populicio.us

(CNN) — Shirley Sherrod got her wish Thursday: a conversation with President Barack Obama about her forced resignation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The president and Sherrod spoke by telephone after Obama apparently had some trouble getting through to her. Afterward, Sherrod told CNN that the call was “very, very good.”

Obama offered his support and said the two had faced similar issues in their pasts, Sherrod said.

However, she said they didn’t discuss whether the White House had a role in her ouster by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, which came after misleading and incomplete video footage of a speech she gave was posted on the internet and picked up in media reports.

“He didn’t go into that,” Sherrod said. “He wanted to reassure me that Secretary Vilsack was truly sincere … with his efforts to rid the agency of discrimination.”

Asked how it felt to talk to the president, Sherrod said: “Oh, gosh, you know, it was great.

“He’s the president of the United States of America. I respect him as that. I appreciate him as that,” Sherrod said. “And it felt like talking to someone else just sitting in the front of the car here.”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama personally apologized to Sherrod in the phone call but did not lobby for her to take another job at the Department of Agriculture, as offered by Vilsack.

“This was not, ‘Hey, Shirley, take this job,’ ” Gibbs said at the White House. “That was not the specific purpose of the call.”

The president’s office sent Sherrod a text message indicating that Obama had been trying to get in touch with her, Sherrod told CNN producer Julie O’Neill.

Sherrod said she called the White House and was given another number to call. She dialed that number a few minutes later and spoke with the president.

According to O’Neill, Sherrod declined to have the phone call videotaped by CNN.

A White House statement said the two spoke for seven minutes.

“The president expressed to Ms. Sherrod his regret about the events of the last several days,” the statement said. “He emphasized that Secretary Vilsack was sincere in his apology yesterday, and in his work to rid USDA of discrimination.”

According to the statement, Obama also told Sherrod “that this misfortune can present an opportunity for her to continue her hard work on behalf of those in need, and he hopes that she will do so.”

The flap began after conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart last week posted a portion of a speech Sherrod gave in which she spoke of not offering her full help to a white farmer. The original post by Breitbart indicated that the incident Sherrod mentioned occurred when she worked for the Agriculture Department, and news outlets quickly picked up on the story.

However, the incident took place decades before she joined the department, and her speech in its unedited form made the point that people should move beyond race. In addition, the white farmer who Sherrod mentioned has told reporters that she helped him save his farm.

Sherrod was forced to resign Monday, but when the full story came out Tuesday, the White House pressured Vilsack to reconsider. Both Vilsack and Gibbs issued apologies to Sherrod on Wednesday, and Vilsack said he offered her another job in the Agriculture Department.

At the same time, White House aides said Wednesday on condition of not being identified by name that Obama was unlikely to call Sherrod or personally interject himself in the race-tinged controversy.

One aide said there wouldn’t be any more “beer summits,” a reference to the White House meeting Obama held last year amid the controversy over the arrest of Harvard law professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

Gates, who is African-American, was arrested at his home by police Sgt. James Crowley, who is white, in what amounted to a misunderstanding. After Obama criticized the arrest, an ensuing uproar led to the White House discussion over beer involving Obama, Gates, Crowley and Vice President Joe Biden.

Until Thursday’s phone discussion between Sherrod and Obama, the White House had tried to separate the president from the issue by emphasizing that Obama played no role in the decision to force Sherrod to resign.

None of that mattered to Sherrod on Thursday. She said Obama was so easy to talk to that she invited him to visit south Georgia, where she is from. There was no word on whether the president would accept her invitation.

Obama talks with USDA employee forced out of her job

By

Brad Knickerbocker,

By

Peter Grier,

Washington (CNN) — The Justice Department weighed in on one of the most explosive issues in American politics Tuesday, filing a lawsuit to overturn a tough new Arizona immigration law that has sharply divided people along partisan, ideological and ethnic lines.

It also asked the federal courts to grant an injunction to stop enforcement of the measure before it takes effect late this month.

Arizona’s law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and allows police to question the residency status of people in the course of enforcing another law. It also targets businesses that hire illegal immigrant laborers or knowingly transport them.

Justice Department lawyers argued in its brief that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law.

“A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws,” the brief states. “The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.”

The Arizona law “disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety. … If allowed to go into effect, [the law's] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.”

Arizona is interested only in “attrition” in order to end illegal entries and has not addressed several other federal obligations to deal with immigrants, including removal proceedings, humanitarian concerns and foreign relations, the brief contends.

President Barack Obama said in a speech July 1 that the measure has “fanned the flames of an already contentious debate.” Among other things, it puts pressure on police officers to enforce rules that are “unenforceable” while making communities less safe — in part, by making people more reluctant to report crimes, he said.

It also has “the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.”

Before the government’s filing, Arizona’s two senators, both Republicans, called the Obama administration move “far too premature.”

“Moreover, the American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law,” Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain said in a statement.

Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick called the lawsuit a “sideshow” in a statement released before it was officially filed.

“A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America’s broken immigration system,” she said.

Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, has accused the Obama administration of failing to secure the border with Mexico, thereby forcing her state to act on its own.

“Do your job. Secure the border,” Brewer said of the president in a July 1 speech to a Republican group. She pledged to “defend this law against every assault, including attacks by the Obama administration.”

Obama renewed his push for comprehensive immigration reform last week, calling for bipartisan cooperation on an issue reflecting deep social and political divisions.

Seeking an elusive middle ground on the subject, the president highlighted the importance of immigrants to American history and progress while acknowledging the fear and frustration many feel with a system that he said seems “fundamentally broken.”

He asserted that the majority of Americans are ready to embrace reform legislation that would help resolve the status of an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.

In his July 1 speech, Obama warned that rounding up everyone in the country who has entered illegally would be both “logistically impossible” and “tear at the fabric of the nation.” At the same time, the president indicated it would be wrong to offer blanket amnesty for people who came into the United States unlawfully.

Despite Obama’s call for bipartisan immigration reform, several senior Democratic sources said Thursday that they see virtually no chance of Congress taking up such a measure before November’s midterm elections.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. national poll conducted in late May indicated that public support for beefing up security along the U.S. border with Mexico had grown significantly. According to the survey, nearly nine out of 10 Americans want to increase U.S. law enforcement along the border with Mexico.

Eight in 10 questioned also supported a program that would allow illegal immigrants already in the United States to stay here and apply for legal residency, provided they had a job and paid back taxes.

But only 38 percent say that program should be a higher priority than border security and other get-tough proposals. Six in 10 said border security was the higher priority.

CNN’s Terry Frieden, Bill Mears and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report

Feds challenge Arizona immigration law

By

Cheryl Sullivan,

Washington (CNN) — Republicans lined up on opposite sides Sunday over comments by the chairman of the Republican National Committee that the Afghanistan war launched by former President George W. Bush was “of (President Barack) Obama’s choosing” and may be unwinnable.

Speaking from Afghanistan, GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina lambasted Michael Steele for the comments, which McCain called “wildly inaccurate” and Graham characterized as “uninformed, unnecessary, unwise, untimely,” while follow Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina said Steele should apologize to the military.

However, conservative GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, in a statement to CNN, supported Steele and said the RNC chairman’s characterization of the war was correct.

“He is guiding the party in the right direction and we (the GOP) are on the verge of victory this fall,” said Paul, who mounted an unsuccessful bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. “Chairman Steele should not back off. He is giving the country, especially young people, hope as he speaks truth about this war.”

Video: Paul praises Steele’s comments

In comments at a Republican fundraiser in Connecticut Thursday, a YouTube video shows the RNC chairman declaring of the war in Afghanistan, “This was a war of Obama’s choosing.”

“This is not something the United States actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in,” he added.

Steele has stepped back from his original comments by emphasizing his support for the war.

“The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan,” Steele said in a statement intended to clarify his controversial comments.

It may be too late for him. Prominent Republican voices are calling for Steele’s resignation, including Liz Cheney, a former State Department official and the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney; Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and former South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson, who finished second to Steele in the RNC chairman’s race last year.

Both McCain and Graham questioned Steele’s ability to keep his job, but said it was up to Steele and the RNC to make that decision.

“I think that Mr. Steele is going to have to assess whether he can still lead the Republican Party as chairman of the Republican National Committee,” McCain said on the ABC program “This Week.” Graham said in a separate interview on the CBS program “Face the Nation” that Steele’s comments did not represent mainstream GOP thinking.

“It’s not the Republican Party’s position, my Republican Party’s position,” Graham said.

At the same time, Graham joked that “the good news is Michael Steele is backtracking so fast he’s going to be in Kabul fighting here pretty soon.”

DeMint, in an interview on “FOX News Sunday,” called Steele’s comments unacceptable.

Steele “needs to apologize to our military, all the men and women who’ve been fighting in Afghanistan,” DeMint said, adding: “This is a war we can win and we must win.”

Paul, meanwhile, wants the United States to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.

“I would like to congratulate Michael Steele for his leadership on one of the most important issues of today,” Paul said. “He is absolutely right: Afghanistan is now Obama’s war. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was out in front in insisting that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. Obama called for expanding the war even as he pretended to be a peace candidate.”

Steele’s critics are supporting “Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama’s war,” Paul said of the Democratic House speaker and president.

“The American people are sick and tired spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, draining our economy and straining our military,” Paul said. “Michael Steele has it right and Republicans should stick by him.”

However, Pelosi last week voted for an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill that would have placed tough restrictions on funding for the war in Afghanistan — including a demand for a detailed troop withdrawal plan and a threat to pull money for the war if the military stays beyond next summer.

The amendment failed, but more than half the House Democratic caucus and nine Republicans voted for it, despite a White House veto threat if the final bill included the provision.

Both Graham and McCain said the United States must remain in Afghanistan as long as it takes to achieve the goal of preventing the country from again falling under Taliban control and becoming a safe haven for al Qaeda.

“The reason we came here is to secure America,” Graham said, adding it was “imperative we say to our friends and enemies alike we’re not leaving here until we’ve succeeded.”

CNN’s Mark Preston and Tom Cohen contributed to this report

Republicans take sides over latest Steele controversy

Washington (CNN) — Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that justices on the nation’s highest court should be even-handed and impartial in order to promise “nothing less than a fair shake for every American.”

In her opening statement to her confirmation hearing, Kagan sought to address Republican concerns that her background as an academic and policy specialist in the Clinton administration would bring a liberal bias in her court rulings.

The role of the Supreme Court is “to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint,” Kagan said.

“I will make no pledges this week other than this one — that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons,” she said after describing her experiences as a Supreme Court clerk, law school professor and U.S. solicitor general. “I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law.”

If confirmed by the 19-member committee and then the full Senate, Kagan would be the 112th Supreme Court justice and the fourth woman to sit on the nation’s highest court.

While her confirmation is considered likely, Republican senators on the panel questioned Monday whether Kagan can be an impartial justice, displaying a partisan divide over President Barack Obama’s second Supreme Court nomination since he took office in January 2009. The Senate confirmed Obama’s first candidate, Sonia Sotomayor, last year.

The committee’s seven Republicans used their opening statements to challenge Kagan’s judicial experience and her ability to put aside personal politics, and the 12 Democratic members praised Kagan’s qualifications and welcomed her possible presence on a court they criticized for what they called conservative activism.

Kagan sat impassively in the packed room, sometimes taking a sip of water, as the senators outlined the questioning she will face in coming days.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said Kagan would be an independent Supreme Court justice, and that he advised her to be open in expressing her judicial philosophy at her confirmation hearing.

Video: Kagan faces a jury: The Senate

Video: What’s ahead for Elena Kagan?

Fast facts: Elena Kagan

5 big issues to watch for

Citing her record as the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman solicitor general of the United States, Leahy said America is “a better country for the fact that the path of excellence Elena Kagan has taken in her career is one now open to both men and women.”

However, the ranking Republican on the panel, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said Kagan lacks judicial experience and has a record of supporting liberal political causes.

“While academia certainly has value, there is no substitute, I think, for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases,” Sessions said.

Other Republicans said Kagan’s experience as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall indicated she would seek to push society toward desired ideological or political ends, rather than apply existing law.

“Will the Constitution control her, or will she try to control the Constitution?” asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “Does she believe that judges may control the Constitution by changing its meaning?”

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused Republicans of casting a “drift net” for any disqualifying fact in Kagan’s record, saying the GOP effort failed.

“I believe you are eminently confirmable,” Feinstein said, turning the tables on Republican concerns about Kagan’s lack of judicial experience by saying: “Frankly, I find this refreshing.”

Other Democrats harshly criticized the current Supreme Court for what they characterized as rulings based on conservative activism. They cited the Citizens United ruling in January, in which the high court voted 5-4 to give big businesses, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, which they said threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, called the Supreme Court’s shift to the right under Chief Justice John Roberts “palpable.”

“In decision after decision, this court bends the law to suit” a conservative political ideology, Schumer said, calling Kagan “a terrific antidote to the lack of practical real-world understanding of the court.”

However, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said Kagan’s record is full of “warning signs” that she may be what he called a “results-oriented” justice — which is conservative code language for liberal activism.

Citing her record as clerk for Marshall, Kyl said many of her memos then “appeared to be based largely on her own liberal political views.”

“This kind of naked political judgment appears frequently throughout Kagan’s work as a Supreme Court clerk,” Kyl said.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois responded that America is a better nation due to Marshall’s personal empathy in ruling on influential civil rights cases.

“Our Supreme Court is badly in need of a person of your skill and knowledge and background,” Durbin said.

Kagan pledges open mind, impartiality

Washington (CNN) — President Barack Obama on Monday met with grass-roots leaders Monday afternoon to discuss immigration reform, the White House said.

Obama told those at the meeting that he wants to see a bipartisan process for immigration reform based on a proposal presented in the Senate that addresses the need to secure the border and demands accountability from both workers who are in the United States illegally and employers who take advantage of the system, the White House said.

True border security requires comprehensive immigration reform, Obama said. The president will give a speech soon on the importance of passing that reform, the White House said.

The president also reiterated his views against the recently passed immigration law in Arizona, which the Justice Department is reviewing.

“Today, we strongly requested for the president to assert his leadership and escalate his efforts to assure comprehensive immigration reform legislation is enacted in 2010,” Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum and meeting attendee, said in a statement. “From our meeting, it is clear that the president is committed to comprehensive immigration reform and understands that congressional action is needed urgently.”

Other topics discussed at the meeting included concerns that the grass-roots leaders had about reforms to current detention and deportation procedures, Noorani said.

Monday’s meeting comes on the heels of a number of immigration movements that have been quietly percolating over the last 48 hours.

Sources outside the White House point to National Security Adviser for Homeland Security John Brennan’s meeting with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, which is scheduled to take place as early as Monday in Arizona.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano also has recently introduced a number of border security initiatives.

CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux and Dan Lothian contributed to this report.

Obama quietly moving on immigration reform

By

Mark Clayton,

By

Gail Russell Chaddock,