Mea culpa de Obama…

Argentina

Newseum.org / Via webmedia.newseum.org

Austria

Newseum.org / Via webmedia.newseum.org

Brazil

Newsuem.org / Via webmedia.newseum.org

Colombia

Newseum.org / Via webmedia.newseum.org

View Entire List ›

6th Circuit Court of Appeals splits with other federal appeals courts, upholding Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee’s bans. The decision sets up a likely Supreme Court showdown over the issue.

Bill Pugliano / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld four states' bans on same-sex couples' marriages on Thursday, splitting with the decision of four other appellate courts and likely setting up a Supreme Court showdown on the issue.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for the 2-1 majority of the court, wrote the opinion upholding the constitutionality of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee's bans.

"When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers," he wrote. "Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way."

Specifically, Sutton wrote that the 6th Circuit — and all "inferior" courts — are still bound by the 1972 decision of the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, in which the court dismissed a same-sex couple's marriage claim "for want of a substantial federal question." Many other courts, including several other appeals courts, have held that Baker is no longer good law in light of the Supreme Court's development of pro-LGBT decisions since then.

Even outside of that, however, of the constitutional claims brought by same-sex couples — including "originalism; rational basis review; animus; fundamental rights; suspect classifications; evolving meaning" — Sutton concluded, "Not one of the plaintiffs' theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters."

Judge Deborah Cook joined Sutton's opinion, while Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey dissented from the decision.

In addressing the majority's opinion, Daughtrey examined the four other appellate opinions — from the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th circuits — before concluding, "[I]t would seem unnecessary for this court to do more than cite those cases in affirming the district courts' decisions in the six cases now before us."

She then added: "Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same- sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens."

In responding to the entire premise of Sutton's ruling in her conclusion, Daughtrey wrote, "If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams."

In the coming days, any of the plaintiffs could ask the Supreme Court to review the decision, which — if the justice take the appeal — could set up a Supreme Court hearing on the issue this coming March and a decision expected by the end of June.

In September, in fact, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussed this possibility, noting that "some urgency" would be added to the issue if the 6th Circuit issued a ruling that differed with the others.

Here's how Judge Sutton sets up the case:

Sutton first found that the 1972 Supreme Court's summary dismissal of a marriage claim in Baker v. Nelson still applies to lower courts:

View Entire List ›

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats are standing firm: Obama must act now, they say. Where the executive actions stand after Tuesday’s electoral drubbing.

A protester at a campaign rally in Maryland last month.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Obama vowed he would take executive action to slow deportations before the end of 2014 — but still has not said when exactly he will do so.

The delay of the long-promised actions until after the election, instead of this summer, was meant to help vulnerable Democrats up for reelection in conservative states. Despite the delay, almost all of those candidates lost, many by wide margins.

Two prominent Democrats have, since Tuesday, floated the possibility of delaying the executive actions further until next year, and give the newly Republican Congress an opportunity to move immigration legislation first.

David Axelrod, Obama's former chief adviser, wrote on Twitter Wednesday that delay could force the GOP hand. "Immigration bill won a huge bipartisan majority in the Senate," he wrote. "POTUS should agree to shelve exec order for up or down vote in House." Axelrod did not respond to an email about the tweet.

On Thursday, former DNC chair and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell suggested April or even June as a potential deadline after which Obama could tell Republicans he'll act if Congress doesn't send him a bill.

"There are two ways I think he could go about it. One, he could impose a timeline now, say if you send me a bill by April of next year, I won't issue an executive order, but here's the executive order I will issue if you don't send me a bill," Rendell said on a conference call hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank. "Or he can issue the executive order now and say, as soon as you send me a bill I'll sign it, and then if I can sign I will sign, obviously it will supercede the executive order."

Rendell participated in an immigration discussion at the White House on Wednesday this week, as part of a Bipartisan Policy Center delegation. Officials with the group said Rendell's views were his own and not the group's.

Obama and the White House have insisted over and over since the election that executive action is still very much on the table. The White House did not respond directly to Rendell and Axelrod, but pointed to the many public statements from White House principles since the polls closed on Tuesday night. The central message: executive action isn't the end of the process, it's just a piece of it. If Republicans want to negate it with legislation, Obama's ready to, in the words of White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, "tear up" the executive order.

Likewise, Congressional Democrats are still standing by calls for executive action — nothing, they say, has changed since Tuesday's Republican wave.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal told BuzzFeed News a priority for Obama should be using his "well-established" executive authority to protect the parents of undocumented youth brought to the country as children, known as DREAMers.

"Steps such as deferring action against parents of DREAMers and U.S. citizens. Immigrants who are law-abiding, hardworking, tax-paying parents of people who will remain in this country so that families can be kept together and there's precedent for it," he said, pointing to the "Family Fairness" policy implemented by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Administration officials in the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department are currently in the process of making final recommendations to the White House for potential executive actions.

Among their considerations is the question of whether the actions should extend de facto legal status to the parents of DREAMers — a measure that would have a dramatic impact on the number of undocumented immigrants covered by the actions.

Advocates reached by BuzzFeed News since Tuesday's election have said they are urging Senate leadership including Sens. Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, and Bob Menendez to act in unison and call on the president to protect as many undocumented immigrants as possible from deportation administratively.

"If House Republicans want to finally come to the table to pass a bill, we are ready to work with them," Reid's office said in a statement. "But because Republicans have continued to block immigration reform, the president shouldn't delay actions that will improve the functioning of our immigration system in a way that supports families, workers and business."

Speaker John Boehner, who has in the past said immigration should be considered by the House, said Thursday that if Obama takes executive action, it "will poison the well" and there will be "no chance" for a legislative effort.

Whether the administration really has the authority to take executive action has been a continued point of contention with Republicans since the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals measure that extended protections to some undocumented immigrants.

Republican inaction, Democrats maintained on Thursday, continues to be the reason why Obama should do the opposite: take executive action now and not wait for legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress.

"The fact is, Republicans are responsible for the immigration impasse we are in, and I continue to believe the president must step in now and offer big, bold administrative relief for the millions stuck in the shadows," Menendez said in a statement. "I am encouraged that the president recognizes there is a cost to waiting and has reiterated his commitment to using his executive authority to act on immigration. In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform legislation, we look forward to the president acting as soon as possible."

"Durbin's position has not changed," said spokesman Ben Marter. "He strongly supports president Obama taking administrative action to stop the deportation of undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for years and have not committed serious crimes."

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer gave his first comments on the issue since the election to BuzzFeed News, calling for Obama to deliver strong administrative actions.

"It is not only the morally right thing to do, but it will increase America's competitiveness and provide certainty to businesses," he said in a statement. "The president has the support of a wide range of interests, including the business community, agriculture community, labor, and the faith community, and I am hopeful he will take action soon."

Hoyer added that executive action is no substitute for congressional action and he will continue to support an overhaul.

A senior House Democratic aide said specifics for Obama should include extending deferred action to the parents and caregivers of deferred action recipients, allowing DREAMers to serve in the military, permitting the parents of children born in the U.S. to stay here, and/or limiting the role that local governments have in helping to enforce federal immigration statutes. Importantly, the aide added that, if one or several of these items was not included in the actions, Democrats' support would not be diminished.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez — who Wednesday reiterated his call for Obama to protect 5 to 8 million undocumented immigrants — responded to the Democratic leaders supporting prompt and robust administrative action.

"Congressman Gutierrez thinks the president should go big, go broad, and go soon and he welcomes the fact that other Democrats are saying the same thing," his spokesman said. "It is important to the security, economy and well-being of the country – and the success of the policy – to go as big as the law allows the president to go."

Also on Thursday, a broad coalition of organizations that support prompt administrative action including National Council of La Raza (NCLR), UWD, NILC, Church World Service, the SEIU and AFL-CIO unions, and others, held an event asking for Obama "to expand immediate relief from deportations for millions of workers and families that are already a part of our American communities."

A potential delay, unsurprisingly, is a nonstarter among immigration activists who were apoplectic when Obama delayed his executive action until after the election at the behest of red state Democrats, many of whom lost on Tuesday night.

"Literally my first reaction is don't pee on my leg and tell me that it's raining," said Gabriela Domenzain, director of Hispanic press outreach for Obama's 2012 campaign, when asked about Axelrod's tweet. "if [the Republicans] want to do something, they can do their job and legislate. [Obama] has done everything to get them to the table."

Speaking of the reaction of the immigrant rights movement as a whole, Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center said, "As soon as that gets floated out there we will pounce on that and make it clear that the administration can not listen to that."

For now, no one in immigration circles seems to be taking Axelrod's or Rendell's suggestion of delay very seriously. Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which represents the center-right push for immigration legislation with its Bibles, Badges, and Business coalition, said his members want executive action on the table. He's not advocating the White House delay executive action until the Republicans take over on Capitol Hill.

"If you have a bird in hand, you take it," he said.

Update: Couples from the Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee marriage cases all will be seeking Supreme Court review. BuzzFeed News talks with the lawyers for the same-sex couples in all four states’ cases.

Bill Pugliano / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — From Michigan and Ohio to Kentucky and Tennessee, same-sex couples and their lawyers were reeling Thursday after the decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the states' bans on marriages, reversing lower court decisions.

Almost immediately, though, the question turned to what's next.

On Thursday evening, lawyers from cases in all four states talked with BuzzFeed News about the next steps, with multiple attorneys saying that a call is planned for Friday so that the four teams of lawyers can confer about Thursday's decision and steps forward.

Lawyers in all four cases told BuzzFeed News they plan to appeal the three-judge ruling — but not everyone has decided what the path forward should look like. The plaintiffs could either ask the full 6th Circuit to rehear the case, called an en banc rehearing, or they could go directly to the Supreme Court and file a petition for a writ of certiorari, the formal way the court agrees to hear an appeal.

The decision, of course, has an impact outside of the four states, as a Supreme Court decision — should the court take a case — would have nationwide impact, and some advocates are still hoping to see that happen this term, which would mean a decision expected by June 2015.

Some were ready on Thursday evening already to say that they will be skipping the en banc step and heading straight to the Supreme Court. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Michigan case, which is seeking full marriage rights, and the Ohio case, which solely involves seeking recognition of same-sex couples' marriages granted elsewhere, tell BuzzFeed News they plan to file cert petitions in the Supreme Court in the coming weeks.

Al Gerhardstein, representing Ohio's James Obergefell, said he will be filing a cert petition at the Supreme Court, hopefully by next Friday, Nov. 14. Dana Nessel said that she would be doing the same on behalf of her Michigan clients, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, although she did not lay out a timeline for the filing.

"Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg said they were waiting for a split on this issue — and they certainly have that now," Nessel said.

Lawyers for the Kentucky and Tennessee cases, on the other hand, said they have not made a decision which route to take — although Dan Canon, the lawyer for the Kentucky plaintiffs, said, "All signs point to a petition for certiorari without seeking en banc or a petition for rehearing."

Shannon Minter, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights who is one of the attorneys in the Tennessee case, said only that they have "a whole team of counsel and we are talking in the near future," but that no decision had been made.

Canon, while expressing confidence in his case, said he was not ready yet to shut the door on the possibility of requesting an en banc rehearing, noting, "I think it would be foolish of anyone to be overconfident in taking this to the Supreme Court."

But Gerhardstein, the Ohio lawyer, wants to move ahead — and he wants everyone else to come with him.

"If they think they want to go en banc, I'm going to talk them out of it," he said. "If we move quickly, and we're all coordinated … the goal [would be] to be heard this term — and I think the country needs it."

If the cases split paths, with some choosing an en banc route, the move could, theoretically, slow things down. If, say, the Tennessee plaintiffs file for an en banc rehearing, the Supreme Court justices could hold any other states' marriage petitions until the 6th Circuit decides whether to hear the case en banc.

That delay, particularly if the 6th Circuit declines to hear the case en banc, wouldn't necessarily last a long time. But it could be long enough to mean that the Supreme Court wouldn't get around to deciding whether to hear one of the other cases until it is too late for the case to be heard this term. Such a decision would then push the selected case into the next term, which begins in October 2015.

Gerhardstein and Nessel want to avoid that, with Nessel saying, "These couples deserve some finality, an answer to this question."

View Entire List ›

“I sure as heck hope we’re running against Hillary Clinton,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus says.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus Friday blamed Congressional unwillingness to take up broad immigration changes on President Obama, arguing the administration has created an environment "that will not allow the legislature to move forward unless the border is secure."

Speaking to reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Priebus said the current climate in Congress is a direct result Obama's on-again, off-again plan to unilaterally change deportation policies and what the RNC chairman insisted was a politicization of the issue by the president.

"What that's done is unify the country and unify the electorate around one big principle, which is we've got to secure the border," Priebus argued, charging that the "president has been using people as political pawns and lying to people … the problem we have is we can't really believe anything the president says on immigration."

Priebus also said that any chance of immigration legislation passing would be killed if Obama moves forward with executive actions to defer deportations of potentially millions of undocumented people living in the country.

"In our mind, [that is] a nuclear threat. To reject the separation of powers doctrine," Priebus said. "What he's telling the American people is that he doesn't really care about Republicans and democrats getting together and he's just going to stick it to Republicans."

Priebus' comments are similar to those of Speaker John Boehner, who Thursday warned against executive action on immigration.

Meanwhile on the 2016 presidential contest, Priebus indicated he will likely remain as RNC chair, and said unlike in past years when the committee dismantled its field operations following a midterm election, he's keeping it in place as a foundation for the next campaign.

"We need to have a full blown field operation by March in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. That is an extremely hard thing to do," given how little money the committee has immediately on hand, Priebus said. But Republican funders appear to be content with helping keep the national infrastructure in place, Priebus said, because of the party's successes on Tuesday.

Priebus also said he thinks former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gives Republicans the best chance at taking the White House in 2016, in part because she unifies Republicans and in part because she is a weaker candidate that the conventional wisdom would hold.

"I sure as heck hope we're running against Hillary Clinton. I think what you saw on Tuesday was about as plat a performance as you could see from the democrat party's brightest star," Priebus said.

A second ruling in the state this week. [Update: Same-sex couples are marrying Friday in Jackson County, Missouri.]

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday declared Missouri's ban on same-sex couples' marriages unconstitutional, echoing a state court's conclusion earlier this week.

U.S. District Court Judge Ortrie Smith, a 1995 appointee of President Clinton, ruled that the ban violates the fundamental right to marriage and violates equal protection because it discriminates on the basis of sex.

Notably, Smith did not decide the case on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, finding that a prior decision of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals — in which appeals from federal courts in Missouri are heard — limited sexual orientation-based claims.

The decision orders the director of the Jackson County Department of Recorder of Deeds to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Earlier this week, a state court judge ruled that Missouri officials couldn't stop St. Louis officials from allowing same-sex couples to marry.

View Entire List ›

Lynch, the Brooklyn federal prosecutor, would be the first black woman to be attorney general.

Lucas Jackson / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama will nominate U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder on Saturday morning.

Lynch, the chief federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York, would be the first black woman to serve as the nation's top law enforcement officer.

"Ms. Lynch is a strong, independent prosecutor who has twice led one of the most important U.S. Attorney's Offices in the country," Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement Friday evening. "She will succeed Eric Holder, whose tenure has been marked by historic gains in the areas of criminal justice reform and civil rights enforcement."

The Alliance for Justice, a generally progressive group that tracks judicial and other legal nominations, strongly backed Lynch for the role.

"In addition to handling major cases involving everything from police brutality to cybercrime, Lynch is a key policy advisor to Eric Holder. We are confident that Lynch will build on Holder's strong legacy of standing up for civil rights and ensuring equal justice for all Americans," AFJ president Nan Aron said in a statement. "We call on Ms. Lynch to take a leading role in addressing the Supreme Court's repeated efforts to deny access to the courts and the ballot box."

The nomination was initially reported by CNN on Friday. Administration officials said early Friday evening that Obama would nominate Lynch on Saturday.

At the regular press briefing Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined to comment on the report and said no attorney general decision has been made.

"I know that there is a lot of attention around some news reports indicating that the president's prepared to announce his nominee to be the next attorney general," he said. "The president has not made a decision on that, and we're not going to have any personnel announcements on that matter at all today."

Latino advocacy groups have been pressuring the White House to nominate Labor Secretary Tom Perez to replace Holder. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., the Justice Department's top Supreme Court lawyer, also has been discussed as a possible pick.

Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials — one of the groups that pushed Perez's name for the attorney general job — said he was "disappointed" Perez didn't get the nomination. But he said Lynch was someone Latino advocates can work with, and he didn't expect much public outcry from the Latino groups that pushed Perez.

"There's no net loss here," Vargas said, noting there are three Latino members of Obama's cabinet. "Perez remains as Labor Secretary."

Perez was a former head of the Department of Justice's civil rights division and had a background that energized civil rights advocates. Lynch has had less experience with voting rights and some of the other key points of focus for Holder's Department of Justice, but a former assistant to Perez while he led the civil rights division said Lynch has the record to continue on the issues Holder has focused on.

"I doubt it will mean much of a change," Samuel Bagenstos, now a professor at University of Michigan law school, wrote in an email. "Lynch's office has one of the more active civil rights units of any US Attorney's office, and I think she's been very supportive of their work."

Adam Serwer contributed reporting.

Ice cream.

Twitter was abuzz this week when Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent this strange tweet about Dairy Queen.

Now, Sen. Grassley is explaining what he meant by "u kno what."

youtube.com

View Entire List ›

The justices agree to hear challenge by conservatives to subsidies under the federal health exchange.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Wading back into the partisan fight over Obamacare, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear conservatives' challenge to the subsidies provided for under the law.

The question is whether the subsidies are permitted in the states that rely on the federal health exchange, which the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled was the case.

The case, King v. Burwell, centers around whether the Affordable Care Act and a subsequent IRS rule make subsidies available to people using the federal exchange — as opposed to only being available under state exchanges.

The government argues the law said that the government could do this. In July, the three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit said the law is ambiguous and the regulation allowed for it, and therefore that the subsidies given to individuals purchasing health care through the federal exchange are permitted by the law.

Another three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion. The full court there agreed to rehear the case en banc next month (in other words, the full court will rehear it). Because of that decision, there was not the traditional circuit split — or disagreement between appeals courts — that the justices generally wait for before taking up a case.

The justices also agreed to take a procedural case about whether district courts can allow additional time for "service of process."

View Entire List ›

“Congress should never have recessed prior to the elections while a new war was getting underway, and it must not compound this abdication of its Constitutional duty by failing to take up a war authorization during the lame duck session,” Rep. Adam Schiff says of decision.

Larry Downing / Reuters

WASHINGTON — House Speaker John Boehner told President Barack Obama on Friday that Republicans would work with the administration on a new authorization of military force against ISIS — but not until next year and only after the White House formally proposes its own version.

There is growing momentum in Congress to either replace or significantly rework the 2001 Authorized Use of Military Force law that has been the basis of ongoing anti-terror efforts around the world. On Wednesday, Obama acknowledged the need for new authority, urging Congress to "update" the law to reflect the new fight against ISIS.

During a meeting with Obama and a bipartisan group of House and Senate leaders, Boehner told the president that he was open to addressing the AUMF, but "reminded him that historically the commander-in-chief has identified the need for the use of military force, written a new AUMF, sent it to Capitol Hill, and worked to build bipartisan support for its passage. The Ohio Republican "urged the president to do so in this case, and said that if he does, House Republicans will be ready to work with him to get it approved," according to a readout of the meeting provided by Boehner's office.

Following the meeting, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters that Boehner had also warned that votes on a new AUMF wouldn't happen until next year. In the past, Boehner has indicated he'd prefer to have newly elected members involved in the debate, rather than pushing it through during the upcoming lameduck session.

That decision angered Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the Intelligence Committee and a proponent of writing a new, tailored AUMF. "Congress should never have recessed prior to the elections while a new war was getting underway, and it must not compound this abdication of its Constitutional duty by failing to take up a war authorization during the lame duck session," Schiff said in a statement. "I'm deeply disappointed that the Speaker appears determined to defer any real debate over the war until next year."

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Kansas’ request to keep marriages on hold during any attempted appeal by the state.

WASHINGTON — The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stop same-sex couples from being able to marry in Kansas starting next week in a brief order filed on Friday.

Absent Supreme Court action in the coming days, a trial court ruling from earlier this week finding that Kansas' ban on same-sex couples' marriages is unconstitutional will go into effect at 5 p.m. Nov. 11.

The 10th Circuit, earlier this year, ruled in challenges to Utah and Oklahoma's bans that such laws are unconstitutional, decisions that the Supreme Court let stand when they turned down the states' request to hear appeals of the cases on Oct. 6.

Applying the 10th Circuit's precedent, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Crabtree found that Kansas' ban could not stand either. He put the ruling on hold until Nov. 11 to allow the state time to seek a stay if it wished to do so — which it did.

Judges Carlos Lucero and Robert Bacharach issued the order denying Kansas' request for a longer stay, writing, "We conclude that defendants have failed to make the showings necessary to obtain a stay, and we deny the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal."

As such, same-sex couples likely will be able to marry in Kansas later on Tuesday, Nov. 11, or, if no offices remain open past 5 p.m., then on Wednesday, Nov. 12.

The court's conclusion:

View Entire List ›

“I don’t think we want to specify that we’re going to be steady at a very specific number.”

Stringer/Iraq / Reuters

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials on Friday wouldn't set a limit on the number of troops that may eventually be sent to Iraq, after the administration announced that it would be doubling the number of U.S. military personnel there.

"The limit that we've placed, again, as I've said, is more on the mission, the limiting principle that this is not a combat mission," a senior administration official told reporters on a conference call on Friday after being asked if the U.S. would place a limit on the number of troops it plans to send. "In terms of numbers, I don't think we want to specify that we're going to be steady at a very specific number. That's both because there could be troops rotating home as well, or we'll assess whether there need to be additional advisers based on judgments on the ground going forward."

"I would say that there was a very deliberate effort here to look at the comprehensive needs across the country and then to put forward a significant number that matched those needs," the official said, adding that the administration "wanted to be transparent" about the fact that a "significant" number of personnel were needed this time.

"I'm not anticipating there being additional requirements on the horizon in terms of personnel, but I also don't want to suggest that we're going to set a specific ceiling with respect to U.S. personnel."

The Obama administration announced on Friday that it would be increasing the number of U.S. military personnel on the ground in Iraq by 1,500, for the purposes of training and advising Iraqi security forces and Kurdish forces to fight ISIS. The move will almost double the amount of U.S. troops there, which currently stands at 1,400.

LINK: U.S. Military To Send Up To 1,500 Additional Troops To Iraq

It was a concert for the troops before Veterans Day. Hat tip to Ryan Cormier .

View Video ›

This really did happen.

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Democrats can’t make their case to the country when a presidential nominee isn’t on the ballot. “We’ve got to do better.”

The head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said in a video released Saturday that the party would be conducting a "top-to-bottom assessment of how we can do better" in midterm elections.

Democrats lost key races across the map on Tuesday.

Some are still undecided. But Republicans picked up a minimum of seven seats in the Senate, 10 in the House, and two governorships.

Democratic National Committee / YouTube

"Our party has a problem," said Wasserman Schultz. "We know we're right on the issues. The American people believe in the causes we're fighting for."

"But the electoral success we have when our presidential nominee is able to make a case to the country as a whole doesn't translate to other elections. That's why we lost in 2010. And it's why we lost on Tuesday. We've got to do better."

Wasserman Schultz said the DNC would form a committee of "key party stakeholders and experts" to conduct an "examination of what went wrong" and how Democrats can do a better job of "connecting in midterm elections."

The review would be a "top-to-bottom assessment of how we can do better in future midterm elections like these," she said.

Wasserman Schultz said the results of the study would be released by early next year, before the DNC's annual winter meeting.

After Republicans lost the presidential election in 2012, the head of their national committee, Reince Priebus, announced a similar overhaul effort.

The GOP "autopsy report," a 100-page document released last year, suggested Republicans embrace immigration reform and create "a tone that 'welcomes in'" minority communities.

“We were married, not married, married, not married,” Sophy Jesty says of her fight to force Tennessee to recognize her marriage to Val Tanco. “Right now, our family remains legally divided.”

Via knoxnews.com

WASHINGTON — While the focus on same-sex couples' marriage rights in the nation's capital has centered around whether and when the Supreme Court will take on the issue, Val Tanco and Sophy Jesty presented another side of the story when they talked with reporters in video published Friday by the Knoxville News-Sentinel, in Knoxville, Tennessee.

"I was with a sick baby at home," Tanco said, when asked where she was when she found out that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court's decision in their case and upheld the constitutionality of Tennessee's ban on recognizing her marriage to Jesty.

"And I was at work," Jesty added, saying that Tanco had texted her with the news.

After a reporter noted that the couple — who married in New York before moving to Tennessee — was considered married by Tennessee when their daughter, Amelia, was born, the very real impact of the back-and-forth decisions of courts across the nation in the past years was made succinctly clear.

"Now, we're not married in this state, which, it's been this way for the past couple months. We were married, not married, married, not married," Jesty said. "Right now, our family remains legally divided."

"There's always hope when there's not an answer yet, so having the definite answer was sad, was hard," Tanco said of the three-month wait for the ruling from the 6th Circuit.

Via knoxnews.com

"My name is on her birth certificate," Jesty said of Amelia, adding, "hopefully they won't ask for that back." In light of the fact that their marriage is not recognized currently, however, she noted, "Right now, I don't have any legal rights over Amelia."

"We're dependent on the goodwill of people we don't know," Tanco said, adding, "We've had nothing but support here in Knoxville ... and I would like to think that, yes, Sophy would be allowed to make decisions for both myself and Amelia, but I would like to have the legal backup to that, I would like to be 100% sure that that's the way it is going to go."

And, though the couple laughed when asked if they had ever considered whether their case might go to the Supreme Court, there was no doubt Friday that the focus was clearly on that next step — and the national impact a decision would have.

"So many families that are in limbo or don't have rights would just immediately be taken care of by a Supreme Court decision in our favor," Jesty said.

Saying that she is "hopeful that they do take it this term," Jesty added, "otherwise we have to wait another year, and of course that's another year that we're living with our family, and Amelia's growing up, that I would really just like to have us legally recognized."

View Entire List ›

While several progressive, particularly civil rights groups, praised Obama’s nomination of U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to be the next attorney general, the American Civil Liberties Union was silent.

U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch, President Obama's attorney general nominee, speaks in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on November 8, 2014.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Obama's rushed announcement on Saturday morning that he has picked U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch as his nominee to succeed Attorney General Eric Holder was met with laudatory news releases from many on the left.

One notable group is missing from the praise for the Brooklyn prosecutor: the American Civil Liberties Union. In the past, the group has clashed with the Obama administration's Justice Department on national security and press freedom issues.

Although the head of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office recently spoke with BuzzFeed News about the future of the Justice Department, the group has been silent about Lynch.

"[W]e're not going to issue a statement or do interviews about her," a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News Saturday in response to a Friday evening request for comment, adding that Buzzfeed News would be informed if the group decided to speak out.

Among those who issued support for Lynch's nomination were the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the Human Rights Campaign — all civil rights groups that have generally supported Holder's tenure.

At some point in the next two years, the pollsters and ad makers who steer American presidential campaigns will be stumped: The nightly tracking polls are showing a dramatic swing in the opinions of the electorate, but neither of two typical factors — huge news or a major advertising buy — can explain it. They will, eventually, realize that the viral, mass conversation about politics on Facebook and other platforms has finally emerged as a third force in the core business of politics, mass persuasion.

Facebook is on the cusp — and I suspect 2016 will be the year this becomes clear — of replacing television advertising as the place where American elections are fought and won. The vast new network of some 185 million Americans opens the possibility, for instance, of a congressional candidate gaining traction without the expense of television, and of an inexpensive new viral populism. The way people share will shape the outcome of the presidential election. Even during the 2014 midterms, which most Americans ignored, Facebook says it saw 43 million unique individuals engage in the political conversation. Now a rawly powerful video may reach far more voters in a few hours than a multimillion-dollar ad buy; and it will reach them from trusted sources — their friends — not via suspect, one-way channels.

And so we at BuzzFeed News are deeply excited to have nearly exclusive access (it's shared with a broadcast partner, ABC News) to a powerful new window into the largest political conversation in America. This data will be drawn from a Facebook project working in the tricky field of "sentiment analysis," the attempt to analyze people's feelings based on what they write, which we think may be the most important new source of political data in the 2016 elections. This project will allow BuzzFeed News reporters to ask Facebook for data on, for instance, how Iowans feel about Hillary Clinton, or which Republican candidate appears to be best liked by women.

The field of sentiment analysis is as famous for its pitfalls as for any successes. Sentiment analysis has been bad at detecting sarcasm, for instance. But there's good reason to think that if anyone can pull this off, it will be Facebook. First, it has access to a far, far larger sample of natural language than any other social network. What's more, that carries with it contextual data that can serve as a point of departure for sentiment analysis — the field, in particular, that allows people to include how they're feeling or what they're doing when they post status updates. And third, Facebook quite simply has some of the best data scientists in the world, and has built a company on a deep and comprehensive understanding of user data. We're also comfortable with Facebook's approach to its users' privacy with this data, which is anonymous and aggregate, with no data available for groups of interactions under 1,000.

Justine Zwiebel / BuzzFeed News

The Facebook sentiment data BuzzFeed News will have access to is a new window into not just what Americans are talking about, but which way their sentiment is moving.

Some details from the first simple cut of sentiment data we got, spanning Oct. 26 to Nov. 5: Clinton, the most discussed Democrat on Facebook, and Warren have almost identical sentiment ratings — 57% positive and 40% negative for Clinton; 56% positive and 40% negative for Warren.

Fascinatingly, Joe Biden, though subject of just a quarter Clinton's volume of conversation, is also viewed in a warmer light, with 67% of the conversation about him positive — a hint of the sort of politician, raw and authentic and occasionally stumbling, who thrives in this new medium.

On the Republican side, Chris Christie is the most discussed figure, but the results are far more mixed: 47% of the sentiment is positive, 45% negative. The twist: The conversation about Christie is far more negative inside his home state of New Jersey than outside it — just 33% positive in the state, but 52% positive outside it. The most warmly viewed Republicans are Condoleezza Rice and Paul Ryan. Sentiment about Jeb Bush, meanwhile, is underwater.

BuzzFeed News' staff, led on this project by political editor Katherine Miller and data editor Jeremy Singer-Vine and their teams, will be diving deep into this data over the next two years. We anticipate bringing our readers and the broader web both daily updates and more complex news and analyses, always treating the data with analytical rigor, and comparing it with public polling and other sources of information. The data will be granular enough to see trends among and between states, between men and women inside states, and among age groups.

The Facebook sentiment data isn't a substitute for polling, in part because the huge sample of Americans on Facebook still isn't co-extensive with the electorate, but the sentiment data has the potential to be an important and telling complement to it.

We are devoting resources to this sentiment data set because of its place in the broad and evolving shift in American politics toward the social web.

This shift is not just about Facebook. First, starting about 10 years ago, political organizing and small-dollar fundraising moved to email, a good channel for politicians to communicate directly with their most loyal supporters. Then the inside conversation moved to the social web first, with the abrupt shift from the political blogosphere to Twitter in 2009 and 2010.

Candidates, however, have struggled to take the third and most vital element of politics — mass persuasion — to the web, and remain reliant on the dusty 30-second television ad, blasted out to voters in the least targeted way imaginable.

What is beginning to dawn on campaigns is that persuasion works differently when it relies on sharing. It is a political truism that people are most likely to believe what their friends and neighbors tell them, a truth that explains everything from sophisticated and earnest door-knocking efforts to malign email-forward whispering campaigns. And the social conversation favors things that generations of politicians have been trained to avoid: spontaneity, surprise, authenticity, humor, raw edge, the occasional human stumble. (Joe Biden!) As mobile becomes increasingly central to the social web, I suspect that more voters in 2016 will be persuaded by a video in their Facebook mobile browsers than by any other medium.

This isn't a change in how the same politicians and campaigns distribute the same old media. It's a deeper change in which politicians will thrive. Platforms have always shaped presidential politics — think of John F. Kennedy's native grasp of television — and the 2016 election has the potential to be another turning point.

A few modern politicians appear to have a real feel for the raw emotion and, sometimes, (apparent) spontaneity that people will want to share. Elizabeth Warren's blunt and casual economic 2011 tirade and Ted Cruz's theatrical confrontations (and even his own low-production-value cell phone videos) are the beginnings of that viral populism for which the social web has opened a real space.

BuzzFeed News' new project with Facebook sentiment data will tell us and our readers how this new viral politics affects the Americans it reaches. And the stakes, the presidency, are as high as they get.

“The buck stops right here at my desk,” the president told CBS News.

President Barack Obama says he bears responsibility for the Democrats’ poor performance during last week’s midterm elections, which saw Republicans take control of the Senate.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

"We got beat," Obama told reporter Bob Schieffer in an interview on Sunday with the CBS News program Face The Nation.

"The buck stops right here at my desk. And so whenever, as the head of the party, it doesn't do well, I've got to take responsibility for it," he said.

"The message that I took from this election, and we've seen this in a number of elections, successive elections, is people want to see this city work. And they feel as if it's not working."

"They see Washington gridlocked and they're frustrated. And they know one person in Washington and that's the president of the United States. So I've got to make this city work better for them," he said.

Many Republicans campaigned to victory by linking their Democratic opponents to the president, who is suffering low approval ratings.

The head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, said in a video released Saturday that the party would be conducting a "top-to-bottom assessment of how we can do better" in midterm elections.

Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson weigh in on the Iran talks, the peace process, and more. Saban says Israel should take military action if the West negotiates a nuclear deal with Iran that will be bad for Israel.

Haim Saban

AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File

Sheldon Adelson

Yuya Shino / Reuters / Reuters

WASHINGTON — Major Democratic donor Haim Saban said on Sunday that if he were running Israel he would "bomb the living daylights" out of Iran if the current nuclear negotiations produce a bad deal for Israel.

Speaking at a conference of the Israeli American Council at the Washington Hilton opposite Republican casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, Saban said that if he were in the shoes of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the event of a deal with Iran that he judged to be dangerous with Israel, "I would bomb the living daylights out of these sons of bitches."

Saban, a major Obama donor in 2012 and Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008, also expressed deep skepticism of Obama's policy towards Iran.

"At the moment we could have increased the sanctions, we decreased them, and that was a mistake in my view," he said.

He said that he hopes Sen. Lindsey Graham's proposed bill to vote yes or no on the potential Iran deal will pass, and that "We should have taken some steps to show that we, the United States, mean business." The military option, he said, needs to be "a real option and not lip service."

If he were Netanyahu in the event of a bad Iran deal, "First of all I'd come to the full realization we're screwed maybe."

Saban said he believes Obama will be a "foreign policy president" in the last two years of his time in office because the new Republican congress will make it hard for him to get things done domestically.

Adelson was one of the biggest donors to the Republican side during the midterm elections this year; it was reported that he was planning to spend up to $100 million during the cycle.

In a rare joint public appearance, Adelson and Saban discussed the peace process, the Iranian nuclear negotiations, the Boycott, Divestment Sanctions movement, and joked (or seemed to joke) about buying the New York Times together to produce more positive journalism about Israel. They are two of the most influential donors in American politics; Adelson is a major funder of Republican causes and candidates, and Saban, an Israeli-American, was once the top donor to the Democratic Party. Adelson and Saban are both backing the Israeli American Council, which hosted the event.

The two seemed to share a rapport and agreed on many issues, though Adelson presented a harder line on the peace process, saying that the "so-called Palestinians" are an "invented people" and that Israel should build a "big wall" to separate itself from them.

"It is not about granting a Palestinian state," Saban said, in defense of the two-state solution. "It's about securing the future of a democratic Israel."

"You are committing demographic suicide," Adelson argued. "Israel can no longer live if you say we want to live as a democracy."

They weighed in on the BDS movement, which says it wants to end the occupation by getting individuals and institutions to boycott Israeli goods and divest from Israeli companies. Saban said he is working with the Israeli foreign ministry to work on a plan to counter BDS, and Adelson said he's had conversations with the Israeli American Council about "forming a consortium of pro-Israel and pro-Jewish community organizations that can together man a battle group to fight against BDS."

They lamented what they view as an anti-Israel bias in the American media, and talked about how easy it would be to buy major newspapers together. Both already have influence with specific news organizations; Adelson owns the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom, and Saban is chairman of Spanish-language television station Univision.

"I wish that Jeff Bezos didn't buy the Washington Post because it would have been nice for you and I to have bought it, Sheldon," Saban said. "Two hundred and fifty million? Bupkis! He stole it."

"Why don't you and I go after the New York Times?" Adelson said. "There's only one way to buy it. Money."

View Entire List ›

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says the rules as written would “needlessly restrict competition.”

Carlo Allegri / Reuters

In a letter last Friday to the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) obtained by BuzzFeed News, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman took a formal stand against a proposed rule that would largely limit the way app-based car services like Uber and Lyft operate in New York.

Schneiderman wrote that the proposed rules, as written, would unfairly limit competition. "From a competitive standpoint, these advances may lower the costs of entry for new for-hire vehicle services and encourage existing services to compete more effectively for both drivers and passengers."

The proposed ruling — which would prevent a base from dispatching a driver that was affiliated with another base (unless there was a formal agreement between the two bases) — would effectively limit Lyft's supply of drivers to the 10 that are affiliated with the company's base in New York. The one way around this is if other bases agree to allow their drivers to also drive for Lyft.

Ultimately, Schneiderman said that the mandate to pen formal agreements between competitors could have serious legal ramifications.

"Requiring agreements between competitors raises serious antitrust issues. Ultimately the proposed rule is likely to lead to market consolidation around a small number of the best-capitalized and most well-known services, whether large existing firms or well-financed newcomers. This market concentration will hurt consumers, who can expect fares to increase and service to decline. If this anticompetitive outcome followed from collusion in the industry, it would be illegal. It is no less disturbing as a product of regulatory action," the letter reads.

During a public hearing in October, Lyft argued to the TLC that requiring an agreement between two bases would encourage companies, like Uber, with more capital and resources to "lure drivers away from other bases" and eventually monopolize the for-hire vehicle industry.

"Here's what I think is going to happen," David Estrada, Lyft's vice president of government relations, told the TLC. "We are going to be forced to go lure the drivers to leave their affiliated base and go work with us, so we go and we lure these drivers with bonus payments … At the end of the day, the largest player — I will not name names — who is the most well capitalized even though they don't like this rule, they're incentivized by this rule to pay very, very large bonus payments to get enough drivers to affiliate with them."

Despite the obvious advantage, Uber also argued against the proposed ruling at last month's hearing.

"We don't regulate competitors out of business," Josh Mohrer, Uber's general manager in New York, told BuzzFeed News in an interview last week. "Uber doesn't do that. They can say what they want about us. The bottom line is we intentionally veer away from any kind of like regulatory manipulation that would put competitors out of business. It's not how you compete. It's not good for consumers, it's not good for drivers, it's really bad for everybody. That's not how we want to win."

Uber argued that one-third of its current drivers were part-time drivers and would be forced to pick between their current bases or transferring to one of Uber's bases permanently. That's 3,000 drivers, Mohrer said.

"If the rule is passed 3,000 drivers fall off the system and they'll be forced to pick, some will pick us but some won't," Mohrer told BuzzFeed News. "Sixty-five percent of the drivers we have with us weren't with us in July. The whole make up of our supply base has changed a lot. A lot of part-timers have come in."

In his letter, Schneiderman echoed many of Uber's own arguments and pointed to reduced wait times for passengers as well as less downtime for drivers between trips (so that drivers have the ability to pick up more jobs).

Black car and other car service companies as well as many full-time drivers of either Uber or Lyft are likely to be upset by Schneiderman's stance, given that many of them sent representatives to speak in support of the proposed ruling at the public hearing. Both the TLC and the companies cited concerns for accountability in that when a driver who drivers for more than one company is being dispatched it is not always clear which base he is driving for and thus can't be accounted for in terms of insurance or quality assurance.

In response to the original objective of the proposed rulings, Schneiderman suggested an alternative approach: "…allow drivers to formally affiliate with multiple bases, providing that each base is a member of the same worker's compensation scheme (e.g. the Black Car Fund.) This would avoid gaps in coverage. It would also ensure that the Commission has a record of which companies are affiliated with which vehicles, allowing the agency to effectively follow-up after a crash or consumer complaint."

The TLC postponed voting on the proposed rules at the last hearing in the face of an influx of opposing comments, it is not clear when the commission will choose to make a decision.