Two Indian-Americans lead campaign against trump nominee Neomi Rao
Washington, Feb 5: Two leading Indian-American women have led the Democratic party's move to oppose the nomination of fellow community legal luminary Neomi Rao for the prestigious and powerful US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, citing her "excuses" for sexual assault and "hostility" to the civil and human rights as reasons.
US President Donald Trump had announced Rao's nomination in November while celebrating Diwali at the White House. Trump had nominated her in place of Justice Brett Kavanaugh who in October was sworn in as the Supreme Court judge.
"Neomi Rao made excuses for sexual assault, blocked women's access to reproductive health and would allow health care providers to deny care to LGBTQ patients," said Indian-American Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal.
"This is simply not appropriate for someone who wishes to serve on a federal bench," said Jayapal, the first Indian-American woman ever elected to the House of Representatives.
Senate Judiciary Committee "should reject" Rao, she said on Monday.
Now considered as among the leading Democratic lawmakers, Jayapal was recently re-elected for her second consecutive term to the US House of Representatives.
If confirmed by the United States Senate, Rao, 45, would be the second Indian-American after Sree Srinivasan in this powerful court, which is considered a step below the US Supreme court.
However, unlike the nomination process of Srinivasan, wherein the entire Indian American community was united and campaigned aggressively for his confirmation, Indian-Americans are a bitterly divided lot this time.
"Her controversial writings set the stage for the damage she has done as President Trump's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), where she has led the Trump administration's aggressive regulatory agenda to undermine civil rights and public protections," said Vanita Gupta, a leading Indian-American legal luminary.
"Rao's demonstrated hostility to the civil and human rights of all should disqualify her from a lifetime appointment on the federal judiciary. We urge all senators to reject her nomination," Gupta said in a strongly worded statement.
She alleged that Rao had already proven that she is incapable of serving as a fair and impartial judge on the federal bench.
"Her past is her prologue," said Gupta, who currently is president and the CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Rao is slated to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearing on Tuesday.
She is expected to face tough questions from the Democratic members of the Senate judiciary Committee including the Indian-origin Senator Kamala Harris.
The White House did not immediately respond to questions on the allegations against Rao.
In her current role, Rao has played a key role in regulatory reform, which according to the White House saved American families and businesses USD 23 billion in fiscal year 2018 by getting rid of unduly burdensome and unnecessary regulation.
Prior to her service as OIRA Administrator, Rao was a professor of structural constitutional law, administrative law, and legislation and statutory interpretation at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
She founded the Law School's Center for the Study of the Administrative State and focused her scholarship on the political and constitutional accountability of administrative agencies and the role of Congress.
She has served in all three branches of government including Associate Counsel and Special Assistant to former President George W Bush.
In between government service, Rao practised in the London office of Clifford Chance LLP, specialising in international law and commercial arbitration.
"Neomi Rao, who was just nominated to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit court, has no business being anywhere near the federal bench," said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
After graduation from law school, Rao clerked for Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and for Justice Clarence Thomas on the United States Supreme Court.
She received her B A from Yale University and her JD from the University of Chicago.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Resolution for his removal: Speaker Birla to be present in House but not chair proceedings
New Delhi (PTI): The Lok Sabha will witness a rare moment most likely on Monday next when Om Birla will not chair proceedings but will be seated amongst the members as the House takes up a notice seeking his removal from office.
As Parliament meets for the second phase of the Budget session on March 9, the Lok Sabha is likely to take up the resolution moved by the opposition against Birla's for allegedly acting in a "blatantly partisan" manner.
According to the rules and laid down procedure, Birla will get a right to defend himself when the resolution is discussed by the lower house. He will also have the right to vote against the resolution, Constitution expert P D T Achary explained.
The expert said while Birla will not chair the proceedings when the resolution comes up before the House, he will be seated in the prominent rows in the Treasury benches.
At least 118 opposition members had submitted a notice for moving the resolution to remove Birla from office for not allowing Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders to speak in the House on the Motion of Thanks to the President's address, as well as for suspending eight MPs.
Congress member and chief whip K Suresh submitted the notice to the Lok Sabha secretariat on behalf of several opposition parties, including his party, Samajwadi Party and DMK.
TMC MPs, however, did not sign the notice.
ALSO READ: Curbs on movement, assembly remain in force in Kashmir after protests against Khamenei's killing
Achary, a former Lok Sabha secretary general, told PTI, that the "allocation of the seat, which the Speaker occupies under such circumstances is not mentioned in the Rules".
He said Birla will also not be able to vote on the resolution using the automated vote system, but will have to fill a slip to register his vote.
He presumes that a seat belonging to a Union minister, who is from the Rajya Sabha, could be given to him as only Lok Sabha members will be able to cast their votes for or against the resolution.
Deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha and deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha have their earmarked seats in their respective Houses when they are not presiding over.
Front seats in the opposition benches are allocated to them.
Article 96 of the Constitution bars a speaker or a deputy speaker from presiding over the House sitting while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration.
The speaker has a constitutional right to defend himself in the House if the resolution is discussed in the Lok Sabha.
At least two Lok Sabha members have to sign the notice to move a resolution for the speaker's removal. Any number of members can sign the notice but a minimum of two is mandatory.
The speaker can be removed from office by a resolution passed by the House through a simple majority.
Article 94C of the Constitution has provisions for such a move.
"All the members of the House are counted to compute the majority, not the members present and voting, which is the normal practice. It means the effective membership of the House, except for the vacancies, is used to calculate the majority," Achary said.
The notice has to be submitted to the Lok Sabha secretary general, and not the deputy speaker or anyone else, he said.
The document is then examined at the preliminary stage to see whether it contains "very specific charges", he said.
"At the threshold itself, there is a process of admissibility. At that stage, it is seen whether it contains specific charges. Specific charges are required as only then the speaker will be able to respond," Achary explained.
The resolution must not contain defamatory language or content.
Article 96 gives the speaker the opportunity to defend himself or herself in the House.
The language of the proposed resolution is usually examined by the deputy speaker, but since the present Lok Sabha does not have a deputy speaker, it may be examined perhaps by the senior-most member of the panel of chairpersons.
The panel helps the speaker run the House in his or her absence.
"The speaker examining a resolution that seeks his removal looks absurd," Achary said, adding that the rule is silent on the subject.
Once the processing part is over, the resolution reaches the House. But it can go to the House after 14 days, Achary said.
The chair then places it in the House for consideration. It is actually the House which admits it, or as the rule says, "grants permission".
Achary further said, "The chair then asks members in favour of the resolution to stand up. If 50 members stand up in support of it and if the criteria is fulfilled, the Chair announces that the House has granted permission. Once the House grants permission, it has to be taken up for discussion and disposed of within 10 days."
Lok Sabha sources said it will be taken up for discussion on Monday itself.
ALSO READ: SSLC exam begins in Kerala; Education Minister wishes students success
There are precedents of resolutions being moved. However, none has been adopted so far.
"The reason -- governments have a majority," Achary said.
The resolution alleges that Speaker Birla had acted in a "blatantly partisan" manner in conducting the business of the House and "abused" the constitutional office he occupies.
The Opposition also accused the speaker of making certain false allegations against members of the Congress.
Three Lok Sabha speakers -- G V Mavlankar (1954), Hukam Singh (1966) and Balram Jakhar (1987)-- had faced no-confidence motions in the past, which were negatived.
