3B
USA TODAY - L awrence J ournal -W orld THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2015
NATION/WORLD U.K. ELECTION
British candidates shy away from foreign policy, U.S. ties Kim Hjelmgaard and Katharine Lackey USA TODAY
Britain’s election today is highlighting how the oncedominant player on the world stage is turning inward and dissolving its longtime role as the United States’ most vital ally. Voters are heading to the polls here amid dramatic spending cuts by Prime Minister David Cameron, who over the past five years has slashed military funds and the nation’s diplomatic corps. Those cuts are unlikely to change even if his main rival — Labour’s Ed Miliband — is the victor. “The U.K. really isn’t pulling its weight on the world stage in a manner that we’ve come to expect,” Raffaello Pantucci of the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies said. “It’s clearly something that has an impact on how the U.S. views the U.K. — you don’t just want your partner to be a partner for the sake of it, you want them LONDON
LEON NEAL, AFP/GETTY IMAGES
A bookmaker displays the latest odds on the upcoming general election outside the Houses of Parliament in London.
“The U.K. really isn’t pulling its weight on the world stage in a manner that we’ve come to expect.” Raffaello Pantucci of the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies
to be useful and to help advance your interests around the world.” Britain’s retrenchment has shifted the center of European power to Berlin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Britain had committed the largest contingent to U.S.-led military coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in recent years, it has shunned a leading role on the
refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine and the nuclear deal with Iran. While the campaign has featured every conceivable domestic issue, conspicuously absent is foreign policy. Miliband remarked on the topic in one speech. Cameron hasn’t touched it. For everyday Britons, how much of an Anglo-American bond remains may cut along generational lines. “I’ve always felt very strongly it’s a good relationship between the two countries,” Londoner Molly Robinson, 84, said. Even 70 years after the end of World War II, that hasn’t changed, she said. Caroline Jays, 42, a florist from Essex, said a lot of the British people feel they’ve followed the U.S. into wars that maybe they didn’t need. “I think the public feels like we’ve played follow the leader,” she said. Contributing: Oren Dorell in McLean, Va.
SUPREME COURT
NATION
Patriot Act vote could splinter Republicans Erin Kelly USA TODAY
A debate over the USA Patriot Act is spotlighting a split between security hawks and privacy advocates within the Republican congressional majority, and analysts say the privacy faction appears to have the upper hand. Lawmakers have until the end of May to decide whether to extend expiring provisions of the law, passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, that gives federal law enforcement agencies sweeping powers of surveillance over Americans and citizens of other nations. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has introduced legislation to simply renew the Patriot Act as is. He said the government’s power should not be weakened at a time when the threat from the Islamic State and other militant groups is growing. But he faces fierce opposition in the Senate and the House from Tea Party-aligned Republicans and liberal Democrats. “When the Patriot Act first passed, it was bipartisan legislation supported by most people,” said Darrell West, director of the Center for Technology InnovaWASHINGTON
“People (now) worry that the law went way too far and want to scale it back.” Darrell West, Brookings Institution
FROM ROBERTS, A LIBERAL DOSE OF AUTONOMY
JACK GRUBER, USA TODAY
His blurred ideology is most noticeable this term: Roberts has voted with the liberal justices more often than the conservatives.
Chief justice serves notice: He remains his own man with his own opinions
“The chief justice is truly fashioning the court into his own image. There is less ideology and more unanimity.” Neal Katyal, former acting U.S. solicitor general
Richard Wolf @richardjwolf USA TODAY
WASHINGTON When Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court’s four more liberal justices in a campaign financing decision last week, it was reminiscent of a similarly unusual alignment three years earlier. That’s when Roberts, in perhaps the most controversial action he has taken during nearly 10 years on the court, crafted the 5-4 ruling that preserved President Obama’s fledgling health care law — and incurred the wrath of conservatives who had heralded his nomination in 2005. The latest case wasn’t as consequential, but it served notice that Roberts remains his own man on the court, willing to form majorities with justices to his right or left. That inclination will be watched closely this spring in major cases on same-sex marriage and, once again, Obamacare. “The signs thus far point to something that we have seen emerging over the past few years — that the chief justice is truly fashioning the court into his own image,” says former acting U.S. solicitor general Neal Katyal. “There is less ideology and more unanimity.” The blurred ideology has been most noticeable so far this term: Roberts has voted with the liberal justices more often than the conservatives. He has agreed with Stephen Breyer in 90% of the court’s judgments and with Ruth
CHIP J LITHERLAND FOR USA TODAY
Bader Ginsburg in 87%, according to statistics kept by Scotusblog. The level of accord drops to 79% with Antonin Scalia and 67% with Clarence Thomas. Conservative legal analysts aren’t surprised. They “have discerned from the beginning that Roberts is not exactly where Scalia is on a whole host of matters,” says Ed Whalen, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. In 18 cases with divided opinions this term, Roberts has sided seven times with most of the liberals against most of the conservatives. Among them: uWilliams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar: Roberts wrote the 5-4 decision upholding rules in 30 states that bar judicial candidates from directly soliciting donations. Until then, he had been a firm opponent of campaign finance restrictions; he wrote last year’s decision striking down federal limits on the aggregate amount wealthy donors can give to candidates and political parties. uYoung v. United Parcel Service: The chief justice sided with
In a 5-4 vote, Roberts agreed that the federal government went too far by prosecuting Florida fisherman John Yates under a criminal law that targets white-collar destruction of evidence.
the four liberal justices in a 6-3 ruling that said companies cannot deny physical accommodations to pregnant workers if they are made available to many other workers with similar restrictions. Justice Samuel Alito filed a separate concurring opinion. uYates v. United States: In a 5-4 vote, Roberts agreed with Ginsburg, Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor that the federal government went too far by prosecuting a Florida fisherman under a criminal law that targets white-collar destruction of evidence. Alito concurred in a separate opinion. uRodriguez v. United States: Roberts, along with Scalia, joined the four liberals in denying police the freedom to detain drivers during traffic stops so police dogs could search for drugs. It was a victory for privacy groups and a defeat for law enforcement. The trend has triggered speculation that Roberts has moderated his views over the years, or that he has the court’s broader reputation in mind. Yet on most major cases, from the Citizens United decision that year unleashing independent campaign spending by corporations to his own 2013 opinion striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, he has upheld conservative principles. “Roberts’ record remains very conservative,” says Brianne Gorod of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. “But he’s clearly becoming less predictably conservative in some key areas, and his votes this term underscore that.”
tion at the Brookings Institution. “More than a decade later, people worry that the law went way too far and want to scale it back.” The House Judiciary Committee last week voted 25-2 to pass the USA Freedom Act, which would end the mass collection of phone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, a program revealed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The bill is expected to come to the House floor for a vote as early as next week. Lead sponsors range from conservative Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin to liberal Democratic Reps. John Conyers of Michigan and Jerrold Nadler of New York. The same bill has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., with the support of Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah. The Freedom Act sponsors want to block the bill by McConnell and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., to extend Section 215 and other Patriot Act provisions through 2020. The security hawks appear to be outnumbered by the privacy advocates, especially in the House, analysts say. Patrick Eddington, a policy analyst specializing in homeland security and civil liberties issues at the Cato Institute, said, “We’re seeing a resurgence of a traditional strain of Republicanism that is manifesting itself as a rejection of the post-9/11 surveillance state.” West said it’s more likely Congress modifies the law than repeals it: “People still recognize that America faces security threats but want to get rid of the most onerous provisions.” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a strong privacy rights advocate, said he believes the growing number of congressional Republicans criticizing mass surveillance reflects the sentiments of GOP voters. “The Republican leadership in the Senate is in a very different place than the Republicans coming to my town hall meetings ... who are concerned about government power,” said Wyden, who vowed to block a straight renewal of the act.