US Politics

The US supreme court has declared war on the Earth’s futureKate AronoffIn a major environmental case, the court has made clear that it would rather represent the interests of corporations and the super-rich than the needs and desires of the vast majority of Americans – or people on Earth In remarks to the first Earth Day gathering in 1970, the Maine senator Edmund Muskie made the case for the Clean Air Act – a bill he helped draft – in stark terms. “There is no space command center, ready to give us precise instruction and alternate solutions for survival on our spaceship Earth,” he told the crowd. “Our nation – and our world – hang together by tenuous bonds which are strained as they have never been strained before – and as they must never be strained again. We cannot survive an undeclared war on our future.”In its Thursday ruling on West Virginia v EPA – in line with a string of decisions that will make life here more dangerous – the US supreme court all but declared that war, curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate power plants under a provision of the Clean Air Act and – more worryingly – striking an opening blow to the government’s ability to do its job.It hasn’t done so alone. The foundations for today’s ruling, like the other disastrous ones delivered this term, were laid well before Muskie gave his speech in Philadelphia. Along with the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act – passed during the Nixon administration – was a last gasp of the New Deal order, putting the government to work on an audacious and unprecedented task. Muskie hoped, as he said that day, that it might bring about “a society that will not tolerate slums for some and decent houses for others, rats for some and playgrounds for others, clean air for some and filth for others” through “planning more effective and just laws and more money better spent”.That approach to governance is precisely what a coterie of rightwing philanthropists and legal activists found so threatening, and why they became a core part of the right’s decades-long crusade against the kinder, bigger state.The crowning achievement of that crusade was the election of Ronald Reagan, who proved to be a useful cipher for fossil fuel-funded thinktanks and neoliberal economists to get their message out. It was none other than Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother who helped Reagan try to strip the federal government’s environmental protection apparatus for parts. As Reagan’s pick to lead the EPA, Anne M Gorsuch made it her personal mission to shrink the body tasked with enacting the Clean Air Act. She railed against what she described as a “set of commands from Congress”. Looking back on her term, Gorsuch – who slashed the agency’s budget by a quarter – took pride in having helmed the “only agency in Washington that was truly practicing New Federalism”, devolving as many of its responsibilities as possible down to the states. Following in her footsteps, Judge Gorsuch has railed against the Chevron Doctrine that’s been a main target of the conservative legal movement (not overturned today, thankfully), saying it allowed “executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power”.But the roots of this ruling run deeper than Neil Gorsuch wanting to make mom proud. Polluters have always been happy to throw small fortunes at the right’s quest for minority rule, keen to protect fossil fuel profits and their ability to dump waste into the air and water from pesky things like democracy. As Nancy MacLean writes in Democracy in Chains, Charles Koch took a special interest in destroying public education, thus maintaining de facto segregation, before leading the charge against climate policy at every level of government. He continues to be a generous funder of the Federalist Society, an instrumental force in building and filling the pipeline of clerks, judges and cases that has created the judicial branch as we know it, and rulings like the one that overturned Roe v Wade last week. Secretive dark-money outfits like Donors Trust, as well as Chevron and the Scaife Foundation – furnished by old oil and aluminum money – have joined him.West Virginia v EPA itself was brought with the help of the Republican Attorneys General Association, a network of state attorneys general whose own funders include the country’s biggest fossil fuel companies and the beleaguered coal barons who had the most to lose from the modest power plant regulations. They also spent $150,000 sponsoring Trump’s rally on 6 January.The interests of the country’s wealthiest residents and corporations are at odds with the vast majority of people who live here. Luckily for the right, a political system designed by slaveholders provides an easy on ramp to concretize minority rule, encasing their power within definitionally undemocratic institutions. With a young, ideological rightwing majority on the court, there’s no telling how far they might go. And there’s not much that can stop them.Gorsuch, ironically, put it well in his concurring opinion. But the line applies better to him and his colleagues than to the federal bureaucrats he was railing against: “a republic – a thing of the people – would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable ‘ministers’.”
Kate Aronoff is a staff writer at the New Republic and the author of Overheated: How Capitalism Broke the Planet – And How We Fight Back
TopicsEnvironmentOpinionUS politicsUS supreme courtUS Environmental Protection AgencyLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

Anti-abortion movement achieved goal of reversing Roe – but it is far from done A total end to abortion in the US is the next goal – and how the movement aims to accomplish that depends on who you askThe anti-abortion movement has historically been among the best organized factions in American politics, and for decades has had a seemingly singular goal: overturn Roe v Wade.Last week, that was accomplished and as the anti-abortion movement celebrated its victory via the US supreme court, one question has emerged: what will they do next?The court’s conservative supermajority reversed the landmark 1973 decision, which had granted US women the federal right to terminate a pregnancy. The end to the constitutional right almost immediately led more than half a dozen states to ban the procedure. In the coming weeks and months, more than half of US states are expected to institute severe restrictions or outright bans.But that does not mean the end of the movement. Far from it, in fact.“There still is a singular goal,” said Mary Ziegler, a historian of abortion laws in the US, a visiting law professor at Harvard, and recent author of Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment. That goal “has never been the overruling of Roe” but fetal personhood – a legal concept that would establish “some kind of recognition of fetal rights”.Global healthcare groups and human rights advocates have called the US court’s decision “an unconscionable attack” on the health and rights of US women and girls, warned it will cause a global chilling effect on reproductive healthcare, and that abortion bans and forced birth will exacerbate already egregious maternal mortality disparities in the US.Nevertheless, the anti-abortion movement has made clear its work is not done. But how to set about achieving the next goal – a total end to abortion in the US – depends on who you ask.Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former liberal supreme court justice and famous supporter of reproductive rights, had argued Roe provided opponents of abortion, “a target to aim at relentlessly”.With the landmark case no longer an impediment to anti-abortion ambitions, “there’s much more of a kind of free-for-all about how you should achieve personhood”, Ziegler said. Now, the once rigidly cohesive movement is wrestling with the best way forward.In Georgia, where a ban on abortion at six weeks gestation is likely to go into effect, anti-abortion leaders immediately called on the Republican governor, Brian Kemp, to impanel to pass a “personhood” amendment to the state’s constitution.Such a law would imbue fertilized eggs with the rights of people, ban embryo selection for in vitro fertilization, and call into question treatment for ectopic pregnancies (in which an embryo implants outside the uterus and is never viable).“We are petitioning him to call a special legislative session,” said Zemmie Fleck, executive director for Georgia Right to Life. “Brian Kemp says he is pro-life, and if he is truly pro-life, then we’re saying this is your time to protect every innocent human life.”Fleck also opposes emergency contraception and some forms of birth control, said there should be no exemptions to allow abortions for rape, incest or fetal abnormalities, and that ectopic pregnancies should be “reimplanted” – though no such procedure exists, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Whether Georgia Right to Life will endorse prosecuting women, Fleck said, is something the group is now actively considering.“The fact someone is intentionally taking a life is a huge consideration, because we have laws in Georgia that pertain to someone who murders someone,” said Fleck. “But again [we] do not have a strict position statement.”However, anti-abortion campaigners’ strategy in Georgia is just one of many to emerge in the days leading up to and following Roe’s reversal.Former vice-president Mike Pence called for a national abortion ban. The anti-abortion group National Right to Life (NRL) issued model legislation to ban abortion except to save a woman’s life. It also suggested states ban “giving instructions over the telephone, internet or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortion”, a suggestion with enormous free speech implications.Anti-abortion leaders in several states called for constitutional amendments to clarify there is no right to abortion, such as in Alaska and Kentucky. West Virginia pioneered this path before the fall of Roe, and Kansas voters are already scheduled to cast ballots on a similar measure on 2 August.Meanwhile, the largest US anti-abortion online media site, Live Action, has been furiously fundraising to “cut through the lies about what the ending of Roe really means for children, women, and families”. One email argued treatment for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage will remain legal, although reproductive rights advocates said access to such procedures is will probably diminish when obstetricians and gynecologists fear prosecution.Addia Wuchner, executive director of Kentucky Right to Life, argued assertions that anti-abortion activists want to ban some forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization and “monitor ovulation” were not true.“These are the great lies of an industry – I know they want to be called a healthcare service – that has made great profits off the back of women,” Wuchner said about abortion providers, such as obstetricians and gynecologists.Similarly, Wuchner said concerns about the right to contraception and same-sex marriage being overturned in the courts are “blown out of proportion”. Kentucky right to life is neither working to ensure access to birth control, nor to “make it illegal”, she said.When the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas explicitly stated the court should “reconsider” cases that established same-sex marriage, same-sex intimacy and the right to contraception. Thomas’s opinion, advocates fear, was an invitation for such rights to be challenged.Debates about how to enforce abortion bans have also emerged. Some progressive prosecutors have made national headlines for refusing to enforce abortion bans. However, conservative local prosecutors have also vowed to vigorously investigate alleged abortion ban violations, such as Benton county, Arkansas, prosecuting attorney Nathan Smith.“We’ll approach it like any other potential crime,” said Smith, who sent a letter to a local Planned Parenthood affiliate assuring them he would seek criminal charges. “If somebody reports an initial violation of the statute, law enforcement will investigate it, and we’ll proceed on a case by case basis like anything else”.In the chaos that has followed the Dobbs decision, the long-term direction of the movement is difficult to predict, Ziegler said, though one aim remains – a total ban on abortion.“Ultimately, the end goal is the same for everybody,” Ziegler said.TopicsUS supreme courtAbortionWomenLaw (US)US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

Explosive testimony piles pressure on Trump – how likely are criminal charges? The January 6 committee cannot charge Trump, but they can make criminal referrals. Here are the key legal issues at stakeIn six televised hearings, the House January 6 committee has presented extraordinary testimony about Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election and its culmination, the deadly attack on the US Capitol by a far-right mob.Angry, violent, reckless: testimony paints shocking portrait of Trump Read moreThe committee is made up of seven Democrats and two rebel Republicans, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, who refused to follow their party in bending the knee to Trump.Set free of bipartisan considerations when the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, withdrew cooperation, the panel has been able to act in a purely prosecutorial manner. It has also worked on how to present its findings, using TV industry expertise to present hearings honed, contained and aimed at convincing the American people Trump should never be president again.The committee cannot charge Trump with a crime. But the US Department of Justice can, a possibility that has stoked intense speculation in Washington and the world.Here are the key legal issues at stake:Can the committee make criminal referrals?Yes. It has done so in the cases of Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, Trump aides who refused to cooperate. Pleading not guilty to criminal contempt of Congress, Bannon and Navarro face time in prison. The DoJ declined to charge Scavino and Meadows.Will the committee refer Trump?The chair, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, has said he does not expect to do so. However, that statement prompted reports of disagreement on the panel and also came before Cheney, the vice-chair, revealed possible attempts to intimidate witnesses.On Wednesday, CNN asked a committee member, Pete Aguilar of California, if he believed witness tampering had occurred.“Yes, I do,” he said. “I think that that’s something that should be looked at by our committee and potentially by the Department of Justice.”Asked if a referral had been made, Aguilar said: “I’m not going to talk about the investigative steps we have taken. But what I will say is I think that those statements speak for themselves [as evidence of] … dangerous behavior.”One of the witness statements which Cheney read on Tuesday was reportedly made by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former close aide to Trump and Meadows who testified for two dramatic hours.Could the DoJ charge Trump?The committee has turned up extensive evidence that suggests a case could be made.Hutchinson appeared to draw Trump closer to strong links with extremist groups which attacked the Capitol, saying she recalled “hearing the word ‘Oath Keeper’ and hearing the word ‘Proud Boys’ closer to the planning of the January 6 rally, when Mr Giuliani would be around” the White House.Rudy Giuliani was Trump’s personal attorney. Among more than 870 people charged over the Capitol attack, members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys have been charged with seditious conspiracy.But to many, one passage in Hutchinson’s testimony seemed to draw Trump the closest yet to demonstrable criminal conduct.Hutchinson said Trump knew the crowd for his speech near the White House on 6 January 2021 contained armed individuals, some with AR-15 rifles and handguns, but still told his audience to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell” to stop certification of election results. Trump told the crowd he would march with them and, according to Secret Service witnesses, was furious to be denied.01:42David French, senior editor at the Dispatch and the author of Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation, wrote: “Hutchinson’s sworn testimony closes a gap in the criminal case against Trump, and Trump is closer to a credible prosecution than ever before.”Why?As French described, Trump’s actions on and around January 6 appear to meet standards for prosecution set in a 1969 supreme court case, Brandenburg v Ohio, which involved a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.Then, the court “overturned Brandenburg’s conviction, holding that even speech that threatened violence or disorder was protected by the first amendment unless ‘such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action’”.French wrote: “Note the elements of intentionality, likelihood and imminence. The imminence element is easiest to satisfy. The mob was right there. It marched to the Capitol right away, even as Trump was speaking. But what about intentionality and likelihood?”2:24-3:13 PM: Trump sends out a series of tweets claiming that Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done” but urging rioters at the Capitol to “stay peaceful.” pic.twitter.com/O4euIGynx1— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) January 6, 2022
In French’s view, Trump demonstrably summoned the mob, knew it was armed and dangerous, told it to “fight like hell” and tried to march with it. He then inflamed it further with a tweet in which he derided Mike Pence, his vice-president, for not supporting his scheme.Is the DoJ investigating Trump?Yes. This week, the New York Times profiled Thomas Windom, “an aggressive if little-known federal prosecutor” who is “pulling together [the] disparate strands” of DoJ Trump investigations.According to the Times, Windom, 44, is “working under the close supervision of Attorney General Merrick B Garland’s top aides [and] executing the department’s time-tested, if slow-moving, strategy of working from the periphery of the events inward”.As examples of such work, the paper mentioned a raid on a former DoJ employee’s house and the seizure of a phone belonging to John Eastman, the law professor who cooked up Trump’s scheme to reject electoral college results.Hutchinson’s testimony also increased the heat on Trump’s closest aides. Punchbowl News noted that though the DoJ declined to charge Meadows for defying the January 6 committee, “following more damning testimony on Meadows’ role in everything leading to the insurrection”, the DoJ could rethink that position.The DoJ does appear to be closing the net on Trump. Whether it chooses to haul in such a big fish is a very big question indeed.So will Trump be indicted?As French wrote, “Criminal charges require both evidence and political will.“The evidence against Trump continues to mount, both in Washington DC and in Georgia, where there is substantial evidence supporting both federal and state charges for his effort to threaten and intimidate Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger to ‘find 12,000 votes’.”02:07Raffensperger has appeared with other Republican state officials before the January 6 committee, providing damning testimony of his own.Most observers agree that for the DoJ to indict a former president, and at that a potential presidential candidate in 2024, would set a dangerous precedent, particularly given Trump’s strong and demonstrably violent following on the far right.Liz Cheney calls Trump ‘a domestic threat we have never faced before’Read moreBut, French wrote, “there is another precedent that is perhaps more grave and more dangerous – deciding that presidents are held to lower standards of criminal behavior than virtually any other American citizen.”What does Liz Cheney think the DoJ should do?The Wyoming Republican’s anti-Trump stance seems set to cost her a seat in Congress. Regardless, on Wednesday she tweeted French’s words to the world.The same day, Cheney went to the Republican holy of holies: the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.Describing “a domestic threat that we have never faced before”, the daughter of Dick Cheney, George W Bush’s vice-president, told her party: “To argue that the threat posed by Trump can be ignored is to cast aside the responsibility that every citizen – every one of us – bears to perpetuate the republic.“We must not do that, and we cannot do that.”TopicsDonald TrumpJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

More ways to listen

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

RSS Feed

Download

The US supreme court has struck down the constitutional right to an abortion, one of several landmark decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.
Jonathan Freedland and Jill Filipovic discuss whether it’s still possible for a deeply divided court of nine judges, a group that now has a 6-3 conservative majority, to keep the promise to the American people of ‘equal protection’, and what happens if it can’t

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Archive: CNN, CBS, C-Span Listen to Tuesday’s episode of Today in Focus, with Jessica Glenza Send your questions and feedback to [email protected] Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More

Today marked the end an extraordinary term for the supreme court, the aftershocks of which will be felt for years, decades and perhaps even generations to come. From abortion to climate, prayer in school to guns, American life looks differently today than it did just a few weeks ago. The court itself also looks differently. For the first time in its more than 200 year history, a Black women will sit on the court. Here’s what else happened today.
The supreme court sided with conservative states in a ruling with profound implications for the global effort to tackle the climate crisis. In a statement, Joe Biden vowed to find new ways to limit greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy.
In its final decision of the term, a majority of justices agreed that Biden could end his predecessor’s controversial immigration policy.
A judge in Florida said he would temporarily block a law banning abortions after 15-weeks from taking effect.
New polling by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research suggests that half of all Americans believe Donald Trump should be charged over his actions on January 6.
The Justice Department on Thursday announced it was opening an investigation into the New York Police Department’s special victims division after concluding that there was “significant justification” to examine its handling of sex-abuse cases.
In a new piece for the Guardian, climate scientist Peter Kalmus warns that the Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching and devastating consequences for the planet – and humanity. .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In an era of crises, global heating increasingly stands out as the single greatest emergency humanity faces,” Kalmus writes. “Global heating is driving extreme heat, drought and flooding in the US and around the world. It’s driving wildfire and ecosystem collapse, and may already be contributing to famine and warfare. Crucially, this is all worsening day by day, and it will continue to worsen until we end the fossil fuel industry.
…
Without a livable planet, nothing else matters. As the Earth’s capacity to support life continues to degrade, millions, eventually billions of people will be displaced and die, fascism will rise, climate wars will intensify and the rule of law will break down. The myth of American exceptionalism will offer no protection from deadly heat and climate famine.
In the US we now live under the sway of robed, superstitious fools hellbent on rolling back basic civil liberties and rejecting scientific facts. Carl Sagan, warning against this sort of anti-science, wrote: “The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.” The consequences of ignoring scientists for too long are coming home to roost.
We desperately need a government working to stop Earth’s breakdown rather than accelerate it, but petitions or pleas to “vote harder” will not make this happen. Due to capture by the ultra-rich, our only option is to fight. To shift society into emergency mode and end the fossil fuel industry, we must join together and do all we can to wake people up to the grave danger we are in. We must engage in climate disobedience. I believe that the tides could still turn, that power could shift suddenly. But this can only happen when enough people join the fight.The US supreme court just made yet another devastating decision for humanity | Peter KalmusRead moreAs Democrats search for ways to protect abortion access, a group of liberal senators are calling on the Pentagon to ensure military servicemembers will have access to the procedure regardless of where they are stationed. In a letter, Senate Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, led by Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono, asked Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to act to “preserve the health and welfare of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Guardians.” It asks the Department of Defense to provide a plan that ensures women seeking reproductive care in states where abortion is severely restricted or banned are allowed to travel out of state to seek care, as well as protects their privacy CNN first reported the letter. “Entrusted to your care are hundreds of thousands of troops, dependents, and Department of Defense civilians who have lost access to safe abortions and now face threats of criminal prosecution for seeking out those services,” the Democratic senators wrote. It concludes: “We owe it to these service members to look after them and ensure they have the ability to continue accessing safe reproductive health care no matter where their military service sends them.”In a dissenting opinion on Thursday, supreme court justice Clarence Thomas incorrectly suggested that Covid-19 vaccines were developed using the cells of “aborted children”. Politico spotted the claim from the conservative justice in a dissenting opinion in response to a decision by the court not to hear a challenge to New York’s vaccine mandate. Over the objection of Thomas and two other conservative justices, the supreme court on Thursday allowed New York to require all healthcare works show proof of vaccination. “They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” Thomas said of the 16 healthcare workers who brought the challenge.Rumors and conspiracy theories fueled vaccine hesitancy and undermined public faith in public health institutions in the United States, where more than 1 million Americans have died from covid-19. Here’s Politico correcting the record..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}None of the Covid-19 vaccines in the United States contain the cells of aborted fetuses. Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in testing during the Covid vaccine development process, a practice that is common in vaccine testing — including for the rubella and chickenpox vaccinations.
A group of doctors, nurses and other health care workers brought the case, suing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in an objection to the state’s vaccine mandate on religious grounds. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, but the Court of Appeals reversed it and the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the challenge on Thursday.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in his dissenting opinion. And some Thomas defenders noted that he was simply reciting the allegations made by those refusing to get the vaccine.Read the full story here.The Justice Department on Thursday announced that it had opened a civil rights investigation into the New York City police department’s special victims division after concluding there was “significant justification” to examine its handling of sex-abuse cases. In a press release, federal prosecutors said the department had received reports of deficiencies dating back more than a decade. The investigation will look at whether the division has engaged in a pattern of gender-biased policing, examining allegations that include “failing to conduct basic investigative steps and instead shaming and abusing survivors and re-traumatizing them during investigations,” the department said.“Victims of sex crimes deserve the same rigorous and unbiased investigations of their cases that the NYPD affords to other categories of crime,” Damian Williams, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement. “Likewise, relentless and effective pursuit of perpetrators of sexual violence, unburdened by gender stereotypes or differential treatment, is essential to public safety. We look forward to working with our partners in EDNY and the Civil Rights Division to assess the NYPD’s practices in this area.”As abortion clinics shutter around the country and providers navigate a fast-changing legal environment, a judge in Florida said he would temporarily block a 15-week ban from taking effect in the state. The decision comes in response to a court challenge by reproductive healthcare providers who argued that the Florida state constitution guarantees a right to the procedure.According to the Associated Press, the judge, John Cooper, issued the ruling from the bench, but it does not take effect until he signs a written order. The law, passed earlier this year by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature and signed into law by Republican governor Ron DeSantis, goes into effect Friday.Cooper said Florida’s ban was “unconstitutional in that it violates the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution.”DeSantis’ office said it would appeal the ruling.In a new statement, Biden vowed to press forward with executive actions to combat climate change despite what he called the supreme court’s “devastating” ruling on Friday that significantly hobbles the government’s ability to limit carbon gas emissions. “While this decision risks damaging our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis,” Biden said in the statement. Biden said he has directed federal agencies to review the decision in search of ways the administration might still be able to limit pollution. .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}We cannot and will not ignore the danger to public health and existential threat the climate crisis poses. The science confirms what we all see with our own eyes – the wildfires, droughts, extreme heat, and intense storms are endangering our lives and livelihoods.
I will take action. My Administration will continue using lawful executive authority, including the EPA’s legally-upheld authorities, to keep our air clean, protect public health, and tackle the climate crisis. We will work with states and cities to pass and uphold laws that protect their citizens. And we will keep pushing for additional Congressional action, so that Americans can fully seize the economic opportunities, cost-saving benefits, and security of a clean energy future. Together, we will tackle environmental injustice, create good-paying jobs, and lower costs for families building the clean energy economy.
Our fight against climate change must carry forward, and it will. A new survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that nearly half of US adults believe Donald Trump should be charged with a crime for his role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, compared with 31% who say he should not be. Nearly 6 in 10 US adults say he “bears a great deal or quite a bit of responsibility” for the violence that unfolded at the Capitol, it found.The survey was conducted after the first five public hearings held by the House committee investigating the attack but before Tuesday’s hearing, which featured explosive testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Unsurprisingly, views of Trump’s culpability varied widely along party lines. Nevertheless, it is perhaps a sobering data point for the former president as he toys with a second bid for the White House. It’s been a busy morning in Washington. Here’s where things stand.
The supreme court ended a monumental session with another pair of consequential decisions. In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority sided with Republican officials and fossil fuel companies in a ruling that curbs the administration’s ability to combat global warming.
In a second ruling, the court agreed 5-4 that Biden had the authority to end a controversial immigration policy enacted by his predecessor, known informally as the “Remain in Mexico” program.
During a press conference in Madrid, Joe Biden said he supported changing the Senate rules to pass abortion and privacy protections. But Democrats do not have enough votes to alter, much less eliminate, the filibuster.And as long as the filibuster remains in place, they lack the Republican support to pass legislation that would codify Roe into law.
Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in as the 116th supreme court justice. She is the first Black woman to serve on the court.
For this history books. Ketanji Brown Jackson is sworn in as the 116th supreme court justice and the first Black woman to serve on the court.History made. Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the supreme court on Thursday, becoming the first Black woman in history to ascend to the nation’s highest bench. WATCH: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is officially sworn in as first Black female Justice of the Supreme Court. https://t.co/sHdcaCS1Y2 pic.twitter.com/95Oz59jW3z— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 30, 2022
In a brief ceremony at the supreme court, Chief Justice Roberts administered the Constitutional oath. Justice Stephen Breyer, who retired at noon, delivered the judicial oath. She is the court’s 116th justice.“Are you prepared to take the oath,” Roberts asked. “I am,” Jackson said, raising her right hand. The 51-year-old Jackson joins the court at an extraordinary moment, after one of the most consequential terms in modern memory. The court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority handed down a slew of decisions that expanded gun rights, eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion and, just today, curtailed the government’s ability to fight climate change.Her confirmation was the fulfillment of a promise Joe Biden made to supporters during the 2020 presidential campaign, when he vowed to nominate a Black woman justice if a vacancy arose. Earlier this year, Breyer announced he would retire at the end of the term, paving the way for her elevation to the court. A former public defender, she brings a unique background. Her arrival is expected to do little to change the court’s ideological composition as she views herself in the mold of her predecessor, one of just three liberals on the court.Roberts said there would be a formal investiture in the fall. Senator Patrick Leahy, the 82-year-old Democrat from Vermont, will undergo hip surgery today after falling in his Virginia home, his office said in a statement. The statement notes that Leahy, a skilled photographer, was born blind in one eye and has had a “lifelong struggle” with depth perception. “He has taken some remarkable dingers over the years but this one finally caught up with him,” it said.The statement said Leahy is expected to make a full recovery but did not offer any timeline for his return. In a Senate divided 50-50, his absence could delay Democrats plans to confirm a host of judicial nominations and a new director to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It may also imperil negotiations over a reconciliation bill, that may be the vehicle for Democrats’ scaled-back climate proposals, all the more urgent in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling today. Now at risk: timely confirmation of ATF and judicial noms, including a DC Circuit judge, and possible reconciliation votes. https://t.co/nMsrox8pdj— Mike DeBonis (@mikedebonis) June 30, 2022
Biden reiterates his support for changing the filibuster rules to pass abortion protections. We have to codify Roe v. Wade into law.And as I said this morning: If the filibuster gets in the way, then we need to make an exception to get it done.— President Biden (@POTUS) June 30, 2022 More

The US president has said he would support changing the Senate filibuster rules to codify abortion rights nationally, calling the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade ‘destabilising’. ‘We have to codify Roe v Wade in the law and the way to do that is to make sure Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights … we should require an exception to the filibuster for this action,’ Biden said. He added he would meet with a group of governors on Friday to discuss abortion rights

US politics: latest updates
Biden backs exception to Senate filibuster to protect abortion access More

Biden backs exception to Senate filibuster to protect abortion accessPresident in Madrid says he supports ‘exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the supreme court decision’01:39Joe Biden said on Thursday he would support an exception to the Senate filibuster to protect access to abortion, after the supreme court overturned the right in a historic ruling this month.The Roe ruling is not about states’ rights. It’s about power and control | Derecka PurnellRead more“If the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights,“ Biden said during a press conference at the Nato summit in Madrid, adding that there should be an “exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the supreme court decision”.The term filibuster refers to the 60-seat super-majority needed for most legislation to pass the Senate without being blocked by any single senator.The rule is meant to help the Senate act as a less volatile chamber than the House, which works on simple majority votes, and to protect the rights of the minority.But many on the left charge Republicans and some centrist Democrats with using the rule more in the archaic, Spanish-derived sense of the word “filibuster” – as pirates or raiders, ransacking the political process to their own advantage.Biden was a senator from 1973 until 2009. An institutionalist to the core, he has been reluctant to support changes to the filibuster – even “carve-outs” for key legislation.Earlier this year, Biden endorsed a carve-out on the issue of voting rights. The move was meant to answer Republican attacks on those likely to vote Democratic, prominently African Americans, but two Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, stood in the way of their party.Biden’s latest comments made clear he is willing to support a carve-out to protect abortion rights. Manchin and Sinema would in all likelihood block the move once again.With the Senate split 50-50 and controlled by the vote of the vice-president, Kamala Harris, Democrats’ legislative options are limited.Biden is therefore under pressure to take executive action to protect abortion rights. Although his options are few, in Madrid he said he would meet governors on Friday to talk about the issue and would “have announcements to make then”.Biden also repeated harsh criticism of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which guaranteed the right to abortion, and reiterated his warning that other constitutional protections could be at risk from a supreme court tilted right by three justices appointed by Donald Trump.01:29Biden said: “One thing that has been destabilising is the outrageous behavior of the supreme court of the United States in overruling not only Roe v Wade but essentially challenging the right to privacy.”Clarence Thomas, the senior conservative on the court, has written that other privacy-based rights, to contraception, gay sex and same sex marriage, should be examined.Thomas did not say another such right, to interracial marriage, was in question. He is Black. His wife, the far-right activist Ginni Thomas, is white.As a devout Catholic, Biden has long seen many US left question his bona fides as a supporter of abortion rights. In such quarters, the president’s remarks in Spain met with rather weary responses.Elie Mystal, justice correspondent of the Nation, wrote: “Oh look, Biden said he wasn’t open to changing the filibuster to pass a federal abortion law, people loudly complained, and now he’s changed his mind. FUNNY HOW THAT WORKS!“It’s almost like telling elected officials what we want them to DO makes them more likely to DO IT.”TopicsJoe BidenAbortionUS SenateUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

A quarter of Americans open to taking up arms against government, poll saysSurvey of 1,000 registered US voters also reveals that most Americans agree government is ‘corrupt and rigged’ More than one quarter of US residents feel so estranged from their government that they feel it might “soon be necessary to take up arms” against it, a poll released on Thursday claimed.This survey of 1,000 registered US voters, published by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics (IOP), also revealed that most Americans agree the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me”.The data suggests that extreme polarization in US politics – and its impact on Americans’ relationships with each other – remain strong. These statistics come as a congressional committee is holding public hearings on the January 6 insurrection.This deadly attack on the US Capitol stemmed from the false, partisan, pro-Donald Trump belief that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election. Rioters attempted to thwart certification of the election, in an effort to keep Trump in office.Although the violent insurrectionists targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, GOP Trump loyalists have insisted that the committee is illegitimate. These attacks on the committee intensified after Trump staffers themselves – including former attorney general Bill Barr – publicly described his efforts to push “the big lie” that the presidential election was stolen.The survey indicates that distrust in government varies among party lines. While 56% of participants said they “generally trust elections to be conducted fairly and counted accurately”, Republicans, Democrats and independents were dramatically split on this point. Nearly 80% of Democrats voiced overall trust in elections, but that number dipped to 51% among independents and a mere 33% of Republicans.Per the poll, 49% of Americans concurred that they “more and more feel like a stranger in my own country”. Again, this number reflected sharp political divisions: the sentiment was held by 69% of self-described “strong Republicans”, 65% of self-described “very conservative” persons, and 38% of “strong Democrats”.Of the 28% of voters who felt it might soon be necessary “to take up arms against the government”, 37% had guns in their homes, according to the data.One-third of Republicans – including 45% of “strong Republicans – hold this belief about taking up arms. 35% of independent voters, and 20% of Democrats, also agreed, the poll said.Meanwhile, those polled voiced negative sentiments about persons from opposing political parties. Seventy-three per cent of self-described Republican voters agreed that “Democrats are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree,” and “an almost identical percentage of Democrats (74%) express that view of Republicans”.“While we’ve documented for years the partisan polarization in the country, these poll results are perhaps the starkest evidence of the deep divisions in partisan attitudes rippling through the country,” said the Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducted the survey in May with and Democratic pollster Joel Benenson.The survey also stated that almost half of respondents expressed averting political talk with other people “because I don’t know where they stand”. One-quarter described losing friends, and a similar proportion claimed to have avoided relatives and friends, due to politics, per the survey.TopicsBiden administrationRepublicansDemocratsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More