The CBS Evening News reported a Federal judge "blocked a critical part of the government's crackdown on businesses that may be employing illegal immigrants. The action comes just as farms coast to coast are hiring temporary workers for the harvest."
The Los Angeles Times calls the ruling "a major defeat for the Bush administration." US District Judge Charles Breyer "issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the Department of Homeland Security from starting a controversial program to punish companies based on discrepancies between their workers' names and Social Security numbers." USA Today reports Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff "said that he is disappointed by the ruling but that it won't stop his department from enforcing immigration law or implementing other plans, such as requiring companies that do business with the federal government to check employees' legal status via an online system."
The Washington Times notes Chertoff also "said President Bush has made it clear that the Department of Homeland Security is going to do as much as it can within the boundaries of the law to further secure the nation's borders and enforce immigration laws." The Wall Street Journal notes the program, "announced by...Chertoff in August, was to roll out last month with the mailing of 140,000 no-match letters from the Social Security Administration."
The New York Times notes Breyer "chastised the Department of Homeland Security for making a policy change with 'massive ramifications' for employers, without giving any legal explanation or conducting a required survey of the costs and impact for small businesses." The Washington Post reports the case "called attention to the gulf between Washington rhetoric about the need to curtail illegal immigration and the economic reality that many US employers rely on illegal labor, as well as to the government's inability for nearly three decades to develop adequate tools for identifying undocumented workers."
The House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on Wednesday approved legislation that would set new limits on the nation's intelligence agencies in conducting surveillance, domestically and abroad. The bill is a continuation of the conflict between the President and congressional Democrats, who reluctantly agreed to a temporary GOP measure that was heavily criticized by their base and liberal bloggers. The Washington Post reports Bush "and other Republicans stepped up their attacks" on the proposed legislation, "escalating a partisan battle over the boundaries of US spying." The two House panels "approved bills that would require the government to get approval from a special intelligence court for blanket surveillance of targets overseas." But Bush "warned that he would not sign the Democratic legislation unless it gives US telecommunications firms retroactive immunity from lawsuits." The Hill says Bush "wasted little time in criticizing" the bill, saying it would be a "grave mistake to weaken" the current laws. USA Today notes Bush argued that immunity is necessary because "companies...are facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation." USA Today also lists the House bill's proposed changes.
In a widely circulated report, the AP says the committees "even strengthened the bill slightly by establishing a new threshold for when the government has to seek a court order to listen in on American communications with foreigners." The Washington Times reports that despite President Bush's veto threat, "Democrats vowed not to compromise on key provisions." The Chicago Tribune, similarly, reports that congressional leaders "are reluctant to release companies from liability for their roles in the program without learning much more about the details of this surveillance."
The New York Times says the Senate "has not considered a companion bill yet, although administration officials, as well as some civil liberties and intelligence experts, say the White House may have more allies in that chamber." The Politico reports "some [House] Republicans expect the majority to bring bill to the floor as early as next week." CQ reports Senate aides "signaled that their chamber's bill, likely to be unveiled next week, probably will contain retroactive liability protection for communications companies," setting up "a clash with the House." The Los Angeles Times runs a similar story.
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
The New York Times reports the Bush Administration, "preparing for the next Supreme Court argument on the rights of the hundreds of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, asserts in a new brief that they 'enjoy more procedural protections than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of warfare.'" The brief, "filed late Tuesday, argues that a 2006 law that stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from Guantánamo detainees did not violate the Constitution because foreign enemy combatants had no right to habeas corpus in the first place."
Carter Says US Using Torture Asked on CNN's The Situation Room about President Bush's statement this week that the US "does not torture detainees," former President Carter said, "That's not an accurate statement, if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated." AFP also reports Carter's comments, noting that in response, White House press secretary Dana Perino rejected the charges in an e-mail statement."
The Supreme Court yesterday engaged in a robust debate over the death sentence of Mexican national Jose Medellin, who appealed because he was not given access to his country's consulate after his arrest as required by treaty. The Bush Administration sided with the convicted murderer against the state of Texas.
USA Today says the case has grown into a dispute of international magnitude that goes to the core of the president's powers." While "a Texas official told the justices states do not need to follow an international court order to hear the appeal of a Mexican citizen on its death row," lawyers for Medellin "and the Bush administration countered that Texas must help meet US treaty obligations by granting the appeal. The case places Bush, a death penalty supporter, at odds with the state he used to govern."
The Washington Times /AP says "several justices suggested that US ratification of an agreement promising to abide by the international court's decisions is a sufficient basis for ruling in Medellin's favor." But "Justice Antonin Scalia reacted skeptically." The Washington Post reports Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "was one of several justices who seemed skeptical of the deference owed to the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court." The Los Angeles Times also reports the story under the headline "High Court Cool To Bush Claim On Death Cases."
The Wall Street Journal sees the case as "a test of executive power that could affect the president's power to conduct foreign affairs." The Financial Times says "the case before the court tests whether the president can order state courts in Texas to obey a ruling of the International Court of Justice in the Hague." The ICJ "ordered the US to review the death sentences of 51 Mexicans who claim they were denied legal help from consular officials in violation of an international treaty signed by the US."
Rice Convinced Bush To Reverse Course The Wall Street Journal notes the State Department "insists foreign governments follow the treaty when they detain Americans, but local authorities in the US have a spotty record of compliance, leading to complaints against Washington at the International Court of Justice." With the US "under criticism abroad for its perceived disregard of international obligations, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice persuaded the president to reverse course, officials said."
The Hill reports House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) "on Wednesday released an interview with GOP lawyer Dana Jill Simpson implicating former White House adviser Karl Rove in the prosecution and conviction of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D) on corruption charges." In a "closed-door interview with committee staff, Simpson recalled how Rob Riley, current Gov. Bob Riley's (R) son, told her about Rove's role in a plan to prosecute Siegelman."
The New York Times reports Rob Riley "boasted that a Republican judge would 'hang Don Siegelman,' a former Democratic governor of Alabama, for partisan reasons, according to" Simpson's deposition, who "testified in a case about accusations of White House interference in the Justice Department's corruption case against Mr. Siegelman, who is serving an 88-month sentence." But Rob Riley "denied Ms. Simpson's accusation."
In a New York Times editorial observer column, Roger Cohen discusses the case of Mississippi trial attorney Paul Minor, who "has contributed $500,000 to Democrats over the years." But Minor's "political activity may have cost him dearly. He is serving an 11-year sentence, convicted of a crime that does not look much like a crime at all. The case is one of several new ones coming to light that suggest that the department's use of criminal prosecutions to help Republicans win elections may go farther than anyone realizes."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
A series of three new polls out yesterday from Quinnipiac University suggests that Republicans would have a tough time holding off Sen. Hillary Clinton if the presidential elections were held today. The surveys of likely voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida show Clinton topping all GOP candidates in all states. However, if Clinton doesn't get the nod, John Edwards and Barack Obama are generally not as strong against Giuliani, but are still strong against the rest of the Republicans. In the two parties' primaries, Giuliani and Clinton hold leads in all three states.
Florida Clinton tops Giuliani (46-43), McCain (46-42), Thompson (48-39) and Romney (48-37). Obama beats Romney (43-36) and Thompson (45-36), but trails McCain (41-39) and Giuliani (42-39). Edwards beats Romney (47-33), Thompson (44-36) and McCain (42-40), but trails Giuliani (43-41). Clinton leads the Democratic primary with 51%, followed by Obama at 17% and Edwards at 10%. Giuliani leads the Republicans with 27%, followed by Thompson, 19%; Romney, 17%; and McCain, 8%.
Ohio Clinton tops Giuliani (46-40), McCain (48-38), Thompson (50-36) and Romney (51-34). Obama beats McCain (43-39), Thompson (44-33), Romney (47-31), and Giuliani (44-38). Edwards tops McCain (46-35), Thompson (48-31), Romney (50-28), and Giuliani (46-36). Clinton leads the Democratic primary with 47%, followed by Obama with 19% and Edwards with 11%. Giuliani leads the GOP with 29%, followed by Thompson, 17%; McCain, 10%; and Romney, 8%.
Pennsylvania Clinton tops Giuliani (48-42), McCain (48-41), Thompson (50-39) and Romney (49-37). Obama beats McCain (45-41), Thompson (45-37) and Romney (49-33), but trails Giuliani (45-43). Edwards tops McCain (47-39), Thompson (47-34) and Romney (49-32), but trails Giuliani (44-43). Clinton leads the Democrats with 41%, followed by Obama, 14%, and Edwards, 11%. Giuliani leads the GOP with 32%, followed by Thompson, 13%; McCain, 13%; and Romney, 8%.
Quinnipiac surveyed 869 Florida voters, 946 Ohio voters, and 878 Pennsylvania voters from October 1-8.
The Christian Science Monitor reports Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, and Gary Bauer, of American Values, were guests at a Monitor breakfast yesterday. Perkins said Rudy Giuliani "gives social conservatives very little to be motivated about," because he "has stated a pro-abortion-rights position. There is nothing more fundamental to social conservatives than the preservation of human life, the sanctity of human life. Right behind that is the issue of marriage. He is wrong on that issue as well." Perkins adds, in reference to Republicans, "If they break faith with evangelical social conservatives on these issues, I believe a lot of social conservatives will break ranks with the GOP. I don't think it is enough to scare them with Hillary." Bauer said, "Of all the candidates, Mayor Giuliani is the most problematic from the standpoint of values-motivated voters. ... There is no question about that." Neither Perkins nor Bauer "muster a great deal of enthusiasm for the candidacy of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, even though he has strong evangelical credentials."
The Hill adds "both men said they thought" that Thompson "did well in his debate debut, that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney can overcome questions about his religion and -- perhaps most surprisingly that...Huckabee is perceived to be good on their issues but soft on terrorism." The Washington Times reports the two leaders "defended Mr. Romney's evolution from pro-choice advocacy to the view that life begins at conception. 'I don't think he's flip-flopping,' Mr. Perkins said." Sen. John McCain "alienated much of the Christian right in his 2000 nomination bid with harsh words for evangelical leaders the Revs. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell." Perkins, however, "said Mr. McCain has been improving his image, and cited Mr. McCain's performance during Tuesday's debate in Michigan."
Hillary Clinton may have had an ulterior motive for staying on the ballot in Michigan. The Detroit Free Press reported on its website that Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) "said today she will endorse a Democratic presidential candidate next week, and hinted it may be Hillary Clinton. Granholm said she is 'very disappointed in the candidates who chose to abandon Michigan' referring to the four or five candidates who announced Tuesday they would not campaign in Michigan because of its early primary." The Detroit News added that it is "widely speculated" that she'll endorse Clinton. "Asked whether she would endorse Clinton, the governor said: 'Suffice it to say I'm very disappointed in the candidates who have chosen to back out.'"
The AP reports the "latest salvo from those hoping" Al Gore "would reprise his 2000 run for the White House came in a full-page ad in The New York Times sponsored by draftgore.com, which says it is a group of grass-roots Democrats." Wednesday's ad, "which group founder Monica Friedlander of Oakland, Calif., said cost $65,000," says, "Your country needs you now - as do your party and the planet you are fighting so hard to save." The AP adds longtime political aide Roy Neel, "who runs Gore's office in Nashville, Tenn., said the former vice president is focusing on prompting action against global warming. He said he has seen no signs Gore is contemplating a race." Neel said, "He's making no plans, and we're doing nothing. He's not ruled it out in the future." Asked "what 'the future' meant, Neel said, 'Sometime later than today.'" The New York Times says the DraftGore movement "is without a candidate. Mr. Gore's representatives say he has no plans to run or interest in doing so. He himself has been coy," and "his representatives stopped short of declaring that he absolutely would not run. 'He really deeply appreciates where this comes from, and what people are trying to say to him,' said Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman, though adding, 'I think he's said it many times, that he has no plans or intention to run for president.'"
Bloomberg notes that it "said 136,000 people have signed its petition asking Gore to run." The Washington Post reports that Gore has the potential to be a significant player in a presidential contest, as his reputation "has improved steadily since his narrow loss to George W. Bush in 2000. Now, Gore is treated like a rock star among some Democratic faithful who would like to see him in the office they believe he already won."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Jay Leno: "There were...times when Fred Thompson looked like a bystander, you know, and Romney and Giuliani were going at each other. See, I don't think Fred understands how these debates work. Like, he went backstage and asked the producers, 'I need more lines.'"
Jay Leno: "Fred Thompson is also being criticized for being out of touch because in a recent interview, he referred to Russia as the Soviet Union. ... But Thompson is brushing off his criticism. He says he's now focusing all his attention on America's role in the League of Nations."
Jay Leno: "Hillary Clinton announced this week she has dropped her plan to give $5,000 to every baby born in America. ... Apparently what happened was they did a test where they gave $5,000 to 100 babies -- kids immediately became Republicans."
Jay Leno: "President Bush says these rumors that he's just getting ready to attack Iran are propaganda. He said he and Cheney were ready months ago."
David Letterman: "Anybody see the Republican debate last night? ... The whole thing was late. If you saw it, it was late getting started. They had to go through the bags under Fred Thompson's eyes."
David Letterman: "Now here is what I don't understand. Rudy Giuliani had three wives and he's not the Mormon candidate. Is that right?"
Conan O'Brien: "Former 'Law & Order' star Fred Thompson appeared in his first presidential debate last night. Political experts called him uneven, flat and dull. In other words, Thompson was the highlight of the debate."
Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.
Top
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5advertisement
Get your POLITICALBULLETIN
Click image for larger view.
Smart analysis, insightful reporting, in-depth perspective—in a new, digital format.
Log in | Buy Now | See sample
View sample page 2View sample page 3View sample page 4View sample page 5Embed exclusive U.S. News headlines, rankings, columns, and blog postings to your Web site, blog, or social network.
advertisement
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
