Buffett faces a grilling from investors
By Francesco Guerrera and Justin Baer in New York
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 30 2009 19:21 | Last updated: April 30 2009 19:21
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cfe7cb2-35b0-11de-a997-00144feabdc0.html
Warren Buffett will be under pressure at Saturday’s annual gathering of faithful shareholders to explain his worst year ever, with the usually adoring crowd set to probe the legendary investor on his bargain-hunting strategy, succession plans and views of the crisis.
Buffett-watchers say this year’s meeting of shareholders in Berkshire Hathaway, his candies-to-insurance group, will depart from the usual pattern of deferential questions and folksy answers and witness some criticism of the billionaire investor.
“The hard questions will be asked this year,” said James Altucher, a hedge fund manager and author of Trade Like Warren Buffett. “There will be people who always stand by him and others who will ask: ‘Have you lost your way?’”.
Berkshire was unavailable for comment. But people close to Mr Buffett say he has been preparing for tough questions from some of the 25,000-plus investors expected to converge on his native Omaha to attend an event he once called “the Woodstock for capitalists”.
Mr Buffett’s supporters say his long-term record remains stellar and vastly superior to the stock market and that, even during a tough 2008, Berkshire’s shares outperformed major indices and most fund managers.
But criticism of the “Sage of Omaha” would be particularly unwelcome at a time when the 78-year-old investor is looking to preserve his legacy and pick a successor for the roles of both chief executive and chief investment officer.
As the financial crisis and the global economic slowdown raged, Mr Buffett stayed true to his “value investing” credo, buying stakes in blue chips such as Goldman Sachs and General Electric whose shares had slumped. But his motto of being “fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful” could not prevent Berkshire from losing 9.6 per cent in book value per share – the metric that Mr Buffett uses to measure his performance – in 2008. That was Berkshire’s worst performance since 1965 when Mr Buffett bought a struggling textile-maker and turned it into a wildly successful investment vehicle.
“I think he took his eye off the ball a bit,” said Douglas Kass, a general partner at the hedge fund Seabreeze Partners Management, who reversed his short position on Berkshire recently and began buying the stock. “He was encumbered by a buy-and-hold strategy which to some degree ignored the carnage that was going on.”
Mr Buffett has admitted doing “some dumb things” last year, such as buying shares in the oil group ConocoPhillips when crude prices were at a peak and purchasing stock in two small Irish banks whose price later plummeted.
His call to retail investors to buy shares in US companies, made in a New York Times editorial in October, has also not worked out. The S&P 500 is about 6 per cent below levels seen when Mr Buffett wrote the article. But he has always maintained he is unconcerned by short-term market movements because of his long-term outlook.
His performance in 2008, for example, was hit by his large exposure to the ailing US financial sector, which includes stakes in American Express and Wells Fargo. Yet the recent rally in banking stocks appears to have helped Berkshire, whose shares have risen more than 30 per cent since their lows in March.
Additional reporting by John Authers
Friday, May 1, 2009
Medvedev seen as potential spoiler to Putin
Medvedev seen as potential spoiler to Putin
By Charles Clover in Moscow
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: May 1 2009 15:45 | Last updated: May 1 2009 17:12
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e7c4672-363d-11de-af40-00144feabdc0.html
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s growing political stature is increasing the possibility that he will stand for re-election in 2012 in spite of assumptions that those polls would see Vladimir Putin’s return, according to a top Kremlin adviser.
Mr Medvedev and Mr Putin, who is now prime minister, will have to decide within the next year which of them will run for president in 2012, Gleb Pavlovsky, a political consultant and adviser to the president, told the Financial Times.
Many observers have assumed that Mr Medvedev is simply a caretaker president, who will stay in power until Mr Putin, who was constitutionally barred from the third presidential term in 2008, wants the job back.
But Mr Pavlovsky, a consummate Kremlin insider who advised both Mr Putin and Boris Yeltsin, his predecessor, said that exactly who stands for president in 2012 will depend on who emerges best from the economic crisis – and that as Mr Medvedev’s stature has grown, so has his clout to decide his own political destiny.
“Neither Putin nor Medvedev can put the other for a fait accompli,” said Mr Pavlovksy .“Putin can’t tell Medvedev ‘Hey look, stand aside, I’m going to be the candidate’.”
“I think that if Medvedev’s presidency is successful, Putin will not try to move him out … If the strengthening of Medvedev’s stature continues, as it is going now, then Putin will not enter his candidacy.”
Mr Pavlovsky’s comments appear intended to float the idea of a second term for Mr Medvedev term, and put the ball in Mr Putin’s court.
He said that both men know that they cannot run against each other in 2012, as “this would be the signs not just of a split, [but] an open confrontation” between the two, he said.
“I don’t think that either will allow this to happen. Someone will have to stand aside, and this is why it is very important for Medvedev to show results, to prove his worthiness to seek a second term.”
Mr Pavlovsky added that the decision, which the two men must reach together, needed to be made by the autumn of 2010 at the latest, in order to avoid signs of a disagreement and allow for the preparation of a proper election campaign.
The 2012 elections will be the first time that a political transition has taken place without a single dominant political figure, combining constitutional power with informal influence and able to ensure his will is implemented.
Both Mr Yeltsin, who chose Mr Putin as his successor, and then Mr Putin himself, who hand-picked Mr Medvedev to succeed him in 2008, have been in a position to choose their successor. In 2012, by contrast, the candidate will have to be determined by consensus between the two men, and the uncertainty surrounding the transition could give rise to political rivalry, as different elite groups throw their weight behind the candidates.
Most observers assume that the real influence in Russia today still stands with Mr Putin, to whom most high-ranking bureaucrats owe their jobs and thus their loyalty. His approval rating is still higher than Mr Medvedev’s, fluctuating between 60-80 per cent, in spite of the economic crisis that has seen unemployment hit 10 per cent in March. But Mr Medvedev’s authority has grown, and he wields the constitutional authority – even to dismiss Mr Putin, though few believe it would ever come to that.
“There is no schism,” said Mr Pavlovsky. “People expected one, but it hasn’t happened ... A serious split would be impossible to hide.”
Nonetheless, both men have demonstrated markedly different styles of governing. Mr Medvedev has emerged as a more liberal figure, giving his first domestic newspaper interview to the opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta. Mr Putin, on the other hand, has steered a more hardline path, allying himself with the so-called “siloviki”, a clique of former spies and security men.
Kremlin’s poll-winning specialist:
Gleb Pavlovsky, a former political dissident who was jailed by Soviet authorities in the 1980s, rose to prominence working for the Kremlin in the 1990s, writes Charles Clover in Moscow.
Known for his genius at the black arts of winning elections in Russia, Mr Pavlovsky is notorious for anything-goes use of “political technology”, Russian shorthand for western-style political communications techniques mixed with a uniquely authoritarian twist.
In the 1996 presidential election, when Boris Yeltsin was threatened with defeat by the Communists’ Gennady Zyuganov, Mr Pavlovsky helped run what he called “a thermonuclear campaign” and Yeltsin won.
In 1999, when Yeltsin was ailing, Mr Pavlovsky helped to run “Project Successor” , which led to Vladimir Putin’s presidency.
Since overseeing the transfer of office from Mr Putin to Dmitry Medvedev last year, Mr Pavlovsky has rarely been in the limelight but is always busy behind the scenes.
By Charles Clover in Moscow
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: May 1 2009 15:45 | Last updated: May 1 2009 17:12
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e7c4672-363d-11de-af40-00144feabdc0.html
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s growing political stature is increasing the possibility that he will stand for re-election in 2012 in spite of assumptions that those polls would see Vladimir Putin’s return, according to a top Kremlin adviser.
Mr Medvedev and Mr Putin, who is now prime minister, will have to decide within the next year which of them will run for president in 2012, Gleb Pavlovsky, a political consultant and adviser to the president, told the Financial Times.
Many observers have assumed that Mr Medvedev is simply a caretaker president, who will stay in power until Mr Putin, who was constitutionally barred from the third presidential term in 2008, wants the job back.
But Mr Pavlovsky, a consummate Kremlin insider who advised both Mr Putin and Boris Yeltsin, his predecessor, said that exactly who stands for president in 2012 will depend on who emerges best from the economic crisis – and that as Mr Medvedev’s stature has grown, so has his clout to decide his own political destiny.
“Neither Putin nor Medvedev can put the other for a fait accompli,” said Mr Pavlovksy .“Putin can’t tell Medvedev ‘Hey look, stand aside, I’m going to be the candidate’.”
“I think that if Medvedev’s presidency is successful, Putin will not try to move him out … If the strengthening of Medvedev’s stature continues, as it is going now, then Putin will not enter his candidacy.”
Mr Pavlovsky’s comments appear intended to float the idea of a second term for Mr Medvedev term, and put the ball in Mr Putin’s court.
He said that both men know that they cannot run against each other in 2012, as “this would be the signs not just of a split, [but] an open confrontation” between the two, he said.
“I don’t think that either will allow this to happen. Someone will have to stand aside, and this is why it is very important for Medvedev to show results, to prove his worthiness to seek a second term.”
Mr Pavlovsky added that the decision, which the two men must reach together, needed to be made by the autumn of 2010 at the latest, in order to avoid signs of a disagreement and allow for the preparation of a proper election campaign.
The 2012 elections will be the first time that a political transition has taken place without a single dominant political figure, combining constitutional power with informal influence and able to ensure his will is implemented.
Both Mr Yeltsin, who chose Mr Putin as his successor, and then Mr Putin himself, who hand-picked Mr Medvedev to succeed him in 2008, have been in a position to choose their successor. In 2012, by contrast, the candidate will have to be determined by consensus between the two men, and the uncertainty surrounding the transition could give rise to political rivalry, as different elite groups throw their weight behind the candidates.
Most observers assume that the real influence in Russia today still stands with Mr Putin, to whom most high-ranking bureaucrats owe their jobs and thus their loyalty. His approval rating is still higher than Mr Medvedev’s, fluctuating between 60-80 per cent, in spite of the economic crisis that has seen unemployment hit 10 per cent in March. But Mr Medvedev’s authority has grown, and he wields the constitutional authority – even to dismiss Mr Putin, though few believe it would ever come to that.
“There is no schism,” said Mr Pavlovsky. “People expected one, but it hasn’t happened ... A serious split would be impossible to hide.”
Nonetheless, both men have demonstrated markedly different styles of governing. Mr Medvedev has emerged as a more liberal figure, giving his first domestic newspaper interview to the opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta. Mr Putin, on the other hand, has steered a more hardline path, allying himself with the so-called “siloviki”, a clique of former spies and security men.
Kremlin’s poll-winning specialist:
Gleb Pavlovsky, a former political dissident who was jailed by Soviet authorities in the 1980s, rose to prominence working for the Kremlin in the 1990s, writes Charles Clover in Moscow.
Known for his genius at the black arts of winning elections in Russia, Mr Pavlovsky is notorious for anything-goes use of “political technology”, Russian shorthand for western-style political communications techniques mixed with a uniquely authoritarian twist.
In the 1996 presidential election, when Boris Yeltsin was threatened with defeat by the Communists’ Gennady Zyuganov, Mr Pavlovsky helped run what he called “a thermonuclear campaign” and Yeltsin won.
In 1999, when Yeltsin was ailing, Mr Pavlovsky helped to run “Project Successor” , which led to Vladimir Putin’s presidency.
Since overseeing the transfer of office from Mr Putin to Dmitry Medvedev last year, Mr Pavlovsky has rarely been in the limelight but is always busy behind the scenes.
MasterCard hit by fall in credit card spending
MasterCard hit by fall in credit card spending
By Saskia Scholtes in New York
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: May 1 2009 17:11 | Last updated: May 1 2009 17:11
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/398328f6-3668-11de-af40-00144feabdc0.html
MasterCard, the world’s second largest electronic payments processor, on Friday said first quarter profits fell 18 per cent on the back of a stronger US dollar and a sharp drop in US credit card spending.
First-quarter net income fell to $367.3m, or $2.81 a share, from $446.9m, or $3.38 a share a year earlier.
Robert Selander, chief executive of MasterCard, is cutting expenses to reach profit targets that are threatened as consumers spend less due to rising unemployment, banks cutting credit limits and lower gas prices.
US consumers in particular have become increasingly cautious about using credit cards. First quarter spending on US credit cards processed by MasterCard fell by 17.2 per cent from a year earlier.
Rival Visa has made up for similar declines in US credit card revenue with growth in US debit volumes, a market which Visa dominates in the US with a 75 per cent market share. MasterCard, however, has been unable to make up for lost US credit card transaction volumes in debit, where it has been unable to grow its US market share meaningfully amid the financial crisis.
“In normal circumstances we would expect to see a nice upward trajectory in debit,” said Martina Hund-Mejean, chief financial officer of MasterCard. “But for the banks, moving from one transaction platform to another requires an upfront investment from the banks – which they are just not in a position to do at the moment.”
Revenue declined 2.2 per cent to $1.2bn from a year earlier because of the stronger US dollar, which prevented MasterCard from benefiting from higher overseas credit spending and a worldwide increase in the use of debit cards. In local currency terms, net revenue increased by 1.8 per cent.
Payment processors such as MasterCard and Visa are insulated from rising credit card losses because they do not make loans, but receive a fee every time they process a card payment. However, their profits have been affected by a slowdown in consumer spending, even as consumers increase their use of electronic payment systems in preference to cash or cheques.
MasterCard has responded by aggressively cutting costs to maintain a 48 per cent operating margin. Operating expenses declined 11 per cent to $595m in the first quarter as MasterCard slashed advertising and marketing costs by 35 per cent and travel and personnel costs by 3 per cent.
The company’s shares were down 8.6 per cent in morning trade at $167.72.
By Saskia Scholtes in New York
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: May 1 2009 17:11 | Last updated: May 1 2009 17:11
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/398328f6-3668-11de-af40-00144feabdc0.html
MasterCard, the world’s second largest electronic payments processor, on Friday said first quarter profits fell 18 per cent on the back of a stronger US dollar and a sharp drop in US credit card spending.
First-quarter net income fell to $367.3m, or $2.81 a share, from $446.9m, or $3.38 a share a year earlier.
Robert Selander, chief executive of MasterCard, is cutting expenses to reach profit targets that are threatened as consumers spend less due to rising unemployment, banks cutting credit limits and lower gas prices.
US consumers in particular have become increasingly cautious about using credit cards. First quarter spending on US credit cards processed by MasterCard fell by 17.2 per cent from a year earlier.
Rival Visa has made up for similar declines in US credit card revenue with growth in US debit volumes, a market which Visa dominates in the US with a 75 per cent market share. MasterCard, however, has been unable to make up for lost US credit card transaction volumes in debit, where it has been unable to grow its US market share meaningfully amid the financial crisis.
“In normal circumstances we would expect to see a nice upward trajectory in debit,” said Martina Hund-Mejean, chief financial officer of MasterCard. “But for the banks, moving from one transaction platform to another requires an upfront investment from the banks – which they are just not in a position to do at the moment.”
Revenue declined 2.2 per cent to $1.2bn from a year earlier because of the stronger US dollar, which prevented MasterCard from benefiting from higher overseas credit spending and a worldwide increase in the use of debit cards. In local currency terms, net revenue increased by 1.8 per cent.
Payment processors such as MasterCard and Visa are insulated from rising credit card losses because they do not make loans, but receive a fee every time they process a card payment. However, their profits have been affected by a slowdown in consumer spending, even as consumers increase their use of electronic payment systems in preference to cash or cheques.
MasterCard has responded by aggressively cutting costs to maintain a 48 per cent operating margin. Operating expenses declined 11 per cent to $595m in the first quarter as MasterCard slashed advertising and marketing costs by 35 per cent and travel and personnel costs by 3 per cent.
The company’s shares were down 8.6 per cent in morning trade at $167.72.
Glimmers of hope on US economy
Glimmers of hope on US economy
By Sarah O’Connor in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: May 1 2009 16:20 | Last updated: May 1 2009 16:20
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6316d1e-3661-11de-af40-00144feabdc0.html
The US manufacturing sector is still shrinking but at a much slower pace, a key survey showed on Friday, while battered US consumers started to feel more confident about the economy.
The number of new orders factories are receiving looks to be steadying, according to the Institute for Supply Management’s factory index. The index has been below 50 – which shows the sector is shrinking – for 15 months, but in April it edged to its highest level in 7 months as the pace of the contraction eased.
The figure, which rose to 40.1 from 36.3 in March, was higher than economists expected and prompted further optimism from those who believe the most brutal phase of the recession is over.
“We have been seeing…contraction at a very rapid rate and now that rate is slowing dramatically,” said Kurt Karl, head of economic research at Swiss Re. “It means basically that in three months we could be expanding.”
Norbert Ore, chair of the ISM survey committee, said it was “the first report that we’ve seen in quite some time that we can call very encouraging.”
He highlighted the improvement in the index for new orders, which has steadily improved from 23.1 to 47.2 over the past five months. ”While manufacturing is still declining, all of the signs are positive toward a reversal of that decline and much more so than anything we’ve seen than in the last several months,” he added.
That mood is filtering through to ordinary consumers, according to a separate survey on Friday, which showed that confidence has recovered to levels last seen in September 2008, just before the economy tipped over the brink.
The Reuters/University of Michigan consumer confidence index rose to 65.1 in April from 57.3 in March, more than analysts expected. It crashed to a 30-year low of 55.3 in November.
Glimmers of improvement in housing markets and other areas have helped to lift confidence, though there are few signs that has translated into higher spending, in the face of the worst unemployment since the 1980s.
By Sarah O’Connor in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: May 1 2009 16:20 | Last updated: May 1 2009 16:20
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c6316d1e-3661-11de-af40-00144feabdc0.html
The US manufacturing sector is still shrinking but at a much slower pace, a key survey showed on Friday, while battered US consumers started to feel more confident about the economy.
The number of new orders factories are receiving looks to be steadying, according to the Institute for Supply Management’s factory index. The index has been below 50 – which shows the sector is shrinking – for 15 months, but in April it edged to its highest level in 7 months as the pace of the contraction eased.
The figure, which rose to 40.1 from 36.3 in March, was higher than economists expected and prompted further optimism from those who believe the most brutal phase of the recession is over.
“We have been seeing…contraction at a very rapid rate and now that rate is slowing dramatically,” said Kurt Karl, head of economic research at Swiss Re. “It means basically that in three months we could be expanding.”
Norbert Ore, chair of the ISM survey committee, said it was “the first report that we’ve seen in quite some time that we can call very encouraging.”
He highlighted the improvement in the index for new orders, which has steadily improved from 23.1 to 47.2 over the past five months. ”While manufacturing is still declining, all of the signs are positive toward a reversal of that decline and much more so than anything we’ve seen than in the last several months,” he added.
That mood is filtering through to ordinary consumers, according to a separate survey on Friday, which showed that confidence has recovered to levels last seen in September 2008, just before the economy tipped over the brink.
The Reuters/University of Michigan consumer confidence index rose to 65.1 in April from 57.3 in March, more than analysts expected. It crashed to a 30-year low of 55.3 in November.
Glimmers of improvement in housing markets and other areas have helped to lift confidence, though there are few signs that has translated into higher spending, in the face of the worst unemployment since the 1980s.
Souter Reportedly Planning to Retire From High Court - Justice Might Stay Until Nominee Confirmed
Souter Reportedly Planning to Retire From High Court - Justice Might Stay Until Nominee Confirmed
By Robert Barnes
Copyright by The Washington Post
Friday, May 1, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043004361.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Justice David H. Souter, the Republican-appointed New England jurist who has become a reliable member of the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court, has told friends that he plans to retire, according to a government official.
Court spokeswoman Kathleen L. Arberg said last night that Souter had no comment following reports that he plans to step down at the end of the court's term in June. Souter would be likely to stay on until a replacement could be confirmed. The court's next term starts in October.
Souter's colleagues on the bench have been trying to talk him out of retiring, according to a source close to the court.
A vacancy would give President Obama his first chance to begin reshaping the court but would not likely change the dynamic on a bench that is often evenly split between the liberal and conservative blocs, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony M. Kennedy often holding the pivotal role.
Although Obama's choice would probably be far different from the 69-year-old intellectual bachelor from New Hampshire, the replacement would almost surely have a similar ideological outlook. Most court observers also believe Obama would be likely to choose a woman as his first appointment, since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the lone female among the nine justices.
Most often mentioned as possibilities are two appeals judges, Sonia Sotomayor of New York and Diane P. Wood of Chicago, along with Obama's new solicitor general, Elena Kagan. Vice President Biden has been charged with drawing up a list of possible nominees, according to the source close to the court.
After Obama's victory, the question quickly became who would be the first to leave the court, and all speculation revolved around the three longest-serving liberals. But Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, the longest-serving justice on the current court, gave no indication he was ready to leave.
Nor did Ginsburg, 76. Even after her pancreatic cancer was diagnosed this winter, she made clear her intentions to serve on the court until well into her 80s. The cancer was detected extremely early and successfully removed, she said, and she has undergone what she describes as a precautionary round of chemotherapy.
Souter was considered by some to be the most likely, because of his well-known disdain for the ways of Washington. The speculation has been fueled in recent weeks because Souter had not hired clerks for the court's next term. That was tempered by the fact that Souter traditionally is the last justice to hire for the coming term.
When the court is not in session, Souter is back home in Weare, a small town west of Concord where he has a modest 200-year-old farmhouse on eight acres.
A friend who ran into him last summer in Concord said he was surprised by just how strongly Souter spoke about wanting to leave Washington. "He said, 'If Obama wins, I'll be the first one to retire,' " said the friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Souter had not yet announced a retirement.
White House advisers have been drafting lists of potential replacements virtually since Obama took office, and the list is said to also include Stanford University law professor Kathleen M. Sullivan, Kim McLane Wardlaw of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm and Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears. Souter, who has been on the court since October 1990, was nominated by President George H.W. Bush on July 25, 1990, to a seat vacated by William J. Brennan Jr. He was confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 2, 1990.
Another friend of Souter's, Concord lawyer Wilbur "Bill" Glahn, was not surprised by the reports of retirement. Glahn, who has known Souter for 35 years after working under him in the New Hampshire attorney general's office, said he had seen Souter several times in early April. He would not divulge the exact nature of their talks about Souter's plans but said it was clear for years what direction Souter was heading.
"I certainly have known it was something he had thought about for years," Glahn said.
Glahn said it was hard to know just what Souter's thinking was on the timing of a retirement. "Anyone's timing in this situation is their timing," he said. Glahn noted that Souter was such a committed New Hampshire-ite that he had climbed all 47 of the 4,000-foot peaks in the White Mountains.
Souter was little known when nominated, with a slight record of legal writings and a lack of controversial stands that was seen as an asset. Bush's chief of staff John E. Sununu, also from New Hampshire, called him a "home run for conservatives."
Staff writer Alec MacGillis contributed to this report.
US Supreme Court Justice Souter to retire
By Andrew Ward in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: May 1 2009 13:05 | Last updated: May 1 2009 15:41
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a8eb6382-3647-11de-af40-00144feabdc0.html
President Barack Obama launched a search for his first Supreme Court pick on Friday after Justice David Souter made it known he was planning to step down.
Mr Souter’s retirement clears a path for the president to place his own imprint on the court and strengthen its liberal-leaning membership after two conservative picks by President George W. Bush.
The shake-up will not radically alter the court’s balance because Mr Souter is considered one of the more liberal justices, but it creates an opportunity for Mr Obama to entrench liberal influence by appointing a younger replacement who could serve for decades.
Supreme Court nominations are among the most significant decisions a US president can make because justices are appointed for life and rule on the most contentious constitutional issues ranging from abortion rights to the disputed 2000 presidential election.
The nine-member court has often split in 5-4 votes between conservative and liberal factions on a range of issues.
During his own election campaign, Mr Obama said that, should a vacancy arise, he would pick someone with a strong judicial record who also had “a sense of what real-world folks are going through”.
On the explosive issue of abortion, he said he would not impose a “litmus test” but stressed that he personally believed the Roe versus Wade case that legalised abortion was “rightly decided”.
Whoever Mr Obama chooses is sure to face tough scrutiny from Republicans but his ability to force through his nomination was strengthened by this week’s defection of Arlen Specter, the former Republican senator for Pennsylvania, to the Democrats.
Mr Specter’s switch, together with almost certain victory for Democrat Al Franken in the disputed Minnesota senate race, would provide Democrats with the 60 votes they need to override Republican opposition to any nominee.
Most of the favourites to be picked are women because of an assumption that Mr Obama would want to bring greater gender balance to the court, which currently counts Ruth Bader Ginsberg as its only woman. Among those mentioned as potential candidates include Elena Kagan, who Mr Obama appointed as Solicitor General, and appeals court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Wood.
Mr Obama is also sure to face pressure to diversify the court’s racial makeup, with Hispanics particularly keen for representation given that there is already an African-American justice in Clarence Thomas.
Men mentioned as possible picks include Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor, US District Judge Ruben Castillo, and Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor.
As a former professor of constitutional law and editor of the Harvard Law Review, Mr Obama has extensive experience and connections to draw from as he ponders his choice.
Mr Souter was appointed by Republican president George H. W. Bush in 1990 but surprised and disappointed many conservatives by taking relatively liberal positions on issues including abortion rights and affirmative action. He also voted to limit use of the death penalty and backed legal rights for detainees held at the US military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
When the second President Bush faced his first pick for the court, “No More Souters” was adopted as a rallying cry by activists pressing for a conservative choice.
Government officials confirmed that Mr Souter was planning to step down at the end of the current court session in June. The White House said it had not received “formal communication” of his retirement.
At 69, Mr Souter is not among the oldest members of the court but he had made no secret of his desire to return to his home state of New Hampshire where he was once attorney-general and a judge.
It had been widely expected that Ms Ginsberg would be the first justice to retire during the Obama administration after she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer earlier this year. But she has since returned to work after surgery and indicated that she plans to stay on.
The replacement for Mr Souter will mark the first Supreme Court justice named by a Democrat since 1994, when President Bill Clinton nominated Justice Stephen Breyer. His successor, George W. Bush, named two justices: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
Within hours of Mr Souter’s retirement becoming known, activist groups on the left and right had launched lobbying campaigns to influence Mr Obama’s choice. Marge Baker, executive vice president of People For the American Way, a liberal group, said the president should nominate someone who would continue Mr Souter’s work “to defend our personal freedoms and ensure that every person has equal access to justice”.
“In November, President Obama was given a mandate to appoint federal judges who are committed to our core constitutional values of justice, equality, and opportunity for all,” she said. “That is exactly what he should do.”
Anti-abortion groups vowed to fight any pro-abortion pick. “This nomination represents a test for a president who has expressed a public commitment to reducing abortions while pursuing an aggressive pro-abortion agenda. Appointing an abortion radical to the Court - someone who believes social activism trumps the Constitution - further undermines efforts to reduce abortion,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.
Who will Obama pick?
Speculation over Supreme Court vacancies is one of Washington’s favourite parlour games. As a former professor of constitutional law and editor of the Harvard Law Review, President Barack Obama will relish the choice. Many experts predict he will pick a woman to bring greater gender balance to the court. Here are some of the potential contenders:
Elena Kagan, 49, US Solicitor General; former associate White House counsel in the Clinton administration and dean of Harvard Law School before Mr Obama tapped her to become Solicitor General; critics highlight her lack of judicial experience.
Sonia Sotomayor, 54, US Appeals Court judge; would be first Hispanic on the Supreme Court; sparked controversy by upholding a decision to throw out a firefighter promotions test because no African-Americans qualified.
Diane Wood, 58, US Appeals Court judge; appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1995; knows Mr Obama from their time teaching together at the University of Chicago Law School; oldest of the leading contenders – age could count against her.
By Robert Barnes
Copyright by The Washington Post
Friday, May 1, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043004361.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Justice David H. Souter, the Republican-appointed New England jurist who has become a reliable member of the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court, has told friends that he plans to retire, according to a government official.
Court spokeswoman Kathleen L. Arberg said last night that Souter had no comment following reports that he plans to step down at the end of the court's term in June. Souter would be likely to stay on until a replacement could be confirmed. The court's next term starts in October.
Souter's colleagues on the bench have been trying to talk him out of retiring, according to a source close to the court.
A vacancy would give President Obama his first chance to begin reshaping the court but would not likely change the dynamic on a bench that is often evenly split between the liberal and conservative blocs, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony M. Kennedy often holding the pivotal role.
Although Obama's choice would probably be far different from the 69-year-old intellectual bachelor from New Hampshire, the replacement would almost surely have a similar ideological outlook. Most court observers also believe Obama would be likely to choose a woman as his first appointment, since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the lone female among the nine justices.
Most often mentioned as possibilities are two appeals judges, Sonia Sotomayor of New York and Diane P. Wood of Chicago, along with Obama's new solicitor general, Elena Kagan. Vice President Biden has been charged with drawing up a list of possible nominees, according to the source close to the court.
After Obama's victory, the question quickly became who would be the first to leave the court, and all speculation revolved around the three longest-serving liberals. But Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, the longest-serving justice on the current court, gave no indication he was ready to leave.
Nor did Ginsburg, 76. Even after her pancreatic cancer was diagnosed this winter, she made clear her intentions to serve on the court until well into her 80s. The cancer was detected extremely early and successfully removed, she said, and she has undergone what she describes as a precautionary round of chemotherapy.
Souter was considered by some to be the most likely, because of his well-known disdain for the ways of Washington. The speculation has been fueled in recent weeks because Souter had not hired clerks for the court's next term. That was tempered by the fact that Souter traditionally is the last justice to hire for the coming term.
When the court is not in session, Souter is back home in Weare, a small town west of Concord where he has a modest 200-year-old farmhouse on eight acres.
A friend who ran into him last summer in Concord said he was surprised by just how strongly Souter spoke about wanting to leave Washington. "He said, 'If Obama wins, I'll be the first one to retire,' " said the friend, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Souter had not yet announced a retirement.
White House advisers have been drafting lists of potential replacements virtually since Obama took office, and the list is said to also include Stanford University law professor Kathleen M. Sullivan, Kim McLane Wardlaw of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm and Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears. Souter, who has been on the court since October 1990, was nominated by President George H.W. Bush on July 25, 1990, to a seat vacated by William J. Brennan Jr. He was confirmed by the Senate on Oct. 2, 1990.
Another friend of Souter's, Concord lawyer Wilbur "Bill" Glahn, was not surprised by the reports of retirement. Glahn, who has known Souter for 35 years after working under him in the New Hampshire attorney general's office, said he had seen Souter several times in early April. He would not divulge the exact nature of their talks about Souter's plans but said it was clear for years what direction Souter was heading.
"I certainly have known it was something he had thought about for years," Glahn said.
Glahn said it was hard to know just what Souter's thinking was on the timing of a retirement. "Anyone's timing in this situation is their timing," he said. Glahn noted that Souter was such a committed New Hampshire-ite that he had climbed all 47 of the 4,000-foot peaks in the White Mountains.
Souter was little known when nominated, with a slight record of legal writings and a lack of controversial stands that was seen as an asset. Bush's chief of staff John E. Sununu, also from New Hampshire, called him a "home run for conservatives."
Staff writer Alec MacGillis contributed to this report.
US Supreme Court Justice Souter to retire
By Andrew Ward in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: May 1 2009 13:05 | Last updated: May 1 2009 15:41
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a8eb6382-3647-11de-af40-00144feabdc0.html
President Barack Obama launched a search for his first Supreme Court pick on Friday after Justice David Souter made it known he was planning to step down.
Mr Souter’s retirement clears a path for the president to place his own imprint on the court and strengthen its liberal-leaning membership after two conservative picks by President George W. Bush.
The shake-up will not radically alter the court’s balance because Mr Souter is considered one of the more liberal justices, but it creates an opportunity for Mr Obama to entrench liberal influence by appointing a younger replacement who could serve for decades.
Supreme Court nominations are among the most significant decisions a US president can make because justices are appointed for life and rule on the most contentious constitutional issues ranging from abortion rights to the disputed 2000 presidential election.
The nine-member court has often split in 5-4 votes between conservative and liberal factions on a range of issues.
During his own election campaign, Mr Obama said that, should a vacancy arise, he would pick someone with a strong judicial record who also had “a sense of what real-world folks are going through”.
On the explosive issue of abortion, he said he would not impose a “litmus test” but stressed that he personally believed the Roe versus Wade case that legalised abortion was “rightly decided”.
Whoever Mr Obama chooses is sure to face tough scrutiny from Republicans but his ability to force through his nomination was strengthened by this week’s defection of Arlen Specter, the former Republican senator for Pennsylvania, to the Democrats.
Mr Specter’s switch, together with almost certain victory for Democrat Al Franken in the disputed Minnesota senate race, would provide Democrats with the 60 votes they need to override Republican opposition to any nominee.
Most of the favourites to be picked are women because of an assumption that Mr Obama would want to bring greater gender balance to the court, which currently counts Ruth Bader Ginsberg as its only woman. Among those mentioned as potential candidates include Elena Kagan, who Mr Obama appointed as Solicitor General, and appeals court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Wood.
Mr Obama is also sure to face pressure to diversify the court’s racial makeup, with Hispanics particularly keen for representation given that there is already an African-American justice in Clarence Thomas.
Men mentioned as possible picks include Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor, US District Judge Ruben Castillo, and Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor.
As a former professor of constitutional law and editor of the Harvard Law Review, Mr Obama has extensive experience and connections to draw from as he ponders his choice.
Mr Souter was appointed by Republican president George H. W. Bush in 1990 but surprised and disappointed many conservatives by taking relatively liberal positions on issues including abortion rights and affirmative action. He also voted to limit use of the death penalty and backed legal rights for detainees held at the US military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
When the second President Bush faced his first pick for the court, “No More Souters” was adopted as a rallying cry by activists pressing for a conservative choice.
Government officials confirmed that Mr Souter was planning to step down at the end of the current court session in June. The White House said it had not received “formal communication” of his retirement.
At 69, Mr Souter is not among the oldest members of the court but he had made no secret of his desire to return to his home state of New Hampshire where he was once attorney-general and a judge.
It had been widely expected that Ms Ginsberg would be the first justice to retire during the Obama administration after she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer earlier this year. But she has since returned to work after surgery and indicated that she plans to stay on.
The replacement for Mr Souter will mark the first Supreme Court justice named by a Democrat since 1994, when President Bill Clinton nominated Justice Stephen Breyer. His successor, George W. Bush, named two justices: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
Within hours of Mr Souter’s retirement becoming known, activist groups on the left and right had launched lobbying campaigns to influence Mr Obama’s choice. Marge Baker, executive vice president of People For the American Way, a liberal group, said the president should nominate someone who would continue Mr Souter’s work “to defend our personal freedoms and ensure that every person has equal access to justice”.
“In November, President Obama was given a mandate to appoint federal judges who are committed to our core constitutional values of justice, equality, and opportunity for all,” she said. “That is exactly what he should do.”
Anti-abortion groups vowed to fight any pro-abortion pick. “This nomination represents a test for a president who has expressed a public commitment to reducing abortions while pursuing an aggressive pro-abortion agenda. Appointing an abortion radical to the Court - someone who believes social activism trumps the Constitution - further undermines efforts to reduce abortion,” said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life.
Who will Obama pick?
Speculation over Supreme Court vacancies is one of Washington’s favourite parlour games. As a former professor of constitutional law and editor of the Harvard Law Review, President Barack Obama will relish the choice. Many experts predict he will pick a woman to bring greater gender balance to the court. Here are some of the potential contenders:
Elena Kagan, 49, US Solicitor General; former associate White House counsel in the Clinton administration and dean of Harvard Law School before Mr Obama tapped her to become Solicitor General; critics highlight her lack of judicial experience.
Sonia Sotomayor, 54, US Appeals Court judge; would be first Hispanic on the Supreme Court; sparked controversy by upholding a decision to throw out a firefighter promotions test because no African-Americans qualified.
Diane Wood, 58, US Appeals Court judge; appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1995; knows Mr Obama from their time teaching together at the University of Chicago Law School; oldest of the leading contenders – age could count against her.
Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful
Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful
Copyright by CNN News
April 30, 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small. See results of the survey »
The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Leith Anderson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The survey asked: "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
advertisement
Roughly half of all respondents -- 49 percent -- said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.
The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.
Copyright by CNN News
April 30, 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.
More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.
The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small. See results of the survey »
The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Leith Anderson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The survey asked: "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
advertisement
Roughly half of all respondents -- 49 percent -- said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.
The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.
UCF Research Re-awakens Old Genes to Help in Fight Against HIV
UCF Research Re-awakens Old Genes to Help in Fight Against HIV
By Zenaida Gonzalez Kotala
April 28, 2009
Copyright by UCF Newsroom
http://news.ucf.edu/UCFnews/index?page=article&id=00240041339c48b30120a92dbf2f00726c
A new vaginal cream containing a re-awakened protein could someday prevent the transmission of HIV.
Scientists at the University of Central Florida in Orlando have revived a dormant gene found in humans and coaxed it to produce retrocyclin, a protein that resists HIV.
Lead scientist Alexander Cole used aminoglycosides, drugs commonly used to fight bacterial infections, to trigger the production of the sleeping protein expressed by the retrocyclin gene.
“It could make a huge difference in the fight against HIV,” Cole said. “Much more work would be needed to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this approach. We would certainly have to have human trials, but these findings represent a promising step in that direction.”
Findings from his three-year investigation are published in this month’s PLOS Biology, a well-respected scientific journal.
HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. The disease, most often transmitted sexually, affects 4.3 million people worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. About 14,560 people die annually from HIV-related complications each year in the United States alone, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Dozens of scientists around the world are looking for ways to prevent the transmission of the disease. Cole’s journey into this area of research began while he was a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles. While there, he and his colleagues discovered that similar retrocyclin proteins found in early primates appeared to prevent HIV infections in cell cultures. The same gene exists in humans, but because of a mutation, it no longer produces the protein.
Now, in collaboration with researchers at UCLA, the Centers for Disease Control and his team at UCF, Cole has found that restoring the production of retrocyclins prevents HIV entry. He found a way to get the gene to produce the retrocyclins and then showed that the retrocyclins appear to prevent the transmission of HIV. He applied aminoglycoside antibiotics to vaginal tissues and cervical cells in his lab and found the antibiotic appears to stimulate those cells and tissues to produce retrocyclins on their own.
He said there is a good possibility the aminoglycoside antibiotics will be used in a cream or gel format that could someday be a simple way to prevent the transmission of HIV from men to women.
Cole joined UCF's Burnett School of Biomedical Sciences in the College of Medicine in 2003. He continues his work here with more than $4 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health.
Cole has degrees from the College of William and Mary and The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. He completed a postdoctoral fellowship at UCLA, and he was an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine at UCLA before teaching at UCF.
He has published more than 50 peer-reviewed articles and has been a grant reviewer for several agencies, including the NIH, the Wellcome Trust and the National Science Foundation.
By Zenaida Gonzalez Kotala
April 28, 2009
Copyright by UCF Newsroom
http://news.ucf.edu/UCFnews/index?page=article&id=00240041339c48b30120a92dbf2f00726c
A new vaginal cream containing a re-awakened protein could someday prevent the transmission of HIV.
Scientists at the University of Central Florida in Orlando have revived a dormant gene found in humans and coaxed it to produce retrocyclin, a protein that resists HIV.
Lead scientist Alexander Cole used aminoglycosides, drugs commonly used to fight bacterial infections, to trigger the production of the sleeping protein expressed by the retrocyclin gene.
“It could make a huge difference in the fight against HIV,” Cole said. “Much more work would be needed to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this approach. We would certainly have to have human trials, but these findings represent a promising step in that direction.”
Findings from his three-year investigation are published in this month’s PLOS Biology, a well-respected scientific journal.
HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. The disease, most often transmitted sexually, affects 4.3 million people worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. About 14,560 people die annually from HIV-related complications each year in the United States alone, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Dozens of scientists around the world are looking for ways to prevent the transmission of the disease. Cole’s journey into this area of research began while he was a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles. While there, he and his colleagues discovered that similar retrocyclin proteins found in early primates appeared to prevent HIV infections in cell cultures. The same gene exists in humans, but because of a mutation, it no longer produces the protein.
Now, in collaboration with researchers at UCLA, the Centers for Disease Control and his team at UCF, Cole has found that restoring the production of retrocyclins prevents HIV entry. He found a way to get the gene to produce the retrocyclins and then showed that the retrocyclins appear to prevent the transmission of HIV. He applied aminoglycoside antibiotics to vaginal tissues and cervical cells in his lab and found the antibiotic appears to stimulate those cells and tissues to produce retrocyclins on their own.
He said there is a good possibility the aminoglycoside antibiotics will be used in a cream or gel format that could someday be a simple way to prevent the transmission of HIV from men to women.
Cole joined UCF's Burnett School of Biomedical Sciences in the College of Medicine in 2003. He continues his work here with more than $4 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health.
Cole has degrees from the College of William and Mary and The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. He completed a postdoctoral fellowship at UCLA, and he was an assistant professor in the Department of Medicine at UCLA before teaching at UCF.
He has published more than 50 peer-reviewed articles and has been a grant reviewer for several agencies, including the NIH, the Wellcome Trust and the National Science Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
