan to get pregnant, and is disturbed that many female students say in a show of hands that it’s happened to them.
The initial press headlines reflected how Gorsuch framed the day.
New York Times: “Gorsuch Vows Independence; Offered Trump ‘No Promises’”
Washington Post: “Gorsuch:  ‘No Such Thing as a Republican Judge or a Democratic Judge’”
Having covered Gorsuch’s mother Anne when she ran Ronald Reagan’s EPA, a rocky tenure in which she was charged with contempt of Congress, it is fascinating to watch how easily he deals with Congress.
I also covered the hearings for Antonin Scalia, whose seat Gorsuch would take. He was approved 98 to 0—an outcome impossible to imagine in today’s hyperpartisan climate. But Neil Gorsuch helped himself yesterday.

Gorsuch appears to survive barrage from Democrats, readies for third day of confirmation hearings

Senate Democrats on Tuesday pressed Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch on his opinion on past High Court rulings that could help identify his ideological approach to the bench, but he appeared to have emerged from the hours of testimony relatively unscathed.
Gorsuch appeared intent on following the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.
He avoided any serious blunders despite a flurry of questions ranging from his opinion on Roe v. Wade and his opinion on the District of Columbia v. Heller-- the 2008 ruling that allowed handguns to be kept inside homes for self-defense.
“If I were to start telling you which are my favorite precedents or which are my least favorite precedents or if I view a precedent in that fashion, I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants that I’ve already made up my mind about their cases,” he said.

After 9 hrs of chairing Judic Comm SCOTUS hrg I handed the gavel to Sen Tillis Thx senator for taking over so I can run at 4 in the morning

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) March 22, 2017

The Roe v. Wade line of questioning was of particular interest. Trump said during the campaign that he would nominate judges that would overturn the decision. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Gorsuch whether Trump had asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade. The nominee answered no, and said that if Trump had, “I would have walked out the door.”
GREGG JARRETT: SORRY DEMS, JUDGE GORSUCH IS UN-BORKABLE 
Gorsuch has not ruled directly on the right to an abortion, and was pressed on the topic by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the committee’s top Democrat. He said that legalized abortion is “precedent” and “worthy of treatment as precedent like any other.”
On the major gun rights case known in short-hand as “Heller,” he also said that it’s the “law of the land.”
“I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party, other than based on what the law and the facts of a particular case require,” Gorsuch said. “There’s no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge, we just have judges in this country.”
Gorsuch was also asked if he would have an issue ruling against Trump, if the law called for it. Gorsuch said he would not. He went on to repeat earlier comments he reportedly said in private about Trump’s attack on judges.
“When anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity or motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening and demoralizing.” He was asked if that statement applied to the president and he said, “Anyone is anyone.”
The New York Times summed up the Republican line of questioning: “Republicans largely used their questioning to help insulate Judge Gorsuch from expected criticism, offering 30-minute safe harbors.”
Democrats see Gorsuch, a George W. Bush appointee in the 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, as a judge who will interpret the law in a similar fashion of the man he may replace: Antonin Scalia.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes to confirm Gorsuch before a two-week break that begins on April 10. The committee expects to vote on April 3. Grassley told reporters that the nomination would immediately go to the floor.
Gorsuch’s nomination to the High Court appears to be very likely. He will benefit from a Republican-controlled Senate. He needs 60 total votes. Republicans hold 52 seats. Ten Democrats represent states that voted for President Trump in November. And, Republicans can “go nuclear” and change the rule to confirm Gorsuch to a simple majority.
Perhaps one of the more tense interactions of the day, was between Gorsuch and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.
Franken asked Gorsuch how he could rule in favor of a company that fired a truck driver who abandoned his trailer on the side of an interstate on a -14 degree night. Alphonse Maddin, the driver, noticed that his trailer’s brakes were frozen and his heater did not work.
Maddin unhitched his trailer and drove off to wait somewhere warm. Gorsuch wrote that the company gave him the legal option to wait with his trailer.
“I had a career in identifying absurdity,” Franken, a former member of “Saturday Night Live,” said. “I know it when I see it, and it makes me question your judgement.”