WSJ Urges GOP To Obstruct Obama Judicial Nominees With Filibuster

HANNAH GROCH-BEGLEY/Media Matters For America

The Wall Street Journal encouraged Republican obstructionism by calling on the GOP to filibuster President Obama's nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, ignoring that historic levels of GOP obstructionism have caused judicial emergencies and falsely claiming that Obama is trying to "pack" the court.

On June 4, Obama nominated Cornelia Pillard, Patricia Millett, and Robert Wilkins to fill vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. In his June 4 remarks announcing the nominations, Obama highlighted that Republicans have routinely blocked his nominees to the court in the past, and asked that the Senate give his current nominees an "up or down vote" without partisan obstruction. If Republicans filibuster these current nominees, Senate Democrats may move to change filibuster rules in order to allow a simple majority to confirm nominees.

Despite these remarks, a June 5 Journal editorial urged Republicans to obstruct Obama's most recent nominations, claiming that Democrats were bluffing in their response to the filibuster and falsely stating that the President sought to "pack a court that is often considered the second most important in the country."

But as Media Matters has noted, filling vacant seats is nothing like court packing, which seeks to change the total number of seats on the court. The D.C. Circuit currently has several of its judgeships vacant, resulting in judicial emergencies as the vacancies leave the court skewed towards the Republicans on the bench. The resulting decisions have been unsurprisingly hostile to progressive legislation and policy supported by Democratic presidents.

Furthermore, the Journal itself has previously reported on the negative effects of the rampant GOP obstructionism that has prevented the administration from addressing these judicial emergencies. TheJournal's Washington Bureau Chief Gerald F. Seib detailed how GOP obstructionism made the Senate "an embarrassment to itself" that "increasingly infects the rest of government with its paralysis."

In fact, according to Dr. Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts who focuses on judicial nominations, "the level of obstruction of Obama circuit court nominees during the last Congress was unprecedented." The Washington Post's Greg Sargent explained Goldman's research:

Goldman calculates his Index of Obstruction and Delay by adding together the number of unconfirmed nominations, plus the number of nominations that took more than 180 days to confirm (not including nominations towards the end of a given Congress) and dividing that by the total number of nominations. During the last Congress, Goldman calculates, the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Obama circuit court nominations was 0.9524.

"That's the highest that's ever been recorded," he tells me. "In this last Congress it approached total obstruction or delay."

By contrast, during the 108th Congress, from 2003-2004 - which is the most comparable, because George W. Bush was president and Republican controlled the Senate, meaning Dems had to use procedural tactics available to the minority to block nominations -- the Index of Obstruction and Delay for Bush circuit court nominations was far lower, at 0.6176.

On Obama's district court nominations during the 112th Congress, Goldman's Index of Obstruction and Delay was a high 0.8716, he says. Nothing in Bush's years comes even close, he adds.

Wall Street Journal Pushes Myths About Wage-Lowering "Right-To-Work" Law

ZACHARY PLEAT/Media Matters for America

A Wall Street Journal editorial pushed a so-called "right-to-work" law for Michigan that the Journalclaims will help fix the state's economy. But economic studies show that such laws lead to lower wages and benefits for all workers and don't boost employment in the states that have adopted them.

The Journal Pushes For Anti-Union "Right-To-Work" Law In Michigan

WSJ: Michigan GOP Lawmakers Consider "Right-To-Work" Law "To Help The Lagging State Economy." In a December 5 editorial, The Wall Street Journal claimed that there are "economic benefits" to a so-called "right-to-work" law for Michigan and promoted it as a "happy possibility":

Unions lost big in Michigan in November when voters rejected Proposal 2, Big Labor's plan to canonize collective bargaining in the state constitution. Now they are facing a backlash with the happy possibility that Michigan could become the 24th right-to-work state.

Lawmakers have been preparing to introduce a right-to-work bill in the state legislature, and the labor cavalry is heading to the Wolverine state.

[...]

[T]he economy has languished. Michigan is the fifth most unionized state in the country and the birthplace of the UAW. According to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan has lost 7,300 jobs since January, while next-door Indiana, which became a right-to-work state earlier this year, has been on the upswing.

[...]

[I]f a right-to-work law passed the legislature, unions could still try to repeal it on the ballot, as they did this year with the emergency manager law, which let the Governor appoint emergency financial managers who could redo collective-bargaining agreements. By the time a similar fight could be waged against right to work, voters could have had more than a year to see the law's economic benefits. [The Wall Street Journal, 12/5/12]

But Studies Show "Right-To-Work" Laws Hurt Wages And Benefits For All Workers

Economic Policy Institute: "Right-To-Work" Laws "Are Associated With Significantly Lower Wages And Reduced Chances Of Receiving Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance And Pensions." Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz, researchers at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), studied what they called "the compensation penalty of 'right-to-work' laws" and concluded:

[O]ur findings -- that "right-to-work" laws are associated with significantly lower wages and reduced chances of receiving employer-sponsored health insurance and pensions -- are based on the most rigorous statistical analysis currently possible. These findings should discourage right-to-work policy initiatives. The fact is, while RTW legislation misleadingly sounds like a positive change in this weak economy, in reality the opportunity it gives workers is only that to work for lower wages and fewer benefits.

EPI estimated that "right-to-work" laws decreased hourly wages by 3 percent for all workers:

[Economic Policy Institute, 2/17/11, 4/5/11]

Hofstra University's Lonnie Stevans: "Wages And Personal Income Are Both Lower In Right-To-Work States." In an analysis of the economic impact of "right-to-work" laws, Hofstra University professor Lonnie Stevans wrote: "Wages and personal income are both lower in right-to-work states, yet proprietors' income is higher. As a result, while right-to-work states may maintain a somewhat better business environment relative to non-right-to-work states, these benefits do not necessarily translate into increased economic verve for the right-to-work states as a whole -- there appears to be little 'trickle-down' to the largely non-unionized workforce in these states." [Review of Law & Economics, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2009]

McClatchy: "Numerous Studies Have Found That Wages For Both Union And Non-Union Workers Are Lower In States With Right-To-Work Laws." McClatchy Newspapers reported:

Numerous studies have found that wages for both union and non-union workers are lower in states with right-to-work laws. Others have found that workplace safety suffers in right-to-work states, where workers are less likely to secure job safety enhancements beyond federal and state regulations. [McClatchy Newspapers, 2/16/12]

"Right-To-Work" Laws Have Little Impact On Employment Or Economic Growth

EPI: Evidence Shows "Right-To-Work" Legislation "Has No Statistically Significant Impact Whatsoever" On Job Growth. The Economic Policy Institute analyzed employment growth in states with and without "right-to-work" laws and found that "the evidence is overwhelming" that "right-to-work laws have not succeeded in boosting employment growth in the states that have adopted them." The report also stated:

[T]he history of right-to-work studies has a clear trajectory. The more scholars are able to hold "all other things" equal, the more it becomes clear that these laws have little or no positive impact on a state's job growth. The most recent and most methodologically rigorous studies conclude that the policy has no statistically significant impact whatsoever. [Economic Policy Institute, 3/16/11]

Hofstra's Stevans: "Right-To-Work" Laws Result In "Little Or No Gain" In Employment And Economic Growth. Hofstra professor Lonnie Stevans analyzed the economic impact of "right-to-work" laws and concluded that "from a state's economic standpoint, being right-to-work yields little or no gain in employment and real economic growth." [Review of Law & Economics, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2009]

AP: Experts Say It's "Nearly Impossible" To Show Impact Of "Right-To-Work" Laws On State Economies. From an Associated Press article on "right-to-work" laws:

The evidence on the issue is abundant, but also conflicting and murky. The clearest conclusion, according to many experts, is that the economies of states respond to a mix of factors, ranging from the swings in the national economy to demographic trends, and that isolating the impact of right-to-work is nearly impossible.

Obscuring the answer is "the difficulty of distinguishing the effects of the RTW laws from state characteristics, as well as other state policies that are unrelated with these laws," said economists Ozkan Eren and Serkan Ozbeklik, who conducted a major study last year of the right-to-work laws in Oklahoma and Idaho.

For major industries, the chief factors in choosing locations tend to be access to supplies, infrastructure, key markets and a skilled workforce, according to business-recruitment specialists. For a state's workers, the impact of the laws is limited because only about 7 percent of private-sector employees are unionized. Over the years, job growth has surged in states with and without right-to-work laws.

"The reason we don't have clear views (on right-to-work laws) is because it's always being debated at its extremes," said Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Massachusetts, who assigns his students to analyze the issue each year. In the end, when it comes to jobs and the law, "we don't know causation," he said. [Associated Press, 1/28/12]

"Right-To-Work" Laws Do Not Give Workers Any More Rights

Center For American Progress: "Right-To-Work Has Nothing To Do With People Being Forced To Be Union Members." The Center for American Progress report titled "Right-to-Work 101" explains that "right-to-work" laws simply "allow some workers to receive a free ride" by receiving benefits from a union contract without having to pay for it:

In states where the law exists, "right-to-work" makes it illegal for workers and employers to negotiate a contract requiring everyone who benefits from a union contract to pay their fair share of the costs of administering it. Right-to-work has nothing to do with people being forced to be union members.

Federal law already guarantees that no one can be forced to be a member of a union, or to pay any amount of dues or fees to a political or social cause they don't support. What right-to-work laws do is allow some workers to receive a free ride, getting the advantages of a union contract -- such as higher wages and benefits and protection against arbitrary discipline -- without paying any fee associated with negotiating on these matters.

That's because the union must represent all workers with the same due diligence regardless of whether they join the union or pay it dues or other fees and a union contract must cover all workers, again regardless of their membership in or financial support for the union. In states without right-to-work laws, workers covered by a union contract can refuse union membership and pay a fee covering only the costs of workplace bargaining rather than the full cost of dues. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, 2/2/12]

NLRB: Workers That Don't Want Full Union Membership "Pay Only That Share Of Dues Used Directly For Representation" Of Union Contract They Work Under. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) explains that workers do not have to be full union members, but instead must only pay for the union representation they receive by working at a union shop, regardless of their membership status:

The NLRA allows employers and unions to enter into union-security agreements, which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired.

Even under a security agreement, employees who object to full union membership may continue as 'core' members and pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer full members but are still protected by the union contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right. [National Labor Relations Board, accessed 12/6/12]

NLRB: In "Right-To-Work" States, Employees Who Choose Not To Pay Union Dues Still Receive Protections From Union Contracts. The National Labor Relations Board further explained that in states with "right-to-work" laws, workers get to choose whether to pay union representation dues even while they benefit from a union contract:

More than 20 states have banned union-security agreements by passing so-called "right to work" laws. In these states, it is up to each employee at a workplace to decide whether or not to join the union and pay dues, even though all workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union. [National Labor Relations Board, accessed12/6/12]

Economist Dean Baker: "Right-To-Work Laws Prohibit Workers From Being Required To Pay For" Their Union Representation. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research explained the fallacy behind so-called "right-to-work" laws:

"Right to work" is a great name from the standpoint of proponents, just like the term "death tax" is effective for opponents of the estate tax, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is widely believed that in the absence of right-to-work laws workers can be forced to join a union. This is not true. Workers at any workplace always have the option as to whether or not to join a union.

Right-to-work laws prohibit contracts that require that all the workers who benefit from union representation to pay for union representation. In states without right-to-work laws unions often sign contracts that require that all the workers in a bargaining unit pay a representation fee to the union that represents the bargaining unit.

The logic is straightforward. When a union is recognized as representing a bargaining unit it legally must represent every worker in that unit, whether or not a worker opts to join the union.

This means not only that non-members get the same wages and benefits that the union negotiates with the employer, but the union is also obligated to represent any non-member individually if that worker gets in a dispute with the employer over an issue covered in the contract. For example, if a non-union member is threatened with a discipline action or firing, the union must defend this worker's rights just the same as if they were in the union.

Right-to-work laws prohibit workers from being required to pay for this union representation. What right-to-work laws actually guarantee is the ability for a worker to benefit from union representation without having to pay for union representation. [Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2/28/11]

The Continuation Of The WSJ's Rove Problem

REMINGTON SHEPARD/media Matters for America

Karl Rove is continuing to use Wall Street Journal column to blatantly advance his own financial interests.

Rove is the co-founder of Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads, two outside groups devoted to defeating President Obama in the November election. And in his August 8 Journal column, Rove touted the efforts of outside groups working against Obama without any disclosure of his own involvement in such groups.

Rove advised Mitt Romney to run positive ads while leaving the dirty work of negative advertising to outside groups:

Mr. Romney also began running more positive ads. The election will not be won just by highlighting Mr. Obama's failures, a job better left (mostly) to outside groups. Because it can put the candidate on camera, the Romney campaign is better positioned to reassure voters that he has a plan to create jobs, reduce spending, and make America more prosperous.

Rove's outside groups plan to raise at least $240 million ahead of Election Day in order to fund ad buys.

And Rove's groups are indeed busy smearing Obama just as Rove suggested they should in his Journalcolumn. Last week, Rove's group unveiled a new ad that falsely claimed that the 2009 stimulus bill failed.

Rove's group previously produced an anti-Obama attack ad that deceptively edited comments the president has made. Rove subsequently hyped the same distortion in his Journal column.

The Journal has a Rove problem. It allows Rove to hype distortions promoted by his political groups, it allows him to promote the role of his groups in this election cycle, and it refuses to acknowledge Rove's conflict of interest.

WSJ Publishes Op-Ed From 16 Climate Deniers, Refused Letter From 255 Top Scientists

By Brad Johnson/Think Progress


In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, sixteen prominent global warming deniers with scientific backgrounds — such as tobacco apologist Richard Lindzen of MIT and ExxonMobil executive Roger Cohen — concede that manmade carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on the planet, but argue that the effect is “small” and nothing to “panic” about. All the other scientists in the world who believe the science are part of a conspiracy to intimidate people like themselves, they write, just as Soviet biologists who believed in genes were “sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.”

As climate scientist Peter Gleick reports at his Forbes.com blog, those other scientists include 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences who wrote a letter about the scientific threat of climate change for the Wall Street Journal — but were turned down:

The most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal with respect to manmade climate change is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a scientifically accurate essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because 16 so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.

The NAS letter was eventually published by Science magazine.

Even though the first decade of the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s, and 2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record, the denier op-ed asserts “the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”

This op-ed was promoted on Fox News, Real Clear Politics, Alex Jones’ Infowars, and other right-wing political and conspiracy sites.

News Corp.’s Clumsy Media Defense Continues

by Eric Boehlert/Media Matters

When the history of Rupert Murdoch’s ownership of the Wall Street Journal is written, it’s likely that today’s petulant, tin-eared unsigned editorial about the sprawling phone-hacking scandal will be noted as an important low point. Indeed, the wildly misguided and clownish piece, which reads like a furious, indignant Murdoch himself wrote it, might mark a turning point of sorts. 

The editorial, which is being eviscerated online, as well it should, represents just one example in recent days of Murdoch’s American properties trying desperately to come to their owner’s aid by offering up the unseemly combination of fabrications and self-pity.

Recall that late last week on Fox & Friends, the morning crew cobbled together a dreadful, there’s-nothing-to-see-here effort in hopes of changing the hacking story. (Let's move on, people.) Sadly for Fox and its friends, that same day news broke that two key Murdoch lieutenants, Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton, had been forced out of the company. (Brooks was soon arrested.) 

So much for moving on.

But facts rarely get in the way over at Fox, so over the weekend they gave it another go. Appearing onFox News Watch, James Pinkerton warned that any attempt to investigate News Corp. would be proof of a partisan, liberal agenda inside the White House. Except Pinkerton failed to note it was a Republican Congressman from New York who was among the first to urge the FBI to look into News Corp.

And now comes today's Journal’s humdinger editorial. I encourage everyone to read it in full to get the true sense of what the grip of corporate denial sounds like.

Here’s just a flavor: The Journal defends the actions of its former publisher Les Hinton, who was forced out of the company on Friday. Hinton was tainted by the scandal because prior to joining the Journal he oversaw what was supposed to have been a thorough internal News Corp. investigation into hacking allegations. The investigation turns out of have been something of a joke, which raises all kinds of questions about his involvement.

Now, the Journal today [emphasis added]:

In his resignation letter, Mr. Hinton said he knew nothing about wide-scale hacking and had testified truthfully to Parliament in 2007 and 2009. We have no reason to doubt him, especially based on our own experience working for him.

Ah, editorial writers have worked with Hinton. He was their colleague. Therefore they blindly believe Hinton’s version of hacking events.  And so should everyone else. Especially pesky journalists and members of Parliament.

Note to News Corp.: These defensive displays are becoming comical, and if anyone at the company headquarters has any sense left, they would stop the outbursts immediately.