The Jim Bakker Show

California judge questions Trump’s sanctuary city order

Avideh Moussavian, (R) a Policy Attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, speaks during a panel discussion promoting 'Justice and Equity in an Era of Indiscriminate Enforcement and Fear' at the National Conference on Sanctuary Cities in New York City, U.S., March 28, 2017. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

By Robin Respaut

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A California federal judge on Friday strongly questioned the U.S. Justice Department over whether to suspend an order by President Donald Trump to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities for immigrants.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III questioned the purpose of the president’s order as he heard arguments from two large California counties and the Justice Department in San Francisco federal court. Both counties have asked for a nationwide preliminary injunction to the order.

As part of a larger plan to transform how the United States deals with immigration and national security, Trump in January signed an order targeting cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Sanctuary cities in general offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Sanctuary city is not an official designation.

Santa Clara County, which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities, sued in February, saying Trump’s plan to withhold federal funds is unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit.

On Friday, the counties described the order as a “weapon to cancel all funding to jurisdictions,” said John Keker, an attorney representing Santa Clara County. “All around the country, including here, people are having to deal with this right now.”

Santa Clara County receives roughly $1.7 billion in federal and federally dependent funds annually, about 35 percent of its total revenues. The county argued that every day it is owed millions of dollars of federal funding, and its budgetary planning process had been thrown into disarray by the order.

The Justice Department said the counties had taken an overly broad interpretation of the president’s order, which would impact only Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security funds, a fraction of the grant money received by the counties.

The government also argued that there had been no enforcement action to date, and it was unclear what actions against the counties would entail.

Judge Orrick asked the government what was the purpose of an executive order, if it only impacted a small amount of county funding.

Attorneys for the government said the order had highlighted issues that the Trump Administration deeply cared about and a national policy priority.

To win a nationwide injunction, local governments must demonstrate a high level of harm, the Justice Department noted in court filings last month.

(Reporting by Robin Respaut; additional reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Dan Grebler)

With ‘nuclear option,’ Senate ends Democratic blockade of Trump court pick

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Supreme Court nominee judge Neil Gorsuch testifies during a third day of his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 22, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Republicans on Thursday crushed a Democratic blockade of President Donald Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee in a fierce partisan brawl, approving a rule change dubbed the “nuclear option” to allow for conservative judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation by Friday.

With ideological control of the nation’s highest court at stake, the Republican-led Senate voted 52-48 along party lines to change its long-standing rules in order to prohibit a procedural tactic called a filibuster against Supreme Court nominees. That came after Republicans failed by a 55-45 tally to muster the 60-vote super-majority needed to end the Democratic filibuster that had sought to deny Gorsuch confirmation to the lifetime post.

The Senate’s action paved the way to confirm Gorsuch by simple majority, with a vote expected at roughly 7 p.m. (2399 GMT) on Friday. Republicans control the Senate 52-48. The rule change was called the “nuclear option” because it was considered an extreme break with Senate tradition.

Trump had encouraged Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to “go nuclear.” Confirmation of Gorsuch would represent Trump’s first major victory since taking office on Jan. 20, after setbacks on healthcare legislation and his blocked order to prevent people from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States.

“This will be the first and last partisan filibuster of the Supreme Court,” McConnell said on the Senate floor, accusing Democrats of trying to inflict political damage on Trump and to keep more conservatives from joining the high court.

“In 20 or 30 or 40 years, we will sadly point to today as a turning point in the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court, a day when we irrevocably moved further away from the principles our founders intended for these institutions: principles of bipartisanship, moderation and consensus,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Schumer ridiculed McConnell’s contention that the Democratic action was unprecedented, noting that the Republican-led Senate last year refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama’s nomination of appellate judge Merrick Garland for the same high court seat that Trump selected Gorsuch to fill.

Senate confirmation of Gorsuch, 49, would restore the nine-seat court’s 5-4 conservative majority, enable Trump to leave an indelible mark on America’s highest judicial body and fulfill a top campaign promise by the Republican president. Gorsuch could be expected to serve for decades.

A conservative-majority court is more likely to support gun rights, an expansive view of religious liberty, abortion regulations and Republican-backed voting restrictions, while opposing curbs on political spending. The court also is likely to tackle transgender rights and union funding in coming years.

THREE DEMOCRATS

In the end, three Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018 in states won by Trump last year – Indiana’s Joe Donnelly, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp – broke with their party and voted with Republicans to bring about a confirmation vote, though they opposed the rule change.

The nine-seat Supreme Court has had a vacancy since conservative Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016.

Republicans have called Gorsuch superbly qualified and one of the nation’s most distinguished appellate judges, and they blamed Democrats for politicizing the confirmation process.

Democrats accused Gorsuch of being so conservative as to be outside the judicial mainstream, favoring corporate interests over ordinary Americans in legal opinions, and displaying insufficient independence from Trump.

The 60-vote threshold that gives the minority party power to hold up the majority party has forced the Senate over the decades to try to achieve bipartisanship in legislation and presidential appointments.

What Republicans did to Obama’s nominee Garland was worse than a filibuster, Schumer said. Schumer said Republicans denied “the constitutional prerogative of a president with 11 months left in his term.”

“The nuclear option was used by Senator McConnell when he stopped Merrick Garland. What we face today is the fallout,” Democratic Senator Richard Durbin added on the Senate floor.

McConnell blamed the escalation of fights over judicial nominees on the Democrats and their opposition starting three decades ago to nominees made by Republican former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

McConnell called the Democratic effort against Gorsuch “another extreme escalation in the left’s never-ending drive to politicize the court and the confirmation process.” He accused Gorsuch’s opponents of “a singular aim: securing raw power no matter the cost to the country or the institution.”

Experts said eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments could make it more likely that presidents, with little incentive to choose centrist justices who could attract support from the other party, will pick ideologically extreme nominees in the future.

Ending the filibuster also would make it easier for future Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed when the president and Senate leadership belong to the same party.

The filibuster in one form or another dates back to the 19th century but assumed its current form in the 1970s.

While Democrats opposed the rule change and accused Republicans of a power grab, it was their party that first resorted to the nuclear option when they controlled the Senate in 2013. In the face of Republican filibusters of Obama appointments, they barred filibusters for executive branch nominees and federal judges aside from Supreme Court justices but still allowed it for Supreme Court nominees and legislation.

The Republican-backed rule change maintains the ability to filibuster legislation.

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Florida legislature poised to bolster ‘Stand Your Ground’ law

FILE PHOTO: A truck with a sticker indicating the number of weapons and hand guns is pictured in Port Saint Lucie, Florida, U.S. June 14, 2016. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

By Letitia Stein and Bernie Woodall

(Reuters) – Florida lawmakers advanced a measure on Wednesday that could make it easier to avoid prosecution in deadly shootings and other use-of-force cases by seeking immunity on self-defense grounds under the state’s pioneering “stand your ground” law.

In a 74-39 vote, the state’s House of Representatives passed legislation that shifts the burden of proof from defendants to prosecutors when the law is invoked to avoid trial.

The measure now returns to the state Senate, which last month approved its own version of the bill. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans.

Florida’s “stand your ground” law, passed in 2005, received wide scrutiny and inspired similar laws in other states. It removed the legal responsibility to retreat from a dangerous situation and allowed use deadly force when a person felt greatly threatened.

Opponents say the measures will embolden gun owners to shoot first, citing the 2012 death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida, which spurred national protests and the Black Lives Matter movement. The neighborhood watchman who killed him, George Zimmerman, was acquitted of murder after the law was included in jury instructions.

Wednesday’s House vote on changing the law followed party lines.

Supporters, including the National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun lobby, see the legislation as bolstering a civilian’s right to quell an apparent threat.

“This bill is trying to put the burden of proof where it belongs, on the state, because all people are innocent before being proven guilty,” said the Republican sponsor of the bill, Representative Bobby Payne.

Florida’s law did not specify the process for applying “stand your ground” immunity. State courts established the current protocol, which calls for a pre-trial hearing before a judge and puts the burden of proof on the defendant.

Most of those speaking in the House debate were Democrats who said the bill would lead to more violence.

“Who will speak for the voiceless victims, silenced by an aggressor who claims he wasn’t an aggressor but is protected by a flawed law?” said Democrat Representative Bobby Dubose.

While public defenders support the changes to the law, the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association and gun control advocates oppose them.

“Every battery case, every domestic violence case, every use of force case, as a matter of routine, defense attorneys will now request hearings,” said Phil Archer, a state attorney.

Archer, a lifetime NRA member who teachers gun owners about “stand your ground,” said of the changes: “This is just going too far.”

(Reporting by Letitia Stein in Tampa, Florida, and Bernie Woodall in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Bill Trott)

Trump drops Steve Bannon from National Security Council

White House Senior Advisor Steve Bannon. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Steve Holland and John Walcott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump removed his chief strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council on Wednesday, reversing his controversial decision early this year to give a political adviser an unprecedented role in security discussions.

Trump’s overhaul of the NSC, confirmed by a White House official, also elevated General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence who heads all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. The official said the change moves the NSC “back to its core function of what it’s supposed to do.”

It also appears to mark a victory for national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who had told some national security experts he felt he was in a “battle to the death” with Bannon and others on the White House staff.

Vice President Mike Pence said Bannon would continue to play an important role in policy and played down the shake-up as routine.

“This is just a natural evolution to ensure the National Security Council is organized in a way that best serves the president in resolving and making those difficult decisions,” Pence said on Fox News.

Bannon said in a statement he had succeeded in returning the NSC back to its traditional role of coordinating foreign policy rather than running it. He cited President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, for why he advocated a change.

“Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration so I was put on NSC to ensure it was ‘de-operationalized.’ General McMaster has NSC back to its proper function,” he said.

Trump’s White House team has grappled with infighting and intrigue that has hobbled his young presidency. In recent days, several other senior U.S. foreign policy and national security officials have said the mechanisms for shaping the Trump administration’s response to pressing challenges such as Syria, North Korea and Iran still were not in place.

Critics of Bannon’s role on the NSC said it gave too much weight in decision-making to someone who lacked foreign policy expertise.

Bannon, who was chief executive of Trump’s presidential campaign in the months leading to his election in November, in some respects represents Trump’s “America First” nationalistic voice, helping fuel his anti-Washington fervor and pushing for the president to part ways at times with mainstream Republicans.

Before joining the Trump administration, Bannon headed Breitbart News, a right-wing website.

U.S. Representative Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, called the shift in the NSC a positive step that will help McMaster “gain control over a body that was being politicized by Bannon’s involvement.”

“As the administration’s policy over North Korea, China, Russia and Syria continues to drift, we can only hope this shake-up brings some level of strategic vision to the body,” he said.

SOURCE: STILL INFLUENTIAL

Bannon’s removal from the NSC was a potential setback for his sphere of influence in the Trump White House, where he has a voice in most major decisions. But a Trump confidant said Bannon remained as influential as ever.

“He is still involved in everything and still has the full confidence of the president but to be fair he can only do so much stuff,” the confidant said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The White House official said Bannon was no longer needed on the NSC after the departure of Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn.

Flynn was forced to resign on Feb. 13 over his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Sergei Kislyak, prior to Trump taking office on Jan. 20.

The official said Bannon had been placed on the NSC originally as a check on Flynn and had only attended one of the NSC’s regular meetings.

The official dismissed questions about a power struggle between Bannon and McMaster, saying they shared the same world view.

However, two current national security officials rejected the White House explanation, noting that two months have passed since Flynn’s departure.

McMaster, they said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also has dueled with Bannon and others over direct access to Trump; the future of deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland, a former Fox News commentator; intelligence director Ezra Cohen-Watnick, a Flynn appointee; and other staffing decisions.

Trump is preparing for his first face-to-face meeting on Thursday and Friday with Chinese President Xi Jinping with the threat of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs a key component of their talks.

Bannon’s seat on the NSC’s “principals’ committee,” a group that includes the secretaries of state, defense and other ranking aides, was taken by Rick Perry, who as energy secretary is charged with overseeing the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal.

(Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe and Roberta Rampton; Editing by Tom Brown, Bill Trott and Michael Perry)

Pittsburgh cafe finds politics and coffee can leave bitter taste

By David DeKok

HARRISBURG, Pa. (Reuters) – The owners of a Pittsburgh coffee shop found out the hard way that in the hyper-polarized political climate of 2017, punching holes in pictures of President Donald Trump and other conservative stalwarts is no laughing matter for some.

The Black Forge Coffee Shop has been fielding phone calls this week from people around the country upset about the cafe’s customer loyalty cards featuring a who’s who of prominent conservatives, according to its owners.

The idea puts a topical twist on a familiar perk: Buy a coffee and the store punches a hole through a photo of Trump, Vice President Mike Pence or one of the others. After all 10 conservatives are punched, the customer gets a free cup.

“We wanted to do something unique that would stand out,” said Nick Miller, who has run the shop with his business partner Ashley Corts for about 18 months. “It’s not a statement; it’s really just a joke.”

More than a few people apparently were not amused.

While some people were calling the shop to voice their displeasure, others emailed images of the owners’ faces superimposed with targets. Disparging comments about the shop suddenly started popping up Facebook and Yelp.com.

“HORRIBLE PLACE,” Yelp user Alexis K. of Oceanside, California, wrote. “I refuse to support a busines who can act this way about our president who WE ELECTED fair and square.”

In addition to Trump and Pence, the cards feature the likenesses of Senator Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. Rounding out the gallery are five conservative commentators: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson, as well as controversial pharma executive Martin Shkreli.

The shop has been handing out the cards for months, but the deluge of calls, many of them abusive, only started after Fox News picked up the story on Wednesday, the co-owner says.

Fortunately, no one who has come into the shop in person has been abusive to the staff, said Miller, a Democratic voter.

It may help that Black Forge is next door to a Pittsburgh police stations, and many officers are regular customers, Miller said.

“They thought it was pretty funny,” he said. “They were surprised no one could see it was just a joke.”

Despite the ire that the cards have stirred up, Miller said he has no regrets. After all, publicity is publicity – and business is booming, he said.

(Editing By Frank McGurty and Cynthia Osterman)

Virginia court rules for Trump in travel ban dispute, order still halted

FILE PHOTO - Immigration activists, including members of the DC Justice for Muslims Coalition, rally against the Trump administration's new ban against travelers from six Muslim-majority nations, outside of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection headquarters in Washington, U.S. on March 7, 2017. REUTERS/Eric Thayer/File Photo

By Mica Rosenberg

(Reuters) – A U.S. federal judge in Virginia ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump’s travel ban was justified, increasing the likelihood the measure will go before the Supreme Court as the decision took an opposing view to courts in Maryland and Hawaii that have halted the order.

U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Trenga rejected arguments by Muslim plaintiffs who claimed Trump’s March 6 executive order temporarily banning the entry of all refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries was discriminatory.

The decision went against two previous court rulings that put an emergency halt to the order before it was set to take effect on March 16. The order remains halted.

Trump has said he plans to appeal those unfavorable rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court if needed, and differing opinions by lower courts give more grounds for the highest court to take up the case.

Trenga, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, said the complaint backed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights group, found that more than 20 individuals who brought the suit had been able to show they were harmed by the travel ban since they might be unable to reunite with their relatives.

But he also ruled that Trump’s revised order, which replaced a more sweeping version signed on Jan. 27 and rejected by courts, fell within the president’s authority to make decisions about immigration.

He said that since the order did not mention religion, the court could not look behind it at Trump’s statements about a “Muslim ban” to determine what was in the “drafter’s heart of hearts.”

Trump has said the ban is necessary to protect the country from terrorist attacks, but his first order was halted by a federal judge in Seattle and a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco due to concerns it violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against religious bias.

“We’re confident that the president’s fully lawful and necessary action will ultimately be allowed to move forward through the rest of the court systems,” said White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer at a briefing.

CAIR said it would appeal the decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Lena Masri, CAIR’s national litigation director, said the 4th Circuit and the Supreme Court “are the judicial bodies that will ultimately decide whether the Constitution protects the rights of Muslim Americans.”

OTHER COURT ACTION

A ruling by U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii – an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama – put a stop to the two central sections of the revised ban that blocked travelers from six countries and refugees, while leaving other parts of the order in place.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland, also an Obama appointee, only put a halt to the section on travelers.

The Virginia lawsuit sought to strike down the revised ban in its entirety.

Watson scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to decide whether his temporary order blocking the travel and refugee restrictions should be converted into a more formal preliminary injunction. The Justice Department has said it would oppose that bid.

The government has appealed Chuang’s decision in Maryland, also to the 4th circuit, and a hearing in that case is scheduled for May 8.

Other lawsuits against the ban continue to move forward around the country. Also on Friday, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups filed a new complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. on behalf of Muslim community organizations.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Additional reporting from Dan Levine in San Francisco; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Nations urge Venezuela on elections, warn of diplomatic ‘last resort’

Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro speaks during a pro-government rally, next to his wife Cilia Flores (L), in Caracas, Venezuela March 9, 2017. REUTERS/Marco Bello

By Frank Jack Daniel and Matt Spetalnick

MEXICO CITY/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A group of 14 nations on Thursday urged Venezuela to hold elections and release “political prisoners,” in a joint statement that kept open the option of seeking to suspend the South American country from the Organization of American States.

The statement, which Mexico’s Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray said was aimed at encouraging Venezuela to “re-establish democracy,” called for dialogue and negotiation to resolve a crisis in the oil-exporting country, which is suffering severe food and fuel shortages.

Suspending Venezuela from the OAS was a last resort, the nations said, and something that should be avoided unless other diplomatic efforts have been exhausted.

“We reiterate that inclusive and effective dialogue is the right path to achieve lasting solutions to the challenges faced by the Venezuelan people,” the statement said.

Venezuela has jailed around 100 government opponents it accuses of inciting violence and planning the overthrow of President Nicolas Maduro. Opposition activists and human rights groups say they are prisoners of conscience.

Venezuela’s election board in October suspended the opposition drive for a recall referendum against Maduro despite the country’s crushing economic crisis, the government’s unpopularity and public opinion in favor of a plebiscite.

Venezuela has also delayed until 2017 elections due in December for state governorships.

The declaration by the 14 nations called for the separation of powers, the rule of law and the establishment of an electoral calendar for postponed elections.

The group that signed the declaration, which includes regional powerhouses the United States, Mexico, Canada and Brazil, also called on Venezuela to recognize the legitimacy of the country’s national assembly, which has been defanged by Maduro’s government since the opposition won a majority in 2015.

Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuela’s foreign minister, accused Washington of leading the new push to isolate her country, which has been at loggerheads with the United States since the left-wing government of the late President Hugo Chavez.

“What are they trying? To wound Venezuela?” Rodriguez said on Twitter shortly before the statement was released. “We will denounce these actions country by country. We will not allow any aggression against our sacred homeland.”

The pressure by countries including several former Venezuelan allies follows a call by the head of the OAS to expel Venezuela if it does not quickly hold general elections, a move that would require the support of two thirds of the Washington based body’s 34 General Assembly members.

Luis Almagro, secretary general of the OAS and a former foreign minister of Uruguay, calls Maduro’s government a dictatorship. Earlier this month he said if Venezuela did not quickly comply it should be suspended for violating rules that require members to adhere to democratic norms.

In the past the OAS suspended Cuba and Honduras for breaking with democracy, but was criticized for not taking such action against right-wing dictatorships during the Cold War.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the United States was concerned by the state of democracy in Venezuela.

“We urge the Venezuelan government to comply with the constitution … and hold elections as soon as possible,” Toner told a briefing for reporters.

“We’re not pushing for Venezuela’s expulsion from the OAS at this time. We do think that the OAS is the appropriate venue to deal with the situation in Venezuela.”

However, a senior White House official said suspension from the regional body remained an option. Although numbers supporting Thursday’s declaration fell well short of the requirement to take strong action through the OAS, the official said the statement was a significant first step.

“If Venezuela continues down the path that it’s on, the notion that it’s going to belong to an organization committed to democratic principles doesn’t make much sense,” the official told Reuters, adding that the United Sates could also consider sanctions. “There are going to be ramifications,” the official said.

Mexico’s decision to openly take a stance on the situation in Venezuela is a shift from a usual preference by Latin America’s second-largest economy not to interfere in other countries’ affairs.

“We should not continue to be indifferent, we cannot continue to be indifferent,” Videgaray said earlier on Thursday, emphasizing that Mexico would respect Venezuela’s sovereignty and act according to international law and in agreement with the countries of the Americas.

Mexico’s change in tack may reflect an effort to have constructive relations with the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly antagonized Mexico.

“Having the Mexicans in the lead is beneficial for us in attracting additional support,” the White House official said.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick and Lesley Wroughton in Washington, David Ljunggren in Ottawa, Daniela Desantis in Asuncion and Girish Gupta and Diego Oré in Caracas; Editing by Matthew Lewis and Leslie Adler)

Democrats set to grill Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

U.S. Supreme Court nominee judge Neil Gorsuch is sworn in to testify at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 20, 2017. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan

By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch faces a grueling day of questioning from Democrats on Tuesday on how he might rule on contentious social issues like abortion and whether he is sufficiently independent from the man who picked him, President Donald Trump.

With the ideological balance of the Supreme Court at stake, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the second day of its confirmation hearing for Gorsuch, a conservative federal appeals court judge from Colorado. Republicans, who control Congress, have praised Gorsuch, 49, as highly qualified for a lifetime appointment as a justice.

Gorsuch appeared genial and composed on Monday in delivering his opening statement, but Tuesday’s questioning by committee members of both parties could cause more drama. Despite slim chances of blocking his nomination in the Republican-led Senate, Democrats have raised questions about Gorsuch’s suitability for the job.

In his opening statement to the panel on Monday, his first public remarks since Trump nominated him on Jan. 31, Gorsuch defended his judicial record, emphasizing the need for “neutral and independent judges to apply the law.”

Democrats outlined their lines of attack in their opening statements on Monday, with some senators saying they would press him on whether he is independent enough from Trump, who has condemned federal judges who have put on hold his two executive orders to ban the entry into the United States of people from several Muslim-majority countries.

Gorsuch will also face questioning over cases he has handled on the appeals court in which corporate interests won out over individual workers.

Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the committee, said she wanted assurances that Gorsuch would not seek to overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States. She and other Democrats are also expected to question Gorsuch on whether he would support gun restrictions, campaign finance laws and environmental regulations.

Like past Supreme Court nominees, Gorsuch will face the task of giving little away about how he might rule in future cases while endeavoring to engage with senators.

Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican chairing the Senate panel, said the committee is likely to vote on the nomination on April 3, with the full Senate vote likely soon after. The hearing could last four days.

If Gorsuch is confirmed by the Senate, as expected, he would restore a narrow 5-4 conservative court majority. The seat has been vacant for 13 months, since the death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia.

The court’s ideological leaning could help determine the outcome of cases involving the death penalty, abortion, gun control, environmental regulations, transgender rights, voting rights, immigration, religious liberty, presidential powers and more.

Republicans hold 52 of the Senate’s 100 seats. Under present rules, Gorsuch would need 60 votes to secure confirmation. If Gorsuch cannot muster 60, Republicans could change the rules to allow confirmation by a simple majority.

Click http://tmsnrt.rs/2nANgEj for graphic on Confirming Gorsuch

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Merkel ally says Turkey’s Erdogan ‘not welcome’ in Germany

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan makes a speech during a meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, March 19, 2017. REUTERS/Murad Sezer

By Andrea Shalal

BERLIN (Reuters) – Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has crossed a line by comparing Berlin’s government to the Nazis and he and other officials are no longer welcome in Germany, a senior ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Tuesday.

The rebuke from Volker Bouffier, vice chairman of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, reflects growing exasperation over Erdogan’s assertions that Germany and other European powers were using Nazi tactics by banning Turkish political rallies in their territories.

“Enough is enough,” said Bouffier, who is also premier of Hesse state where the financial capital Frankfurt is located. “Mr. Erdogan and his government are not welcome in our country, and that must be now be understood,” he told DLF radio.

German media have reported that Erdogan plans to visit Germany this month to rally the estimated 1.4 eligible Turkish voters living here to support a package of new presidential powers in an April 16 referendum.

Bouffier said such a visit would create security problems. “Someone who insults us in this way cannot expect that we will assemble thousands of police to protect him,” he said.

Germany’s government has said it has not received a formal request for a visit by Erdogan.

On Monday, Merkel once again called on Turkey to stop the Nazi comparisons and said Berlin reserved the right to block future appearances by Turkish officials if they did not comply with German law, which explicitly forbids malicious disparagement of the government.

Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the diplomatic note in which Berlin approved further visits by Turkish politicians had an explicit reference to the German law against disparagement.

“If that happens, and there are violations of our laws, then will have to … revoke the note” and approvals of various visits, Gabriel told reporters after a meeting with EU Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans.

Timmermans said EU officials were united in rejecting the Nazi comparisons. “President Erdogan’s comments about Germany and the Netherlands are not allowed. We don’t want to be compared to Nazis,” he said.

Erdogan repeated his criticism of Germany and other European countries on Tuesday, saying today’s “fascist and cruel” Europe resembled the pre-World War Two era.

In Istanbul on Sunday, he said, “Merkel, now you’re applying Nazi methods. Against my brothers who live in Germany, and against my ministers and lawmakers who visit there.”

Reiner Haseloff, another member of Merkel’s CDU and premier of Saxony-Anhalt state, urged Berlin to bar such visits.

“Those who compare us to Nazis are not welcome. That is not acceptable,” he told Die Welt newspaper in an article published on Tuesday. He said Berlin should not rely on local and state governments to make decisions about visits by Turkish politicians as it has up to now.

In his speech on Tuesday, Erdogan said Turkey could no longer be pressured by considerations such as a $6 billion migrant deal under which it agreed to stop illegal migrants from crossing into Greece in exchange for financial aid and accelerated EU membership talks.

EU Commissioner Johannes Hahn told the Bild newspaper in an interview published Tuesday that Turkey’s prospects for joining the EU would be “increasingly unrealistic” unless it changed course and stopped moving away from European values.

Hahn said the EU had repeatedly voiced its concerns about the “increasingly authoritarian path of President Erdogan.”

“Threats are no way to make policies. They make a reasonable dialogue impossible,” he said.

(Reporting by Gernot Heller, Andrea Shalal and Reuters TV in Berlin, and Tuvan Gumrukcu and Ece Toksabay in Istanbul; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

Russia must limit Iranian power in Syria: Israeli intelligence director

FILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Moscow, Russia, March 9, 2017. Sputnik/Mikhail Klimentyev/Kremlin via REUTERS/File Photo

By Luke Baker

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Russia and other world powers must move to limit Iran’s growing military strength in Syria because it poses a regional threat, the director-general of Israel’s Intelligence Ministry told Reuters in an interview.

Israeli officials estimate Iran commands at least 25,000 fighters in Syria, including members of its own Revolutionary Guard, Shi’ite militants from Iraq and recruits from Afghanistan and Pakistan. It also coordinates the activities of the powerful Lebanese militia Hezbollah.

“As we speak, relations between Iran and Syria are getting tighter,” said Chagai Tzuriel, the top civil servant in Israel’s Intelligence Ministry, who spent 27 years in Mossad, including as station chief in Washington.

“Iran is in the process of putting together agreements, including economic agreements, with Syria to strengthen its hold, its ports and naval bases there,” he said in a rare interview. “There is a need for Russia and other powers to work to avoid the threat that Iran ends up with military, air and naval bases in Syria.”

Israel has long warned about the threat from Iran, especially its perceived desire to acquire nuclear weapons, but now sees a rising territorial squeeze, with Tehran’s influence reaching in an arc from Lebanon in the north to Gaza in the south, where it has links to Islamist groups.

Iran maintains it wants a nuclear capability only for domestic energy and scientific research purposes, and has so far largely stuck to the terms of the nuclear deal agreed with the United States and other world powers in 2015.

Tzuriel said the conflict in Syria, now in its seventh year, had created a number of imbalances in the region – whether between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, Iran and Turkey, Kurds and Arabs, Turkey and Syria, Russia and the United States – that needed to be kept contained and shifted back into equilibrium.

A lot of the responsibility for that rests with Russia, which has become the biggest player in the region and is capable of exerting the most influence, he said.

“When it comes to Iran, the United States, Russia and other powers need to understand that (growing Iranian influence in Syria) is going to be a constant source of friction,” said Tzuriel, adding that it could reduce Moscow’s own influence in the region and set back the gains it has made in Syria.

“Russia has a vested interest in keeping that threat contained.”

‘WHAT DO WE WANT?’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has met President Vladimir Putin five times since Sept. 2015, largely in an effort to ensure communications are open and there are no misunderstandings over Syria, where Israeli fighter planes have occasionally bombed targets, including last week. Syria fired a missile in response and Moscow called in Israel’s ambassador to discuss the Israeli raid.

“We don’t view Russia as the enemy and I don’t think they view us as the enemy either,” said Tzuriel, but he suggested Russia would need to work with others, including the United States, to keep a lid on the forces at play in Syria.

“We have to assume that the Russians want stability, they want a Pax Russiana in the region,” he said.

“If they want a stabilization, they can’t do it alone. They need the United States, they need regional powers, they need opposition parties and militias, even those that are not exactly Russia’s cup of tea.”

After a career in intelligence gathering, Tzuriel drew a distinction between intelligence and strategy. After years of conflict and more than 500,000 dead, it was still incumbent on the parties tied to Syria to fix a strategic outcome.

“We have to decide what we want (in Syria) or what we don’t want,” he said. “The main strategic threat right now is what happens in Syria, it is the key arena. There’s no place in the world that has so many elements wrapped up in it.”

(Writing by Luke Baker; Editing by Pravin Char)

Sign up for Jim Bakker Show