“It wasn’t part of the list of the things that I might do in my lifetime,” April DeBoer says of her trip to the Supreme Court for Tuesday’s marriage arguments.

Jayne Rowse, left, and April DeBoer, right, pose with their adopted children Jacob, 5, from left, Nolan, 6, Ryanne, 6, and Rylee, 2, at their home in Hazel Park, Michigan, Sunday, April 12, 2015.

Paul Sancya / AP

WASHINGTON — A little more than 40 hours before their case was set to be heard at the Supreme Court, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, in matching gray and orange polo T-shirts and jeans, were readying dinner plans from their hotel room in downtown D.C.

The Michigan couple — like much of America even a few years ago — did not plan to be here.

"It wasn't part of the list of the things that I might do in my lifetime," DeBoer told BuzzFeed News on Sunday. "Up until four years ago, the only court I've ever been into is a family court and then all of a sudden we're in federal court — and now we're going to the Supreme Court. I just, I can't imagine that my brain ever registered that we'd be walking into a supreme court for anything."

And yet they will do just that Tuesday morning for a case that is widely expected to lead to a landmark ruling in the fight for same-sex couples' marriage rights — a fight that DeBoer and Rowse did not initially intend to take on.

More than three years ago, they filed a lawsuit in federal court in Michigan for adoption rights, asking the court to strike down the state's ban on second-parent adoptions by unmarried persons. The couple was simply seeking to adopt each other's kids — two initially were adopted by Rowse, one was initially adopted by DeBoer — but Michigan law only allows second-parent adoptions for married couples.

Much to their surprise, the judge assigned to the case — U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman — asked them to consider amending their lawsuit to include a challenge to the state's marriage ban itself. The couple and their lawyers did so, entering the marriage fight, formally, by filing an amended complaint on Oct. 3, 2012 — more than two months before the Supreme Court even announced it would be hearing cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 marriage ban.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights asked the court to put their case on hold while the Prop 8 case was resolved, a recommendation that Friedman took.

"We had opposition — 'wrong case,' 'wrong time,' 'wrong plaintiffs,' everything — but we didn't feel that way, obviously," Rowse said on Sunday.

At that time, same-sex couples could only marry in six states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York — and D.C.

April DeBoer, left, and Jayne Rowse talk to reporters on Friday, March 21, 2014, the day a federal judge ruled in their favor, finding that Michigan's ban on same-sex couples' marriage rights was unconstitutional.

Paul Sancya / AP

Days after the Supreme Court dismissed the Prop 8 appeal on a technicality in June 2013, avoiding a ruling on the constitutional question of same-sex couples' marriage rights, Friedman moved forward with DeBoer and Rowse's case — denying the state's request that he dismiss the case. Then, in early 2014, Friedman held a full trial in the case — only the third such trial on whether same-sex couples should be able to be banned from marrying.

In late March 2014, Friedman struck down the state's ban as unconstitutional. Michigan officials appealed, though, and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Michigan — upholding the ban, along with bans from three other states, in November 2014.

"We weren't prepared for it," Rowse said of the 6th Circuit's conflicting ruling. "We always knew it could happen, obviously, but I guess in our optimistic world they would be like, 'I see what they're talking about, and I see how their rights are violated, and it shouldn't be put to a vote.' But that's not what happened, so we had to regroup and figure out what to do from there."

By that time, the winds had shifted. More than half of the country lived in states with marriage equality — in big part due to the Supreme Court's decision a month earlier not to hear any of several states' appeals of rulings from other three other appellate courts, all of which had struck down states' marriage bans.

DeBoer and Rowse — along with plaintiffs from the three other states of the 6th Circuit: Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee — asked the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the decision. The court agreed in January to do so, and the couples will hear lawyers and the justices debate their rights on Tuesday.

"I'm excited. And a little nervous. A little scared," Rowse said. "I mean, we've only seen these people on TV and in the papers, so to actually be 10 feet away from them, or however far we're going to be, it's going to be a little intimidating. These are the people who are going to rule our fate in the next 60 days or however long. It's a little nerve-racking."

Asked what she and Rowse will be thinking about when they wake up on Tuesday morning, DeBoer was speechless for a moment. Then she took a breath and said, "We're going to be thinking about the determination that we have [shown] to make this right, to make sure that we are treated equally and that our children are treated equally and that future generations are treated equally. There are so many other fights that we have still to come, but this is a first major step towards the rest of the fights."

"But, Tuesday, I'm taking Jayne and my love, and our love for our kids, into that courtroom," she said, almost triumphantly. "That's what I'm taking with us."

View Entire List ›

“The world will be watching tomorrow.”

Chris Geidner/BuzzFeed

WASHINGTON — A dozen years ago, a lawyer at a small Boston-based legal group was going to ask a state's top court to do what no court had ever done before: grant same-sex couples the right to marry.

"Before the argument, I went up to this … law library that I used to go to all the time," Mary Bonauto told BuzzFeed News in 2013 about that day. "I just went in there and I was just trying to steel myself, thinking, 'Mary, you know, you are right. You're right. This is correct. You are on the right side here.'"

Bonauto, with Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), won that argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4–3 decision that came down in November of 2003. The next spring, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Now, Bonauto is going to try and finish the job. Going before the nation's top court, she will ask the justices to declare that no state, under the U.S. Constitution, can ban same-sex couples from marrying.

The Supreme Court is due to take up the cases of same-sex couples, some of their children, and two widowers from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee at 10 a.m. on Tuesday — and Bonauto will be taking the case to the Supreme Court justices in a country far different from the one she lived in when she made her case to the Massachusetts justices.

Then, she was seeking a novel ruling that almost all courts and, in some instances, voters had rejected repeatedly. Now, same-sex couples are able to marry in 37 states, and a solid majority of the nation's voters also support marriage equality.

More than that, Bonauto and the plaintiffs from the four states come to the justices with support from a powerful ally: the federal government, on behalf of the United States.

When Bonauto finishes about 30 minutes of arguments, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. will have 15 minutes to make the Obama administration's case that "[t]he bans cannot be reconciled with the fundamental constitutional guarantee of 'equal protection of the laws.'"

And while Verrilli's arguments themselves certainly will matter to the justices, his merely standing at the podium symbolizes how much the ground has shifted on the marriage question in recent years.

When President Obama came into office, he opposed marriage rights for same-sex couples. The administration was defending the Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges. And same-sex couples could only marry in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

On Monday night, at a Freedom to Marry reception for marriage case plaintiffs throughout time, the group's president, Evan Wolfson, introduced White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, who made a special appearance to toast the plaintiffs and lawyers and their work.

"On behalf of the millions of people around this country — and around the world — that your leadership symbolizes, thank you, a round of applause, to every plaintiff," Jarrett told the crowd. "The world will be watching tomorrow. I will be there tomorrow."

Talking with BuzzFeed News at the reception, Jarrett said that she believed Obama's so-called evolution on the issue in 2012 "help[ed] accelerate change," but motioned around the room at the dozens and dozens of plaintiffs and lawyers — including Wolfson, whose current role developed out of his leadership in the famous 1990s Hawaii case that resulted in the first court win on marriage equality — saying that it is "so important that [they] get the credit that they deserve," as well.

"The arc of the moral universe bent a little faster than even we thought it would," Jarrett said. "But we still have a little ways to go. We have to win this case tomorrow."

Bonauto and Verrilli — joined by a third lawyer, Doug Hallward-Driemeier — will make their case on Tuesday.

And then the nation will wait for the justices' decision.

LINK: Supreme Court’s Simple Marriage Case Questions Lead To Complex Arguments

LINK: Caught Up In The Marriage Moment, April DeBoer And Jayne Rowse Are Going To The Supreme Court

View Entire List ›

“Bob Dole. Desperate Attacks.”

Ruth Fremson / ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Clintons have faced scrutiny this year for their family foundation's acceptance of foreign donations, including allegations in a new book Clinton Cash, which alleges that foreign entities gave to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton for speeches and in turn received "favors" from the State Department during Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state.

Bill Clinton himself, however, once was the person attacking his opponents for taking money tied to foreign interests. In the midst late of the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign against Bob Dole, the issue of foreign interests improperly funneling money to help Bill Clinton's re-election efforts became an issue. Dole, seizing on reports of improper contributions attacked Democrats for taking money tied to foreign interests.

Clinton shot back with an ad of his own, accusing Dole of being a hypocrite in an attempt to muddy the waters.

Here's the ad:

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

MALE NARRATOR: Bob Dole. Desperate Attacks. President Clinton restricted foreign lobbying, fought for years for campaign-finance reform.

TEXT: Lifetime ban on foreign lobbying by top officials

MALE NARRATOR: Dole and the Republicans took $2.4 million from foreign interests.

TEXT: 2.4 million from foreign interests

MALE NARRATOR: Foreign oil, foreign tobacco, foreign drug companies.

TEXT: $216,579 foreign oil; $400,000 foreign tobacco; $485,350 foreign drug companies

MALE NARRATOR: A top Dole aide fined $6 million for a Hong Kong fund-raising scheme.

TEXT: Ex-Aide to Dole Campaign Admits Illegal Contributions

NARRATOR: An independent watchdog cites Dole as the senator "most responsible for blocking any serious campaign finance reform."

TEXT: Dole is "most responsible for blocking any serious campaign finance reform..."

NARRATOR: Bob Dole; wrong to turn to desperate attacks.

TEXT: Bob Dole: Wrong in the past. Wrong for our future

View Entire List ›

A 5-4 vote in favor of same-sex couples’ marriage rights appears to be the most likely outcome, although Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote shouldn’t be counted out.

Mladen Antonov / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — At Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over same-sex couples' marriage rights, the majority of the court appeared to be comfortable with Justice Anthony Kennedy's understanding of human dignity as including gay people's equal treatment under the law.

While Kennedy, who is considered the key vote in the case, did not make any unambiguous statement about the end result of the case, he harshly questioned the state of Michigan's argument that it should be allowed to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.

At one point, Kennedy commented to Michigan's lawyer that its law banning same-sex couples from marrying "assumes" that those couples can't have the same "more noble purpose" as opposite-sex couples have for entering marriage.

Kennedy — joined often by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — peppered the lawyer defending marriage bans, John Bursch, about what other limits states could constitutionally place on marriages and whether the states' claimed interests amounted to anything more than, as Sotomayor put it at one point, a "feeling" that "doesn't make any logical sense."

Although questions were asked, including by Kennedy, about the length of time — "millennia," he said — that the understanding of marriage was only an institution between one man and one woman, Kennedy noted in the same question that "about the same time" passed between the Supreme Court's decision ending "separate but equal" with regards to racial discrimination and its landmark decision ending interracial marriage bans as has passed between the Supreme Court's decision ending sodomy laws and today's arguments.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg also appeared in questioning to be sympathetic to same-sex couples' marriage arguments.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked probing question of both sides, never betraying a strong affinity towards either sides' arguments, while Justice Samuel Alito strongly questioned the plaintiffs' claims — raising questions about polygamy and why siblings shouldn't be able to receive the same protections as same-sex couples.

While Kennedy did question the lawyers supporting marriage equality, Mary Bonauto and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., at times he appeared focused on explaining the path forward from the trio of "gay rights" cases — 1996's Romer v. Evans, 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, and 2013's United States v. Windsor — to a marriage equality decision in Tuesday's cases.

Echoing his earlier comment to Bonauto, Kennedy later posed the question, again, to Verrilli — making his point even more directly. "Haven't we learned a tremendous amount since ... Lawrence, just in the last 10 years?" he asked the Obama administration's lawyer.

Breyer, in questioning Michigan's lawyer, laid out as concise a summary of the opposition to bans on same-sex couples' marriages as any of the lawyers arguing for marriage equality made.

"[M]arriage, as the states administer it, is open to vast numbers of people who both have children, adopt children, don't have children, all over the place," he said. "But there is one group of people whom they won't open marriage to. So they have no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty. That is people of the same sex who wish to marry. And so we ask, why?"

There were two questions before the court Tuesday, though. The first, which got 90 minutes of argument time, was whether the 14th Amendment requires states to permit same-sex marriage. The second was whether states that don't allow same-sex marriage must recognize those marriages performed in other states — a question that several justices said only would come into play if the plaintiffs lost on the first question.

Kennedy's sole question in that final hour of arguments was first to reiterate that the second question only would become relevant if the states' arguments won the day on the first question and then to ask whether the recognition answer could be different than the marriage ruling.

His near-complete silence on the second question — as opposed to his constant questioning on the first question — was another signal from the justice about where his vote was headed on the first question.

Notably, though, Chief Justice Roberts did appear open to arguments on the recognition question. "[O]utside of the present controversy," he asked the Tennessee Attorney General's Office attorney defending the recognition bans, Joseph Whalen, "when was the last time Tennessee declined to recognize a marriage from out of state?"

"1970 is the last one that I could point to," Whalen responded. "That involved a stepfather and stepdaughter."

Tuesday's arguments followed a winding path for the cases, the first of which (an adoption case out of Michigan) was filed in 2012. The remaining cases were all filed in the aftermath of the June 2013 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor striking down the Defense of Marriage Act.

The decision in the cases came over several months, and by the summer of 2014, the cases for marriage or marriage recognition had won in all four states of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee).

That August, the appellate court took up the four states' appeals. When the 6th Circuit became the first appellate court to uphold marriage bans since Windsor, Supreme Court review looked almost certain, and the justices accepted the cases for review in January, setting up Tuesday's arguments.

A decision in the cases is expected by the end of the court's term in June.

LINK: Supreme Court transcript of the oral arguments for the first question of the marriage case

LINK: Supreme Court transcript of the oral arguments for the second question of the marriage case

View Entire List ›

Bush, who has a long history with Puerto Rico, reaffirmed his support for the territory becoming the 51st state, during a visit to the island.

Ricardo Arduengo / AP

As he ramps up his expected presidential campaign, Jeb Bush still supports Puerto Rican statehood, he said during a visit to the island on Tuesday.

"I've favored statehood for a long time," Bush told the crowd of statehood supporters and former Governor Luis Fortuño, whom invited him to the event. "I think there should be a statehood referendum and the next president should work on it."

Bush went further, too, calling the 2012 nonbinding resolution, in which support for statehood inched up to 61%, a rebuke of the status quo. He said there should be a simple yes-or-no vote for statehood.

Bush's ties to the island go back 35 years, when he was known as el joven Bush — the young Bush — when he ran his father's primary campaign in Puerto Rico.

Back then a catchy jingle for his father, Me gusta George Bush porque quiere estadidad ahora ("I like George Bush because he wants statehood now") caught fire on the island, and Jeb made longtime connections.

Those connections were also part of this recent trip, as Bush took advantage of his time in Puerto Rico to hold a fundraiser and a townhall meeting with Republicans.

He touched on immigration, saying the United States is an immigrant nation and should be proud of that fact.

"I know about the immigrant experience because I married a beautiful girl from Mexico," he said. "My children are bicultural and bilingual."

The looming presidential campaign wasn't far from anyone's thoughts, though.

Carlos Mendez, the Republican Party leader on the island, coyly passed an index card to Bush with the question, "Are you going to run for president?"

Bush said he's on the journey to considering it.

"Today's not the day to trigger a campaign but I appreciate the sentiment."

LINK: That Time Jeb Bush Spent 6 Months Running His Dad’s 1980 Campaign In Puerto Rico

LINK: Will Puerto Rico Become The New Cuba In Florida In The 2016 Election?

View Entire List ›

“I’m under no illusion that under this Congress we’re going to get mass investments in urban communities,” President Obama tells the press.

SAUL LOEB / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — In long remarks about the unrest in Baltimore Tuesday, President Obama said the Republican-controlled Congress isn't interested in his proposals to improve life in inner-city communities that he said are the only way to prevent future unrest.

"If we are serious about solving this problem, we're going to have to not only help the police, we're going to have to think about what can we do, the rest of us, to make sure that we're providing early education to these kids, to make sure that we're reforming our criminal justice system to it's not just a pipeline from schools to prisons. So that we're not rendering men in these communities unemployable because of a felony conviction for a nonviolent drug offense. That we're making investments so that they can get the training they need to find jobs. That's hard. That requires more than just the occasional news report or task force," Obama said.

"And there's a bunch of my agenda that would make a difference right now in that," he went on. "Now I'm under no illusion that under this Congress we're going to get mass investments in urban communities, and so we'll try to find areas where we can make a difference, around school reform and job training and some investments in infrastructure in these communities trying to attract new businesses in."

At a joint press conference in the Rose Garden with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Obama condemned the rioters and looters as "criminals" and said it was "entirely appropriate" for Maryland and Baltimore authorities to step up efforts to prevent further unrest.

The president prayed for the health of police injured in the unrest and promised the Justice Department will investigate the circumstances of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray's death from injuries allegedly sustained in police custody that led to mass protest in the city.

But the main focus of Obama's remarks was on what he called a lack of political will to address deep structural problems from education to drug sentencing to job creation that he said fuel ongoing desperation and distrust of authority among some in poor communities of color.

"If we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could. It's just it would require everybody saying this is important, this is significant, and that we don't just pay attention to these communities when a CVS burns and we don't just pay attention when a young man gets short or has his spine snapped. We're paying attention all the time because we consider those kids our kids and we think they're important and they shouldn't be living in poverty and violence," Obama said.

"That's how I feel, and I think they're a lot of good-meaning people around the country that feel that way," Obama said. "But that kind of political mobilization, I think we haven't seen in quite some time. And what I've tried to do is to promote those ideas that would make a difference, but I think we all understand that the politics of that are tough, because it's too easy to ignore those problems or to treat them just as a law-and-order issue as opposed to a broader social issue."

"That was a really long answer," Obama concluded after speaking more than 1,500 words about Baltimore. "But I felt pretty strongly about it."

The Obama administration has long said the Republican-controlled Congress can work with the White House on issues of trade, infrastructure spending, and efforts to change the way the criminal justice system deals with nonviolent offenders. But White House efforts to boost spending on education and other areas the administration says could help inner-city communities have been a tough sell on Capitol Hill.

Obama has also acted on his own to reach out to young men of color through his My Brother's Keeper initiative and Justice Department-led efforts to investigate police departments and change the culture of policing.

As he has many times since the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, last August thrust the breakdown in police-community relations in many communities into the national spotlight, Obama highlighted his Task Force on 21st Century Policing and the Justice Department's efforts to make body cameras more easily available to police departments.

The president called on police organizations to be more open to the idea of changes pushed by advocates, saying "they have to own up to the fact that occasionally there are gonna be problems here, just as there are in every other occupation."

The Florida Senator has missed several hearings in the past for fundraising events across the country.

Mark Humphrey / AP

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio missed a closed Intelligence briefing in January to attend a New York City fundraiser, according to records.

An invitation obtained by the Huffington Post puts Rubio at a midtown restaurant on Jan. 13 around lunchtime for an event hosted by GOP insider Wayne Berman, who serves as a senior advisor for global government affairs to the Blackstone Group. The fundraiser was tied to the release of Sen. Rubio's book "American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone."

The Senate Intelligence Committee shows a closed briefing for 2pm that same day.

The cost of attending the gathering started at $2,600, rising all the way to $10,200 to be named a co-host. Money raised at the event went to the Rubio Victory Committee, a joint venture between the senator's PAC and his Senate re-election campaign.

An aide for Sen. Rubio pointed BuzzFeed News to a previous statement they had given on Rubio missing briefings for a fundraiser.

"Since he's been in the Senate, Senator Rubio has received regular classified briefings, attends most Intel committee hearings, and reads intelligence reports almost on a daily basis, and if he misses a hearing, he is always briefed on the material covered," a Rubio aide told BuzzFeed News in that statement. "He is seriously considering running for president and taking the necessary steps to field a competitive campaign, and it's not unusual for presidential candidates to occasionally miss Senate business."

Rubio has missed several hearings in order to attend fundraising events across the country. The senator skipped a top secret briefing on ISIS held by the Foreign Relations committee and two Intelligence committee briefings during an "aggressive" fundraising swing through California in late January.

Earlier this month, Rubio was fundraising in Texas for his presidential campaign when he missed another closed Intelligence committee briefing.

In 2011 Rubio skipped a series of hearings in the aftermath of Osama Bin Laden's death, including a Foreign Relations hearing about the U.S. relationship with Pakistan that he had called for on the radio just three days before.

Previously Rubio has rebutted questions about his lack of experience by citing his "extensive work" on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees as experience that sets him apart from President Obama, who had only served part of one-term as a senator when he took office.

The court will consider if Oklahoma can use the controversial execution drug midazolam as a sedative, when the other drugs in an execution process can cause intense pain.

Sue Ogrocki / AP

The Supreme Court will consider on Wednesday whether Oklahoma's execution protocol violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, in a case that could have huge implications for how states carry out the death penalty.

The arguments will take place exactly one year after the state botched the execution of Clayton Lockett, in a lethal injection that lasted 43 minutes with the inmate awake well after he was supposed to be unconscious. Another execution in Arizona lasted nearly two hours. A third in Ohio lasted 26 minutes.

Although the doses and drug pairings varied from state to state, each used midazolam in an attempt to sedate the inmate.

In Oklahoma, the state follows midazolam up with a paralytic, and then potassium chloride, which is intended to stop the heart.

"Potassium chloride feels like liquid fire as it courses through the veins," attorneys representing three Oklahoma death row inmates write. "The administration of painful drugs is constitutional only if the prisoner is first placed in a deep, coma-like state of unconsciousness," something that midazolam is incapable of, they argue.

Unlike sodium thiopental, which was previously used by states in a three-drug execution protocol, midazolam has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration as the sole anesthetic before surgery. Midazolam is instead used to reduce anxiety before anesthesia, or is used for less intense procedures like colonoscopies.

Oklahoma counters that the concerns are "theoretical speculation" — that the state's botch was the result of IV issues unrelated to the drug.

"Oklahoma's robust procedural safeguards will eliminate any risk that Petitioners will experience severe pain during their executions," Attorney General Scott Pruitt wrote.

Medical experts say midazolam has a "ceiling effect," meaning that at a certain dosage, the drug will no longer produce a deeper effect.

But Oklahoma points to Dr. Lee Evans, the dean of the Auburn University Harrison School of Pharmacy, who says the dose Oklahoma uses "make[s] it a virtual certainty that any individual will be at a sufficient level of unconsciousness."

Lower courts agreed.

"Dr. Evans testified persuasively, in substance, that whatever the ceiling effect of midazolam may be with respect to anesthesia... there is no ceiling effect with respect to the ability of a 500 milligram dose of midazolam to effectively paralyze the brain," the district court wrote in a decision.

Sixteen pharmacology experts disagreed in an amicus brief filed on behalf of neither party.

"There is overwhelming scientific consensus, including among pharmacologists, that midazolam is incapable of inducing a 'deep, coma-like unconsciousness,'" they wrote. "Even an excessive dose of midazolam will not result in unconsciousness."

Through an assistant, Evans declined a request to be interviewed by BuzzFeed News.

This is the first execution drug case the Supreme Court case has taken since 2008, when the court upheld a different three-drug protocol. And while the case itself centers on the use of midazolam, the court's ruling could have a ripple effect on how executions are carried out.

If the court decides that midazolam is not capable of sufficiently rendering the inmates unconscious, there will be one fewer option in an already limited pool of potential lethal injection schemes.

"It's hard to say what states would do," said Jen Moreno, a lawyer with Berkeley Law's Death Penalty Clinic. Moreno has informally advised the team representing death row inmates.

"I think the fact that Missouri, Georgia, and Texas are still getting compounded pentobarbital shows that that could still be an option," she said. "If that's not the route that they go, they are looking at different drugs."

There is another option, however, one that several states have considered: to pursue options outside of lethal injection.

Last month, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a law allowing the state to use a firing squad. Oklahoma has approved nitrogen gas as an option if lethal injection is ruled unconstitutional.

"I believe capital punishment must be performed effectively and without cruelty," Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin said after signing the bill. "The bill I signed gives the state of Oklahoma another death penalty option that meets that standard."

Nati Harnik / AP

WASHINGTON — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker isn't inviting reporters to come along with him on his first political trip to Israel next month, a spokesperson said.

"Gov. Walker’s trip to Israel will be a listening tour," said AshLee Strong, a spokesperson for Walker's PAC, Our American Revival, last week. "It’ll happen mid-May and we won’t be having any press join."

"He is interested in hearing first-hand Israel’s concerns about the future of our alliance and identifying ways to restore the ruptured bonds between our two countries," Strong said. "He is very concerned about the rise of Iran, the spread of radical Islamic terrorism, and the turmoil in Syria and Iraq, and is interested in understanding the views of the Israelis on how we confront these shared challenges. The governor will be discussing his trip once he gets back but wants to use it as an opportunity to see for himself and learn before discussing it as he continues talking about big issues facing our country through Our American Revival."

On Monday, Strong reiterated that no press would be on the "listening tour."

Presidential candidates and potential candidates like Walker often take symbolic foreign trips to boost their foreign policy bona fides in carefully staged appearances and meetings abroad. The trips have value especially when, like Walker, potential candidates are seen as having little foreign policy experience. The trips signal a desire to take the issues seriously and can lend an aura of presidential-ness — if they go well.

But having press cover these trips can invite more trouble than it's worth. Rand Paul's Israel trip is remembered mostly for his shirtless photos from the Dead Sea; Christie's attempt in the U.K. was overshadowed when reporters got him on the record equivocating about vaccines in the midst of a measles outbreak; and Mitt Romney's 2012 trip to Poland became a disaster when a campaign spokesperson told reporters to "kiss my ass" when they tried to ask the candidate questions after being shut out for most of the trip. Ben Carson went to Israel in December, compared the U.S. to Nazi Germany while sitting in the cafeteria of Israel's Holocaust museum, and did not know what Israel's Knesset is — all documented by GQ's Jason Zengerle. Even Walker's own trip in his capacity as a governor to the U.K. in February made headlines when he refused to say whether he believes in evolution. Walker's decision to keep press away allows him to control the narrative entirely.

“It seems to me to the extent that we can be proactive in concluding agreements with strategic partners, geographically, philosophically, that that is a benefit to us,” he noted when asked about TPP. An aide says O’Malley’s approach to trade hasn’t changed — but the deal’s been negotiated in private and the details aren’t good.

Win McNamee / Getty

He rarely refers to her by name — but Martin O'Malley, the former governor now poised to run for president, is more and more willing to take on Hillary Clinton.

He has suggested that, on same-sex marriage and immigration, she has acted "according to the polls," not principle. He has said the presidency is not "some crown to be passed between two families." And he has drawn the sharpest contrast yet with his emphatic opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a proposed trade deal that has exposed a deepening fissure among Democrats.

In an email to supporters last week, headlined "Hard choice?" after the title of Clinton's memoir, O'Malley said that workers "are owed more than lip service" and "deserve to know where leaders stand."

Clinton, for now, has largely sat out the intra-party fight, which has pitted progressives and labor leaders against the White House.

She once called the 12-nation Pacific accord, known as TPP, the "gold standard in trade agreements." But she has since backed away from that endorsement, without staking a clear position on the deal — or on whether Congress should grant President Obama the "fast track" authority to negotiate it. Her campaign said last Friday that Clinton "will be watching closely" to determine whether TPP sufficiently protects U.S. workers and wages. (The details of the trade deal — negotiated behind closed doors — have yet to be released.)

O'Malley, now one of TPP's leading critics, also once suggested loose support for the deal.

In 2013, when asked specifically about Obama's trade agenda and TPP at the conference of the Council of the Americas, the former governor of Maryland responded that he believed a majority of governors believed that "free trade, provided it's fair — and that's always the rub right? — is a net benefit for us."

"I believe, I think at the risk of stating the painfully obvious, we're all part of a global economy that's not a matter of choice," O'Malley continued.

"I mean that's a reality and you can't exempt yourself from it. So it seems to me to the extent that we can be proactive in concluding agreements with strategic partners, geographically, philosophically, that that is a benefit to us."

O'Malley, who was then finishing his second and last term as governor of Maryland, added his own state — which relies on the port of Baltimore and "strategic location" on the East Coast — is largely a "net-winner from trade."

Asked about the remark, the former governor's aides said that his essential approach to trade has not wavered.

An O'Malley aide attributed his recent aggressive opposition largely to the fact that the deal has been negotiated in private — and that "fast-tracking" the process could mean putting at risk potential safeguards for U.S. jobs and wages. Since the appearance two years ago more information about the deal has become available, in part through unauthorized disclosures on WikiLeaks.

"I'm for trade," O'Malley said in a video produced by his PAC. "I'm for good trade deals, but I'm against bad trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership."

The criticism by the former governor, who signed several major foreign trade agreements as governor, is in line with Democrats' progressive wing.

The party's leading progressive voices — Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, and Bernie Sanders, among others — have sharply opposed the deal and the authority President Obama seeks in negotiating trade deals, sparking a tense and increasingly public dispute with the White House. Two weeks ago, the four senators rallied opposition against the "fast track" legislation outside the Capitol.

Union leadership has joined them in that opposition: The president of the AFL-CIO, the country's largest federation of unions, has suspended all contributions to Congress until after a vote — and said in a speech on Tuesday that on TPP, the "time for deliberations is drawing to a close."

Any presidential candidates who want labor support should "oppose 'fast track,'" said the AFL-CIO head, Richard Trumka. "There's no middle ground."

Clinton Cash, the hotly anticipated book about the Clinton Foundation reports that the former president was paid for speeches by a contractor seeking Haiti relief contracts.

HECTOR RETAMAL / Getty

WASHINGTON — Bill Clinton was not paid for several speeches as reported in a forthcoming book about his family's foundation, spokespeople for the former president said Tuesday.

Clinton Cash, the hotly anticipated book by a conservative researcher out next week, investigates donations to the foundation and alleges a pattern of access or favor in exchange.

Following the January 2010 earthquake, the Clinton Foundation, working with the State Department, helped set up an international recovery effort in the Caribbean nation.

In the book, author Peter Schweizer suggests Clinton gave a series of speeches paid for by Irish businessman Dennis O'Brien apparently in return for his help in securing telecommunications contracts in Haiti as part of that recovery effort in 2010.

In the book's chapter on Haiti, dubbed "Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style," which was obtained by BuzzFeed News, Schweizer writes that O'Brien, whose company Digicel was attempting to secure a contract for mobile phone service in Haiti, paid Clinton $600,000 for speeches in Ireland on Sept. 29, 2010, Oct. 8, 2011, and Oct. 9, 2013.

Schweizer argues "the timing of these paid speeches is notable" because they came during the contract awarding process — and goes on to note that starting in 2011 DIgicel began receiving contracts in Haiti that would total $2 million from USAID, the first time the company had received grants from the organization. Schweizer also cites a fourth speech in the book that he says occurred in October 2011 in Kingston, Jamaica, just weeks before Digicel received its first grant.

But according to Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna, neither the former president nor the Clinton Foundation was paid for two of the three speeches Clinton gave in Ireland, and that while the Foundation did receive a donation following his Sept. 29, 2010 speech, Clinton himself was not compensated.

"The book's reporting is false. President Clinton did not personally receive speaking fees for any of these three speaking engagements in Ireland," McKenna said.

Additionally, the Kingston speech appears to have occurred in October 2010, not October 2011, a full year before Digicel's contract was awarded.

Schweizer's contention that Digicel had not received USAID grants prior to its involvement with Clinton also appears to be incorrect. According to federal records, Digicel received more than $29,000 in contracts from USAID in 2007 and 2008.

Multiple requests for comment sent to the publisher and to Schweizer were not returned.

The apparent discrepancies appear to be the first challenges to the validity of any reporting in Schweizer's book. Although the Clinton campaign and its allies have taken issue with conclusions drawn in the book since excerpts were provided to media outlets last week, this appears to be the first time the Clintons have challenged any factual elements.

The Clintons have faced scrutiny this year over the foundation's acceptance of foreign donations since the Wall Street Journal reported the foundation had quietly begun accepting them again after Hillary Clinton left the State Department, from countries that include Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The foundation has since limited the foreign donations it will accept — but will not discontinue the practice.

The New York Times last week followed on reporting in Schweizer's book about the gradual takeover of a uranium mining company by Russian interests, as people associated or formerly associated with the company donated millions to the Clintons' foundation. The Russian acquisition was approved by a committee of U.S. cabinet officials, including Hillary Clinton, though there is no evidence the donations played a role in that decision.

Asked Sunday whether there was a "smoking gun" in his book, Schweizer said the smoking gun is the "pattern of behavior."

In a speech Wednesday at Columbia University, Clinton touched on race and inequality in America and called for policies to address what she called an “out-of-balance” criminal justice system.

Mark Lennihan / AP

Invoking the names and locations that have become symbols for the tensions that exist between black communities and police, Hillary Clinton on Wednesday laid out her positions on criminal justice, calling for mandatory body cameras for police and an end to the "era of mass incarceration."

Her speech at Columbia University comes after days of violence in Baltimore, Maryland over the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, who died of a severed spine while in police custody. The remarks, in which Clinton argued police should be equipped with body cameras, though she did not detail a specific plan to implement that policy, were the Democratic candidate's first major foray into public policy since launching her presidential campaign in early April.

"What we have seen in Baltimore should, indeed, I think does, tear at our soul. From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable," Clinton said, before listing off the names of other black men or boys who have died in the last year after interactions with the police.

"Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina. Unarmed, in debt, terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn't afford. Tamir Rice, shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio — unarmed and just 12 years old. Eric Garner, choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of our city. And now Freddie Gray, his spine nearly severed while in policy custody," she continued.

"We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America."

Clinton, citing statistics that show black men in America are more likely to serve prison sentences than white men, said the county needs to "restore balance" to the the criminal justice system. She said good police work was being done across the country, and the first step would be to build off practices that are already working.

"We can start by making sure federal funds for state and local law enforcement are used to bolster best practices rather than buy weapons of war that have no place on our streets," Clinton said.

Clinton referred specifically to the proposals made by President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, calling it a "good place to start," but said she would go even further, requiring body cameras for police departments across the country.

"We should make sure that every police department in the country has body cameras to record interactions between officers on patrol and suspects. That will improve transparency and accountability. It will help protect good people on both sides of the lens," Clinton said.

In the speech, Clinton praised the work of a bipartisan group of lawmakers — including presidential candidate Rand Paul — on criminal justice issues. In recent years, a growing nucleus of younger lawmakers, largely progressive or influenced by more small-government conservatism, have advocated for significant changes to the justice system, particularly with policing and drug policy. The proposals — and Clinton's positions this week and over the last year — stand in contrast to the generations of politicians, including notably Bill Clinton, who came of age politically in the tough-on-crime era of the 1980s and 1990s, when violent crime was a top political issue.

On Wednesday, Clinton also discussed steps she would take to tackle mass incarceration, including specialized drug and juvenile programs that would provide punishment for offenders while keeping them out of prison. In the latter half of her remarks, she honed in on the issue of mental health, a topic that will be a key part of her 2016 campaign.

"Our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions," Clinton said. "I have to tell you I was somewhat surprised in both Iowa and New Hampshire to be asked so many questions about mental health."

"It's not just a problem in our cities. There's a quiet epidemic of substance abuse sweeping small town and rural America as well."

“There will be more police on the street, a hundred thousand more police officers, with flexibility given to local communities to determine how best to use them.”

View Video ›

buzzfeed-video1.s3.amazonaws.com

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Wednesday for ending "the era of mass incarceration." Clinton's remarks, as noted by many in the media, specifically reject the "tough-on-crime" mantra and legislation advocated by her husband during his time as president.

The shift in rhetoric and policy around criminal justice issues has been significant over the last two decades. In fact, 21 years ago, Hillary Clinton as first lady spoke to a conference for female police officers where he pushed her husband's agenda in New York.

At the time, Clinton said the 1994 crime bill — which called for 100,000 more police officers, more prisons, and harsher sentencing for crimes, and enacted stricter gun laws — would "make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve."

"We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders — three strikes and you're out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door," remarked the then-first lady.

Clinton also noted that the crime bill would help build more prisons.

"We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons," she said. "It is also a question of prevention. We want to give police officers the tools to help young people stay out of trouble. We want to begin to give young people something to say yes to, not just to have to face the bleak, alienated streets that too often push them in the wrong direction."

On Wednesday, Clinton talked about how the United States "almost 25% of the world's prison population," called for police to be equipped with body cameras, and discussed the issues of substance abuse and mental health. The remarks come as during protests and riots in Baltimore after the death of 25-year-old black man who died from injuries received while in police custody.

Speaking to C-SPAN in 1994, Clinton called the crime bill "both smart and tough."

"I think as more Americans focus on the fact that this bill would have put more police on the street, would have locked up violent offenders so they could never get out a again," she said. "Would have given more prison construction money available to the states as well as the federal government. But also would have dealt with prevention, giving young people something to say yes to. It's a very well thought out crime bill that is both smart and tough. "

Here are the full 1994 remarks on the crime bill specifics:

The sad truth is that, unfortunately, there are those who would rather talk about fighting crime than actually give you the tools that you can use to fight crime. And what we have to do, those of us in civilian life, is to stand up and support those of you who are on the front line. Because this crime bill will make a difference in your lives as police officers and in the lives of the communities you serve.

There will be more police on the street, a hundred thousand more police officers, with flexibility given to local communities to determine how best to use them. We will be able to say, loudly and clearly, that for repeat, violent, criminal offenders -- three strikes and you're out. We are tired of putting you back in through the revolving door.

We will also finally understand that fighting crime is not just a question of punishment, although there are many dollars in the crime bill to build more prisons. It is also a question of prevention. We want to give police officers the tools to help young people stay out of trouble. We want to begin to give young people something to say yes to, not just to have to face the bleak, alienated streets that too often push them in the wrong direction.

And also in this crime bill is something that goes along with the domestic violence initiative. For the first time, there is a special section that focuses on violence against women. And understand that there are special problems that go along with domestic violence and other crimes committed against women.

So all in all, this crime bill tries to take a bottoms-up approach, because it is built on the experience of people who have actually been there, people like yourselves.

“Nothing you say or read to me am I going to believe, frankly,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor tells Oklahoma’s lawyer.

Drew Angerer / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices showed deep division Wednesday on the use of a sedative drug, midazolam, in executions — from accusations that death penalty opponents are engaged in "guerrilla" warfare to a pointed attack on whether Oklahoma's lawyer could be trusted.

In arguments that included repeated discussion of the since-discontinued practice of burning people at the stake, the ultimate outcome of the case before the court — a challenge by Oklahoma inmates to the use of midazolam in the state's execution protocol — was anyone's guess.

The court returned to the question of the constitutionality of lethal injection drugs in the wake of several problematic executions in which the new drug, midazolam, was used.

In Ohio, Oklahoma, and Arizona, multiple executions involving midazolam resulted in the execution taking longer than expected and reports that the person being executed either was still moving or otherwise showed signs of remaining conscious.

In Oklahoma, the botched execution of Clayton Lockett a year ago today led the governor there, Mary Fallin, to order a review of the state's protocol.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key vote in the case, was mostly quiet throughout the arguments — asking only one question about whether the court should consider the fact that midazolam is only in use due to the "unavailability" of other drugs, whose effect is more well-known, because of the efforts of death penalty "abolitionist[s]."

That comment followed questioning by Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia about what Alito called the "guerrilla war against the death penalty" by death penalty opponents, whose efforts are "reducing access to drugs."

The arguments, which Chief Justice John Roberts extended by an extra five minutes per side, focused primarily on tough questions posed by Roberts, Scalia, and Alito to Robin Konrad, who represented the inmates, and even more tough — and at times, accusatory — questions to Oklahoma Solicitor General Patrick Wyrick from Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

At one point in Wyrick's argument in defense of the use of the drug, Sotomayor, essentially, told the state's lawyer that he had lied in his briefs before the court.

"I am substantially disturbed that in your brief you made factual statements that were not supported by the sources [you cited], and in fact directly contradicted," she told him. "So nothing you say or read to me am I going to believe, frankly, until I see it with my own eyes in the context, okay?"

Sotomayor was then given wide berth by her colleagues to go into detail to question him regarding some of those examples, from the state's characterization of the Food and Drug Administration's description of the drug to its characterization of one of the studies about the drug on which the state relied.

LINK: Read the transcript of Wednesday's arguments.

“My X-Girlfriend’s Wedding Reception is a ‘laugh out loud’ film full of all things we love and hate about weddings.”

View Video ›

Vermont's independent Sen. Bernie Sander is set to announce a presidential campaign Thursday, according to reports.

While the senator will attempt to appeal to voters by touting his staunchly-left record, Sanders has something else on his resume that might stand out to voters: comedy actor.

Sanders played "Rabbi Manny Shevitz" in the 1999 low-budget comedy My X-Girlfriend's Wedding Reception. Sanders, who appears in the trailer, makes an appearance for about two minutes midway through the movie.

The comedy, according to a description on Amazon, is about a Jewish-Italian wedding.

From Amazon:

My X-Girlfriend's Wedding Reception is a "laugh out loud" film full of all things we love and hate about weddings. A slice of life film that shows us what really happens on the most important days in some of our lives. Whether you wish to follow the love triangle between the bride, groom and ex-boyfriend or see what the bridesmaids really talk about in the powder room; this is the movie for you. Take a peek into a Jewish-Italian wedding as the families and their guests show us what we are all thinking yet never say at these events. Regardless of your heritage, you will find at least one character and one sup plot you can relate to and it might make you think for a bit before getting married.

In the film, Sanders, who grew up in Brooklyn in real life, talks about growing up watching the Brooklyn Dodgers and drags on talking about baseball.

The full movie can be purchased here for online viewing.

Focusing on his work in education in Florida, Bush got big cheers for talking about an immigration overhaul and reestablishing a strong relationship with Israel, from the largest group of Hispanic evangelicals in the nation.

Ricardo Arduengo / AP

HOUSTON — Jeb Bush said undocumented workers should be able to come out of the shadows, pay a fine, work, and eventually gain earned legal status in a speech to a major Hispanic evangelical organization Wednesday.

Speaking to the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC) with his parents George H.W. and Barbara Bush in the audience, the former Florida governor focused on his work in education in the state — but got big applause for talking about immigration and Israel.

"We have to fix the broken immigration system and that means controlling the border and making sure legal immigration is easier than illegal," he said. "But it also means dealing with 11 million undocumented workers... where they pay a fine, they work, they do what they want to do which is come out of the shadows, provide for their families and over a period of time get earned legal status."

Bush knew his audience — education is always a top issue for Latinos in the U.S. and NHCLC does much of its work in education and immigration — as he connected his experience working on education in Florida with the state's current success with Hispanic students.

He spoke of visiting 250 schools when he ran for governor the second time, and stressed his work to raise standards for students and enact a corporate tax-voucher program. He credited this work with growing the Hispanic graduation rate from 47% to 75%, 10 points above the national average, with Latinos now making up 25% of all Florida students.

The biggest applause line, however, was when Bush said the U.S. must reestablish a strong relationship with Israel to bring stability to the Middle East. At the NHCLC conference Tuesday, the Hispanic Israel Leadership Coalition (HILC) was launched which aims to be the largest pro-Israel Latino group.

The speech Wednesday followed appearances in Puerto Rico earlier in the week — two Hispanic-focused events that did not go unnoticed by Democrats. (The DNC and EMILY's List blasted Bush on Wednesday on his opposition to President Obama's immigration executive actions and his support for defunding Planned Parenthood, respectively.)

Despite the presidential emphasis surrounding Bush, his speech Wednesday made only one nod to his expected campaign, saying if he is going to go beyond considering running for president, he wants to share who he is and spoke about how his life changed in Mexico when he met his wife.

Bush argued immigration can separate the U.S. from places like Japan, which has a declining population, and Europe, which does not embrace a set of shared values.

"Immigration is a key element of our country's success," he said. "We're a nation of immigrants and it's not time to abandon something that makes us special and unique."

Bernie Sanders is in.

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The battle to carry the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party's banner into 2016 got its first official candidate on Wednesday when Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders formally announced his plans to seek the White House.

"People should not underestimate me," Sanders told the Associated Press. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."

Sanders promised a campaign steeped in economic populism, and he's sticking by the outsider label that has defined his Senate career. Sanders is officially an Independent member of the Senate, but has in the past self-identified as a socialist. The AP said the 73 year-old "self-described" himself as a "democratic socialist."

The campaign had been expected, but the timing — Sanders announced in interviews with USA Today and The Associated Press hours after Hillary Clinton gave a progressive-friendly speech about crime — had not. Team Sanders had telegraphed a Thursday announcement but got in the race Wednesday, making him the first Democratic candidate to officially take on Clinton from the left. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is toying with a run of his own, and has tried to grab the progressive mantle, particularly on the issue of trade.

Other Democrats are considering runs against Clinton, but they're not likely to come at her from the left. Former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee spent most of his political career as a Republican and former Virginia Gov. Jim Webb is from the centrist blue dog wing of the Democratic Party.

Sanders' message for 2016 is the same one he's had for decades: the economic system in the United States no longer supports the middle class.

"This is a rigged economy, which works for the rich and the powerful, and is not working for ordinary Americans," Sanders said. "You know, this country just does not belong to a handful of billionaires."

Sanders told the AP he's "never run a negative ad in my life," but has already dinged Clinton for her support for the 2003 war in Iraq and has pushed her to join him and O'Malley in openly opposing President Obama's trade agenda.

He did not go on the attack in his first two interviews as a presidential candidate. Sanders told USAToday he's in the race to add more debate to the Democratic race.

"Having a serious debate about issues that affect working families is important for the Democratic Party and the United States of America," he said. "Debate is a good thing."

“If he had his way, they would both recuse themselves from every case because they are liberal activists,” says a spokeswoman for the likely Republican presidential candidate.

Scott Olson / Getty

Louisiana's Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal joined lawmakers in his state Wednesday in suggesting two liberal justices recuse themselves from the landmark same-sex marriage case currently before the Supreme Court.

The Louisiana House of Representatives passed a resolution earlier this week urging Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to withdraw from the case because "they have engaged in public conduct suggestive of bias." The resolution made headlines for the fact that not a single "no" vote was cast — though one Democratic legislator later said some of her pro-LGBT colleagues likely weren't paying attention.

BuzzFeed News asked Jindal's office whether the likely presidential candidate agreed that Ginsburg and Kagan should recuse themselves.

"It's a fair question in that they have officiated same-sex weddings, which is the subject of the decision," said spokeswoman Shannon Bates. "If he had his way, they would both recuse themselves from every case because they are liberal activists who see the bench as a means of enacting their agenda."

Some conservative religious leaders have similarly called this week for the justices to bow out of the marriage case, with one minister arguing that by performing weddings for same-sex couples they have committed "an unparalleled breach of judicial ethics."

As Jindal prepares to announce his 2016 presidential candidacy, he is aggressively courting conservative Christians.

“Unfortunately, Republican leadership made the decision that they wanted to allow her to be confirmed.”

youtube.com

Sen. Ted Cruz said Thursday the vote on Attorney General Loretta Lynch, which he missed, was a done deal and he has to balance running for president and voting in the Senate.

"It is true, the final vote that was on the confirmation vote at the end of the day, I was not there because I had to fly back for a campaign event," Cruz told the Iowa Caffeinated Thoughts blog, in a video posted Thursday. "But the reality is that vote was a done deal. The fight had been on the cloture vote, and there is no doubt to any observer that I had led the fight to stop her."

Cruz earlier said the cloture vote was the one which mattered, he blamed Republican leadership for allowing her to be confirmed.

"Then this week I flew back to Washington to vote against her on cloture. Cloture was the vote that mattered," he said. "It was the 60-vote threshold where if Republicans stood together she would not have been confirmed. Unfortunately, Republican leadership made the decision that they wanted to allow her to be confirmed, and I gave a long and passionate on the Senate floor pointing out that there are a lot of people across the country frustrated."

Cruz had voted no on her cloture vote in the morning to bring her nomination up for a final vote and spoke for ten minutes in opposition to her.

Cruz said he has to balance both running for president and his job in the Senate.

"And on the question on how you balance both, I have got a job to do in the Senate representing 27 million Texans, but I'll tell you Texans are also calling on me to stand up and fight to turn this country around and I have to say the energy and enthusiasm we have seen in the month since we launched this campaign has been breathtaking," he said.

"We have seen tens of thousands of volunteers from all over the country going to TedCruz.org signing up to volunteer with the campaign. In the first week of the campaign, we had over 51,000 contributions come online from all 50 states as people came to TedCruz.org, they gave over four million dollars, 95% of those contributions were $100 or less, and the reason is simple – people realize the path we are on is not working. They want to change the direction of this country, and I think they want someone who is going to tell them the truth and do what he said he is going to do."

As First Lady, Clinton wrote in support of “tough prosecuting measures” and holding accountable “young people who break the law.”

Kevin Hagen / Getty Images

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton delivered a speech at Columbia University where she outlined her views on the criminal justice system, calling for "an end to the era of mass incarceration" and advocating "alternative punishments for low-level offenders."

Clinton's remarks stood in contrast to the "tough-on-crime" policies advocated by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

In a column she wrote in 1998 as First Lady, Clinton expressed support for those policies, including the 1994 crime bill that put more cops on the streets and imposed harsher prison terms.

"During the 1980s, lots of tough talk failed to stem the increase in violent crime. When my husband was elected, he abandoned tough talk and replaced it with a real strategy, focused on the local level, that combined tough prosecution measures with smart prevention efforts. The Brady Bill and his 1994 crime bill cracked down on the sale of handguns to fugitives, stalkers and felons, banned 19 types of assault weapons and funded 100,000 new police officers on our streets. Communities got the tools they needed to address their own crime problems.

The President's strategy has worked. We have seen violent crime decrease each of the last six years and overall crime rates go down to their lowest level in nearly 25 years."

Clinton further argued in the column that "the same approach can work" for juveniles as for adults and condoned policies wherein "young people who break the law are held accountable."

"This same approach can work for juvenile crime. Communities all across the country are abandoning rhetoric for prosecution and prevention strategies that show real results.

San Diego County is attacking this problem with a comprehensive plan in which law enforcement, schools, public agencies and communities work together. There is zero tolerance for guns and drugs in school. Young people who break the law are held accountable. Families in trouble are directed to a wide array of support services. And at-risk youth are steered into a variety of after-school activities."

Clinton called upon Americans to demand "tough measures that punish criminal behavior."

"The debate over juvenile justice must not be framed in terms of prevention OR prosecution. We must demand both: tough measures that punish criminal behavior and protect children in custody, along with strategies and programs to keep kids out of the criminal justice system in the first place. That's the formula for federal legislation that could really decrease juvenile crime across the country. Let's hope this Congress agrees."

View Entire List ›