The Weekly Democratic Party Address was delivered by Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
(Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) on Kavanaugh nomination)
“From President Trump’s repeated campaign promises, we know that Judge Kavanaugh poses a grave threat to women’s health care and the weakening of Roe v. Wade. We know he will vote to effectively eliminate the Affordable Care Act and undermine protections for millions of Americans who suffer from pre-existing conditions, including more than 500,000 Connecticut residents,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). “My colleagues and I are often asked by constituents: what can we do? The answer is stand up and speak out. It’s a call to action. Mobilize your neighbors and galvanize the American public – just as we did during the health care debate, when they tried time and again to ram through Trumpcare. The risk to our healthcare system is just as great now as it was then.”
The true predecessor of Janus is Lochner v. New York, “the notorious 1905 decision that turbocharged the court’s pro-business interventions into health, safety, and economic regulation.”https://t.co/Q4hUsv5OwS
Like most non-lawyers, I struggle to understand the nuances of Supreme Court decisions, and I rely heavily on SCOTUSBlog (found here) to explain decisions in terms that I can understand. When the Janus v. AFSCME decision came down, followed by Justice Kennedy’s retirement announcement, I heard a lot of people talking about a return to the Lochner era. I had a vague recollection of the decision, but that mostly consisted of Lochner = bad. Today’s post is my IANAL attempt to provide an overview of the 1905 Lochner decision.
On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1964
The act outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin and gave the federal courts jurisdiction over enforcement, taking it out of the state courts where justice was uneven at best.
The Civil Rights Act had political ramifications as well. Its adoption caused a mass exodus of angry racists from the Democratic Party in the old south to the Republican Party. And the politics born of hatred of The Other gave the not-so-Grand Old Party the presidency for 28 out of the next 40 years.
I’m taking the easy way out this week and letting political cartoons do the talking for me again. I have plenty of topics I want to write about, but they’re all research- and writing-heavy, and with this week being incredibly busy at work, I just don’t have the time I need to complete everything. I will be around today, but sporadically and as my work allows.
The Weekly Democratic Party Address was delivered by Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania.
(In this week’s address, Congressman Matt Cartwright discussed the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling and Democrats’ new Better Deal legislation to guarantee the right for public employees to organize, act concertedly and bargain collectively in states that currently do not afford these basic protections.)
This week, instead of honoring our American tradition of supporting labor unions, the Supreme Court’s ideological decision overturned a 40-year precedent. Forty years of the fabric of American law, torn up.
This decision enables free-riding by those who benefit from union agreements but don’t want to pay their fair share. […]
While Washington Republicans are rigging the rules against workers – in the Courts and the Congress – Democrats are fighting to deliver A Better Deal to working men and women. Now is not the time to turn back the clock on fair pay. Now is the time for us fight back.
That’s why yesterday afternoon, joined by Senator Hirono, I proudly introduced the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act. Our bill reaffirms the right of every public sector employee to join a union and bargain collectively.
The Weekly Democratic Party Address was delivered by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.
“These are not normal times. On issue after issue, Donald Trump creates a crisis, blames others for what’s happening, and uses the ensuing chaos to demand a legislative solution that often harms even more people. Democrats are calling on President Trump to use his executive authority to reunite the 2,400 separated children with their parents. We are calling on him to resolve many other problems his executive order created. And we are calling on his administration to stop its sabotage of our health care system and work with us on a bipartisan basis to protect and improve our health care system.”
As usual, I present this post with the caveat that I am neither a scholar nor a specialist in this field; I’m merely providing an overview for those who wish to have a cursory explanation and enough information to enable continued research on one’s own. For the parenthetical part of the title of this post, I chose the less-common, but contemporaneously-accurate, reference to the Chinese Restriction Act, although today it is most often called the Chinese Exclusion Act. This was a conscious choice, guided by my desire to show the fluidity and evolution of the immigration restrictions directed at the Chinese, and later other Asian immigrants.
The Weekly Democratic Party Address was delivered by Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey.
(Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, delivered the Weekly Democratic Address. In this week’s address, Pallone highlighted the dangers of Republicans’ latest attack on the protections that ensure more than 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage.)
“Today, too many Americans are concerned about the costs of their families’ health care.
“The anxiety is justified considering the ongoing efforts by Republicans in Washington to undermine and sabotage the health care system.
“And last week, Republicans directly threatened the health care of millions of Americans when the Trump Administration asked a federal court to strike down key patient protections included in the Affordable Care Act.
“If successful, the Trump Administration’s action will eliminate protections that ensure more than 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. It could also eliminate protections that prevent insurance companies from charging women or anyone between the age of 50 and 64 outrageously high premiums because of their age or sex.