Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Thune to Support Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Nomination to Serve on the Supreme Court

“Judge Barrett and I discussed her extensive experience and principled judicial philosophy, and it is going to be extremely difficult for anyone to argue she isn’t qualified.”

Thune and Judge Barrett during their meeting today.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today met with Judge Amy Coney Barrett and announced he would support her nomination to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“After meeting with Judge Barrett, I am confident that she has what it takes to be a phenomenal Supreme Court justice,” said Thune. “Judge Barrett and I discussed her extensive experience and principled judicial philosophy, and it is going to be extremely difficult for anyone to argue she isn’t qualified. It is clear that she will be the kind of justice who respects the Constitution and will not legislate from the bench. Over the course of her distinguished career, she has demonstrated a strong commitment to interpreting the law as written and applying it faithfully and impartially. As I have said from the beginning of this process, one of the main reasons I ran for the Senate was for big moments like this one, and I look forward to voting for Judge Barrett to serve on our nation’s highest court.”

Understand data to effectively regulate railroad rates
by State Senator Jessica Castleberry

Railroads occupy a unique space in the American economy. As privately owned and operated enterprises, they face the same pressures as any other company.

However, as an enterprise tied to the public good, railroads are also more directly connected to – and shaped by – government oversight and regulation.

One of the government entities in charge of this oversight is the Surface Transportation Board, which ensures railroad rates increase only at a pace with the broader economy’s performance.

STB’s oversight of railroad operations includes monitoring a metric known as “revenue adequacy,” stating railroad companies should not generate returns on capital investment beyond what they need to get by.

Given the industry’s competitive pressures, the facing caps on revenue at the hands of the government should raise concerns.

Those concerns will become significantly more pressing if the proposal currently before the STB gains steam. The proposal would empower the STB to cap railroad rates once they’ve reached “revenue adequacy.”

Two University of Chicago economists recently published a paper detailing the proposition’s problems, and explains how the proposal threatens to put railroad companies at a severe disadvantage by discouraging – or even punishing – strong financial performances.

Since revenue adequacy thresholds don’t apply to railroads’ capital investment competitors, the proposal would cause railroads to be less appealing to investors who are, understandably, motivated by returns.

A responsible investor should make decisions based on returns. Such considerations are at the root of a business mindset. Any regulatory mechanism meant to reduce the reasonable returns of a crucial sector is misguided. With demand expected to increase in the coming years, the barrier to private investment will make it difficult for railroads to grow, upgrade, and keep the nation’s freight moving efficiently.

The paper’s authors are also concerned with the proposal’s definition of “revenue adequacy.” Analysis of past financial performance, they say, will not accurately predict the revenue levels needed to sustain future performance. Citing statements made by two other prominent economists, the paper notes: “there is no way in which one can look at accounting rates of return and infer anything about relative economic profitability … Economists (and others) who believe that analysis of accounting rates of return will tell them much (if they can only overcome the various definitional problems which separate economists and accountants) are deluding themselves.”

Rather than looking to the past to build their definitions, the STB should look forward – and should carefully consider the impacts of enacting a regressive constraint on one of the nation’s most crucial industries.

The University of Chicago also reviewed comparable S&P 500 companies’ performance from 2006 to 2018, which shows the financial performance of railroads falls well below average – hardly a sign of financial over-performance or greed.

As the STB continues its important work, it must utilize relevant and compelling data.

In truth, the latest revenue adequacy proposal falls short. Competition has yielded an efficient, affordable, and reliable railroad system. The STB must resist misguided calls to move the industry backward.

Senator Jessica Castleberry is a member of the South Dakota Senate Transportation Committee and a small business owner from Rapid City.

From the Argus Leader, apparently the media is getting a little more aggressive in town:

A woman was arrested after she smashed a beer bottle over a man’s head because of a political disagreement, police say.

Kamie Jo Roesler, 28, from Columbia, S.C., was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, police spokesman Sam Clemens said. Roesler is a former KSFY-TV news anchor who now works for WIS-TV in Columbia.

Read it all here.

Well, this was kind of a tone-deaf WTF release from South Dakota Democrats.

In case you didn’t realize it, South Dakota Democrats seem to think we should all be sheltering in place in COVID-shelters, as we abandon our lives, hide under blankets, and shut down everything. And it’s just plain evil that Governor Kristi Noem promote pheasant hunting – an outdoor activity in the state – something you can actually do where people aren’t cooped up with each other:

South Dakota Democratic Party Chairman Randy Seiler said, “Kristi Noem’s video-tweet of her hunting pheasants while mocking social distancing is tasteless and offensive.

and..

In the tweet from Noem, she can be seen in a corn field with a shotgun looking at the camera saying, “This is how we do social distancing in South Dakota” she then turns away from the camera as a rooster pheasant flies over.  She shoots three times before the pheasant falls at which point Noem turns back to the camera and says, “Less COVID more hunting, that’s the plan for the future.”

“Governor Noem seems to think COVID and measures to contain it is a joke.  Her ‘plan’ to deal with COVID is to mock safety measures to contain it.  There are 20,000 families in South Dakota who aren’t laughing.  She should apologize to them and start acting like a governor instead of a stand-up comedian wannabe,” Seiler said.

Read it all here.

If State Democrat chair Randy Seiler thinks promoting hunting in the state is a joke, it’s probably a good thing he didn’t get elected in 2018.

Really, what’s the next thing the Democrats are going to whine about? That we shouldn’t fish in the lakes? What are we actually allowed to do in their self-perceived reich?  The reality is that people actually have to live some semblance of their lives, and in terms of social distancing, hunting is a pretty safe outdoor activity. If there’s one thing we have in South Dakota, it’s plenty of open space and wildlife. At least we should be able to do that? Right?

Despite what Democrats say.

Being outside and enjoying South Dakota certainly has a lot more appeal than a zoom meeting.  And a tone-deaf, out of touch press release like this leaves little wonder why Democrats in the state continue to shed followers.

My Constitutional Duty
By Sen. John Thune

Ruth Bader Ginsburg served with distinction on the Supreme Court for more than 25 years, and she embraced the law at a time when being a woman meant a constant uphill battle. She was involved in some of the court’s most memorable exchanges and was always able to disagree with her colleagues without indicting their character. Justice Ginsburg could disagree without being disagreeable – a principle that’s always guided my life, too. She will be missed, and my thoughts and prayers are with her family.

After the nation says its final goodbye to Justice Ginsburg, the Senate will turn its attention to its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the president’s nominee. I always take that responsibility seriously, but there’s an added layer of importance when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee.

There has been some criticism that in 2016, the Senate decided it would not confirm President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, but that decision follows longstanding Senate precedent and practice. You’d have to go back to the 1800s to find the last time a Supreme Court vacancy was created and filled during an election year when the Senate majority and White House were controlled by opposite parties. While some people disagreed with our decision, the Senate fulfilled its constitutional responsibilities in 2016 by withholding consent on that nominee.

On the flip side, in all but one case (which involved an ethics scandal and bipartisan opposition), every single Supreme Court nominee who was nominated in an election year when the Senate majority and White House were occupied by the same party was confirmed. I’m by no means predetermining confirmation of President Trump’s nominee, but the precedent for considering her is clear.

I’ve voted on six of the current members of the Supreme Court, and I’ve applied the same standards for each of them as I considered their nominations. I’ve always looked for someone who acts as an umpire and call balls and strikes when it comes to interpreting the law. We cannot have Supreme Court justices legislating from the bench – that’s the job of the Congress. When I meet with her, I will underscore that I believe it’s important for the Supreme Court to apply the law as Congress intended and decide cases with impartiality, free from personal opinions or preferred outcomes.

Over the last few decades, we’ve seen too many examples of judicial activism and pushing a political agenda from the federal bench, including the Supreme Court. That’s not what our Founders intended.

One of the main reasons many of my colleagues, myself included, ran for the Senate was to be in a position to restore the Supreme Court to its original constitutional purpose as a judicial body, not a legislative one. We ran for this. We were elected for this. Now, we will follow through.

###

Adult Supervision
By U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)

I come from a big family – a good Catholic family! I’m the oldest of eleven kids – Mike, Mick (Michele), Doc (Dennis), Doug, Tim, Dan, Tom, Pat, Steve, Scott and Jamie. We grew up together in Pierre and no matter what we did, whether it was exploring the hills north of Pierre or wandering the neighborhood, we always made an adventure out of it. Being the oldest, my parents naturally expected me to use good judgement and to keep my siblings safe. I don’t know if that meant adult supervision or just showing maturity; but for purposes of this column, we’ll say they wanted me to act mature. They’d tell my siblings to listen to me, but as you can imagine, that didn’t always happen. (I’m not naming names, but we all know I’m talking about Doug.) Whenever they’d spout off, I’d have to say, “Knock it off you guys or I’ll pound ya!” Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. If you come from a big family, you understand.

By now, you’ve heard the information that will dominate the news for the next few weeks: the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. RBG lived a life devoted to pursuing justice. We send our prayers to her family and loved ones as they goes through this difficult time. She leaves behind a legacy of public service we can all respect.

The nation now turns its attention to filling the vacancy left behind on the Supreme Court. The court rules on things we hold most dear – our life, our liberty and our property – natural rights as Locke would call them. The next justice will be making decisions on cases involving your Second Amendment rights, your healthcare, the sanctity of human life, property rights and multiple environmental issues.

Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be the body to provide a mature approach to governance. George Washington is said to have told Thomas Jefferson the framers had created the Senate to “cool” House legislation, just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. They achieved this by structuring each legislative body differently: the House, based on population, has 435 members which are elected every two years; the Senate only has 100 members, two from each state, which are elected every six years. Senate elections are also staggered so only one-third of members are up for election every two years to limit turnover and maintain stability. In the case of judicial nominations, the Founders also intended to provide a process with checks and balances on the executive branch’s ability to put members on the court. They delegated the nominating task to the president and the responsibility of confirmation to the Senate. Clearly the Founders wanted a second opinion in the form of a mature review of the president’s selection.

That brings us to the events of today, National Democrats are disappointed with the timing. They say if Senate Republicans fulfill their constitutional duty and provide ‘advice and consent’ on the president’s nominee before the election, they’ll retaliate. Should Democrats win the presidency and the Senate this November, they’ll pack the Supreme Court, which means adding additional seats to be filled by liberal justices. But to do this, they will have to eliminate the filibuster – a Senate process that leads to bipartisanship and compromise. I’ll admit the filibuster rule is frustrating for those of us who would like to see legislation move more quickly, but it’s a Senate tradition rooted in the Founder’s vision of mature decision-making. Back when there were only 26 Senators, finding consensus was easier, but even then, they strived to find consensus. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant.

If Democrats were to eliminate the filibuster, it would allow major legislation to pass by simple majority, paving the way for Democrats to raise your taxes to pay for their radical socialist agenda like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. They would also pass D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood, in an attempt to add four safe Democrats seats to the Senate, further diluting South Dakota’s voice (the House of Representatives under Democratic control have already passed legislation providing the District of Columbia with statehood).

Elections do matter. In 2014, the people of South Dakota elected me to serve them in the Senate. That’s what I’m going to do. I’ll do my homework and meet with President Trump’s nominee, just as I did in the past with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and President Obama’s nominee Judge Garland. When the nomination comes to the floor, I’ll be fully prepared to cast my vote to fulfill my constitutional duty – providing mature leadership. Or as provided in the constitution, ‘advice and consent’.

###

Weekly Windup
By Rep. Dusty Johnson

Back in Session

This year has been far from normal. But over the last few weeks Congress has been back in session, and the pace seems to be picking up again. Last week, I unveiled a bipartisan pathway for another COVID-19 relief bill, and this week, the House has been focused on passing a number of tribal bills as well as a bill to keep our government open through the election.

I was proud to speak on the House floor in support of my own bill that passed the House this week – unanimously. The Tribal School Federal Insurance Parity Act will divert millions back to tribal students’ education. For ten years, leaders have tried to bring parity to tribal grant schools’ benefits program, and I’m grateful for the input tribal members gave me along the way to ensure this got done. The House also passed the Savanna’s Act, and as a co-sponsor of this bill and a representative for a state with a large tribal population, I was proud to see legislation to combat the startling number of missing and murdered indigenous women pass unanimously.

The House also managed to pass a government spending bill that funds the government through December 11. There was a lot of debate about this “Continuing Resolution.” Initially, funding for critical agriculture programs weren’t included in the bill. Republicans and many rural Democrats told Speaker Pelosi this was a non-starter – this important funding for agriculture was included in the final version of the bill.

Headed to the floor

Thomas Jefferson said, if he had to choose, he would prefer newspapers without government, over government without newspapers. That is a dramatic statement, but I think it highlights how critical journalism is to holding government accountable. Every good reporter has faced the wrath of a wronged politician and has had disgruntled readers or listeners cancel their patronage. In politics, it is tempting to be among the disgruntled, but if we want a free society, we have to support a free press. One whose loyalty is not to partisan endeavors or to stoking division and conflict, but rather, is to the truth. That is why I headed to the floor this week to highlight how “Democracy Demands Journalism.” Watch here.

Back to Business

Back in session means congressional hearings continued. I participated in two hearings this week. One on the National Apprenticeship Act and another on the 2020 wildfires.

In the Education and Labor Committee’s hearing on the National Apprenticeship Act, I offered an amendment that would streamline the process of what’s considered a “registered apprenticeship” through the Department of Labor (DOL). Right now, it’s extremely difficult to add an occupation to DOL’s list. This amendment was bipartisan and was adopted by my colleagues on the Committee.

During the Agriculture Committee’s Forestry Subcommittee hearing, I spoke on the need for proactive forest management and follow through of forest service projects – so many of them don’t make it through implementation. South Dakota continues to see a decline in forest fires because of timber sales and tree thinning, and I was proud to highlight our successes. A managed forest is a healthy forest.

Congress will be back in session next week and there’s a possibility we will be discussing a COVID-19 relief bill with a price tag of $2.4 trillion. Stay tuned…

###

Reaching Out to Our Neighbors
By Governor Kristi Noem 

I recently had a chance to visit with a single mom, the mother of two young girls, from another state. Her state is locked down. Her little girls are doing 100% distance-learning. She is working full-time from home. And she is struggling.

The balancing act was something she could do at first. But now, it seems like this horrible situation will never end. I could hear the stress and fatigue in her voice, and I could see the anxiousness on her face. She is fed up, angry, and in desperate need of some relief. My heart hurt listening to her story.

COVID-19 has posed lots of new challenges for all of us. We have taken time to thank the folks on the frontlines of this pandemic, such as healthcare professionals, truck drivers, grocery store employees, law enforcement personnel, teachers, unemployment specialists, and many others. But I want to take a minute to speak directly to the men and women who don’t fall into these categories. I know you may be struggling too.

This week, I’d like to remind everyone that at our core we are neighbors, and we are all in this together.  Please remember that the woman in front of you at the grocery store or the man at the pharmacy could be going through a lot right now.

I challenge each South Dakotan to reach out to a family member, a friend, a loved one, a neighbor, or even a stranger and ask how they are doing. Take some time out of your day to really listen to their reply. There are a lot of people in this country who are fed up and at their breaking points. Some people may be losing hope.

 

In South Dakota, we are so fortunate to have had the opportunity to approach this virus differently. To allow businesses to innovate, schools to open up on time, and not resort to a lockdown. But that doesn’t mean people in our state aren’t having a hard time too.

Please help your loved ones focus on the good things we have in our lives, and maybe reflect with gratitude on how fortunate we are to live in the modern world.  A threat like this can break us down – or it can make us truly appreciate the many blessings we have.

If there’s anything we all can rally around at the moment, it’s that we all have a common enemy – this virus.  It’s okay to be scared, worried, or fed up. But at the same time, we can also pour ourselves into our families, our neighbors, our communities.

My message to you this week is please hang in there. We will get through this.

My hope is that, despite this horrible situation, we all find a way to allow it to make the bonds of community stronger. To remind us of what is important in life.  To remind us of three things: faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.

###

Thune Statement on the Nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to Serve on the Supreme Court

“One of the main reasons I ran for the Senate was for big moments like this one, and I plan on fulfilling my constitutional duty.”

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today issued the following statement after President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The president had a strong list of principled and conservative jurists from which he could have chosen, and I applaud him for his selection of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Thune. “Judge Barrett deeply respects the Constitution, and she is committed to interpreting the law as written and applying it faithfully and impartially. Simply put, she doesn’t legislate from the bench. While I look forward to meeting Judge Barrett and learning more about her experience, her resume speaks for itself. She studied at Rhodes College and graduated first in her class from Notre Dame Law School, where

she was a beloved professor for more than 15 years. Judge Barrett received unanimous support from her colleagues at Notre Dame when she was nominated to the circuit court, and, since her bipartisan Senate confirmation in 2017, she’s served with distinction in the Midwest on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“Unfortunately, Democrats have been opposed to Judge Barrett since before she was even nominated. I hope they abandon their partisan and undemocratic threats as the Senate turns its attention to fulfilling its constitutional duty of providing its advice and consent on the president’s nominee. One of the main reasons I ran for the Senate was for big moments like this one, and I plan on fulfilling my constitutional duty.”

Click here to read a recent op-ed from Sen. Thune about the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the importance of filling this vacancy on the Supreme Court.

###

 

 

Rounds Statement on Supreme Court Nominee

PIERRE —U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today made the following statement on President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“President Trump has made an excellent choice in nominating Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court. As an accomplished jurist, wife and mother from the Midwest, Judge Barrett brings a unique perspective to our nation’s highest court. With so many important decisions to be made at the Supreme Court that are important to South Dakotans – from issues related to health care and taxes to the very sanctity of human life – the person confirmed to replace Justice Ginsburg will have a tremendous impact on our daily lives.”

“While I am already impressed with Judge Barrett’s credentials and commitment to upholding the principles outlined in the Constitution, I look forward to getting to know her better in the coming weeks. And I’ll be ready to vote as soon as the Senate has done its due diligence in vetting Judge Barrett.”

• Background: Judge Amy Coney Barrett
• Judge Barrett, 48, serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
• She was confirmed to that position in October 2017 with Rounds’ support, by a vote of 55-43.
• She served as a law clerk for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch defender of the Constitution.
• Prior to being confirmed to the 7th Circuit, Barrett taught law at George Washington University, the University of Virginia and Notre Dame.

###