PEOPLE FOR BLOG

Almost immediately after the news broke of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month, Republican senators started vowing to block the nomination of whomever President Obama appoints to succeed the conservative jurist. They were egged on in this kneejerk obstructionism by outside conservative groups who quickly circled the wagons in an effort to shut down any Supreme Court confirmation process.

Now, a few key conservative groups are leading the effort to pressure Republican senators to stay in line and to make it politically difficult for vulnerable Democrats to cooperate in a confirmation process. These groups have unified around a message that “the American people should decide” who the next Supreme Court justice is by waiting until the next president can nominate him or her — never mind that Americans did decide who they wanted picking Supreme Court justices when they reelected Obama in 2012.

This “let the people decide” message belies the true goals of the groups pushing it — not some idealistic belief in good governance, but an effort to shape a Supreme Court that favors business interests at the expense of workers and consumers and that helps to turn back the clock on women, LGBT people  and religious minorities.

A new report from People For the American Way looks at four of the conservative groups driving this strategy, outlining their history and their goals for the federal judiciary. It includes:

• The Judicial Crisis Network was founded during the George W. Bush administration as the Judicial Confirmation Network with the goal of pushing through the nominations and confirmations of far-right judges to the federal bench.

• The American Center for Law & Justice, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, often acts as a legal arm for the Religious Right’s attempts to deny liberties to LGBT people, Muslim Americans and others.

• The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action have become forces for obstructionism as they pressure Republicans to abandon any attempt at bipartisan cooperation or simple governance.

• The Family Research Council is working to turn back the clock on social advances for women, LGBT people and religious minorities — something that it hopes a friendly Supreme Court will accelerate.

Read the full report here.

This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

Donald Trump has horrifyingly shot to the top of the Republican presidential primary in part by presenting a belligerent "us vs. them" message -- with "them" usually being immigrants. It's no surprise that Trump's rhetoric has been appealing to white nationalists. In calling for the mass deportation of Latino immigrants and for barring Muslims from the country, he paints a picture of a country of and for white people.

Many Republicans have feigned shock and some, though not nearly enough have spoken out against Trump's bigotry. But while Trump has certainly helped to take the vitriol of the immigration debate to new levels, calling Mexican immigrants "rapists" and drug dealers and promising a "great wall" at the southern border, the sentiments he's expressing and policies he's pushing are nothing new. Trump and his fellow Republican presidential contenders are working out of a playbook that has been guiding the anti-immigrant movement on the ground and in Congress for a very long time. 

The current anti-immigrant movement centers around three groups -- the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA that all grew out of the vision of one activist who, like Trump, has unapologetically depicted America as a country of and for white people. While even some on the right are horrified by Trump's racism, these groups have long enjoyed a friendly reception on Capitol Hill as they have helped to sink any meaningful attempt at immigration reform. In fact, when it comes to policy, these groups are in many ways more extreme than Trump. NumbersUSA, which gives grades to candidates based on their immigration views, even docked Trump's grade over the summer, not because of his offensive remarks about immigrants but because he had put forward a muddled plan for a "merit-based system" for some undocumented immigrants.

A new report from People For the American Way explores the history and the influence of these three groups at the center of the opposition to immigration reform. 

John Tanton, the founder of all three groups, made his view of America clear when he wrote in 1993, "I have come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist, it requires an European-American majority and a clear one at that." At other times, he worried about a "Latin onslaught" on the United States and of immigrants "defecating and creating garbage and looking for jobs."

These views have been echoed by some in leadership positions of Tanton's organizations, including FAIR president Dan Stein, who once wondered, "How can we preserve America if it becomes 50 percent Latin American?" One member of FAIR's board of advisors once suggested giving "shoot-to-kill orders" to troops positioned on the southern border.

Tanton and some of his allies in this network of anti-immigration groups have also promoted extreme "population control" measures that should be troubling to anyone no matter if they're pro-life, pro-choice or anywhere in between. Tanton has praised China's one-child policy and regretted that India did not impose similar measures, and expressed his concern about "less intelligent" people having children. When asked about a former FAIR board member espousing similar viewpoints, Stein responded, "Yeah, so what? What is your problem with that?"

Those views were reflected years later when the conservative behemoth Heritage Foundation released a report estimating that immigration reform would cost the U.S. $6.3 trillion. The report essentially made the incorrect assumption that immigrants and their descendants would not be upwardly mobile. It was hardly surprising, then, when it turned out that one of the report's authors had previously written a dissertation positing that immigrants have lower IQs than native-born white Americans.

The anti-immigrant demagoguery we're hearing from Trump and others has a long history that precedes even Tanton and his network of advocacy groups. But understanding the forces behind today's immigration debate helps to put Trump in perspective. Trump talks a big, hateful, game, but his views are disturbingly close to those that have too long been met with a warm welcome --or at least a blind eye -- in Washington.

Read PFAW's new report, "The Anti-Immigrant Lobby: The White Nationalist Roots of the Organizations Fighting Immigration."

Imagine if Senate Republicans meant what they said when they come up with rationales to explain their unprecedented obstruction of the regular process for filling Supreme Court vacancies.  We’d see a news story like this:

The partisan fight over replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took a dramatic and unexpected turn today when Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley stepped down as chairman and turned control of the committee to the Democrats.

Grassley told surprised reporters that he was acting in order to be consistent with the standard he and his fellow Republicans have been using as a rationale to deny President Obama the right to nominate the next justice, or to hold a hearing for any such nominee.

When today’s conversation with reporters began, no one expected any surprises.  Grassley has been unable to explain when or how the constitutional provision that the president serves a four-year term was changed to three years.  Nor has he even tried to explain how the American people’s overwhelming reelection of Barack Obama was, in reality, a call for him not to exercise the powers of his office.  No one expected him to come up with reasonable responses to these criticisms.  The surprise came when a reporter asked Grassley if he was putting party politics over the interests of his constituents:

“My constituents?  My only constituent is my party leader, Mitch McConnell, here in Washington.  I actually have no constituents in Iowa.  None.  Zero.  When they reelected me to a six-year term in 2010, I fully understood that I would not be able or expected to exercise the prerogatives of my office during the sixth year.  I am running for reelection this November, and the people of Iowa deserve a voice in how their senator will react to a potential Supreme Court nomination, or, in fact, to any federal judicial nomination coming from the White House.  Remaining as chairman of this committee would deny Iowans their voice.

“So I am stepping down as chairman, and while I will attend hearings and business meetings, I will cast no votes.”

Grassley mentioned two fellow Republican committee members, Mike Lee of Utah (who is in the sixth year of his six-year term and is running for reelection) and David Vitter of Louisiana (who chose not to run for reelection this year), saying he fully expects them to follow his principled position and refrain from casting votes in committee.

Thus, while the partisan breakdown of the Senate Judiciary Committee remains 11-9 in the Republicans’ favor, Democrats now hold a 9-8 advantage on any matter involving committee votes, including the selection of a new chairman.  Senate Democrats have not subscribed to the GOP view that a political party can unilaterally amend the Constitution to shorten officials’ terms or trim those officials’ constitutional powers and responsibilities.  So Democratic committee members up for reelection this year intend to serve their entire six-year terms, as the Constitution spells out and as voters in their states expected when electing them in 2010.

It is currently unclear whether other Senate Republicans will similarly abdicate their right to vote in committee and on the floor in order to exercise the principle they are demanding in the context of filling the current Supreme Court vacancy.

Senate Republicans took their partisan obstructionism to an unprecedented, wildly irresponsible level this month – they are flat out refusing to even consider any Supreme Court nominee put forth by President Obama. It’s a blatantly political move that the GOP is trying to justify with nonsense explanations, like “we’ve never confirmed a Supreme Court justice in an election year before” (false), and “the American people should have a say in the selection of the next justice” (they did, when they re-elected President Obama in 2012). As much as they might want to pretend otherwise, Republicans are refusing to do their jobs – and threatening to keep a seat on our nation’s highest court empty until 2017!

But we're not about to let them get away with it. That's why we've launched an emergency campaign to counter the GOP's blockade and fill the Supreme Court's vacancy. PFAW is uniquely qualified to lead this fight. Since the 1980s we've been the national leader in fighting the Right's efforts to pack the courts with extreme right-wing ideologues. And that's exactly what they're trying to do now, by keeping a vacancy on the Court for an entire year and playing politics with our federal judiciary. Republicans are shirking their constitutional responsibility to give fair consideration to a Supreme Court nominee and they must be held accountable. We have a long, tough road ahead of us, but we're not backing down, and we're so grateful to have PFAW members like you on board with us for this historic fight.

Just hours after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans made their intentions known: no fair consideration of any nominee put forward by President Obama. So we leapt into action that weekend, mobilizing supporters and activists for an impromptu rally outside of the Supreme Court that has already become the image of the movement, appearing in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Economist, the Atlantic, and more. We also held a campaign kickoff telebriefing this month for PFAW members across the country, to discuss our strategy for pushing the GOP to back off their unprecedented obstructionism

We're also fighting back by turning up the pressure on Senate Republicans. We teamed up with partner organizations to deliver over 500,000 petition signatures calling for fair consideration of a nominee to Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's Kentucky office. And this week we delivered one million signatures to the U.S. Senate! Americans want to see this Supreme Court vacancy filled, and we're making sure Republicans know that by refusing to consider a nominee, they're going against their constituents.

GOP senators’ refusal to even consider any Supreme Court nominee isn’t just a violation of their constitutional responsibility – it’s also not what their constituents want! Recent polls have shown that a majority of Americans support filling the Supreme Court vacancy, and for some Republican senators, the blockade is already hurting them with voters. We’re working to identify those Senators, and hit them where it hurts: with their constituents. In a robocall we released in Wisconsin this month, activists heard from Martin Sheen about Sen. Ron Johnson’s obstruction of President Obama’s nominee. Sheen asked Wisconsinites to call Sen. Johnson and tell him to put his constitutional duties first, and give fair consideration to whoever President Obama nominates. The robocalls received immediate media attention – exactly what Sen. Johnson doesn’t want. We’re strategizing similar actions for other states where Republican senators are facing tough re-election battles.

As People For the American Way (PFAW) Senior Researcher for Special Projects Miranda Blue explained on the most recent telebriefing for PFAW members, “In past years, we’ve seen extreme endorsers for Republican presidential candidates, but there was always a level of extremism that the candidates wouldn’t go past. This year, it’s completely different. Leading 2016 Republican presidential candidates have shared the stage with individuals who say that the government should kill gay people, embrace a Christian Nation ideology, and more.”

This unprecedented extremism was discussed during last Thursday’s telebriefing, and has been closely tracked by PFAW’s Right Wing Watch team.

Some of the most striking examples come from Ted Cruz. He spoke at a conference alongside far-right pastor Kevin Swanson, who believes that according to the Bible, our government should impose the death penalty on gay people. Troy Newman, who Cruz appointed to co-chair his anti-abortion committee, has argued that the government should execute abortion providers. And Cruz touted the endorsement of Mike Bickle, who says that Hitler was a “hunter” sent by God for the Jewish people. But don’t just take our word for it – watch this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show last month, which uses research from PFAW’s Right Wing Watch:

It’s not just Ted Cruz who’s courting extremists. Donald Trump, for example, has campaigned with the support of people like Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter. Coulter is not quite the household name that Palin is, but they’re two peas in a pod in their far-right extremism. Coulter said recently that Donald Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States was her “best birthday gift ever!”

Far-right figures also exert undue influence in the 2016 election through campaign spending. Because of Citizens United, millionaires and billionaires are able to push a far-right agenda in the Republican Party through unlimited expenditures. As PFAW Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery discussed on the telebriefing, Farris and Dan Wilks are top donors to Ted Cruz’s super PACs. The Wilks brothers hold strongly anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-government views. Peter was quoted earlier this month in the Houston Chronicle discussing the Wilks brothers: "Their willingness to pour millions of dollars into the presidential race and to write enormous checks for Religious Right organizations give them the potential to make a huge and destructive impact on our politics.”

Marco Rubio, for his part, is bankrolled both personally and professionally by billionaire Norman Braman. Marco Rubio returned the favor to Braman when he was in the Florida state legislature; Rubio “has steered taxpayer funds to Mr. Braman’s favored causes, successfully pushing for an $80 million state grant to finance a genomics center at a private university and securing $5 million for cancer research at a Miami instate for which Mr. Braman is a major donor.”

As the 2016 election continues, we’re sure to see more of the far-right financing and supporting the leading 2016 candidates. Be sure to follow our coverage at www.rightwingwatch.org.

Note to senators in tough reelection battles: putting your Washington DC party bosses over the Constitution by standing in the way of filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court is not only the wrong thing to do for our country, it’s also making voters less likely to support you.

New Public Policy Polling surveys released today show that large majorities of voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, where Senators Pat Toomey and Rob Portman are running for reelection, want the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death to be filled this year. According to the polling memo:

• Strong majorities of voters – 58/35 in Ohio and 57/40 in Pennsylvania – think that the vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be filled this year. What’s particularly noteworthy about those numbers – and concerning for Portman and Toomey – is how emphatic the support for approving a replacement is among independent voters. In Ohio they think a new Justice should be named this year 70/24 and in Pennsylvania it’s 60/37.

• …Voters are particularly angry about Senators taking the stance that they’re not going to approve anyone before even knowing who President Obama decides to put forward. By a 76/20 spread in Pennsylvania and a 74/18 one in Ohio, voters think the Senate should wait to see who is nominated to the Court before deciding whether or not to confirm that person. Toomey and Portman are out of line even with their own party base on that one – Republicans in Pennsylvania think 67/27 and in Ohio think 63/32 that the Senate should at least give President Obama’s choice a chance before deciding whether or not to confirm them. [emphasis added]

Perhaps most notable for the senators, more than half of voters (52 percent in both states) say they would be less likely to vote for Toomey or Portman if they “refused to confirm a replacement for Justice Scalia this year no matter who it was.” Among independents, the numbers were even higher.

Senators Toomey and Portman would be wise to take heed of their constituents, and of the Constitution, and stop refusing to even consider any Supreme Court nominee, regardless of his or her credentials. Any nominee must be treated fairly and honestly. The Supreme Court is far too important to be held hostage to the overtly political obstruction of GOP senators.