Most Recent Posts

It's been nearly four years since activists engaged in a battle over a Supreme Court nomination, and a tepid one it was.

Republicans barely pushed back on President Obama's 2010 nomination of Elena Kagan, his second appointment in as many years. She was confirmed by the Senate, 63-37.

At the time, influential Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona acknowledged the problem inherent in pursuing a high court battle: The GOP had only 41 Senate votes, making it "pretty difficult" to sustain a filibuster against Kagan, or any Obama appointee.

That could change by year's end.

Republicans are growing increasingly confident that they can win control of the Senate this fall — and with it the power to block, or at least bedevil, Obama's efforts to fill potential Supreme Court vacancies during his last two years in office.

That prospect means that interest groups including the National Rifle Association, the conservative Committee for Justice, and the liberal People for the American Way are starting to fire up their message machines in what all view as a singular opportunity to shape the high court going forward, given its current makeup.

The Committee for Justice last week asserted that "filibustering a bad nominee will not be an option" without a Senate takeover, warning that Democrats could expand the "nuclear option" to the president's Supreme Court nominees. At People for the American Way, Marge Baker said retaining Senate control is necessary to prevent Republicans from solidifying what she characterized as a court that "tilts more and more toward corporations and the powerful."

Both arguments aim directly at each party's base. And while Supreme Court appointments don't rank high on lists of voter priorities in either party — health care, unemployment and budget concerns are usually the most cited by voters — the issue could play a role in determining the outcome in several close races.

"I'm not going to tell you that I expect this to be a first-order issue, but it may inform and affect the first-order issues," says Ed Whelan, of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. "Issues like Obamacare, for example, or how the president might be using, or abusing, executive orders."

"It's an additional argument to rally the respective bases to turn out," he said.

Seasoned Justices, But No Retirees Yet

Two of the four oldest justices on the court, which leans conservative 5-4, are liberals. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is 80 and has survived two bouts of cancer; Justice Stephen Breyer is 75. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia is 77, as is Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative considered a swing vote on some issues.

Those facts suggest that a vacancy is not outside the realm of possibility, though no one has indicated plans to step down from his or her lifetime appointment, including Ginsburg. She (and Breyer, to a lesser degree) have consistently dismissed pressure to step down from progressives anxious to guarantee that Obama picks her successor.

In attempting to rally the party faithful around the high court issue, Committee for Justice President Curt Levey has warned Republicans that it's not just liberal justices Obama may have an opportunity to replace but also any of the five justices he characterizes as "center-right."

The Issues At Stake

The machinations surrounding the potential Supreme Court vacancies are heightened by recent events: the president's Affordable Care Act, upheld by the high court in 2012; the court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on campaign ads and other electioneering tools; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to eliminate filibusters for presidential nominations — with the exception of Supreme Court nominees; the evergreen issues of guns and abortion.

Both sides see opportunity.

"In a number of ways, the court will definitely figure into the 2014 elections, and we see the issue as a winning one for progressives," says Baker, of People for the American Way. "We start with outrage over Citizens United, which has only grown in four years."

The NRA and conservative group also see political promise in the fight, especially in close races where motivating just a sliver of the base has the potential to make a significant difference.

"An American citizen who is a member of al-Qaida is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year," those officials tell The Associated Press.

The wire service writes that "four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him."

The Washington Post, which has followed up on the AP report, writes that "U.S. officials" it has spoken with "said that no decision has been reached on whether to add the alleged operative to the administration's kill list, a step that would require Justice Department approval under new counterterrorism guidelines adopted by President Obama last year."

CNN writes that a senior U.S. official says "high-level discussions" are under way about "staging an operation to kill an American citizen involved with al-Qaida and suspected of plotting attacks against the United States."

That network adds that the official "declined to disclose any specific information about the target or the country the suspect presides in."

The Post writes that "U.S. officials have not revealed the identify of the alleged operative, or the country where he is believed to be located, citing concern that disclosing those details would send him deeper into hiding and prevent a possible drone strike."

The AP says it "has agreed to the government's request to withhold the name of the country where the suspected terrorist is believed to be because officials said publishing it could interrupt ongoing counterterror operations."

One year ago, the Justice Department drew up a "white paper" defining when it believes an American citizen overseas can and cannot be the target of a U.S. drone strike. As NPR's Carrie Johnson reported last February, "the document says the U.S. doesn't need clear evidence of a specific attack to strike." The definition of what poses an imminent threat appears to be "a little stretchy, like a rubber band," she added. She also said that the memo makes the case that the U.S. government "doesn't have to try all that hard to capture someone" if they are in another country and trying to grab them would be an "undue burden."

Three months later, in May 2013, President Obama said in a policy address that:

"I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone, or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

"But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens, and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a SWAT team."

At 88 years old, and after seven decades in the business, Los Angeles radio host Art Laboe is still at it.

Six nights a week on The Art Laboe Connection, Laboe takes requests from his loyal listeners, who tune in on more than a dozen stations in California and the Southwestern United States.

This week, he'll be hosting his annual series of Valentine's concerts, featuring the "Oldies But Goodies" he's played for decades.

Laboe, with his welcoming baritone voice, has won his share of accolades over his long career. Among others, he received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1981 and a spot in the National Radio Hall of Fame in 2012.

But it's the adoration of Laboe's fans that keeps him going.

"You have a beautiful, handsome voice," caller "Leticia" recently told Laboe on the air. "You're in the right field."

Somewhat flustered, Laboe replied, "You've got me blushing."

In Love With Radio From An Early Age

Swiss voters narrowly approved a referendum to impose strict quotas on immigration, effectively ending a "free movement" agreement with the European Union.

The measure passed by just 50.5 percent of the vote. Switzerland, which is not part of the EU, nonetheless has adopted many of the union's policies.

A coalition led by the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP) spearheaded the 'yes' vote.

The BBC reports that the referendum "has shown up traditional divisions, with French-speaking areas against the quotas, German-speaking regions divided, and the Italian-speaking canton of Ticino firmly in favour."

The British broadcaster says:

"The vote comes amid increasing debate across Europe about migration and the impact of free movement of people."

"Switzerland's economy is booming at the moment, and unemployment is low, but many Swiss worry about immigration."

"A quarter of the eight million-strong population is foreign, and last year 80,000 new immigrants arrived."

"Since 2007, most of the EU's 500 million residents have been on an equal footing with locals in the Swiss job market - the result of a policy voted into law in a 2000 referendum."