Politics, Supreme Court

Patent expert decodes reform bill

The patent reform bill the Senate will likely vote on later this week isn't exactly an overhaul. But the pending legislation is a step toward modernizing patent rules, according to John Mancini, co-leader of the intellectual property practice at Mayer Brown.

The America Invents Act has a two-fold mission: to curb patent litigation and to encourage the kind of innovation that makes today's Smartphone tomorrow's paperweight. It also moves from a first-to-invent to first-to-file system, which means patents will be awarded to whoever files the application first, rather than to whoever is able to prove he or she came up with the idea.

If passed, the America Invents Act will come at a time when patent litigation is on the rise, with about 2,800 cases filed in 2010, according to research the University of Houston Law Center.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/07/us-congress-patent-mancini-idUSTRE7864ZU20110907

there has to be more behind this...the first to file means they have something up their sleeves.

yes i agree..

President Barack Obama is expected to propose a new tax rate for millionaires as part of his long-term deficit reduction plan on Monday.

The millionaire tax would be known as the “Buffett Rule,” named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who wrote an op-ed last month for The New York Times in which he said the Tax Code was “coddling the super-rich.” Buffett pointed out that investors like him pay a lower tax rate on capital gains than his own secretary pays on ordinary income. The millionaire tax would replace the alternative minimum tax, according to the Times.

The new tax would be part of approximately $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue, or about half of the $3 trillion deficit reduction plan over 10 years, according to the CBS News. Obama will again propose repealing the Bush tax cuts for married taxpayers making over $250,000 a year, or single taxpayers who earn over $200,000 a year. He also would threaten to veto any legislation coming to him that cuts Medicare, but does not increase taxes on the wealthy, according to The Hill. A congressional “super committee” has begun meeting to try to come to an agreement on at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction measures as part of last month’s debt ceiling deal.
http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Obama-Propose-Millionaire-Tax-60021-1.html

new taxes and to follow will be new tax credits. nothing will change

buffett rule is wank..

Why Do Republicans Love Pizza?

Can you raise Herman Cain when he's in defeat? The charismatic, long-shot GOP presidential contender's name is suddenly on the lips of pundits after his upset victory in the Presidency 5 straw poll in Florida on Saturday.

After a strong start, Cain—a political newcomer whose only previous run was a failed bid for the Republican nomination for Senate in Georgia—faded quickly following Rep. Michele Bachmann's June 27 entrance into the race. She stole much of Cain's Tea Party fire and brimstone. Until then, he was running second only to Mitt Romney in many polls.

Whether his Florida triumph proves a last hurrah or the start of a comeback for Cain, his unorthodox background spotlights a curious phenomenon: the overwhelming conservatism of the pizza industry. Although Cain rose to business prominence with Pillsbury, working for the baking giant's Burger King arm, his claim to fame is his time at the helm of Godfather's Pizza, of which he served as CEO from 1986 until 1996, even buying the company from Pillsbury in 1990. Cain's years at Godfather's marked him deeply, and he has said that as a politician he intends to use the insights he gleaned in business to steer his political course. On the trail, he has frequently scheduled appearances at Godfather's restaurants, and his signature economic proposal—the 9-9-9 Plan—even sounds a bit like a popular pizza special.

Cain also has been a generous giver to political causes over the years, donating nearly $400,000 since 1979, according to FEC records. Ninety percent of that—$359,000—has gone to Republican candidates and political action committees, with another 9 percent going to industry PACs and the remainder going to a few lonely Democrats.

But other pizza moguls have similarly generous records, according to an analysis of campaign-finance records by The Daily Beast. Thomas Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza, is a staunch conservative Catholic who's poured money into Catholic initiatives including the controversial Ave Maria University, which is paired with a planned town known as Ave Maria. But Monaghan also has put a great deal of his money into politics, donating $371,000 to Republican candidates since 1979. He's donated $4,000 to Democrats—both recipients also have been Catholic.

snip
In total, The Daily Beast analyzed donations from 20 leading fast-food founders and executives from 1979 to the present. Of those, pizza moguls gave $1,151,000, of which $1,011,000 went to Republicans. Among non-pizza fast-food bosses, total donations came to only $217,000, with $143,000 going to Republicans. The numbers are plain: Republican donations among pizza-restaurant owners and executives dwarf those among other fast-food captains in both size and proportion.

Executives contacted by The Daily Beast either did not respond or declined to comment. Cain was not immediately available for comment.

As to why Republicans are receiving such a big slice of Big Pizza's pie, as it were, industry experts scratched their heads. David Corsun, a former restaurateur who now directs the Fritz Knoebel School of Hospitality Management at the University of Denver, suggested part of the reason was the size of the companies in question. Large companies such as Godfather's, Domino's, and Papa John's have moved right as they have gone public, and have adopted practices similar to those of other large corporations.

http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/why-do-republicans-love-pizza-1702543.story

hmmm and just as monaghan is opening a hamburger joint...interesting.

Health care, other hot issues promise a landmark high court term

One of the little-known prerogatives of the U.S. Supreme Court is the justices' discretion to refuse any case on the merits presented to them for review. Only one in 10 petitions actually gets accepted. But though the justices usually say no, when epic disputes arrive at the courthouse steps -- by tradition and political reality -- the nine members know they are powerless to turn away.

Think segregation. Think abortion. And now the latest divisive debate over the role of government: health care reform.

Monumental. Unprecedented. Life-changing. For a town that oozes hyperbole, the stakes in an almost certain election-year Supreme Court review of health care cannot be overstated.

The justices kick off their new term on Monday with a full slate of interesting appeals already on their docket. But the nation's highest court has yet to decide whether it will tackle the signature accomplishment thus far of Barack Obama's presidency: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the sweeping legislation that has received decidedly mixed reviews in the lower federal courts. An eventual Supreme Court ruling can be expected by June, right in the thick of a contentious presidential race.

snip
An unusual convergence has created the scenario of the court taking on up to a half-dozen big issues in the next year or two. Besides health care there are:

--Gay marriage: Various civil rights challenges to state and federal laws defining marriage as only between one woman and one man.

--Immigration: May states step in and enforce borders and detain illegal immigrants when they say federal officials have failed to do so, or is immigration enforcement exclusively the role of the national government?

--Affirmative action: Do racial and gender preferences in areas like public school admissions continue to be a socially acceptable step?

--Church-state: A number of separate appeals dealing with memorial crosses on public land; a Ten Commandments display in a courtroom; and a state-mandated "moment of silence" for public school students.

--Abortion: Pending state ballot initiatives asking voters to decide whether life begins at conception would potentially give the unborn greater constitutional protections.

But health care remains the overriding focus.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/us/scotus-preview-health-care/

Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Health Law

The long-awaited Supreme Court showdown over the Obama administration's health-care overhaul formally began Monday as the justices agreed to consider a high-profile challenge to the law.

The court, in a short written order, agreed to hear a challenge brought by a group of Republican governors and attorneys general from 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two individual plaintiffs.

The case raises several issues, but chief among them is this: Did Congress exceed its constitutional powers when it required most individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty?

The court is expected to hear oral arguments in March, with a decision expected by the end of June. That timeline means the court will rule on President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement during the thick of the 2012 presidential campaign.

snip
Justice Antonin Scalia also is likely to be a key focus of attention. The conservative justice joined two rulings in 1995 and 2000 that placed limits Congress' commerce power. But Justice Scalia also embraced a broader view of that power in 2005, saying Congress had the authority to prohibit seriously ill Californians from growing marijuana for their personal medical use, even though a state law allowed it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190504577037932371519676.html

Justice scalia has opus dei ties. So where is mention of Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife's involvement in all of this?

Obama’s Health-Care Law to Get Supreme Court Review

snip
All nine justices took part in today’s decision to accept the case. Justice Elena Kagan had faced calls from people not involved in the case to disqualify herself because of questions about her involvement in the health-care law when she was an Obama administration attorney. Justice Clarence Thomas’s involvement drew questions because of the work of his wife, a political activist.

The justices will hear a total of 5 1/2 hours of argument, an unusually large amount of time at a court that typically holds one-hour argument sessions.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-14/obama-s-health-care-overhaul-law-will-be-reviewed-by-u-s-supreme-court.html

there we go!

isnt clarence a legatus speaker?

U.S. House Subcommittee Approves Repeal of Swaps ‘Push-Out’ Rule

A U.S. House panel approved four measures to cut back new regulations aimed at the $601 trillion swaps market, including a measure to repeal the so-called “push-out” provision requiring depository banks to transfer derivatives trades to an affiliate.

The House Financial Services subcommittee on capital markets approved the measure, which would repeal a provision, known as “716” for its section in the Dodd-Frank Act, that forces banks with access to deposit insurance from the Federal Reserve’s discount window to move some of their derivatives transactions into an affiliate.

“There are broad-based objections to 716 as actually creating more risk than it might mitigate,” Representative Nan Hayworth, a New York Republican and sponsor of the measure, said today. “Banks are the heaviest regulated and safest entities within holding companies.”

House Republicans, who almost unanimously opposed Dodd- Frank, have targeted the derivatives rules through several measures aimed at reshaping or repealing pieces of the law. Democrats -- who control the Senate -- have defended the law, which was written in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis that was fueled in part by derivatives trades.

snip
Additional Bills

The panel also approved four other measures, three of them addressing derivatives. One would exempt some derivatives trades between subsidiaries of the same company from margin, clearing and reporting rules. It was approved 23-6.

The second measure aims to require the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission to allow for flexibility in the types of trading methods on so-called swap execution facilities.

The measure addresses concerns of market participants and a bipartisan group of lawmakers about a CFTC proposal that would require participants in the trading facilities to request price quotes from a minimum of five possible sellers. The SEC on Feb. 2 proposed a rule that would allow swap buyers to request a quote from a single seller.

While the measure was approved by voice vote, some Democrats on the panel voiced worry over micromanaging regulators who are in the midst of writing the final rules.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-15/u-s-house-subcommittee-approves-repeal-of-swaps-push-out-rule.html


LOL nothing has changed!

Obama’s Chicago campaign staff living good life — away from Washington

Since May, a steady trickle of aides has left the White House for a more blustery climate, temporary apartments and minimal presidential perks. They are now reassembled here in President Obama’s home town as his 2012 campaign staff, facing a grim political environment shaped by the worst economic outlook in decades and a dismal job-approval rating for the commander in chief.

Yet compared with their colleagues in Washington, the Chicago crew members are living the good life. And not just because they have a putting green and a ping-pong table in the middle of the office.

Unshackled from the day-to-day machinations of governing, and unburdened by the partisan intensity of official Washington, the Chicago team is energized by the clarity of its purpose: getting Obama reelected. That means focusing not on Washington, but on laying the campaign groundwork in the key battleground states that will decide the contest.

That also means working on issues, large and small, in corners of the country far removed from Washington: aiding a state Senate race in eastern Iowa; helping to coordinate a volunteer effort to elect a Democratic mayor in Tucson; recruiting a nationwide stable of lawyers in preparation for possible lawsuits and voter-registration fights from Florida to Wisconsin.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-chicago-campaign-staff-living-good-life--away-from-washington/2011/11/17/gIQAZmGbtN_singlePage.html

crooks

How the Pope made Barney Frank’s political career


The liberal icon is ending a national political career that wouldn't have been possible without an unlikely assist

Barney Frank is putting an end to what has been an unusual House career. The Massachusetts Democrat, who is expected to formally announce his retirement Monday afternoon, has served in the chamber for sixteen terms without ever seeking or attaining an official party leadership post. He also never ran for higher office. And yet, he still became one of the most enduringly visible figures in national politics — a genuine liberal icon and a favorite punching bag for conservatives.

There are many reasons Frank was able to do this, his intellect, quick wit and his flair for verbal jousting among them. That he became the first member of Congress to publicly acknowledge that he’s gay and was at the center of a late-’80s sex scandal certainly boosted his name recognition, if nothing else. But the most essential — and generally overlooked — contribution to his rise to national prominence came from a very unlikely source: the Pope.

It was on May 4, 1980 that John Paul II, then less than two years into his papacy, issued a decree banning all American priests from serving in elected office. In reality, the order was directed at one particular priest: Robert Drinan, a fiercely liberal Jesuit who had been representing a suburban Boston district in the U.S. House since 1970.

Drinan, who had been an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War and was a leading Nixon critic during the Watergate saga, was locked in something of a power struggle with Humberto Medeiros, the culturally conservative archbishop of Boston. Medeiros resented Drinan’s left-wing politics, in particular his votes in favor of public funding for abortions, and pressed Rome to rein in the priest. Previous popes had been content to look the other way on the question of political activism by priests, but in John Paul II Medeiros apparently found a receptive audience, resulting in the May 1980 order. When Drinan’s petition for a waiver was denied, he had no choice but to heed the pope’s order and announce that he wouldn’t seek reelection that fall. He was only 59 at the time and ended up living until 2007; without papal intervention, he might have stayed in the House for decades longer.

It was at this point that Frank, then a 40-year-old state legislator from Boston (where he’d once been an aide to Mayor Kevin White), saw an opportunity. His Boston address wasn’t in the 4th District, but he moved a few miles west to an apartment in Newton and launched a campaign to replace Drinan. Frank’s liberalism and reformer reputation won him Drinan’s endorsement and made him a perfect fit for about half of the strongly Democratic district — affluent, educated communities like Brookline and Newton. His grip on the liberal vote improved when John Kerry, then a Middlesex County prosecutor still nursing his wounds from a failed 1972 congressional campaign, declined to run.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/28/how_the_pope_made_barney_franks_political_career/singleton/

Catholic Prelates Spend $26.6 Million Lobbying

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops spent nearly $30 million lobbying in Washington through 2008-09, according to a new report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

That may not be good news for conservative-minded Catholics, however, given a significant fact about the USCCB. Except on matters of sex and abortion, the USCCB generally hews to the liberal line on public policy matters. Numerous commentators point to the bishops' pastoral letter and other teachings on the economy, and their support for universal healthcare, for instance, as proof the USCCB is virtually the religious arm of the radical left of the Democratic Party. That is true particularly on immigration.

But other prominent evangelical organizations, generally regarded as more conservative than the bishops, are among the top nine names in Pew's list.

No. 2 Religious Group

According to Pew, the USCCB is No. 2. on the list of religious groups lobbying in Washington, D.C.

No. 1 is the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the unofficial lobbying arm of the Israeli government that targets politicians who don’t toe Israel’s line on what U.S. policy should be in the Middle East. AIPAC spent $87.9 million.

Next up were the bishops, who spent $26.6 million.

The conservative Family Research Council followed with $14.3 million and the American Jewish Committee with $13.4 million. Concerned Women for America spent $12.6 million fighting feminism, abortion, and other social issues. Bread for the World spent $11.4 million.

Combined, FRC and CWA spent $26.9 million.

Two conservative groups were next: the National Right to Life Committee and the Home School Defense League Association, both at about $11.3 million, for $22.6 million combined.

CitizenLink, which is affiliated with Focus on the Family, was No. 8 at $10.8 million. All totaled, conservative groups spent more than $60 million, eclipsing the USCCB by a little more than 2-1.

The Bishops on Immigration, Leftist Causes

Mere figures from Pew don't offer much of a complete picture of how the bishops spend their money and on what causes, whether in Washington, D.C. or anywhere else.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/9943-catholic-prelates-spend-266-million-lobbying

USCCB is strictly political.

Congress considers legislation to limit its own insider trading
Dec 10th 2011
Note the date (today is 12/8/2011)

snip
It is remarkable, though, that congressmen’s investments have been so laxly supervised. Members of Congress are not barred, for example, from owning shares in companies that are regulated by committees on which they sit. They are able to trade freely, even if they find out before anyone else about regulations or events that could affect specific industries or the stockmarket as a whole, such as a war, an executive order or a new law.

Their unharnessed access to political intelligence may be part of the reason why a 2004 study that measured the performance of senators’ stock investments in the mid-1990s found that they outperformed the market by 12% a year. A 2006 bill, the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, aimed to hold politicians to the same standards as corporate insiders. It got little support.

In the current political climate, members of Congress are under more pressure to distinguish themselves from greedy bankers. More than 170 congressmen from both parties have rushed to sign the STOCK Act, or introduce their own version. “It is absolutely essential that we do restore the public’s trust,” says Spencer Bachus, the House Financial Service Committee chairman, who was among many accused by “60 Minutes” of benefiting from inside information. He denies wrongdoing, and has introduced his own bill, which would require members of Congress to put their assets into blind trusts. But even if a bill of some sort is passed, no one is expecting many showcase trials: after all, the SEC gets its funding from Congress.
http://www.economist.com/node/21541434

talk about acting! your congressmen are doin a great job of it.

Romney: Gingrich Should Return Freddie Mac Money

Mitt Romney on Monday aggressively criticized rival Newt Gingrich and called on him to return the estimated $1.6 million he received for providing strategic advice to Freddie Mac, the quasi-government agency that guarantees home mortgages.

"One of the things that I think people recognize in Washington is that people go there to serve the people and then they stay there to serve themselves," Romney told Fox News Channel during an interview from the Chez Vachon diner here.

Romney said the $1.6 million sum is much higher than the $300,000 figure Gingrich was asked about during a candidates' debate last month in Michigan. Gingrich said at the time that he acted as a historian and did not lobby for Freddie Mac
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/romney-dismisses-10k-debate-bet-criticizes-obama-15136764

taxpayers paid him...