Sunday June 17, 2018

Always Forward with Education & Reason

FacebookTwitterYoutube
Newsletter
Feeds:
National and World News
Why Equal Pay Day Matters for Women’s History PDF Print E-mail
News
Written by The White House   
Tuesday, 12 April 2016 10:10

WASHINGTON, D.C. - One day in 1917, a dozen women gathered in front of the White House to stage a silent protest for women’s right to vote.

women_suffragists_wh

Spectators yelled at them, kicked them, and spit on them. They ripped the banners from their hands and threw them onto the ground.

Undaunted, these women brought those tattered banners back to a house across town. They cleaned them -- sometimes carefully re-stitching them -- and carried them back out the next day, and the next, and the next.

It's my job today to preserve those same banners, alongside an extensive collection of other artifacts that showcase the struggle and accomplishments of the movement for women’s equality. I do it all from the house that became their final headquarters in Washington, D.C., known as the Sewall-Belmont House.

Today, on Equal Pay Day, President Obama is permanently protecting this house by designating it as America's newest national monument.

potusFrom this house, members of the National Woman's Party led the movement for women’s equality, authoring more than 600 pieces of federal, state, and local legislation in support of equal rights.

The President's designation will preserve an extensive archival collection that documents the history of the movement to secure women’s suffrage and equal rights in the United States and across the globe.

We’ve come a long way since those protests almost a century ago. For me, preserving this site isn’t just about remembering the suffragist movement. It’s also about celebrating our spirit as Americans – the idea that if we work together and empower one another, we can make our government work better for all of us.

So I hope you'll take a moment today to celebrate this moment and watch the President speak about protecting a site that holds a significant place in our history.

Page Harrington
Executive Director
Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument

 
Johnson Ruled by Party on SCOTUS Nominee PDF Print E-mail
News
Written by Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Brandon Weathersby   
Friday, 25 March 2016 09:12

ron-johnsonAs other GOP Senators begin to falter, Wisconsin's Ron Johnson is clearly taking orders from the extreme, obstructionist fringe of the Republican Party.


MADISON - A third Republican senator announced his intention to actually do his job and consider Judge Garland’s nomination. Unfortunately for the people of Wisconsin that senator was not Ron Johnson.

Johnson continues to march in lockstep with Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell who continue to put partisan politics over fulfilling basic constitutional responsibilities.

Johnson’s not even pretending anymore –again and again he flatly tells reporters that he’s acting solely out of partisan interest rather than what’s good for the people of Wisconsin.

While some of Johnson’s Republican colleagues seem to actually listen to their constituents, Johnson is clearly taking orders from the extreme, obstructionist fringe.

Washington Post: Jerry Moran is third Republican senator to favor Supreme Court hearings

By Mike DeBonis
March 24, 2016

A third Republican senator broke with party leadership this week to say that Supreme Court nominee Merrick B. Garland ought to be granted hearings, according to a news report.

The Garden City Telegram reported that Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) told a small group gathered in a Cimarron, Kan., courthouse on Monday that GOP senators “should interview Garland and have a hearing on his nomination,” in the paper’s words.

“I can’t imagine the president has or will nominate somebody that meets my criteria, but I have my job to do,” Moran said, according to the report. “I think the process ought to go forward.”

Moran joins Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) in favoring hearings. Kirk has also called for an up-or-down vote on Garland.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has shut the door on any consideration of a Supreme Court nominee this year, arguing that the next president — not President Obama — ought to have the right to name a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Democrats are hoping to pressure GOP senators into acting on Garland’s nomination amid a national campaign. But they have been targeting embattled incumbents such as Kirk, who are facing tough reelection campaigns. Moran is up for reelection this year, but he has not appeared on lists of vulnerable incumbents, and no prominent Democrat has emerged to challenge him.

But Moran may, uncharacteristically, be trying to put some space between himself and Republican Party leaders.

“I would rather have you [constituents] complaining to me that I voted wrong on nominating somebody than saying I’m not doing my job,” Moran told the Cimarron crowd, according to the paper.

Last Updated on Friday, 25 March 2016 10:25
 
Fact Checkers Find Paul Ryan Wrong on SCOTUS Nomination PDF Print E-mail
News
Written by Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Brandon Weathersby   
Tuesday, 08 March 2016 09:34

antonin-scaliaFact checkers dig into history behind Speaker Paul Ryan’s statement that there is precedent for not nominating a justice in a presidential campaign. History shows Presidents have always been able to nominate someone.


MADISON – Last week, fact checkers dug into the history behind Speaker Paul Ryan’s statement that there is a precedent for the President not to nominate someone to the Supreme Court during an election year. They found this statement to be completely false and history shows Presidents have always been able to nominate someone. Paul Ryan and his Republican colleagues like Ron Johnson are playing partisan politics and virtually leaving the Supreme Court locked 4-4.

paul_ryanPaul Ryan and Ron Johnson are playing partisan politics and leaving the Supreme Court deadlocked on critical issues like women’s health care, voting access, and the rights of workers to organize.

Read exerts of the article below

Ten days after the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, House Speaker Paul Ryan entered the debate on whether Scalia’s successor should be chosen before or after Barack Obama leaves the Oval Office.

The Democratic president has the right to submit a nominee before he departs in January 2017, said the Wisconsin Republicanappearing Feb. 23, 2016 on CNBC’s "Squawk Box."

But the GOP-controlled Senate, Ryan added, has the right not to move the nomination forward and instead await a nomination from the next president.
Then co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin asked: "Should you look at whoever gets nominated on the merits of who they are, or simply on the politics of the moment?"

"We are in the politics of the moment, which is we are in the middle of a presidential election," Ryan said, referring to the early 2016 primaries and caucuses. "We’ve already had South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa. We’re knee-deep in a presidential election.

"There’s a reason for having this tradition of not nominating somebody in the middle of a presidential election, because it gets so political. I agree with that precedent, and there is a precedent for that."

[…]

Our rating

Ryan said: "There is a precedent" for not nominating someone to the U.S. Supreme Court "in the middle of a presidential election.’

It’s rare for a Supreme Court vacancy to occur during a presidential election year -- the last time was in 1940, although there were also two election-year nominations in 1968.

But we could find no instances in which a president faced with a Supreme Court vacancy during a presidential election year did not make a nomination. It occurred five times between 1912 and 1940, and each time the nominee was confirmed.

We rate Ryan’s statement False.

 
<< Start < Prev 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next > End >>

Page 24 of 27
Copyright © 2018. Green Bay Progressive. Designed by Shape5.com