Tax Day is just around the corner. As Americans across the country file their taxes, it’s worth taking a look at the progress we’ve made and the ongoing work in making our tax code fairer.
Back when Senator Obama was running for President in 2007, he said:
“Our tax policy has been skewed toward the top 1 percent and away from the middle class, [and] working class in this country. Reversing that would make a significant difference. That’s not trivial.”
So from day one of his presidency — even during the worst recession since the Great Depression — the President fought for and passed significant tax relief for nearly all working families, and for small businesses. For the typical middle-class family, those tax cuts totaled $3,600 over the first four years. He also worked to help ensure that the wealthiest Americans pay more of their fair share in taxes.
Here’s a look at what the President has done to make the tax code fairer:
From the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit for working families, to the American Opportunity Tax Credit for college tuition, President Obama expanded tax credits that provide about 24 million working and middle-class families a year a tax cut of about $1,000.
The EITC and CTC expansions, first put in place in 2009 and recently made permanent, now provide about 16 million working families a year with an average tax cut of about $900.
The AOTC provides a maximum credit of $2,500 per year for the first four years for students and families paying for college – that’s up to $10,000 per student. Altogether, this tax credit provides a tax credit of over $1,000 on average for nearly 10 million families, compared to prior law.
He also permanently extended tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans that had originally been set to expire after 2010. Now, middle-class federal income taxes are near historic lows.
In fact, the typical middle-income family is paying lower federal income taxes than in almost any other period in the last 60 years.
However, for too long, inequities in the code have left some wealthy families paying a lower rate than many working families. So that’s why President Obama reversed tax cuts that cut top tax rates for high-income Americans, including by restoring the top income tax rate to its Clinton-era level. Altogether, reversing tax cuts for the wealthy will reduce the deficit by more than $800 billion over the next decade.
Since these changes became effective in 2013, it’s clear the highest-income Americans have been paying more of their fair share. For example:
The richest 400 people in the United States – who earned more than $264 million each on average in 2013 – saw their effective tax rate rise by more than a third in 2013, from 17 percent to 23 percent, implying they paid about $6.5 billion more in taxes than they would have under the older rules.
The richest 0.1 percent of people in the United States saw their tax rates increase by more than 6 percentage points in 2013 to 28 percent on average, implying that they paid more than $50 billion more in taxes than they would have under the older rules.
And despite the predictions of those who defended tax breaks for the wealthy, the economic recovery has continued and even strengthened since President Obama ended them.
This is important progress, but our work is not done yet. That’s why the President’s called on Congress to close unfair loopholes, including the corporate inversions loophole – while also providing additional tax relief for middle-class and working families to make their paychecks go farther in covering costs like child care, education, and retirement.
In the months he has left, the President will continue to work to make the tax system fairer, help working and middle-class Americans get ahead, and make the economy stronger.
When all people know their country is invested in their success, we are all better off. Together, we must rid our society of the injustice that is pay discrimination and restore the promise that is the right of every American: the idea that with hard work, anyone can reach for their dreams and know no limits but the scope of their aspirations.
Today — April 12 — is Equal Pay Day. What does that mean exactly?
In the U.S., the typical woman who is working full-time still earns just $0.79 for every 41 a man earns. That gender pay gap is even larger for women of color, and can result in the loss of hundred of thousands of dollars over a woman’s lifetime.
In short, this is less a day to celebrate and more a day to recognize that work remains to make equality a reality for millions of women across the country.
Since taking office, President Obama has made equal pay a top priority. Here’s a few of the steps he’s taken to make progress on that goal:
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, signed on January 29, 2009, is the very first piece of legislation that President Obama signed into law. The law, named after a woman who discovered her employer was paying less than men doing the same job, makes it easier for women to effectively challenge unequal pay. The law amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that unfair pay complaints can be filed within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck — and that 180 days resets after each paycheck.
The National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force
In his first official State of the Union Address, President Obama pledged to crack down on violations of equal pay laws. So he created the National Equal Pay Task Force that year to bring together the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, and the Office of Personnel Management to help understand the full scope of the wage gap, to enforce laws already prohibiting pay discrimination, and ensure the employees and employers are educated on their rights and obligations with respect to wage discrimination.
In 2014, President Obama used his own executive authority to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against employees who discuss or inquire about their compensation. It provides a critical tool encourage pay transparency, so workers have a potential way of discovering violations of equal pay laws and are able to seek the appropriate remedies.
Building the Data on Equal Pay
The Obama administration is working to annually collect summary pay data by gender, race, and ethnicity from businesses with 100 or more employees. This step will cover 63 million employees and help focus public enforcement of our equal pay laws and provide better insight into discriminatory pay practices across industries and professions.
The Paycheck Fairness Act
The President has taken a number of steps within his power to help narrow the wage gap between men and women in this country — but he cannot accomplish this alone. That’s why he’s calling on Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act — commonsense legislation that updates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to give women additional tools to fight pay discrimination.
When President John F. Kennedy signed the original Equal Pay Act into law, women were paid 59 cents for every dollar paid to men. After more than 50 years, that gap has narrowed to 79 cents. We need to close this gap for good. As President Obama said in a State of the Union Address,
It’s time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a “Mad Men” episode. This year, let’s all come together – Congress, the White House, and businesses from Wall to Main Street – to give every woman the opportunity she deserves. Because I firmly believe when women succeed, America succeeds.
You can learn more about what President Obama is doing to make progress on equal pay and other issues that matter to women and families here.
This morning, Dan Johnson — University of Chicago Law School Class of 2000 — shared the following reflection on his time as Professor Obama’s law student to the White House email list. President Obama is heading back to the University today to discuss the importance of the Supreme Court and why it’s so important that Senate Republicans move forward with the Supreme Court nomination process. Tune in at 3:30 pm ET here.
Didn’t get the message? You can sign up for updates here.
Before he was President, he was a law professor. My professor.
For more than 10 years, President Obama taught at the University of Chicago Law School, an institution known for its commitment to full and vigorous debate from all sides of the intellectual spectrum. It’s where the late Justice Antonin Scalia served as a professor for several years and developed his originalist view of the Constitution. It’s a school where all points of view are treated with respect and are subject to the same rigorous challenge.
And it’s where President Obama will return this afternoon for the first time since moving into the White House to talk with law students about the enduring benefits of an impartial Supreme Court and how the current confirmation process holds the potential long-term consequences for some of our most important constitutional values.
For the first time in recent memory, Senate Republicans are flatly refusing to consider a Supreme Court nomination because they hope another party will win the next election. It isn’t clear whether the Senate will ultimately deny the President’s nominee a hearing or a vote for the entire year, so before positions harden, this is a good time for all of us to step back and think about the broader costs of this potential action to our judiciary.
Professor Obama always insisted on class discussion. He didn’t like to lecture. Rather, he liked to present difficult questions and require students to consider the logical extension of their arguments and decide whether they still maintained their positions.
Professor Obama, like most law professors, used hypotheticals to illustrate his point. So consider this one: What if the next Senate declared that absolutely no Supreme Court appointments would be considered not just in the last year of the President’s term, but for the President’s entire term, regardless of how many vacancies might pile up, because they hoped someone else would be elected four years later?
We all want judges that are respected, independent, nonpartisan, and fair to everyone. It’s not easy to create an impartial judicial system when the people who select and confirm our judges are elected and inherently partisan, especially when it requires collaboration between the President and Senate leadership, who often represent different parties. Thus, we rely on political leaders overcoming the political calculations of the moment in order to preserve something that benefits all of us: a truly independent system of justice.
There is something precious and powerful about an independent judiciary, a branch of government that can and must maintain its impartiality in our political system. It’s hard to do.
I don’t think we want future law professors to explain how 2016 began a cycle of blatant partisanship in judicial appointments and confirmations. An independent judiciary, born from the heart of our Constitution, is too important to imperil.
That’s one of the lessons I learned from Professor Obama. I hope our Senators take that lesson to heart as well.
For months now, Americans who have been traveling or reading news reports have heard about the risk posed by the Zika virus, particularly those posed to pregnant women. In early January, President Obama convened his top advisors to formulate a proactive response to this epidemic — including working closely with state and local elected officials, non-profits, health experts, and disease experts — to contain and prevent the spread of the virus.
In February, he asked Congress to support these efforts by providing $1.9 billion in emergency funding to combat Zika by supporting mosquito control, disease detection and testing, vaccine development, and support for maternal women’s health.
And since the President made that request, we’ve learned more concerning facts about this disease:
Sexual transmission of the virus is more common than initially believed
The impact on fetal brain development is likely starker and more serious than first understood
In the U.S., the geographical range of the particular mosquito that transmits Zika far exceeds our initial estimation
The Center for Disease Control has laid out an estimated range of the mosquitos that carry this disease in the United States this year. And while this map is not meant to represent risk for spread of the Zika virus, it shows where people may come into contact with the kinds of mosquitos that could be carrying this disease.
We find ourselves in a rare moment where we have advance warning on a disease, and the likely birth defects that are associated with it, will be arriving in the U.S. Governors, state and local leaders are already working with us to get ahead of this threat.
However, Congress continues to do nothing about the emergency funding. Because we cannot continue to fund a robust response to this disease without adequate resources, particularly for our partners in state and local government who will bear much of this burden, we are re-programming nearly $600 million of existing funds to address Ebola to help support our Zika response.
This is not nearly enough to protect us from the significant threat posed by Zika. It’s a temporary fix, and not a long-term solution.
As our Director of Management and Budget Shaun Donovan said this morning:
“Without the full amount of requested emergency supplemental funding, many activities that need to start now would have to be delayed, or curtailed or stopped, within months. For example, without supplemental funding, testing and manufacturing of vaccine candidates beyond the earliest stages of clinical trials would not be possible. In addition, lack of supplemental funding would prevent us from developing platform technologies for vaccine candidates for this Zika response and from accelerating the response to emerging infectious diseases in the future.
Absent supplemental funding, we will need to delay contracting with manufacturers for the development of faster and more accurate diagnostic tests, which are needed to ensure that those who think they have been exposed to Zika can get tested. In particular, there is a critical need for point-of-care diagnostics that are faster and do not require laboratory capacity. Similarly, starting mosquito surveillance and control activities now, prior to the summer months which are peak season for mosquitoes, and prior to the start of the rainy season in Central America and the Caribbean, is prudent.”
As it gets warmer, the reach of these mosquitos will increase, and the need for a robust response will be more and more urgent. We have the opportunity to do get ahead of this epidemic, but Congress needs to do its part.
MLB player José Abreu sent the following message to the White House email list after President Obama and the First Family attended an MLB exhibition game during their historic trip to Cuba. Check out the game:
I remember my dream of becoming a professional MLB player, to represent my people and to help those I love through this game. Being born in a country where baseball is the national pastime gave me the foundation to become the person and the player I am today.
At 26 years of age, I made a decision to leave my Cuba.
Not knowing what the outcome would be, I, along with a few members of my family, floated away in a small cramped boat for more than 12 hours before reaching Haiti. The waters were rough, the night was scary, and the sun was unforgiving.
I remember looking back as we drifted away, leaving behind my life, my family, my friends, and my two-year-old son. I could feel my heart pounding harder and harder as we got further away. I knew that even if I made it to my destination safely, I didn’t know if I would be able to ever return.
It was the hardest decision I have had to make but it was exactly what needed to happen. I couldn’t have imagined how blessed my life was going to be after I left; how my dream of becoming a professional player in the Major Leagues would become a reality, as well as becoming a symbol of pride for my people.
Yet, I lived not knowing if or when I would be able to see my family or be able to go back.
I was so blessed to return to my homeland last year as part of the Baseball Goodwill Tour thanks to the efforts of Major League Baseball, the MLB Players Association, President Obama, and the Cuban government.
That empty dark part of my heart was suddenly filled with joy and great appreciation.
I treasured every minute I spent with my family, the future heroes of the game, and the beautiful faces of my fans in Cuba. I cried tears of happiness while holding my son and left happy knowing that soon we’ll be able to play baseball without boundaries. And thank God, that’s exactly how all of my dreams are coming true.
P.S. Yesterday, for the first time in 17 years, an MLB team played the Cuban national team in an exhibition game in Havana. You can read President Obama’s reflections on what this small step means for relations between our two countries at ESPN.com.
Before his remarks, President Obama spoke with Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel by phone. Here’s a readout of their call:
Secretary Kery spoke by phone with his counterpart in Brussels as well, expressing his condolences and ensuring that the U.S. will support Brussels in its investigation.
Both ministers agreed that attacks such as these underscore need for continued & concerted push by all nations to counter violent extremism.
President Obama sent the following message to the White House email list to reflect on his historic visit to Cuba. If you didn’t get the President’s message, sign up for email updates here.
¡Hola desde Cuba! Michelle, the girls, and I are here in Havana on our first full day in Cuba. Cubans have lined the streets to welcome us, and it’s humbling to be the first U.S. president in nearly 90 years to visit a country and a people just 90 miles from our shores.
Like so many Americans, I’ve only known the isolation that has existed between our two governments. I was born in 1961, the year of the Bay of Pigs invasion. A year later, a Cold War confrontation over Cuba pushed the world as close as it’s ever been to nuclear war. As the decades passed, the mistrust between our governments resulted in heartache for our two peoples, including Cuban Americans, many of whom have endured decades of separation from their homeland and relatives.
I’ve come to Havana to extend the hand of friendship to the Cuban people. I’m here to bury the last vestige of the Cold War in the Americas and to forge a new era of understanding to help improve the daily lives of the Cuban people.
There continue to be real and important differences between our governments, including profound differences on the way to promote safety, security, opportunity, and human rights. But there’s so much Americans and Cubans share — our cultures and passions, our hopes for the future, not to mention a love of baseball.
I know one visit, and one president, cannot erase the decades of history that have left so many Cubans in poverty or exile. But sometimes the most important changes begin with the smallest step. I believe in the Cuban people and their desire to build a future of their own choosing. And I believe that changing the way we do things between our countries will, over time, help make that possible.
So I’m looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from Cubans from all walks of life. And I’m confident that, working together with the Cuban people, our two countries can begin a new journey together that delivers progress for both our peoples.
Pánfilo is played by Luis Silva, a popular Cuban comedian whose television show is seen weekly by about two-thirds of the Cuban people. One of his most popular skits involves him getting calls from and talking with President Obama about life in Cuba. The show has been on Cuban television since 2008, and has won the award for Most Popular TV Show in Cuba for several years running.
This week, President Obama introduced the American people to his Supreme Court nominee, Chief Judge Merrick Garland. An eminently qualified jurist, Chief Judge Garland has spent nearly 20 years using his keen ability to build consensus in service of the public good. In fact, he has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history.
His integrity, mastery of the law, and unimpeachable credentials are well-known in the legal field and easily discerned from a simple look at his record. That is why public leaders and legal experts across the political spectrum, and editorial boards across the country, have offered full-throated support for the President’s choice in Chief Judge Garland.
Here’s a brief rundown of what people are saying about the Supreme Court nominee — and the Senate’s responsibility to do its job by giving him his due consideration:
Conservatives
The President has nominated someone who is capable of doing the job by virtue of intellect, education and experience.
Alberto Gonzales
Miguel Estrada: “I think it’s a terrific pick by the president … I consider [Garland] a moderate and thoughtful and excellent judge.” [3/16/16]
Michael Chertoff, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and former Secretary of Homeland Security: “I was really pleased for him. I was pleased for the country. I felt that this was by any standard a really outstanding pick. And I cherish the court and I think it’s important that the people who are selected to be on it continue to maintain the high standards that we- have made our judiciary really the envy of the world.” [3/16/16]
Ed Whelan, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice and former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “Back in 2010, I favorably compared Merrick Garland to other leading candidates for a Supreme Court vacancy, and I have very high regard for his intellect and his decency.” [National Review, 3/16/16]
Alberto Gonzales, former U.S. Attorney General and White House Counsel in the George W. Bush Administration: “The President has nominated someone who is capable of doing the job by virtue of intellect, education and experience. Judge Garland has a reputation for integrity and likely has the character to withstand the scrutiny that comes with the confirmation process.” [USA Today, 3/16/16]
Judge Ken Starr: “Chief Judge Garland is a brilliant jurist who believes in and upholds the rule of law undergirding our constitutional republic. I have known him well for many years. He is superbly qualified to serve on our nation’s highest court.”[Press Release, 3/16/16]
Editorial Boards
The chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit is a moderate who is widely respected by both Democrats and Republicans for his integrity, judgment, intellect and basic decency. It would be a irresponsible for Republicans in the U.S. Senate to withhold consideration of Garland’s nomination for strictly political reasons.
San Jose Mercury News, 3/16/16
Washington Post: Dear GOP: Stop playing politics and give Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing
“The case against Mr. Garland — well, there is not much of a case against him. He is unusually well-respected across the ideological spectrum. He worked his way up in the Justice Department as a prosecutor, gaining respect for supervising terrorism cases, before joining the federal bench. He was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 76 to 23 in 1997, and several sitting senators should remember voting for him. One, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), was once quoted as calling him a “consensus nominee.” During his time on the D.C. Circuit, Mr. Garland has gained a reputation for thoughtfulness. He is an ideal nominee in these divided times.” [3/16/16]
Los Angeles Times: Senate Republicans’ refusal to consider Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination is dangerous obstructionism
“The stubborn refusal of Senate Republicans to consider any Supreme Court nominee offered by President Obama would be outrageous, regardless of whom the president selected to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia. But Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he will nominate Merrick Garland, a moderate federal appeals court judge who has won bipartisan praise during a long and distinguished legal career, puts the Republicans’ irresponsibility and cheap partisanship in even starker relief.” [3/16/16]
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial: Senate must do its job and give Merrick Garland a hearing
“Now that President Barack Obama has done his job and nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, Sen. Ron Johnson and his fellow Republicans in the Senate need to do theirs and give the nominee a hearing. GOP senators, including Johnson, have said the next appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the next president of the United States. They’re wrong on that. The people elected Obama to a full four-year term in 2012, not a three-year term. He is still the president with obligations to fulfill, and he’s fulfilling them. The Senate should do the same.” [3/16/16]
Tampa Bay Times Editorial: U.S. Senate should hold hearings, vote on court pick
“President Barack Obama has fulfilled his constitutional obligation by nominating an experienced, well-regarded appeals court judge to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now the Senate should do its job by holding hearings and voting on whether to confirm Judge Merrick Garland. Senate Republicans who continue to act as obstructionists and ignore the president’s nomination for political reasons are eroding public confidence in the legal system and abdicating their constitutional responsibility.” [3/16/16]
Kansas City Star Editorial: Obama’s solid Supreme Court choice exposes GOP senators as obstructionist puppets
“President Barack Obama has acted in the spirit of compromise with his choice of Merrick B. Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Republicans will expose themselves as naked obstructionists if they refuse to follow suit and hold hearings. Garland is a universally respected centrist judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” [3/16/16]
Charlotte Observer: High court pick deserves a fair hearing
“In Merrick Garland, President Obama has nominated an eminently qualified jurist for the nation’s highest court. As the well-respected chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – commonly called the nation’s second highest court – one could argue that Garland is the most qualified jurist Obama could have picked.” [3/16/16]
Chicago Tribune: Vote him up or down, but vote: Merrick Garland, on the merits
“In nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama on Wednesday praised the Illinois native as a judge ‘widely recognized not only as one of America’s sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence.’ Over nearly two decades of service on a federal court of appeals, Garland has won nearly universal admiration.” [3/16/16]
St. Louis Post Dispatch: Sen. Blunt should give Supreme Court nominee a fair hearing
“Obstructionist GOP senators are vowing to block President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick B. Garland to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Voters should watch closely whether Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt treats this nomination with the respect and seriousness it deserves or gives priority to partisan maneuvering.” [3/16/16]
Sun Sentinel: Fairly evaluate Supreme Court nominee — now
“Let’s remind the Senate that there’s another principle here — the principle of doing the job you were elected to do, the job you are paid to do. And part of that job is to fulfill the Senate’s duty to advise and consent — or not consent, but at least debate — on presidential nominations for the Supreme Court.” [3/16/16]
Dallas Morning News Editorial: Obama’s done his job, now it’s time for senators to do theirs
“President Barack Obama has done his duty and nominated a qualified federal judge to succeed the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. Judge Merrick Garland deserves, as any reasonable nominee deserves, a full hearing and a vote. For the Republicans who control the Senate to do less is to shame themselves and the institution they represent. It is to neglect their duty, insult their president, and weaken this democracy’s faith in justice. It would ultimately weaken the very rule of law.” [3/16/16]
New York Times Editorial: Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court
“If you tried to create the ideal moderate Supreme Court nominee in a laboratory, it would be hard to do better than Judge Merrick Garland. In nominating Judge Garland to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month, President Obama has taken his constitutional duty seriously, choosing a deeply respected federal appellate judge with an outstanding intellect, an impeccable legal record, and the personal admiration of Republicans and Democrats.” [3/16/16]
Bloomberg News Editorial:Merrick Garland Deserves a Hearing
“There are at least two criteria on which to judge President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. First are his qualifications. Second is the ideological space that he would occupy on a polarized court in a polarized political environment. Garland is a superb choice on both counts.” [3/16/16]
USA Today Editorial:Give Judge Garland a hearing
“Neither side comes to this fight with clean hands. But blocking consideration of a Supreme Court nominee, one who appears to have impeccable credentials and fall within the broad judicial mainstream, for almost an entire year will only invite similar retribution when the situation is reversed. Garland deserves better. The country deserves better.” [3/16/16]
San Jose Mercury News Editorial: Garland is superb court nominee
“Merrick Garland is a superb nomination by President Obama to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit is a moderate who is widely respected by both Democrats and Republicans for his integrity, judgment, intellect and basic decency. It would be a irresponsible for Republicans in the U.S. Senate to withhold consideration of Garland’s nomination for strictly political reasons.” [3/16/16]
Ventura County Star Editorial: Republicans should not play politics with Supreme Court nominee
“President Barack Obama has named an eminently qualified and highly respected judge, Merrick Garland, as his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. If you read his background, if you look at the legal opinions he has written in the 18 years he has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, you will find him to be a good person with a great legal mind. He is a nominee that meets all of our criteria for someone who will raise the legal and intellectual level of the Supreme Court.” [3/16/16]
Denver Post Editorial: Senate should give Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing
“This is the final year of Obama’s presidency and Republican senators have insisted they will not hold hearings on any nominee. Yet even if they stick to that pledge — and they likely will — the nomination of Merrick Garland ought to give them pause. It ought to give them pause if for no other reason than the fact that their party appears headed toward the potentially disastrous choice of Donald Trump as presidential nominee, a candidate who will be a difficult sell to the general electorate.” [3/16/16]
Delaware News Journal Editorial: Court obstructionism nothing but bluster
“Elected officials like McConnell and Vitter say they’re beholden to the best interests of the American people. If, through hearings, it emerged that Merrick Garland was not fit for the highest court in our land, we would be the first to thank legislators like McConnell and Vitter for shining a light on the President’s erroneous nomination. But, by refusing to do their jobs, McConnell, Vitter and the other obstructionists are serving only to get their names engraved on some sort of monument to bluster.” [3/16/16]
Baltimore Sun Editorial: The man in the middle
“Are Republicans so determined to appear willful that they’d sacrifice a national election? President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, the widely-respected, centrist chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, may be regarded as an apolitical choice — if only because the former federal prosecutor is hardly the dream pick of his party’s progressive wing. But in reality, the political implications are substantial: Should Republicans fulfill their threat to not even hold hearings on the nominee, they demonstrate the party’s true Achilles heel, an inability to compromise or put the nation’s interests ahead of their own.” [3/16/16]
Legal Experts
He’s a consensus builder, and has a very keen analytic mind. When other judges are off in the summer taking their vacations, Merrick is in his chambers polishing his opinions.
Seth Waxman, 3/16/16
American Constitution Society: “‘Like President Obama’s previous nominations to the Supreme Court, Chief Judge Garland is impeccably qualified to serve. His credentials cannot be questioned, he is a person of integrity and he would bring an understanding of how the world works to the nation’s highest court.” [American Constitution Society, 3/16/16]
Former D.C. Circuit clerk Michael Livermore: “He’s very precedent based and it’s fair to say less ideological than others, which tends to facilitate a consensus.” [3/16/16]
Jonathan Adler: “First, he has impeccable credentials… Garland is incredibly well-respected and has a reputation as a moderate liberal judge….For what it’s worth, were I in the Senate I would vote to confirm Garland to the Supreme Court, but I’ve always supported the prompt consideration and confirmation of all qualified judicial nominees.” [Washington Post, 3/16/16]
Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker: “And the one thing that you can see about this nomination is that it really does take the issue of qualifications off the table. There is certainly no one in the United States more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than Merrick Garland.” [CNN, 3/16/16]
Tom Goldstein, SCOTUSblog: “He just went for the guy who seemed to be the very, very most qualified. And so he just put it out there and said, I’ve done my job. You do yours. He doesn’t seem to be putting any other kinds of political pressure on Senate Republicans beyond qualifications.” [MSNBC, 3/16/16]
Seth Waxman, an appellate partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and former Solicitor General: “He’s exceptionally modest and careful in everything that he does. He’s a consensus builder, and has a very keen analytic mind. When other judges are off in the summer taking their vacations, Merrick is in his chambers polishing his opinions.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/16/16]
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe: “Judge Garland is a brilliant jurist whom I’ve admired ever since he was my constitutional law student. His modesty, humility, and moderation make him a particularly suitable choice for these divided times.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/16/16]
David Pozen, Columbia Law School: “He’s not someone who likes to issue sweeping rulings… he doesn’t favor grand pronouncements that go beyond the case at hand.” [USA Today, 3/16/16]
Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General: “We had a lot of very seasoned prosecutors, but when you have a matter that is both substantively difficult and cuts across the department, a really talented person such as Merrick will lead those…” [Washington Post, 3/16/16]
Michael Greenberger, University Of Maryland Professor: “He’s extremely well qualified, and he’s a superb judge… he’s widely revered on both sides of the aisle. If the White House is looking to get somebody through . . . He would be a great candidate.” [Washington Post, 3/16/16]
Community Leaders
President Obama acted in the country’s best interest this morning by nominating Judge Merrick Garland to serve as associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
National Partnership for Women & Families, 3/16/16
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: “Judge Garland is the most well-prepared Supreme Court nominee in generations.” [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Press Release, 3/16/16]
National Partnership for Women & Families: “President Obama acted in the country’s best interest this morning by nominating Judge Merrick Garland to serve as associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a strong choice, with impeccable credentials, who deserves speedy confirmation by the Senate.”[National Partnership for Women & Families Press Release, 3/16/16]
Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra: “Judge Garland is an excellent jurist who has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout his career. Elevated to chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2012, he has built a distinguished career on the bench and has earned the universal respect of his peers on the court and the bar.” [Constitutional Accountability Center, 3/16/16]
That’s just a fraction of the support Chief Judge Merrick Garland has earned in response to impressive career and today’s nomination. Stay up to date with the latest on the Supreme Court nominee and the next steps in the nomination process:
An American president has not traveled to Cuba in almost 90 years. But on March 20, President Obama will set foot on the island country that’s only 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The visit is a historic milestone after more than a year of progress from the day in December of 2014 when the President first announced he was abandoning a failed, Cold War-era approach to Cuba in favor of a new course to normalize relations.
Since then, we’ve restored non-stop flights between our two countries. We’ve helped facilitate more people-to-people interaction and commercial enterprise. We’ve allowed U.S. dollars to be used in more financial transactions with Cuba. And today, we’re restoring direct mail for the first time in 50 years.
The first flight carrying that first batch of U.S. direct mail to Cuba took off yesterday — a development that may please Ileana Yarza, a 76-year-old letter writer in Cuba who has been waiting for the President to visit for years. “I think there are not many Cubans so eager as I to meet you in person,” she wrote on February 18. “Not as an important American personality, but as a charming president whose open smile wins hearts.”
Yesterday’s flight carried a personal response from President Obama to Ileana, which will reach the island before he touches down in Havana on Sunday.
View Ileana’s letter and the President’s response here:
Mr President,
I heard last night by telesur — not the Cuban broadcast news — that you will visit Havana in March. I could not be happier to hear this.
An American president finally taking this so much needed step, the second best one after your open admittance that the over half a century cruel embargo on this lovely, enduring and resilient little island just did not work. We Cubans believe it’s a black page on American history and geopolitics. Very sorry to say this…
Dear President Obama: I’ve followed your political career since you were running for office the first time. Then I drank to your victory at/with the CNBC Havana office that glorious night. I also celebrated your second term election with friends at home. I wish there would be a third, perhaps one day…
I’ve written you many times introducing myself. Also I have invited you to a cup of Cuban coffee at my place in Vedado, if and when you would finally come.
Please, please, do visit me. Give this 76 year old Cuban lady the gift of meeting you personally. I think there are not many Cubans so eager as I to meet you in person not as an important American personality but as a charming president whose open smile wins hearts.
Please understand I very much look forward to it.
I would also love for you to come with your wonderful, lovely wife.
God bless you son, also bless your family.
Ileana R. Yarza
And check out President Obama’s response:
Dear Ileana:
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your support over the years, and I hope this note — which will reach you by way of the first direct mail flight between the United States and Cuba in over 50 years — serves as a reminder of a bright new chapter in the relationship between our two nations.
I am looking forward to visiting Havana to foster this relationship and highlight our shared values — and, hopefully, I will have time to enjoy a cup of Cuban coffee.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
The types of mail that customers in the United States can send to Cuba include First-Class Mail International items, First-Class Package International Service items, Priority Mail International Flat Rate Envelopes and Priority Mail International Small Flat Rate Priced Boxes.
Employees at the United States Postal Service shared in a moment of excitement as they prepared to send the letter on its way. “I’ve worked for the Postal Service for 27 years, and this has been my goal for 26 years,” one employee shared. “So this is a pretty big day for me.”
To learn more about the President’s Cuba policy and why he’s headed down to Havana, check out what the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes has to say about it here.
A note to our visitors
This website has updated its privacy policy in compliance with changes to European Union data protection law, for all members globally. We’ve also updated our Privacy Policy to give you more information about your rights and responsibilities with respect to your privacy and personal information. Please read this to review the updates about which cookies we use and what information we collect on our site. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our updated privacy policy.