Conrad

Passed.

The Federal Budget for the next two fiscal years looks set to pass the House of Representatives. Introduced by Rep. Audrey van Horn, the budget looks to decrease the size of the federal deficit amidst a growing concern that the federal deficit is getting too large, towering over $1tn. A surprise for most political analysts as they were expected a bitter partisan fight over the budget process, but all appears to be calm on the hill as it looks likely to move onto the Senate. The budget as written is mostly devoid of any specific policy proposals side from a provision to reduce foreign aid obligations by half, force medicaid/medicare to negotiate for drug prices and eliminate the overseas contingency fund. The elimination of the overseas contingency fund likely signals the end of most foreign active US missions, such as Syria and Afghanistan ((will be covered in more depth later)). This was likely a trade off with the Democrats agreeing to slash US foreign aid to other countries, though worth noting that Afghanistan receives a large portion of the foreign aid bill. All eyes are on the Senate as more liberal eyes such as Preston Moss look to the foreign aid budget and other budget sections to see if they are in line with Senate Democratic vision. On the other hand, Republican Senators like Mrs Houston has been quite centrist in her approach to many otherwise "conservative" policy points and eyes are on her to see if she will act as a Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski on this latest budget.

Recognized 24 hours for objections

72 hour debate.

Placing a requirement which is impossible to attain for a certain group of people, something like that, or would cause great harm or impediment if sought after. For example, extortionately priced ID cards or other things.

I'd say the best way to group them would be the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

I don't think its unconstitutional to place restrictions to be able to vote, I think where it becomes unconstitutional is if certain groups or people have hurdles placed in front of them which specifically block them from voting.

Article on the budget will come after the denial/confirmation of Mike Lee.

In what respect, Senator?

I won't be the only possible Justice to serve on the court with solely judicial 'nonpartisan' experience. If we look at William Rehnquist and Elena Kagan, who didn't have any prior Judicial experience and indeed served in quasi-political roles in the Department of Justice. As I said before Senator, I don't think it'd be fair to comment specifically on instances such as that.

I don't think we as a country ought to respect one religion at the expense of another or at the expense of those that don't follow any religion whatsoever. Anything with respect to religion like prayer in school and forcing non believers to do it.

By ensuring that the first amendment is applied correctly in cases that come before the court.

I would say that we need to approach this doctrine with caution. It isn't for the court to decide what millions of people around the country vote for our legislators to do, that is to enact the will of the people.

Morality is rather subjective, Senator. But in a general context and what we accept as a society here in America, committing a crime isn't moral?

I think certainly an overturning of precedent represents a jolt to the system. If we look at cases like Korematsu, which we look at today as wrong, it represents a shift in the views of society and indeed the acceptance of society.