US Politics

America’s culture wars distract from what’s happening beneath themGary GerstleWhen it comes to economic questions, there’s more agreement between culture war opponents than you might think The neoliberal order that triumphed in America in the 1990s prized free trade and the free movement of capital, information, and people. It celebrated deregulation as an economic good that resulted when governments could no longer interfere with the operation of markets. It hailed globalization as a win-win position that would enrich the west (the cockpit of neoliberalism) while also bringing an unprecedented level of prosperity to the rest of the world. A remarkable consensus on these creedal principles came to dominate American politics during the heyday of the neoliberal order, binding together Republicans and Democrats and marginalizing dissenting voices to the point where they barely mattered.Somewhat paradoxically, this broad agreement on matters of political economy nurtured two strikingly different moral perspectives, each of them consonant with the commitment to market principles that underlay the neoliberal order. The first perspective was ‘neo-Victorian’, celebrating self-reliance, strong families, and disciplined attitudes toward work, sexuality, and consumption.These values were necessary, this moral perspective argued, to gird individuals against market excess – accumulating debt by buying more than one could afford and indulging appetites for sex, drugs, alcohol, and other whims that free markets could be construed as sanctioning. Since neoliberalism frowned upon government regulation of private behavior, some other institution had to provide it. Neo-Victorianism found that institution in the traditional family – heterosexual, governed by male patriarchs, with women subordinate but in charge of homemaking and childrearing.The Republican party is obsessed with children – in the creepiest of ways | Osita NwanevuRead moreSuch families, guided by faith in God, would inculcate moral virtue in its members and prepare the next generation for the rigors of free market life. Gertrude Himmelfarb, Irving Kristol, George Gilder, and Charles Murray were among the intellectuals guiding this movement, the legions of evangelical Christians mobilized in Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority its mass base.The other moral perspective encouraged by the neoliberal order was cosmopolitan. A world apart from neo-Victorianism, it saw in market freedom an opportunity to fashion a self or identity that was free of tradition, inheritance, and prescribed social roles. In the United States this moral perspective drew energy from liberation movements originating in the new left – black power, feminism, multiculturalism, and gay pride among them.Cosmopolitanism was egalitarian and pluralistic. It rejected the notion that the patriarchal, heterosexual family should be celebrated as the norm. It embraced globalization and the free movement of people, and the transnational links that the neoliberal order had made possible. It valorized the good that would come from diverse peoples meeting each other, sharing their cultures, and developing new and often hybridized ways of living. It celebrated the cultural exchanges and dynamism that increasingly characterized the global cities – London, Paris, New York, Hong Kong, San Francisco, Toronto, Miami among them – flourishing under the aegis of the neoliberal order.The existence of two such different moral perspectives was both a strength and a weakness for the neoliberal order. The strength lay in the order’s ability to accommodate within a common program of political economy very different constituencies with radically divergent perspectives on moral life. The weakness lay in the fact that the cultural battles between these two constituencies might threaten to erode the hegemony of neoliberal economic principles.The cosmopolitans attacked neo-Victorians for discriminating against gay people, feminists, and immigrants, and for stigmatizing the black poor for their so-called “culture of poverty”. The neo-Victorians attacked the cosmopolitans for tolerating virtually any lifestyle, for excusing what they deemed to be deplorable behavior as an exercise in the toleration of difference, and for showing a higher regard for foreign cultures than for America’s own. The decade of the neoliberal order’s triumph – the 1990s – was also one in which cosmopolitans and neo-Victorians fought each other in a series of battles that became known as the “culture wars”. In fact, a focus on these cultural divisions is the preferred way of writing the political history of these years.Just beneath this cultural polarization, however, lay a fundamental agreement on principles of political economy. This intriguing coexistence of cultural division and economic accord manifested itself in the complex relationship between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. In the media, they were depicted (and depicted themselves) as opposites, sworn to each other’s destruction. Clinton offered himself as the tribune of the new America, one welcoming of racial minorities, feminists, and gays. He was thought to embody the spirit of the 1960s and something of the insurgent, free-spirited character of the new left. Gingrich presented himself as the guardian of an older and “truer” America, one grounded in faith, patriotism, respect for law and order, and family values. Gingrich publicly pledged himself and his party to obstructing Clinton at every turn. Clinton, meanwhile, regarded Gingrich as the unscrupulous leader of a vast right-wing conspiracy to undermine his presidency.Yet, despite their differences and their hatred for each other, these two Washington powerbrokers worked together on neoliberal legislation that would shape America’s political economy for a generation. They both supported the World Trade Organization, which debuted in 1995 to turbocharge a global regime of free trade. Their aides jointly engineered the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which did more than any other piece of legislation in the 1980s and 1990s to free the most dynamic sector of the US economy from government regulation.Major pieces of legislation deregulating the electrical generation industry and Wall Street followed closely in the telecom bill’s wake. Clinton and Gingrich also worked together to pare back the welfare state, sharing a conviction that the tough, disciplining effects of job markets would benefit the poor more than state-subsidized “handouts”. Clinton’s collaboration with Gingrich had facilitated the neoliberal order’s triumph.That order is now on the wane, its once unassailable principles of free trade, free markets, and the free movement of people now disputed on a daily basis. Meanwhile, public attention focuses on yet another chapter in the culture wars, with the American people divided, irredeemably it seems, over vaccination, critical race theory, and whether Donald Trump should be lauded as an American hero or jailed for acts of treason.Yet, beneath the churn, one can detect hints of new common ground on economic matters emerging. Trump and Bernie Sanders have both worked to turn the country away from free trade and toward a protectionist future promising better jobs and higher wages. Senators Josh Hawley and Amy Klobuchar have both been warning the American people about the dangers of concentrated corporate power and the “tyranny of high tech”; and bipartisanship is driving movements in Congress to commit public funds to the nation’s physical infrastructure and to industrial policies deemed vital to economic wellbeing and national security. It is too soon to know whether these incipient collaborative efforts indicate that a new kind of political economy is in fact taking shape and, if it is, whose interests it will serve. But these developments underscore, once again, the importance of looking beyond and beneath the culture wars for clues as to where American politics and society might be heading.
Gary Gerstle is a Guardian US columnist. Excerpted and adapted from The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era (Oxford University Press, 2022)
TopicsUS politicsOpinionRaceGenderRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

‘January 6 was a real wake-up call’: US unions fight to save democracyLabor leaders view this year’s elections – and 2024’s – with special urgency, as a goal-line stand to preserve America’s democracy Many union leaders used to pooh-pooh talk about saving democracy, according t0 Shane Larson, the Communications Workers of America’s director of government affairs. All that changed after the January 6 assault on the Capitol and after many Republicans pushed to overturn Biden’s victory in several states.The latest threat to democracy? A Trump-backed candidate willing to ‘find extra votes’Read more“Just a few years ago, some union leaders would complain, ‘Why are we focusing on these do-good democratic issues?’ They’d say we need to focus exclusively on labor rights and jobs, jobs, jobs,” Larson said. “Now no one is complaining about this at all. There’s a real recognition that the entire labor movement has to be involved in this effort, that we have to do something for our democracy or we can lose it.“January 6 was a real wake-up call,” Larson said. “Part of our effort is to hold accountable a number of insurrectionists running for some of these offices.” He mentioned the Arizona and Georgia secretary of state races in particular.With their ability to mobilize tens of thousands of union foot soldiers, unions are one of the nation’s most powerful political forces, and labor leaders view this year’s election – and 2024’s – with special urgency, as a goal-line stand to preserve America’s democracy.Traditionally focusing on presidential and congressional races, unions this year plan to focus far more than usual on state and local races – for instance, to prevent the election of secretaries of state and election commissioners who have embraced Trump’s “big lie” and signaled they might overturn their state’s 2024 vote results if the Democratic presidential nominee is ahead.Unite Here, the hotel workers’ union, is known for being one of the nation’s most politically active unions, and this year it has expanded its political ambitions – not just to elect worker-friendly candidates, but to help preserve America’s embattled democracy.For this year’s elections, Unite Here intends to build on its performance in 2020 when it had 500 full-time canvassers going door to door in Arizona, helping Joe Biden win that state. It also had an army of union members canvassing in Philadelphia, helping deliver Pennsylvania to Biden. That 300,000-member union later sent 200 canvassers to Georgia to help Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff win, giving Democrats control of the Senate.Unite Here has broadened its effort this year, with a stepped-up focus on protecting voting rights – and democracy itself. It is already educating voters in Arizona and Georgia about how to navigate around newly enacted voter restrictions. Like many other unions, it hopes to provide a flock of poll watchers to help ensure that voters, especially voters of color, are not intimidated by the promised army of Trumpist poll watchers. To help Democrats retain control of the Senate, Unite Here plans to deploy hundreds of canvassers to help Mark Kelly of Arizona, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and other Democratic senators win re-election.“Our goal is to get back to what we had in 2020, a steady ramp-up to have 500 people moving around, going door to door, reigniting people to vote,” said Gwen Mills, Unite Here’s secretary-treasurer. “The work of democracy is labor-intensive, is people-intensive.”Union leaders see two parallel strategies to preserve American democracy – one is to battle against efforts that roll back voting rights, reduce the political voice of minorities and enable hyper-partisans to skew, even overturn vote counts. The other strategy is to ensure that Democrats win key battleground states, especially longtime union strongholds Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.“There is no way that Donald Trump or the next Donald Trump or any anti-worker candidate can win the White House without winning those states,” said Steve Rosenthal, former political director of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s main labor federation.Rosenthal said that if union households accounted for 25% to 30% of the vote in those states, as they did a quarter-century ago, instead of 15% 20% as they do now, Trump could not have won those states in 2016, nor win them in 2024. Rosenthal has founded a group, In Union, that is reaching out to hundreds of thousands of former union members in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – they perhaps lost their jobs and union membership when their factories closed. In Union seeks to explain to these voters which candidates are pro-worker and which aren’t. Thus far In Union has communicated with 1.2 million voters in those three states (including many non-union members who support unions) — and hopes to get funding to reach out to another 3 million.Backed by unions and foundations, In Union seeks to build trust with those voters and explain, for instance, how Joe Biden would do more for blue-collar workers than Trump would. “What these voters are yearning for is a place they can go to to get information they trust,” Rosenthal said. “There’s a huge role for unions to play in this right now.”Many labor leaders say Democratic lawmakers have hurt their party’s cause by doing little in recent decades to stop union membership from declining – a trend Joe Biden seems eager to reverse and many Republicans seem eager to accelerate. Unions often help Democrats by explaining to workers which party will do more for them. Unions have also helped prevent workers from growing resentful and embracing rightwing populists like Trump by helping assure economic gains for workers and by reducing racial resentment among white workers.“Unions remain the only set of organizations in the US that can help prevent working-class whites from going conservative,” said Jake Rosenfeld, a sociology professor at Washington University.Paul Spink, the head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in Wisconsin, said one way to help save democracy would be to re-elect Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor. Spink said Republicans have so gerrymandered Wisconsin’s legislature that they are close to having a veto-proof supermajority even though Republicans often win less than 50% of the statewide vote.“In recent months, there’ve been at least five or six bills the legislature passed to limit voting rights and undermine elections,” Spink said. “We’re trying very hard to keep a Democratic governor in this state to block those.”Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, says her union fights to protect democracy in many ways, for example, by opposing book bans and defending teachers who face punishment for teaching about racism.“In many countries, labor unions have been a bulwark against authoritarianism,” Weingarten said.She said her union might endorse some non-Trumpist Republicans like Lynn Cheney, who oppose the “big lie” and undermining fair elections. That way, in places where Democrats have scant chance of winning, her union might help elect Republicans who oppose many Republicans’ increasing embrace of authoritarianism.Labor’s pro-democracy efforts have taken many forms. The Service Employees International Union ran internet ads that criticized Coca-Cola, Delta Air Lines and Home Depot for donating to GOP lawmakers who backed new voting restrictions. Unite Here co-sponsored a “freedom ride” of buses to Washington to urge senators to enact new voting rights legislation.“I feel that work for democracy should be year-round,” said Unite Here’s Mills. “We try to keep a drum beat year in and year out: do democracy at work, do democracy at the doors, do democracy at the polls, do democracy in the capital.”Unite Here trains hotel workers to become leaders, with one winning a seat on the Phoenix city council. It pushed lawmakers to slam the Cyber Ninjas’ much-derided election review in Arizona. United Here says its canvassers knocked on 1m doors in Arizona in 2020 and talked with 125,000 infrequent voters, many of whom voted for Biden. It boasts that that helped assure Biden’s 10,457-vote victory in the state.“I want other unions to have more people canvassing in these races, to do it in every state,” said Susan Minato, co-president of Unite Here Local 11 in Arizona and southern California. “That would be huge.”TopicsUS unionsUS Capitol attackUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

Capitol attack rioter gets 3.5 years in prison for illegal possession of gunsSamuel Fisher was also a self-declared dating coach who sold a $150 package of misogynistic tips for men to pick up women A rioter who believed the QAnon conspiracy theory and joined the insurrection by extremist supporters of Donald Trump at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, as they attempted to overturn his election defeat, has been sentenced in New York to 3.5 years in prison.Samuel Fisher, 33, was sentenced on Monday after being charged with illegal possession of firearms, including a modified semi-automatic AR-15-style assault rifle, a “ghost gun” pistol, a shotgun, and 11 pre-loaded high capacity magazines at an apartment in the upscale Upper West Side neighborhood of Manhattan.He had pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.For years, Fisher established a prolific online presence, the authorities said.Under the alias Brad Holiday, Fisher posted photos of himself with firearms on Facebook and YouTube. In one, Fisher posed in front of a flag that said “Don’t tread on Trump. Keep America great” while grinning and holding a pistol.“Can’t wait to bring a liberal back to this freedom palace,” he wrote as his caption. Behind him was a rifle and a shotgun.Fisher was also a self-declared dating coach who sold a $150 package of misogynistic supposed tips and tricks for men to pick up women, called “Attraction Accelerator”, the New York Times reported.“How to use online dating to build abundance of women! Never feel that you can’t get women again…with online dating you’ll ALWAYS be getting laid,” his website said.In a video posted online, Fisher said, “Is Satanism a good thing? Should we conjure demons to get our goals met like the Left does?”He added: “Are women trustworthy in 2020? You tell me. I’ll tell you, No.”Prior to the January 6 insurrection aimed, on the urging of Trump at a rally prior, at preventing Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory over Trump, Fisher espoused QAnon conspiracy theories online and claims that the 2020 election was “stolen”.In reference to a pro-Trump, so-called Stop the Steal rally, the authorities said Fisher told a Facebook friend: “Get a firearm and go, lol, its 1776 time dawg.”He also went on to write online: “The Deep State is arrested and hanged on the White House lawn for High Treason. We rebuild America with a government for the people by the people…Patriot show up in the millions with guns. They execute all the treasonous members of government and rebuild.”Trump believed a “deep state” secret shadow government existed to thwart his agenda.In 2020, after attending the deadly January 6 riots on Capitol Hill, Fisher wrote on his social media accounts that “people died” but it was great, according to court records reviewed by the New York Times.“Seeing cops literally run…was the coolest thing I’ve ever seen in my life,” he continued.Fisher was arrested on 20 January 2021, outside his Upper East Side apartment in New York City in connection with his involvement with the Capitol attacks. Police found a shotgun, machetes and over a thousand rounds of ammunition in his vehicle, according to court records.In a statement on Monday, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg said: “Samuel Fisher is a dangerous conspiracy theorist who participated in one of the gravest attacks on our democracy. Not only did he threaten to commit violence against his fellow citizens, he had the potential to follow through with his arsenal of advanced weaponry and ammunition.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsNew YorkDonald TrumpUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

CDC announces revamp plans, hires outside official for reviewThe one-month review follows criticism for its pandemic response including initial delays in developing a coronavirus test The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Monday announced plans to revamp itself, with director Rochelle Walensky hiring an outside senior federal health official to conduct a one-month review.James Macrae, an associate administrator in the Department of Health and Human Services, will join CDC on a one-month assignment from 11 April to listen to and engage with the agency’s Covid-19 response activities, Walensky said in an email to her colleagues.Biden names Ashish Jha as new White House Covid-19 response coordinatorRead moreMacrae will provide Walensky insight into how CDC’s programs can be strengthened.She has also asked three senior officials at CDC to gather feedback on the agency’s current structure and solicit suggestions for strategic change.The review follows criticism for its response during the pandemic, from delays in developing a coronavirus test initially to its guidance over masking, isolation and quarantine being called confusing.“As we’ve challenged our state and local partners, we know that now is the time for CDC to integrate the lessons learned into a strategy for the future,” Walensky said in a separate statement.Walensky said the review will allow CDC to develop new systems and processes, with a keen focus on the agency’s core capabilities like public health workforce, laboratory capacity and rapid response to disease outbreaks. TopicsCoronavirusInfectious diseasesBiden administrationVaccines and immunisationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

IS terrorists who kidnapped James Foley ignored efforts to negotiate, court hearsFoley’s brother and mother testify at Virginia court trial of El Shafee Elsheikh, accused of kidnap and murder of US journalist The Islamic State terrorists who kidnapped American journalist James Foley never made serious attempts to negotiate a ransom before brutally executing him, family members have told a court.Foley’s brother and mother took the witness stand at US district court in Alexandria at the terror trial of El Shafee Elsheikh, a Briton accused of playing a leading role in a hostage-taking scheme that resulted in the deaths of Foley and three other Americans – Steven Sotloff, Peter Kassig and Kayla Mueller.James Foley, a freelance photographer who grew up in New Hampshire, left for Syria in October 2012. He was well aware of the potential dangers having spent more than a month in captivity in Libya while on assignment during that country’s civil war.Diane Foley, his mother, testified that she became deeply concerned about her son when he failed to call them as he usually would on Thanksgiving.It wasn’t until late November, after Thanksgiving, that they actually received an email from James’s captors seeking to establish a line of communication.Michael Foley, James’s brother, said the emails exchanged in November 2012 and January 2013 sought either the release of Muslim prisoners or €100m .“We had no ability to secure either of those demands,” he said. “It’s not a reasonable demand. It’s not a negotiation, in my mind.”The captors did provide evidence that they were in possession of Foley and that he was still alive by giving personal details about James’s life that would have been known only to him and his family.But despite repeated efforts to engage the hostage-takers in talks, the Foleys received no replies to multiple emails for roughly eight months. Finally, in August 2013, they received an email titled: “A message to the American government and their sheep-like citizens.”The email criticized the US for a recent bombing campaign that had been undertaken against the Islamic State.It promised retaliation, “the first of which being the blood of your American citizen, James Foley. He will be executed as a DIRECT result of your transgressions towards us!”A few days later, Foley was beheaded in a gruesome video broadcast across the Internet.Parents of journalist James Foley: US government and media failed our sonRead moreBoth Foleys testified that they first learned of James’s death from reporters calling for reaction. Michael Foley said he found the video readily available on the Internet and watched it repeatedly. Diane Foley said she kept hoping it was a cruel joke. She called the FBI and other government officials she’d been in contact with, but none would respond throughout the day. The first official confirmation she received was on the evening news, when then President Barack Obama confirmed the beheading.The refusal to negotiate in serious terms stands in contrast to earlier testimony, where negotiators for European hostages engaged in lengthy discussions that resulted in the release of hostages. One hostages was released after raising €2m, a negotiated figure that was just a fraction of what was demanded from the Foleys.Elsheikh is better known as one of “the Beatles”, a nickname he and at least two other Brits were given by their captives because of their accents. Elsheikh and a longtime friend, Alexenda Kotey, were captured together and brought to Virginia to face trial. Kotey pleaded guilty last year in a plea bargain that calls for a life sentence.A third Beatle, Mohammed Emwazi, served as executioner in the video of Foley’s execution. Emwazi was killed in a drone strike.There have been conflicting statements during the trial about the existence of a fourth member of the group. An individual previously identified in public discussion as the fourth man, Aine Davis, is serving a prison sentence in Turkey.Defense lawyers have highlighted the discrepancies over the Beatles’ identities, and say there is insufficient evidence to prove Elsheikh participated in the hostage-taking scheme. Prosecutors, though, plan to present evidence later in the trial that Elsheikh confessed to his role under questioning from interrogators and in media interviews.TopicsIslamic StateVirginiaUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Suspect arrested in Sacramento shooting that left six deadPolice say they have received more than 100 videos or photos from the scene and have executed three search warrants Police in the California state capital have made an arrest in connection with Sunday’s mass shooting that left six people dead and at least a dozen others injured. In the hours after the bloodshed, police say they have received more than 100 videos or photos from the scene and executed search warrants on three homes.They identified a 26-year-old man as one of the individuals arrested in connection to the shooting, in a press release. He has been charged with assault and illegal firearm possession offenses.01:19On Monday, authorities identified the six people killed in the shooting, after at least two shooters opened fire in a crowd as bar patrons filled the streets at closing time on the outskirts of the city’s entertainment district.The Sacramento county coroner identified three women who were killed as Johntaya Alexander, 21; Melinda Davis, 57; and Yamile Martinez-Andrade, 21.The three male victims were identified as Sergio Harris, 38; Joshua Hoye-Lucchesi, 32; and DeVazia Turner, 29.The sound of rapid-fire gunshots at about 2am sent people running in terror. Twelve people were wounded in the neighborhood anchored by the Golden One Arena, which hosts concerts and the Sacramento Kings.“My child is out there on that ground, you know? This don’t make any sense and there’s other people’s children that’s out there on the ground. And they won’t tell us nothing, and it’s heartbreaking,” Pamela Harris, Sergio’s mother, told Sacramento’s local Fox affiliate on Sunday, shortly before police confirmed that her son had been killed. “It’s heartbreaking to see what’s going on out here and they’re not telling us anything.”Since Harris was identified, dozens of people have posted to his Facebook page to express their shock and disbelief at the sudden loss. He was killed alongside his cousin DeVazia Turner, whose father told the same news outlet that the two were out that night to enjoy themselves. “He was out just having fun with his friends,” Turner said. “There’s just nothing to say. I’m just here. I’m grief, that’s all – grief.”A friend of Melinda Davis said she was a “very sassy lady” who lived on the streets of Sacramento near the shooting site. ‘Slow violence that drives death’: a California port city’s struggle with pollution and shootingsRead moreShawn Peter, a guide with the Downtown Sacramento Partnership told the Sacramento Bee he’d known Davis for 15 years. She had been homeless and lived in the area on and off for a decade. “Melinda was a very eccentric individual, a very sassy lady,” he told the newspaper. “This was her world, 24/7.”Officials had helped her find housing before the pandemic began but she had returned to the downtown business district in recent months, Peter said. A small bouquet of purple roses with a note saying “Melinda Rest In Peace” was left on the street.The gunfire erupted just after a fight broke out on a street lined with an upscale hotel, nightclubs and bars and police said they were investigating whether the altercation was connected to the shooting. Video from witnesses posted on social media showed rapid gunfire for at least 45 seconds as people screamed and ran for cover, the Associated Press reported.Small memorials with candles, balloons and flowers were placed Monday morning near the crime scene. One balloon had a message on it saying in part: “You will forever be in our hearts and thoughts. Nothing will ever be the same.”Police say they had recovered more than 100 shell casings at the scene and had located several cars and buildings with bullet holes in them.This mass shooting comes less than six weeks after a man shot himself after killing his three daughters – ages nine, 10 and 13 – and a man who was supervising a visit between the girls and their father at a Sacramento-area church. He was banned from owning a gun because of a domestic violence restraining order but was able to skirt the prohibition by getting a ghost gun, a firearm that is ordered in parts and can be assembled in a few hours with the help of a YouTube tutorial. They lack serial numbers and can be bought without a background check, making them nearly impossible to trace through traditional means.Several mass shootings have taken place in northern California in recent years and have fueled calls for stricter gun legislation at the federal level.Joe Biden has long been a champion of what many refer to as “commonsense” legislation such as universal background checks and has made ghost gun abatement part of his administration’s public safety approach.“Today, America once again mourns for another community devastated by gun violence,” Biden said on Sunday. “But we must do more than mourn; we must act.”California has more than 100 gun laws on the books that determine who can sell ammunition, where guns can be purchased, and the number of rounds any single firearm can hold. And cities including San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland have banned ghost guns and lodged lawsuits against manufacturers of parts. Still, California lawmakers are continuing to create legislation, including a measure modeled after Texas’s abortion ban, that they hope will keep unregistered or illegally purchased guns out of people’s hands, cars and homes.But the longtime partisan stalemate and lack of a permanent head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) are making it more difficult for Biden to put his campaign promises into practice and leave gun regulation mainly to states.On Monday, Senator Dianne Feinstein joined the chorus of officials calling on Congress to pass new gun legislation. “Of course, this isn’t an isolated event. It’s the latest in an epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our country,” Feinstein said in a statement.“Enough is enough. We can no longer ignore gun violence in our communities. Congress knows what steps must be taken to stop these mass shootings, we just have to act.”TopicsCaliforniaGun crimeUS gun controlJoe BidenUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Senate judiciary committee nears vote on Ketanji Brown JacksonCommittee vote expected to be evenly split, 11-11, forcing Democrats to ‘discharge’ the nomination The Senate judiciary committee on Monday neared a vote on the historic nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson, poised to be the first Black woman confirmed to the supreme court.Following days of interrogation and debate over Jackson’s qualifications, the committee vote was expected to be evenly split, 11-11. That would force Democrats to “discharge” the nomination, delaying but not denying confirmation.Before the vote could take place, the committee adjourned to await the arrival of its 22nd member, the California Democrat Alex Padilla, whose flight to Washington was delayed.A vote to discharge Jackson’s nomination was expected as early as Monday evening. That would set up hours of additional debate on the Senate floor.Democrats and the White House hope to confirm Jackson to the lifetime position on the court before Congress recesses for the Easter holiday on Friday. The 51-year-old was confirmed by the Senate to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit last year with the support of three Republicans.Ketanji Brown Jackson to receive rare Republican vote as Collins says yesRead moreOnly one of those Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine, has committed to voting for her again.Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has said he will not support Jackson’s nomination to the supreme court​​, calling her an “activist to the core”, outside the judicial mainstream.Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has not said how she intends to vote, but is seen as one of only two more Republicans, along with Mitt Romney of Utah, who might support Jackson.If confirmed, Jackson will replace the retiring liberal justice Stephen Breyer, for whom she clerked, and would make history as the first Black woman and only the sixth woman to sit on the court in more than 200 years. Her confirmation would, however, do nothing to change the ideological balance of a court on which conservatives outnumber liberals 6-3.In his opening remarks on Monday, Dick Durbin of Illinois, the committee’s Democratic chair, praised Jackson’s “impeccable qualifications” and said her experience as a public defender would bring a “missing perspective to the court”.“This committee’s action today in nothing less than making history,” Durbin said. “I’m honored to be a part of it. I will strongly and proudly support Judge Jackson’s nomination.”Durbin also lamented Republican hostility toward Jackson, accusing senators of leveraging “vile” and “discredited” attacks on her record and character.“She stayed calm and collected. She showed dignity, grace and poise,” Durbin said. “It is unfortunate that our hearing came to that, but if there is one positive to take away from these attacks, it is that the nation got to see the temperament of a good, strong person truly ready to serve on the highest court in the land.”Many Republicans used the hearing on Monday to rehash their attacks on Jackson, accusing her of handing down lenient sentences to child sex crime offenders when she was a federal trial court judge, a claim independent factcheckers have said is baseless and lacks context.During her hearings, Jackson forcefully defended her record, telling senators these were among the most traumatic and haunting cases she dealt with and that she did her “duty to hold the defendants accountable”.Republicans also sought to portray Jackson as “soft on crime”, a line of attack dismissed outright by the American Bar Association, which testified that she was strongly qualified for the position.Republicans on the committee appear uniformly opposed to Jackson’s nomination, starting with the ranking member, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who announced he would not vote to confirm Jackson because “she and I have fundamental, different views on the role of judges and the role that they should play in our system of government”.On Monday, Graham again used his time to decry Democrats’ treatment of nominees named by Republican presidents.“If we were in charge, she would not have been before this committee,” Graham said.His point was that Republican control of the Senate would have forced Democrats to put forward a more “moderate” – in his view – nominee. But Democrats saw the comment as a plain-spoken acknowledgment of Republicans’ hardball tactics when it comes to the supreme court, after the GOP refused to let Barack Obama fill a vacancy in 2016 – an act without precedent.Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, compared proceedings on Jackson’s nomination to Festivus, the holiday celebrated on the TV series, Seinfeld.“There’s been a lot of airing of grievances,” Booker said, adding: “I’ve heard things that are just ridiculous.”During more than 30 hours of hearings last month, Jackson pledged to be an independent justice who would decide cases from a “neutral position”. She defended her record while reflecting on her personal story as the daughter of public school teachers in the segregated south.As the 22-member panel convened on Monday, Joe Biden said Jackson would “bring extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and a rigorous judicial record to the supreme court.“She deserves to be confirmed as the next justice.”TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtUS SenateLaw (US)US politicsRepublicansDemocratsnewsReuse this content More