More stories

  • in

    Arizona proposal to protect abortion rights in state constitution advances

    A proposal to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution of Arizona, a key battleground state in the upcoming US elections, has inched closer to becoming an official ballot measure.On Wednesday, Arizona for Abortion Access, the coalition behind the measure, announced that it had turned in more than 800,000 signatures – more than double the needed amount to get the measure on the ballot come November.That’s more signatures than have ever been submitted for a citizen-led ballot measure in Arizona, according to Chris Love, a spokesperson for Arizona for Abortion Access.“It represents one in five Arizona voters,” Love said. “It’s an amazing feat for us. I think it’s a demonstration of the strength of our campaign and the excitement of Arizona voters to really settle the issue of abortion rights on the ballot in November.”Arizona currently bans most abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy, but the state came close to outlawing almost all abortions earlier this spring. In April, the Arizona supreme court ruled to uphold a law that paved the way for a 1864 near-total abortion ban – passed before Arizona even became a state – to take effect. That controversial decision kicked off a weeks-long battle in the Arizona state legislature, where Republicans hold a one-seat majority in both the state house and senate, as Democratic lawmakers tried to pass a repeal of the 1864 ban. They ultimately succeeded after a handful of Republican legislators broke ranks and voted for the repeal.“Our message has always been the same: pregnant patients deserve the freedom to make their individual and personal health care decisions, and especially decisions about abortions, with their families and their health care providers,” Love said. “The back and forth that just happened with respect to the 1864 ban is a clear demonstration of why we need politicians out of the calculus.”If voters pass the ballot measure, which is officially titled the Arizona Abortion Access Act, it would eliminate the state’s 15-week ban and instead protect the right to an abortion until fetal viability, a benchmark that typically occurs around 24 weeks of pregnancy. It would also allow abortions to take place after fetal viability if a health care professional believes the procedure is necessary to protect a pregnant person’s life or physical or mental health.Roughly a dozen states, including Arizona and fellow swing state Nevada, are expected to hold ballot measures over abortion rights in the November elections. Activists in Nebraska and Arkansas are also set to turn in signatures supporting abortion rights ballot measures this week.Since the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade two years ago, several states – including traditional Republican strongholds like Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio – have successfully passed ballot measures to preserve or strengthen abortion rights. Democrats are now hoping that enthusiasm for abortion rights will boost voter turnout and translate to support for their own candidates, particularly as Joe Biden continues to trail Donald Trump in the polls and has faced calls to step down in the wake of a devastating debate performance last week.Arizona county election officials now have until 22 August to officially verify the signatures. Part of the reason for turning in so many signatures, Love said, was to counter any efforts to legally challenge the signatures’ legitimacy. More

  • in

    The supreme court’s presidential immunity ruling mocks the rule of law | Corey Brettschneider

    The US supreme court found this week that former presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for “official acts”. This ruling doesn’t just place Donald Trump above the law. The true danger of the opinion is that it could protect precisely the kind of official acts that might destroy the American republic itself.The origin of the idea that the official acts of a president are immune from prosecution is found in a case about a fired whistleblower. In 1970, President Richard Nixon fired A Ernest Fitzgerald, an air force management analyst, in retaliation for his publicizing information about cost overruns. Fitzgerald brought a civil suit against Nixon, seeking damages for his dismissal. The supreme court sided with Nixon, granting the president absolute immunity from “damages liability predicated on his official acts”.The court of that time defined “official acts” as those associated with the president’s duties under article II of the constitution, including the duty to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed”. It asserted immunity even for presidential acts within the “outer perimeter” of this duty. However, in this case the court was focused on insulating a president from worries about his financial liability so that he could more easily make decisions about everyday matters of governance, such as hiring and firing.The supreme court did not then define these official acts to include criminal acts by a president. In fact, its narrow decision precluded only the “particular private remedy” of a civil suit against a former president and even included a pledge to not “place a president above the law”.This week’s ruling grossly misconstrued the Fitzgerald decision, disregarding this pledge. Instead, it extended an opinion about immunity from civil damages suits to encompass criminal immunity for acts antithetical to the president’s duty to “take care”. The danger of immunity for criminal “official” action is that it protects the enormous power of the president when it is used for the most nefarious political ends, threatening the very existence of democracy.Consider Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s warning in her thunderous dissent that the decision could protect a president attempting to use the military to illegally retain power after losing an election, what political scientists call a “self-coup”. No courts should incentivize actions that could threaten the very stability of the republic.Yet that is precisely the kind of act the court has potentially protected – not just during a presidency but after it. While the court left open what counts as an “official act” – and returned the case to a trial court to determine whether the crimes Trump is charged with from January 6 fit this description – the door is now open to impunity for these crimes.Indeed, the events of January 6 are rightly understood as an attempted self-coup – acts from which the court has now largely shielded Trump from criminal liability. Even if the trial court tasked with hearing the case now decides that Trump’s actions were not “official”, the supreme court’s delay means the process would almost certainly extend past the election. If Trump were to retake power, he would then receive immunity while in office, effectively ensuring he never faces criminal responsibility for these events.View image in fullscreenThat risk of a presidential self-coup goes beyond Trump. Indeed, it has long been at the heart of the controversy over immunity. As I describe in my new book, The Presidents and the People, released this week, that risk played an unknown but crucial role in the most pivotal moment of the Nixon crisis.In the midst of Watergate, a grand jury of citizens voted in a straw poll to indict Nixon for associated crimes, but the special prosecutor Leon Jaworski sought to dissuade them from moving forward while Nixon was still in office. As he saw it, presidential immunity was needed to maintain national stability. He argued to the grand jurors that an indictment of Nixon might even prompt a self-coup.According to the deputy jury foreman, Harold Evans, “Mr Jaworski gave us some very strong arguments why he shouldn’t be indicted, and he gave us the trauma of the country and he’s the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and what happens if he surrounds his White House with his armed forces?”Jaworski’s rhetorical questions made clear the reasons why it would be dangerous to indict a sitting president. Yet even Jaworski clarified to the grand jury that they were free to indict Nixon after he left office. Only President Gerald Ford’s pardon prevented this. Jaworski’s logic supporting immunity for sitting presidents reinforces why immunity for former presidents is so dangerous. A president who not only committed crimes in office but attempted to cling to power in a self-coup might never face criminal prosecution.Indeed, this week’s opinion incentivizes behavior like a self-coup by ruling that a president can never be punished for such behavior as long as a court construes it as an official act. Such a president could claim the self-coup was official because it was an attempt to protect the country in an emergency. Trump himself has already falsely claimed his actions on January 6 were an attempt to fight voter fraud, an argument that his lawyers will frame as an official action.The irony of this week’s opinion is that it allows prosecution for former presidents only in the areas where their power is much less dangerous. In 1872, when President Ulysses Grant was allegedly stopped for a traffic violation, he is said to have paid the fine, though there is historical debate around the incident. Under this week’s ruling, Grant would receive no immunity for such an act, assuming he was speeding on his way to a private function.While the court was right to deny immunity to private actions like these, private acts are not why the question of immunity matters. The most dangerous acts of a president are those that are official – and those that now potentially receive immunity. At the country’s founding, Patrick Henry warned of a president who would realize that no legal checks limited the presidency. Realizing this, Henry claimed an ambitious president would not hesitate to crown himself a “monarch”.Before this week, that fear might have appeared hyperbolic. Today, however, Henry’s warning feels prescient. He is describing the kind of self-coup that the court could now potentially protect on the grounds that it was pursuant to the president’s duty to an official duty to defend the nation from instability.Given the danger of this opinion, it is imperative that we respond. Citizens must make this election about rescuing our democracy from authoritarianism. That means, first, defeating Trump and preventing him from shutting down this case. More broadly, it means demanding that our next president restore the basic checks of the rule of law on the presidency. We cannot allow a system that immunizes a criminal president from dangerous official actions.The next president must pledge to support legislation that prevents criminal official acts from presidential immunity or at least narrows the scope of immunized presidential behavior significantly. Given that the supreme court might strike down such a law, it is even more crucial to appoint justices who would uphold such a law and, more importantly, reverse the court’s disastrous decision this week.Our country has recovered before from a president’s authoritarian acts by electing leaders who would repudiate them. It is time we did so again.
    Corey Brettschneider is professor of political science at Brown University and the author of The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It More

  • in

    Who could replace Joe Biden as Democratic nominee? Here are six possibilities

    Joe Biden’s catastrophic showing at the debate with Donald Trump has sparked waves of speculation about whether he could be replaced as the Democratic nominee for president – and, if so, who would run against Trump instead.Biden won the Democratic primaries earlier this year but would not officially become the party’s candidate for president until endorsed at the 2024 Democratic national convention in Chicago, which takes place from 19-22 August.There is no formal mechanism to replace him as the presumptive nominee, and such a move would be the first time a US political party has attempted to do so in modern times.In effect, Biden would have to agree to step aside and allow the delegates he won in the primaries – who vote to nominate a candidate at the Chicago convention – to choose someone else.There is no legal requirement for delegates to vote for the person who won in the primaries, but they are asked to vote in a way that “in all good conscience reflects the sentiments of those who elected them”.Were Biden to step aside, he may try to name someone – most likely his vice-president, Kamala Harris – as his preferred candidate, which would carry some weight with delegates but would not be binding.The most drastic course of action open to Biden – resigning the presidency – would make Harris president. But that would not automatically make her the Democratic nominee for 2024.If a candidate were to be chosen at the Chicago convention that would make what is conventionally a highly choreographed event, where a party presents its nominee to the public over several days, into a much more volatile open, or contested, convention – a rarity in modern US politics. About 700 party insiders, who may not be united, would have the choice of picking a new candidate. They would then have only three months to unite behind and campaign for them before the November election.There is no clear frontrunner, but here are some possible options:Kamala HarrisView image in fullscreenThe most obvious pick would be Biden’s vice-president. She has been widely criticised for not carving out her own role in the Biden administration and has poor polling approval ratings, suggesting she would struggle against Donald Trump in the glare of an election campaign. The 59-year-old was backing Biden after the debate, but may be the easiest for the party to install as a replacement. Moreover, if Biden should choose to resign now, Harris would automatically become president.Gavin NewsomView image in fullscreenThe 56-year-old California governor was in the spin room on Thursday night talking down any alternatives to Biden as nominee, saying it was “nonsensical speculation”. He had a primetime debate last year with the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, which could be a presidential match-up of the future, and has made a point of supporting Democrats in elections away from his home state, which looked, at times, like a shadow White House campaign.J B PritzkerView image in fullscreenThe 59-year-old governor of Illinois would be one of the wealthiest of possible picks. He can flourish his credentials of having codified the right to abortion in Illinois and declaring it a “sanctuary state” for women seeking abortions. He has also been strong on gun control, and legalised recreational marijuana.Gretchen WhitmerView image in fullscreenThe Michigan governor, 52, was on the shortlist for VP pick for Biden in 2020, and a strong showing in the midterms for the Democratic party was in part attributed to her governership. She has been in favour of stricter gun laws, repealing abortion bans and backing universal preschool.Sherrod BrownView image in fullscreenThe 71-year-old would be the oldest of the alternate picks, but is still seven years younger than Trump. It was considered a surprise when he did not have a tilt for the Democratic nomination for 2020, at the time saying remaining as Ohio’s senator was “the best place for me to make that fight” on behalf of working people. A strong voice on labour rights and protections, he has also spoken defending IVF and abortion.Dean PhillipsView image in fullscreenA candidate during the Democratic primaries earlier this year, he picked some backers but failed to appeal to the broader party, winning no contests, and so is unlikely to be a factor if Biden steps down. More

  • in

    Kamala Harris may be our only hope. Biden should step aside and endorse her | Mehdi Hasan

    I have never been a fan of Kamala Harris.I was an outspoken critic of her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, earning the ire both of her then spokesperson and also the notorious “KHive” of terminally online Harris fans.Nor did I shed any tears when her campaign turned out to be a disaster and she ended up withdrawing from the race before a single vote had been cast in the primaries.So it is with some surprise, reluctance and even trepidation that I am now writing these words: Joe Biden should stand aside and endorse Kamala Harris as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee.Yes, it is time for those of us who have been loud critics of Harris to make an even louder case for the vice-president. To lock arms with the dreaded KHive and put aside our longstanding doubts about the vice-president’s political skills.Because the future of our republic may depend upon us doing so.First, some facts about Joe Biden. The president was trailing Donald Trump in the polls before last week’s debate – and he is still trailing Donald Trump after the debate. The president was old before the debate – and he is even older after the debate. He, of course, continues to get older with every passing day.On Sunday, a CBS News poll found a whopping 72% of voters say Biden does not have the “mental and cognitive health” to serve as president. Almost half of Democrats say they want the Democratic presidential nominee to step aside.So I won’t waste time making the case for why Biden shouldn’t be running for re-election. Those of us 51 million people who tuned into the CNN debate last week “can’t unsee what we saw”, to quote a recent Slate headline.Nor will I bother to make the case for a Gretchen Whitmer or a Gavin Newsom. Would they be preferable to Harris? Yes. Do I believe the Democratic party establishment is willing to take a punt on an “open convention” in Chicago next month? Nope. Therefore, the only viable alternative to Biden right now is Harris – especially as she was elected alongside him by 81 million Americans and is also the only potential nominee who can access the $91m in his campaign bank account right now.So, with apologies to my 2020 self, let me make a (reluctant) case for why the vice-president should take over from her boss.First, her numbers. For as long as I can remember, the argument from Team Biden has been that if Joe steps aside, then only Kamala becomes the candidate, and she has even less chance of beating Donald than Joe does. The vice-president polls worse than the president, they constantly whisper to reporters (off the record).Now, that may have once been true. But it simply isn’t the case any more. Even before last week’s debate, a Politico poll showed Harris outperforming Biden in Black and Hispanic communities, where Trump has been making inroads, while a Bloomberg News poll revealed a vice-president “increasingly endearing herself to swing-state voters”.On Friday, the day after the debate, Data for Progress published a poll showing Harris performing “the same as Biden in a head-to-head matchup against Trump”. By Tuesday, a CNN poll was showing Harris, unlike Biden, “within striking distance” of Trump, thanks in part to “broader support from women (50% of female voters back Harris over Trump v 44% for Biden against Trump) and independents (43% Harris v 34% Biden)”.You might not want to believe it, and lazy pundits may say otherwise, but the polling is pretty clear these days: Harris actually has a better chance than Biden of beating Trump. And, unlike the president, the veep’s numbers have – and you’ll be hearing this phrase a great deal in the coming days – room to grow.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSecond, there’s her record. With the exception of Biden himself, Harris has served in elected office – as a district attorney, state attorney general, senator and vice-president – longer than any Democrat elected to the White House in my lifetime. As a former prosecutor, she is ideally positioned to make the case against Trump, a convicted felon.Who do you want standing on stage at the second debate in September, rebutting Trump’s lies, bigotry and nonsense? The woman who went viral when she grilled Bill Barr and Brett Kavanaugh at the Senate judiciary committee, or the man who went viral for saying he’d “beat Medicare”? Who is more likely to highlight Trump’s deeply unpopular stance on abortion? A female candidate who has spent months hammering Trump on abortion and made a historic visit to a Planned Parenthood clinic, or a male candidate who couldn’t answer a simple question on abortion rights without going off on a weird and incoherent tangent about a migrant murderer? Who is going to bring more energy to the Democratic presidential campaign – a vice-president who recently urged an audience of young voters to “kick that fucking door down”, or a president who is only “dependably engaged” between 10am and 4pm?Third, there’s the Gaza-shaped elephant in the room. Prior to last week’s debate, it wasn’t Biden’s age that I considered to be his biggest electoral liability. It was his horrific stance on Gaza, from his non-stop supply of arms to Israel to his nonexistent “red line” on Rafah. Support for Biden among not just Muslim-American and Arab-American voters, but young and Black voters, has been plummeting since 7 October 2023. More than half a million “uncommitted” Democratic voters, who could affect the results in multiple swing states, have urged the president to end his unconditional support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.Given Biden refuses to budge on this issue, a Harris candidacy might offer a fresh start for Democrats on Gaza. Remember the headline in Politico from December? “Kamala Harris pushes White House to be more sympathetic toward Palestinians.” Or the NBC News reporting from March on how Biden’s national security council “toned down parts of her speech” calling for a ceasefire, because the original draft “was harsher on Israel”?“She is definitely better on Gaza than he is,” a well-connected member of the administration told me a few weeks ago.To be clear: I’m not saying Joe Biden can’t win or that Kamala Harris won’t lose. I’m simply saying that there is a younger, more popular, more effective campaigner ready and willing to go, who could turn the page on Gaza while giving Trump the rhetorical drubbing he so deserves.I’m reminding Democrats that they still have time to choose between trying to elect the oldest president in American history, whose age has become a weight around his neck, or trying to elect the first female president, the first Asian American president and the second Black president, which could energize their demoralized base.American democracy, as Democrats themselves repeatedly tell us, is on the line. And if we all have to join the KHive in order to try to save that democracy … then so be it.
    Mehdi Hasan is the CEO and editor-in-chief of Zeteo More

  • in

    At the Arizona-Mexico border, residents are fed up: ‘The politicians are creating the mayhem’

    A few hundred feet from the US-Mexico border in Nogales, Arizona, Laura Aldana chuckled at the suggestion – made by both leading presidential candidates – that the region had fallen into chaos.“Where?” she asked rhetorically. She gestured toward the street outside the downtown formalwear boutique where she works. “There’s almost too little to do here.”Elsewhere in town, Oscar Felix Jr, a local radio host, shook his head at the idea that there was a crisis. “Yeah, no we are good.”And a hundred miles east, in the border town of Douglas, Peggy Christiansen, a pastor at the First Presbyterian church, cringed. “I look at those conversations on TV, or on the news – and it just makes me mad,” she said. “The politicians are creating the mayhem.”In Arizona – a key battleground state – residents living near the border are finding their region the centre of attention in a presidential election cycle where immigration has emerged as a top concern for voters.The issue has darkened Joe Biden’s hopes for re-election – and the president, sensing this weakness, has promised to “secure the border and secure it now” with harsh new restrictions on people seeking asylum in the US. During the presidential debate last week, the Donald Trump honed in on the issue – redirecting questions about the economy, abortion and the environment to immigration and painting a cataclysmic scene of millions arriving at the border to “destroy our country”. If he wins in November, the former president has promised the detention and mass deportation of unauthorised immigrants, and an expanded border wall.View image in fullscreenHere along the border, residents interviewed by the Guardian had many different ideas about how the US should respond to one of the largest surges in migration in the country’s history. But even those with wildly different political views and background were united in their scepticism that all that rhetoric would amount to much.Some said they were increasingly feeling like pawns in a political game. Many were worried that the election year would further defer the sorts of broad reforms they’ve been requesting for years.“It is interesting because every time it’s a political campaign, the migrants become a problem,” said Felix Jr, who runs the local Spanish-language radio station Maxima FM. “But they never talk about what is really affecting us.”At the beginning of the year, the border’s Tucson sector – which stretches from Arizona’s border with New Mexico in the east to the edge of Yuma county in the west – became the busiest region for migrant crossings. Across the border, authorities were apprehending a record number of people – including about 2.4 million people in the fiscal year ending in September 2023.Panicked local leaders have been publicly calling for more funding and resources from the federal government to shelter and feed the influx of people. In high-profile news reports, disgruntled ranchers and hardened immigration critics have recoiled at what they perceive as intruders on their land.“I’m afraid of how the media has covered this, and how politicians have exploited that,” said Mark Adams, a coordinator for Frontera De Cristo, a Presbyterian ministry based in Douglas and across the border in Agua Prieta. He and other locals have bristled at characterizations of Douglas and other border towns as chaotic or overrun.In September of last year, amid a rush of arrivals, Customs and Border Protection started releasing asylum seekers who had been granted humanitarian parole into small, rural communities including Douglas, Bisbee, Nogales and Casa Grande, rather than transporting them to bigger cities. Many of the mayors and sheriffs of these towns balked.But in Douglas, a town of about 15,500 people, locals sprang into action, Adams said. The local Catholic and Presbyterian churches, along with Frontera de Cristo, arranged housing for families and individuals. Local restaurants donated catered meals, and home cooks contributed giant pots of pozole.Over a six-month period, the coalition welcomed about 8,500 people. The volunteer-run migrant welcome centre ran so smoothly. “Hardly anybody who wasn’t involved knew that this was even happening,” Adams said.View image in fullscreenIn recent months, as the number of migrant apprehensions dropped, officials once again began busing new arrivals directly to Tucson, where they could more easily seek out legal resources and flights to reunite sponsors or family members in other states. But some in his congregation were almost disappointed they wouldn’t get to welcome more people, Adams said.“I told them ‘No!’ It’s so much better for them to go to Tucson,” he said, laughing. “But this is a small community and there was just such an outpouring of support. So to see this narrative that the migrants are a burden to our towns is really upsetting.”Within the town, and all along its outskirts – where remote cattle ranches and scattered homesteads blend into desert and red rock mountains – other residents said the national rhetoric on immigration and the border often clashed with their realities.Trump’s references, especially, to the border as a “war zone” make her wince, said Christiansen, the pastor.“But I’m really disappointed that Biden and his people are just starting to do the same thing,” she said. “It’s like people are just starting to sprout this rhetoric that isn’t based on reality.”Christiansen, who grew up on a cattle ranch about 30 minutes drive out of town and still lives in the country, often sees migrants crossing through her property, as do family members and neighbours. She can empathise with the complicated feelings some locals have about the surge in migration. Many have to contend with trash on their property, cut cattle fences, drained water tanks and other property damage that can cost ranchers earning slim margins of hundreds or thousands of dollars. Some worry about the threat posed by cartels who smuggle people across the border, she said.But, she added: “In my family, if someone crosses the fence or some smuggler drops them off in the desert, if they need help we give them water and shade and a place to charge their phones. And then we mind our own business.”Recently, she had offered a drink to a young man who was desperate and dehydrated when officers showed up at her door asking after a person of his description. “I don’t lie, so I had to tell them,” she said. “But this was just a young man and he was desperate. I hugged him, and I said I was sorry.” West of Nogales, where the border wall slices across the ancestral land of the Tohono O’odham, Faith Ramon sees a monument to an immigration system that has failed both her community and the migrants it was built to deter.“I keep thinking, why does it have to be like this?” she said.Construction of the wall during the Trump administration destroyed sacred Tohono O’odham sites and desecrated burial grounds, wreaking ecological disaster in its path. In the ensuing years, she said, enhanced border security measures in the region have led to the near-daily harassment of Tohono O’odham nation members.Anyone who doesn’t look white is at risk of getting pulled over or interrogated, said Ramon, a member of the Tohono O’odham nation and a community organiser with the progressive group Lucha, which is challenging an Arizona ballot measure that would empower local law enforcement agents to similarly target and question anyone they suspect to be undocumented.View image in fullscreenLast year, border patrol agents shot and killed 58-year-old Raymond Mattia outside his home on the Tohono O’odham reservation. “If they want to secure the border, then they should be doing that,” she said. “Not hanging around my grandma’s backyard or my community store.”“People are coming just for the quote-unquote American dream. And it’s becoming a nightmare,” she said, for everyone.In a region where people have long felt ignored by both political parties, residents were divided over Biden’s recent executive order – which shuts down the border to nearly all asylum seekers once the average for daily unauthorised crossings hits 2,500.When Biden announced the order earlier this month, Kat Rodriguez, the activist in Tucson, had just completed an annual 75-mile trek from Sasabé, Mexico, through the desert to Tucson, to honour migrants who died making the long journey north. “Every election, historically and consistently, the border becomes this poker chip that politicians throw in there to show that they’re tough,” she said. “And it seems like there’s this race to the bottom with some of these policies of who can be more draconian.”She and other advocates worried that the restrictions would further push desperate people to try to cross covertly rather than wait to apply for asylum. “People are already waiting for unreasonable amounts of time,” she said. “And this just puts even more people in a vulnerable position.”Some immigrant advocates and local leaders have also pointed out the order doesn’t come with additional funding or resources for enforcement, or for cities struggling to provide for the influx of people. And it’s unclear that the order would deter economic migrants crossing unlawfully, many of whom understand they do not qualify for asylum and therefore make treacherous journeys across the desert to evade authorities.Others were more optimistic. “It makes me think Biden is looking out for the country,” said Rob Victor, a retired border patrol agent who has since settled in Douglas. Agents have been overwhelmed in recent years, he said, as have cities not just along the border and across the country who lacked the resources to shelter asylum seekers waiting in the US for their cases to be worked out in immigration courts.That order, along with Biden’s executive action shielding the undocumented spouses of US citizens from deportation, are steps in the right direction to allow the immigration judges and patrol agents to focus on existing applications and border security, he said.But on their own, the actions aren’t enough to address pressure at the border, he continued. “The answers are not at the border enforcement level, or at the border patrol level. We need comprehensive immigration reform,” he said.View image in fullscreenHe’d like to see the US hire hundreds more immigration judges, so that those seeking asylum don’t have to wait for years for a court date without the ability to earn money for themselves. And there should be more opportunities for temporary work visas for people who come to the US primarily looking for work, he said. “That has to be negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats,” he said. “Let’s get the Squad involved in this. And let’s get some conservative Republicans too. And Kyrsten Sinema – she’s a Democrat but moderate,” he said, referring to the Arizona senator, who visited Douglas earlier this year to deliver the bad news that congressional action on immigration was unlikely in 2024 after Trump helped sink the effort in February.But Congress has repeatedly failed to reform the immigration system for decades. And people on both sides of the border have grown weary.“For me it’s been three years,” said Maria Luisa Garcia, 55, who waits on the Mexican side of the border in Nogales, Sonora, each week – to meet with her niece on the US side, in Nogales, Arizona.Garcia cannot cross to the US until her visa application is processed and her niece, who is also applying for residency, cannot cross south while her application is pending.The two link fingers through the gaps in the rust-red steel bollards. “One more year, and return, they told me. One more and one more.” she said, shaking her head.Read more reporting from the US-Mexico border:
    In this Arizona town, business has slowed as a border crackdown ramps up
    At the US’ latest border hotspot, aid workers brace for volatility
    US hospital treated 441 patients with severe injuries from border wall last year More

  • in

    ‘It’s nonsensical’: how Trump is making climate the latest culture war

    When Donald Trump embarked upon a lengthy complaint at a recent rally about how long it takes to wash his “beautiful luxuriant hair” due to his shower’s low water pressure, he highlighted the expanding assault he and Republicans are launching against even the most obscure environmental policies – a push that’s starting to influence voters.In his bid to return to the White House, Trump has branded Joe Biden’s attempt to advance electric cars in the US “lunacy”, claiming such vehicles do not work in the cold and that their supporters should “rot in hell”. He’s called offshore wind turbines “horrible”, falsely linking them to the death of whales, while promising to scrap incentives for both wind and electric cars.But the former US president and convicted felon, who has openly solicited donations from oil and gas executives in order to follow industry-friendly priorities if re-elected, has also spearheaded a much broader attack on a range of mundane rules and technologies that enable water and energy efficiency.At a June rally in Philadelphia, Trump claimed Americans are suffering from “no water in your faucets” when attempting to wash their hands or hair. “You turn on the water and it goes drip, drip,” he said. “You can’t get [the soap] off your hand. So you keep it running for about 10 times longer.” Trump complained it takes 45 minutes to wash his “beautiful luxuriant hair” and that dishwashers don’t work because “they don’t want you to have any water”.Trump’s niche fixation is not new – while in office he complained about having to flush a toilet 10 times and that newer, energy-efficient lightbulbs made him look “orange”. His administration subsequently rolled back efficiency standards for toilets, showers and lightbulbs, rules that Biden subsequently restored.But Republicans in Congress are now following Trump’s lead, introducing a flurry of recent bills in the House of Representatives targeting energy efficiency standards for home appliances. The bills – with names such as the “Liberty in Laundry Act”, “Refrigerator Freedom Act” and the ‘Clothes Dryers Reliability Act’ – follow a conservative furore over a confected, baseless claim the Biden administration was banning gas stoves, which prompted further GOP legislation.“No government bureaucrat should ever scheme to take away Americans’ appliances in the name of a radical environmental agenda, yet that is exactly what we have seen under the Biden administration,” said Debbie Lasko, a Republican Congressman and sponsor of the ‘Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act’, which restricts new efficiency rules on appliances and passed the House in May. These bills have no chance of agreement in the Democratic-held senate.“We are seeing a lot of these advances, like clean cars and more efficient appliances, being swept up into the culture wars,” said Ed Maibach, an expert in public health and climate communication at George Mason University.“Most Americans’ instincts are that these are good things to have, but it’s clear that Donald Trump and others think there’s political gain in persuading people this isn’t the case. These voters are being fed a story by people they shouldn’t really trust.”There has been a sharp political divide over the climate crisis for several years in the US, with Trump calling global heating a “hoax” and dismissing its mounting devastation. “It basically means you’ll have a little more beachfront property,” the former president said of the impact of sea level rise last month.During last week’s presidential debate, Trump boasted, baselessly, he achieved the “best environmental numbers ever” when president and called the Paris climate accords a “ripoff” and a “disaster”. Biden rebuked his rival, saying he didn’t do a “damn thing” about the climate crisis.Despite this split, there has long been strong bipartisan support across all voters for renewables such as solar and wind, with most of the clean energy jobs and investment unleashed by Biden’s major climate bill flowing to rural, Republican districts. But this is beginning to weaken in the wake of Trump’s attacks, research by Maibach and colleagues has found.A new poll, released by the Pew Research Center on Thursday, underscored this trend – support for new solar farms has slumped to 78% across all Americans, down from 90% just four years ago. Backing for expanding wind power has dropped by a similar amount, while interest in buying an electric vehicle is significantly lower than a year ago, with just 29% of people saying they would consider an EV, down from 38% in 2023.This change is being driven by a drop in support among Republican voters, Maibach said, with clean energy and cars on track to become as contentious as global heating is now to many conservatives. “That support for clean energy has been there across Republicans and Democrats for a long time but it is starting to erode,” he said.“It’s a trend that has been developing for at least the past five years. There is a tug of war going on between what people’s instincts are telling them, and what voices in their trusted community are telling them.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe wide-ranging blitz on anything seemingly green has been taken up by Republican-led state governments, too, most notably in Ron DeSantis’ Florida, which has erased references to climate change in state law, curbed offshore wind projects and banned lab-grown meat, which has been touted as a more environmentally-friendly alternative to traditional meat.Meanwhile, rightwing media outlets have echoed Trump’s criticism of electric cars, with commentators on Fox News calling them a “religion” and even claiming, misleadingly, they are fatal in hot weather. “I think this proves that Joe Biden is trying to kill us all by trapping us in these electric vehicles,” Katie Pavlich, a Fox News host, said on The Five show last week.These attacks may be new but they follow a lengthy Republican tradition of distrusting experts – who in this case are clear that clean energy and electric cars are far healthier for people and the planet than their fossil fueled counterparts – according to Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist at Brown University.“There is a long history in the conservative movement of making fun of bureaucrats and experts making us do these nanny state things, like putting handrails on mountain paths or airbags in cars,” Brulle said.“The message is ‘all these pointy-headed bureaucrats are screwing up our lives’ and Trump is in a way tapping into an old, Reaganist tradition. He’s trying to breed a resentment, which speaks to people’s sense of powerlessness, about how elites are running our lives, making us drive these crappy cars and stopping us from buying an incandescent lightbulb.”Such a message resonates with Trump’s base but is likely a turn-off among undecided voters, Brulle said. Polling has found a clear majority of American voters want a presidential candidate who will do something about the climate crisis, although there is a clear partisan divide on the issue and global heating is considered by the public a low-ranked priority compared to other concerns, such as inflation and immigration.“I don’t think this stuff gets Trump much support among independents because it’s nonsensical what he’s saying,” Brulle said. “This is more about trying to mobilize his supporters. The common ground on climate change is already very small, and this just shrinks it further.” More

  • in

    The US supreme court just completed Trump’s January 6 coup attempt | Rebecca Solnit

    The violent attack on Congress on 6 January 2021, and all the ancillary attempts to steal the 2020 election, were a coup attempt led from the executive branch of the federal government with support from Republicans in the legislative branch. 1 July 2024 – this Thursday – was a more successful coup attempt orchestrated by six judges of the judicial branch.“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in an opinion joined by justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, after the US supreme court’s conservative majority ruled that Donald Trump holds “absolute immunity” for “official acts” done while president. Part of what’s shocking about the state of the union right now is that an entire party and the US supreme court’s conservative majority have abandoned almost everything – the truth, the rule of law, their own legitimacy, their place in history and the fate of the nation – to serve one man.They could not have picked a more outrageous man to throw their weight and reputations behind – a psychotic clown who’s also an indicted felon found liable in civil court for sexual assault, barred from doing business in New York, a stealer of state secrets, a would-be thief of an election and the instigator of a violent attack on the legislative branch of government and the constitutionally mandated transition of power after an election. A grifter who in 2016 won a minority victory in a corrupted election – his conviction earlier this year was on charges for one small part of that corruption. A man who has gloated about seizing dictatorial powers and never letting go and a worshiper of tyrants denounced by dozens of his former cabinet members and senior staffers.January 6 was an attack on the constitution and so was 1 July. That no one is above the law has been a pillar of this nation and a cherished value since the 18th century; to knock it down in the 21st destabilizes structures and values that have stood these two centuries and more. A president with total immunity poses obvious threats to the rule of law, the balance of powers and democracy itself, and if that president is the vindictive criminal on the Republican ticket the dangers are immediate and obvious.The day before this ruling Trump approvingly shared a post on his own social media platform calling for Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman, to be tried in a televised military tribunal – for boldly opposing his coup attempt and being one of the few members of their party to support his impeachment. She committed no crimes and the military has no jurisdiction over her, but under Trumpism there are no laws, just opportunities.The people I talked to and saw on social media were stunned, horrified, uncertain of what we do next. When the agency that is supposed to be the final authority on the rule of law becomes lawless, what do you do? There is much we can do, and much of it will be new kinds of campaigns with new goals, because we are in unprecedented territory.While a lot of elected officials seemed immobilized by this much-anticipated legal ruling, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the representative, vowed to introduce legislation to impeach some supreme court justices – she didn’t say which ones, but it seems likely that Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas top her list. The Politicus newsletter notes that the senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, “has been one of the few members of Congress who has consistently sounded the alarm about Supreme Court corruption for years, and he isn’t letting the Senate’s limitations stop him from planning a massive investigation” of the supreme court.Of course this has been brewing for a long time. Before these decisions were handed down, journalists were reporting on the Alito household flying apparently pro-insurrection flags in open defiance of norms of judicial neutrality and on more illicit gifts Thomas had taken. Thomas’s wife was an eager participant in the January 6 coup attempt and all the back-room machinations around it; he and Alito were obliged by all norms and ethical principles to recuse themselves from Thursday’s decision, aptly titled Trump v United States, but of course did not.That was just part of the supreme court majority’s rampage this summer. As Nation legal correspondent Elie Mystal wrote a few days before, of the ruling that is devastating for environmental protection and science-based policy: “In the biggest judicial power grab since 1803, the Supreme Court today overruled Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 case that instructed the judiciary to defer to the president and the president’s experts in executive agencies when determining how best to enforce laws passed by Congress. In so doing, the court gave itself nearly unlimited power over the administrative state and its regulatory agencies. The US Constitution, flawed though it is, has already answered the question of who gets to decide how to enforce our laws. The Constitution says, quite clearly, that Congress passes laws and the president enforces them. The Supreme Court, constitutionally speaking, has no role.” Until now.Then came Monday’s bigger judicial power grab, because as another legal pundit, Asha Rangappa pointed out, in saying official presidential acts were above the law, the court “has made itself the ultimate umpire of what is ‘official’ or ‘not official,’ thereby giving itself power to determine which prosecutions are warranted and which aren’t. Basically, they’ve made themselves, not POTUS, the kings here.” Mystal tweeted, “I mean, at a core level, listening to us lawyers is of no more use here. We are beyond ‘law.’ We are beyond principles we studied or researched” while sharing her fellow law journalist Dahlia Lithwick’s declaration, “As an official representative of the legal commentariat I want to suggest that tonight’s a good news cycle to talk to the fascism and authoritarianism experts. This is their inning now…”We do have fascism and authoritarianism experts, who are often also scholars of civil society resistance and the ways dictatorial regimes can be resisted and toppled. And we do know that this is a time when civil society participation will be crucial. First of all to make sure a Democrat takes the White House in November; from that victory much can be restored. If Trump wins, the pieces of the coup will cohere into not the end of democracy in America but at least its kidnapping and torture by its enemies.There are remedies within the legislative process and the rule of law to some of this. But we will only get them with massive public participation. Civil society must press the case that this court is fatally illegitimate and Roberts, Alito and Thomas must resign. And we must press our legislators to act. Other countries have survived worse, and most of the countries to the south of the US have been through revolutions, coups, dictatorships and other dramas in the past century, as well as successful non-violent resistance and democratic triumphs.One thing is clear after this epochal supreme court decision: the fate of the country is in the hands of its people. Or rather two things are clear: the rightwing pursuit of increasingly outrageous minority rule is because they are increasingly a minority; the will of the people and the majority of votes are not on their side when it comes to everything from reproductive rights to climate action. Which is why they have to suppress votes, gerrymander districts, try to steal elections and now torch the constitution. In one way, this demonstrates their strength. In another, their weakness. It’s up to us to make that weakness matter more than that strength.
    Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Orwell’s Roses and co-editor with Thelma Young Lutunatabua of the climate anthology Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility More

  • in

    Robert F Kennedy Jr brushes off sexual assault allegation: ‘I am who I am’

    Robert F Kennedy Jr has responded to an allegation that he sexually assaulted an employee by stating: “I am not a church boy,” as scrutiny grows over his long-shot run for the presidency.The independent candidate, who is seen as a threat by both the Biden and Trump campaigns, made the statement after his former babysitter told Vanity Fair that Kennedy assaulted her at his home in 1998.Eliza Cooney, who worked for Kennedy and his then wife as a live-in nanny at the family’s home in Mount Kisco, New York, said Kennedy touched her leg at a business meeting and later appeared shirtless in her bedroom before asking her to rub lotion on his back.A few months later, Kennedy blocked Cooney in the kitchen “and began groping her”, Vanity Fair reported. Cooney told the magazine that Kennedy touched her inappropriately.“My back was to the door of the pantry, and he came up behind me,” Cooney said.“I was frozen. Shocked.”The assault was interrupted, Cooney said, when a male worker entered the kitchen.Asked about the sexual assault allegation on the Breaking Points podcast, Kennedy said: “The [Vanity Fair] article is a lot of garbage.”He added: “Listen, I have said this from the beginning. I am not a church boy. I am not running like that.“I said in my … I had a very, very rambunctious youth. I said in my announcement speech that I have so many skeletons in my closet that if, if they could all vote, I could run for king of the world.“So, you know, Vanity Fair is recycling 30-year-old stories. And, I’m not, you know, going to comment on the details of any of them. But it’s, you know, I am who I am.”Asked if he was denying that he assaulted Cooney, Kennedy said: “I’m not going to comment on it.”The Kennedy campaign did not respond to a Guardian request for comment.Cooney said she kept the alleged assault secret until the #MeToo movement prompted many women to come forward with stories of abuse in 2017. She told her mother, and after Kennedy announced his campaign for the presidency in 2023 Cooney told two friends and a lawyer, Elizabeth Geddes. Geddes did not respond to a request for comment.Kennedy, 70, initially ran against Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination before launching a campaign as an independent in October last year.As the son of Robert F Kennedy, the US senator for New York who was assassinated in 1968, and the nephew of John F Kennedy, who was assassinated while serving as president in 1963, Kennedy’s campaign drew widespread attention but has been littered with controversies.In July 2023 a video surfaced of Kennedy making false claims that Covid-19 was “ethnically targeted” to attack Black people and white people while sparing Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people, while Kennedy has also claimed that wifi causes “leaky brain”.He has also linked antidepressants to school shootings, and in 2023 Kennedy claimed that chemicals in water are making kids transgender.Kennedy, a former environmental lawyer, is polling at 9.1% of the national vote, according to FiveThirtyEight’s average, and is highly unlikely to win the presidency.But both the Biden and Trump campaigns fear he could pull votes away from them in key states. Kennedy will be on the ballot in Michigan, a crucial swing state which the president won by 150,000 votes in 2020, and is working to gain ballot access in Wisconsin, which Biden won by 20,000 votes. More