US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Rightwing cases built on made-up stories keep making it to the US supreme court | Moira Donegan

      by

      The first of many lies at the center of Moore v United States, the major tax case that the supreme court decided on Thursday, was that the issue at stake was an existing tax law.Conservative movement lawyers had taken up the cause of Charles and Kathleen Moore, a Washington state couple who own a substantial stake in an India-based company that manufactures farm equipment. The Moores were given a one-time, $15,000 tax bill for their stake in the company under 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the law colloquially known as the Trump tax cut. To pay for the steep cuts to federal revenue, that bill included a tax on foreign assets held by American shareholders – hence the bill that the Moores received from the IRS.The Moores were nominally arguing that this provision was unconstitutional under the 16th amendment. But their argument was not confined to a narrow argument about that specific tax, because the case wasn’t really about the 2017 law at all. Rather, the Moores’ lawyers sought to use their case to drastically limit the scope of Congress’s taxation power, with an eye toward pre-emptively banning the wealth tax that has been proposed by the senator Elizabeth Warren.The 2017 provision, then, was a mere pretext: the case that came before the court was a much broader project, one that, by some estimates, would have unraveled as much as a third of the federal tax code.Ultimately, the court ruled 7-2 to uphold the tax, thereby preserving both the theoretical possibility of a future wealth tax and also much of the federal government’s funding structure. The majority opinion was authored by Brett Kavanaugh. Clarence Thomas, joined by Neil Gorsuch, dissented, and would have thrown out the tax, narrowing congressional taxation power only to “realized income”. That interpretation has not carried the day – not yet.But the fact that the case came before the supreme court at all reflects a troubling trend in the conservative legal movement, aided by Republican-controlled lower courts: the advancement of cases that promise to promote rightwing policy priorities even when the alleged facts are demonstrably untrue. Because Moore v United States was based on another lie, too: the lie that the Moores have not received income from their investment in the Indian company. They have.The Moores’ case relies on the notion that the tax they faced is unconstitutional because they were minority shareholders without a major role in the operation of the company, who had not yet profited from their investment. Such are the facts as alleged by their lawyers. But these are not the facts in reality.In truth, the Moores invested much more money in the company than they initially claimed; Charles Moore, the husband, served as the director of its board for years. He traveled repeatedly to India to oversee it, and was reimbursed for that travel; he lent the company almost a quarter-million dollars and earned back interest. He seems to have worked closely with the founder of the company, a friend of his, to lower his stake in the company, so as to avoid the 2017 tax liability – and, perhaps, so as to make himself a more plausible plaintiff for a conservative movement legal vehicle.These lies did not persuade the court in this case. But Moore v United States is one of a growing number of high-profile, high-stakes lawsuits brought before the supreme court by the conservative legal movement that have turned out to be based on inaccuracies, falsehoods and outright deceptions as to the underlying facts that are presented by rightwing lawyers in their briefings.Some of these lie-based cases have had dramatic policy implications. In 303 Creative v Elenis, a case challenging a Colorado civil rights law that required companies to provide equal service to gay people, a website creator alleged that her religious freedom had been violated by the prospect of having to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, and cited a request for such a website she had received from a man named Stewart, who was planning to marry his partner, Mike.Only Stewart never asked for a wedding website: when the New Republic’s Melissa Gira Grant contacted him, she discovered that the “Stewart” whose supposed request was at the center of the case was a straight man living in San Francisco, who had long been married to a woman; he was never going to marry a man named “Mike” let alone ask a bigoted religious extremist to make him a website in the process.“Somebody’s using false information in a supreme court filing document,” Stewart told Grant. No matter: the supreme court ruled in favor of the website designer anyway, thus dramatically limiting public accommodation non-discrimination protections in civil rights law.At times, the blatant disregard for facts on the part of the conservative legal movement – and the willingness to concoct stories of imaginary injuries in order to further cases that have conservative policy implications – has seemed to baffle and frustrate the court’s liberals. In her dissent in Kennedy v Bremerton, the so-called praying coach case, the justice Sonia Sotomayor included multiple photographs of the incidents in question – in which a Washington state high school football coach’s prayers before games were clearly public, coercive and made into a spectacle – to contradict the majority’s bold misrepresentation of the prayers as private and silent.The fabricated-facts trend has already appeared before the court once so far this term: in the mifepristone case. In a challenge to the FDA’s regulation of access to the abortion drug, a group of anti-choice doctors fabricated far-fetched claims of their own injury, based on scientifically illegitimate studies that have since been retracted, in order to try to take the drug away from abortion seekers. That case didn’t work, either: the court unanimously threw it out on standing grounds.But the fact that the case got all the way to the supreme court, with district and appellate judges either credulous of the false claims or indifferent to their veracity, says a lot about how far the conservative legal movement is willing to divorce its briefings from reality.It might be notable that this term, two cases based on fabricated claims were both thrown out in opinions authored by Kavanaugh. For figures so powerful and unaccountable as supreme court justices, psychologizing becomes necessary in imputing their motives, and Kavanaugh, perhaps more than any other justice in the conservative majority, is a deeply insecure man: he is aware of the stench of scandal and malfeasance that has attached to him since his confirmation, aware of the public perception that he is not the intellectual equal of some of his colleagues. His public statements evidence a deep and anxious desire to be liked.Perhaps this is why, though he doubtless shares the conservative legal movement’s policy agenda, he has been less willing to cooperate with their most transparent lies. He possesses, at least in some small degree, the only force that seems able to check the conservative justices’ impulses: shame.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      New York signs parental control of ‘addictive’ social media feeds into law

      by

      New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul, signed two bills into law on Thursday meant to mitigate negative impacts of social media on children, the latest action to address what critics say is a growing youth mental health crisis.The first bill will require that parents be able to stop their children from seeing posts suggested by a social network’s algorithm, a move to limit feeds Hochul argues are addictive. The second will put additional limitations on the collection, use, sharing and selling of personal data of anyone under the age of 18.“We can protect our kids. We can tell the companies that you are not allowed to do this, you don’t have a right to do this, that parents should have say over their children’s lives and their health, not you,” Hochul said at a bill-signing ceremony in Manhattan.Under the first bill, the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (Safe) for Kids Act, apps like TikTok and Instagram would be limited for people under the age of 18 to posts from accounts they follow, rather than content recommended by the app. It would also block platforms from sending minors notifications on suggested posts between midnight and 6am.Both provisions could be turned off if a minor gets what the bill defines as “verifiable parental consent”.Thursday’s signing is just the first step in what is expected to be a lengthy process of rule-making, as the laws do not take effect immediately and social media companies are expected to challenge the new legislation.The New York state attorney general, Letitia James, is now tasked with crafting rules to determine mechanisms for verifying a user’s age and parental consent. After the rules are finalized, social media companies will have 180 days to implement changes to comply with the regulation.“Addictive feeds are getting our kids hooked on social media and hurting their mental health, and families are counting on us to help address this crisis,” James said at the ceremony. “The legislation signed by Governor Hochul today will make New York the national leader in addressing the youth mental health crisis and an example for other states to follow.”Social media companies and free speech advocates have pushed back against such legislation, with NetChoice – a tech industry trade group that includes Twitter/X and Meta – criticizing the New York laws as unconstitutional.“This is an assault on free speech and the open internet by the state of New York,” Carl Szabo, vice-president and general counsel of NetChoice, said in a statement. “New York has created a way for the government to track what sites people visit and their online activity by forcing websites to censor all content unless visitors provide an ID to verify their age.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNew York’s new laws come after California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, announced plans to work with his state’s legislature on a bill to restrict smartphone usage for students during the school day, though he didn’t provide exact details on what the proposal would include. Newsom in 2019 signed a bill allowing school districts to limit or ban smartphones on campuses.A similar measure proposed in South Carolina this month would ban students from using cellphones during the school day across all public schools in the state. Most schools in the United Kingdom prohibit the use of smartphones during school hours.Although there hasn’t been broad legislation on the subject at the federal level, pressure from Washington is mounting. This week the US surgeon general called on Congress to put warning labels on social media platforms similar to those on cigarette packaging, citing mental health dangers for children using the sites. More

    • 238 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court to release more decisions Friday after upholding Trump-era tax rule on foreign income – as it happened

      by

      The first case is Moore v United States, which deals with whether a one-time tax on Americans who hold shares in foreign corporations is legal.The tax was created under the 2017 tax code overhaul enacted under Donald Trump. In a 7-2 vote, the court held that it is legal.The supreme court put out a batch of new opinions this morning, none of which dealt with hotly anticipated cases on emergency abortions, Donald Trump’s immunity petition, or federal regulations that the conservative-dominated body has pending before it, though the justices did allow a Trump-era tax provision on foreign investments to stand. However, we’re not done hearing from the court this week: the justices will release more opinions on Friday. Meanwhile, the contours of next Thursday’s presidential debate are shaping up, with Trump opting to get the last word, and Biden the podium of his choosing. Robert F Kennedy Jr won’t be on the debate stage, and is not happy about it.Here’s what else happened today:
      Trump has the edge over Biden in several swing states, and is tied with him in Democratic stronghold Minnesota, a new poll found. However, the results are in the margin of error, and the survey also found support slipping for the former president among crucial independents.
      Democrats are seeking to focus the public’s attention on the consequences of Roe v Wade’s downfall, two years after the supreme court’s conservatives overturned the precedent and allowed states to ban abortion.
      Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will make a joint address to Congress on 24 July at 2pm, Republican House speaker Mike Johnson announced.
      Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana, signed legislation mandating that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms.
      Two colleagues of Aileen Cannon, the Florida judge handling Trump’s classified documents case, privately suggested she step aside, the New York Times reported. Cannon refused.
      The Senate has left town until 8 July, with only pro forma sessions scheduled until then:The Democratic-led body will be back and confirming judges by the second week of July.Lauren Ventrella, a state lawmaker in Louisiana who co-authored the bill mandating the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms, gave a combative interview to CNN, where she defended the legislation.She starts off by squabbling with anchor Boris Sanchez:Then blows off public school students who do not adhere to her religious views:Hot on the heels of another worrying poll for Joe Biden’s re-election aspirations, Axios reports some Democrats in contact with his campaign worry about its strategy.“It is unclear to many of us watching from the outside whether the president and his core team realize how dire the situation is right now, and whether they even have a plan to fix it. That is scary,” a Democratic strategist in touch with the campaign tells the outlet.From a person Axios describes as “in Biden’s orbit”:
      Even for those close to the center, there is a hesitance to raise skepticism or doubt about the current path, for fear of being viewed as disloyal.
      The person added: “There is not a discussion that a change of course is needed.”Make of that what you will.Democratic senator Tina Smith will seek passage of a bill to repeal the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that Democrats fear could be utilized by a second Trump administration to ban abortions nationwide, the Guardian’s Carter Sherman reports:Democrats will introduce legislation on Thursday to repeal a 19th-century anti-obscenity law that bans mailing abortion-related materials, amid growing worries that anti-abortion activists will use the law to implement a federal abortion ban.The bill to repeal the Comstock Act is set to be introduced by the Minnesota Democratic senator Tina Smith, whose office provided a draft copy of the legislation to the Guardian. The Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto will also back the bill, according to the Washington Post, which first reported the news of Smith’s plans. Companion legislation will be introduced in the House.“We have to see that these anti-choice extremists are intending to misapply the Comstock Act,” Smith said in an interview. “And so our job is to draw attention to that, and to do everything that we can to stop them.”Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act is named after the anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock and, in its original iteration, broadly banned people from using the mail to send anything “obscene, lewd or lascivious”, including “any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring an abortion”. In the 151 years since its enactment, legal rulings and congressional action narrowed the scope of the Comstock Act. For years, legal experts regarded it as a dead letter, especially when Roe v Wade established the constitutional right to an abortion.Melinda Gates, the billionaire co-founder of the Gates Foundation nonprofit, announced she has endorsed Joe Biden’s re-election:Gates was formerly married to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and has in the past been critical of Donald Trump.The judge handling Donald Trump’s classified documents case rejected suggestions from two more experienced colleagues to step aside from the case, according to a report.Florida federal district judge Aileen M Cannon, a Trump appointee, was approached by two federal judges in Florida, including Cecilia M Altonaga, the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, the New York Times reported.Each asked her “to consider whether it would be better if she were to decline the high-profile case, allowing it to go to another judge,” the report said, citing sources. Cannon “wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties”, it said.Since taking on Trump’s classified documents case last year, Cannon has repeatedly issued rulings that have reduced the chance of the case coming to trial before November’s presidential election, in which he is the Republicans’ presumptive nominee.Congresswoman Suzan DelBene of Washington, who chairs House Democrats’ campaign arm, pointed to the party’s strong performance in recent special elections as evidence of how their stance on abortion is resonating with voters.“The public knows only Democrats are standing up for women and standing up to protect access to safe, critical reproductive care,” DelBene said on a press call today.
      This election is fundamentally about our rights, our freedoms, our democracy, and our future. House Republicans have made it clear they’re willing to do anything to take those away.
      Democrats have failed to pass a federal bill protecting abortion access, as Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House, but they have vowed to do so if they regain control of Congress in November.Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee, told reporters:
      We can’t risk another four years of Donald Trump in the White House. And that’s why we will campaign on this issue and we will win on this issue. And when Democrats win, we will restore access to safe, legal abortion nationwide.
      On Monday, the US will mark two years since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, and Democrats plan to make their support for abortion access a central focus of their pitch to voters in November.“When Dobbs overturned Roe, millions of women across the country lost their right to have a choice in their healthcare, a say in their safety and a voice in their own destiny,” Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said on a press call ahead of the anniversary.
      And Trump and his extreme MAGA [’Make America Great Again’] Republicans, regardless if they’re in Washington or statehouses, will not stop until they institute a national abortion ban.
      Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, the vice chair of Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, described abortion access as “a defining issue in the 2024 Senate elections”. She said:
      It shows so clearly the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this fundamental and core issue of whether or not people in this country can have the freedom to control their own bodies and their own lives. That is what is at stake in this election.
      US civil liberties groups have sued Louisiana for what they called its “blatantly unconstitutional” new law requiring all state-funded schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms.The state’s rightwing Republican governor, Jeff Landry, who succeeded the former Democratic governor John Bel Edwards in January, provocatively declared after signing the statute on Wednesday: “I can’t wait to be sued.”The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined with its Louisiana affiliate and two other bodies – Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom of Religion Foundation – to immediately take him up on his challenge by announcing they were doing precisely that.In a joint statement, the ACLU and its allies said the law, HB 71, amounted to religious coercion. They also said it violated Louisiana state law, longstanding precedent established by the US supreme court and the first amendment of the US constitution, which guarantees separation of church and state.The White House has hit back again against accusations by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that the US is holding back weapons and ammunition from Israel in its war in Gaza.The Israeli leader made the claims of a supposedly deliberate weapons delay in a video posted on social media in which he implied that Israel’s ability to prevail in the nine-month war with Hamas was being hampered as a result. Netanyahu said:
      I said it’s inconceivable that in the past few months the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel – Israel, America’s closest ally, fighting for its life, fighting against Iran and our other common enemies.
      The White House’s spokesperson John Kirby, speaking to reporters today, said he had “no idea” what Netanyahu’s motivation was in making the statement.
      We didn’t know that video was coming. It was perplexing to say the least.
      Kirby described Netanyahu’s comments as “deeply disappointing and vexing”, adding:
      [There’s] no other country that’s done more or will continue to do more than the United States to help Israel defend itself.
      The supreme court put out a batch of new opinions this morning, none of which dealt with hotly anticipated cases on emergency abortions, Donald Trump’s immunity petition, or federal regulations that the conservative-dominated body has pending before it, though the justices did allow a Trump-era tax provision on foreign investments to stand. However, we’re not done hearing from the court this week: the justices will release more opinions on Friday. Meanwhile, the contours of next Thursday’s presidential debate are shaping up, with Trump opting to get the last word, and Biden the podium of his choosing. Robert F Kennedy Jr won’t be on the debate stage, and is not happy about it.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      Trump has the edge over Biden in several swing states, and is tied with him in Democratic stronghold Minnesota, a new poll found. However, the results are in the margin of error, and the survey also found support slipping for the former president among crucial independents.
      Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will make a joint address to Congress on 24 July at 2pm, Republican House speaker Mike Johnson announced.
      Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana, signed legislation mandating that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms.
      Robert F Kennedy Jr has hit out at both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, after the independent presidential candidate failed to qualify for the first presidential debate, to be hosted by CNN next Thursday.The network said only Trump and Biden met their criteria for the debate. But in a statement, Kennedy blamed the two leading presidential contenders for keeping him off the debate stage:
      Presidents Biden and Trump do not want me on the debate stage and CNN illegally agreed to their demand. My exclusion by Presidents Biden and Trump from the debate is undemocratic, un-American, and cowardly. Americans want an independent leader who will break apart the two-party duopoly. They want a President who will heal the divide, restore the middle class, unwind the war machine, and end the chronic disease epidemic.
      Here’s what CNN said about their qualifications to make the debate:
      In order to qualify for participation, candidates had to satisfy the requirements outlined in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to serve as president, as well as file a formal statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission.
      According to parameters set by CNN in May, all participating debaters had to appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency and receive at least 15% in four separate national polls of registered or likely voters that meet CNN’s standards for reporting.
      Polls that meet those standards are those sponsored by CNN, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, Marquette University Law School, Monmouth University, NBC News, The New York Times/Siena College, NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College, Quinnipiac University, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.
      Biden and Trump were the only candidates to meet those requirements.
      A new poll of swing states shows Donald Trump with the edge over Joe Biden, and tied with the president in Minnesota, which has not supported a Republican presidential candidate in 52 years.The poll was conducted by Emerson College, and lines up with other surveys that have indicated Biden faces uphill battle for re-election in November:Spencer Kimball, the executive director of Emerson College Polling, said the data indicates little movement in overall support for the two candidates since Trump was convicted of felony business fraud last month.However, Kimball noted that “results fall within the poll’s margin of error,” and that there have been signs of Trump’s support declining with independent voters, who may play the deciding role in this election:
      In Arizona, Trump’s support among independents dropped five points, from 48% to 43%. In Michigan, Trump’s support dropped three, from 44% to 41%, and in Pennsylvania, Trump dropped eight points, from 49% to 41%. Biden lost support among independents in Georgia, by six points, 42% to 36% and Nevada, by five, 37% to 32%.
      The Trump and Biden campaigns flipped a coin to sort out some of the lingering issues ahead of next Thursday’s first presidential debate, and CNN has announced the results.Joe Biden won the coin flip, and opted to choose a specific podium. That left Donald Trump to specify if he would have the last word of the debate, or leave that to Biden.Here’s what the two candidates chose, from CNN:
      The coin landed on the Biden campaign’s pick – tails – which meant his campaign got to choose whether it wanted to select the president’s podium position or the order of closing statements.
      Biden’s campaign chose to select the right podium position, which means the Democratic president will be on the right side of television viewers’ screens and his Republican rival will be on viewers’ left.
      Trump’s campaign then chose for the former president to deliver the last closing statement, which means Biden will go first at the conclusion of the debate.
      Republican speaker of the House Mike Johnson has announced that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on 24 July.Netanyahu’s 2pm address will take place in the House chamber, and comes amid tensions with the Biden administration and some Democrats over the Israeli leader’s handling of the invasion of Gaza. Earlier this year, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, called for Israel to hold new elections, and said Netanyahu “has lost his way”.Here’s more on Netanyahu’s planned speech: More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Race to unseat New York progressive ‘most expensive House primary ever’

      by

      The primary for New York’s 16th congressional district, which takes place on Tuesday, has drawn record-breaking spending, with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) and a crypto-currency Super Pac behind the lion’s share of the funding.AdImpact, a group tracking political advertisements, reported earlier this week that the race between the incumbent progressive representative Jamaal Bowman and his challenger, George Latimer, has become “the most expensive House primary ever”, with more than $23m spent on ads so far.The two are battling to represent a district that spans parts of the Bronx and Westchester county. Latimer is leading in polling, and if he wins, he will be the first challenger to successfully unseat a member of the progressive “Squad”.The huge haul of outside spending – most of it funding ads attacking Bowman and supporting Latimer – underscores Bowman’s precarious position as a high-profile “Squad” member whose criticism of Israel and outspoken support for Palestinian rights has drawn the ire of the pro-Israel lobby.But the race is more than a referendum on Israel-Palestine policy. It’s also a test of the fledgling progressive wing of the Democratic party, whose ranks Bowman joined after winning an upset primary victory in 2020 and defeating former representative Eliot Engel, an incumbent who had held the office since 1989.The New York race has brought that split – between a generation of left-leaning Democrats and their establishment colleagues – back to the fore.Among Bowman’s highest-profile supporters are the senator Bernie Sanders and the representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (known as AOC), who will appear at a rally on Saturday to turn out voters for the incumbent. Meanwhile, Latimer has earned the support of the former secretary of state and Democratic party establishment stalwart Hillary Clinton.The race has turned ugly at times, with Latimer claiming during a debate that Bowman had earned more support from Dearborn, Michigan – the only majority-Arab city in the US – than his New York district.Since 7 October, Bowman has consistently voiced opposition to Israel’s military operations in Gaza – a critical point of difference between the incumbent and his challenger, who has said he supports a two-state solution in the region but has not called for a ceasefire. Latimer has accused Bowman of rabble-rousing in Congress and has said he would govern as a centrist – and he avoided taking a position on tax hikes for the wealthy during a debate.The proxy war between the left and right of the Democratic party has been bolstered by staggering outside spending. Super Pacs, which can spend unlimited amounts of money on ads advocating for or against candidates, had spent $20.3m as of 20 June, according to campaign finance records, which tend to slightly lag behind AdImpact’s numbers.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA Guardian analysis of campaign finance records has found that three Super Pacs have spent nearly $18m to unseat Bowman. United Democracy Project (UDP), an Aipac-affiliated Super Pac, has spent more than $14.5m backing Latimer – the most the group has spent on any single race in its history. Latimer has also benefited from $1m from the group Democratic Majority for Israel and $2m from the crypto-backed group FairShake, according to Federal Election Commission records. Meanwhile, a coalition of 10 progressive outside groups have spent about $3m in support of Bowman.Both campaigns have also raised considerable cash in the form of direct campaign donations – in contrast with Super Pac spending, which doesn’t go directly to campaigns – with Bowman raising $5.9m and Latimer netting $5.7m.Of those contributions, a larger share of Bowman’s campaign cash has come from small donors than Latimer’s – with a total of about $1.4m in donations of less than $200, to Latimer’s approximately $320,000. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats move to repeal 1873 law they say could pave way for national abortion ban

      by

      Democrats introduced legislation on Thursday to repeal a 19th-century anti-obscenity law that bans mailing abortion-related materials, amid growing worries that anti-abortion activists will use the law to implement a federal abortion ban.The bill to repeal the Comstock Act was introduced by the Minnesota Democratic senator Tina Smith, whose office provided a draft copy of the legislation to the Guardian. The Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto also back the bill, according to the Washington Post, which first reported the news of Smith’s plans. Companion legislation was also set to be introduced in the House.“We have to see that these anti-choice extremists are intending to misapply the Comstock Act,” Smith said in an interview. “And so our job is to draw attention to that, and to do everything that we can to stop them.”Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act is named after the anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock and, in its original iteration, broadly banned people from using the mail to send anything “obscene, lewd or lascivious”, including “any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring an abortion”. In the 151 years since its enactment, legal rulings and congressional action narrowed the scope of the Comstock Act. For years, legal experts regarded it as a dead letter, especially when Roe v Wade established the constitutional right to an abortion.But after the US supreme court overturned Roe in 2022, some anti-abortion activists started arguing that the Comstock Act’s prohibition against mailing abortion-related materials remained good law. Project 2025, a playbook written by the influential thinktank the Heritage Foundation, recommends that a future conservative presidential administration use the Comstock Act to block the mailing of abortion pills. Other activists have gone even further, arguing that the Comstock Act can outlaw the mailing of all abortion-related materials.Because abortion clinics rely on the mail for the drugs and tools they need to do their work, such an interpretation of the Comstock Act would be a de facto ban on all abortion.The Biden administration has issued guidance arguing that someone only violates the Comstock Act if the sender intends for abortion-related materials “to be used unlawfully”. However, although Joe Biden has focused his re-election campaign on reproductive rights, he has steered clear of addressing the potential return of the Comstock Act.Smith said that it “seems impossible” that her repeal bill will garner the 60 votes necessary to advance legislation in the Senate. Republicans recently stymied Democratic efforts to establish federal rights to contraception and in vitro fertilization.But Smith views her bill as a chance to raise awareness of the nationwide consequences of a Comstock Act revival, particularly among voters living in states where abortion rights are currently protected.“You talk to somebody in Minnesota or Nevada or Pennsylvania, places where people feel secure that they have control over their own decisions and their own potential to decide for themselves about abortion – and then come to find out that Donald Trump has a plan to take away that control that you have, even without a vote or an act of Congress,” Smith said. “It makes it much more real, what the difference is and what the contrast is, what the choices are for you even in those states where state law protects you. That could all change.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn a New York Times April op-ed where she first aired her plans to repeal the Comstock Act, Smith suggested that she planned to introduce the legislation once the supreme court ruled on a case involving access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs typically used in US medication abortions and a top target of anti-abortion activists. In a unanimous opinion earlier this month, the supreme court ruled on technical grounds to let access to mifepristone remain unchanged for now. Although rightwing justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito brought up the Comstock Act during oral arguments in the case, neither the majority opinion nor a concurrence by Thomas ultimately mentioned the anti-obscenity law.“The court, in its decision, left the door wide open for future challenges based on Comstock,” Smith said, adding: “There was nothing in the court’s decision that gave me any sense of security.” More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Putin and Kim: an alarming new pact needs close attention | Editorial

      by

      A shiny, sanctions-busting Russian limousine for Kim Jong-un. A fawning, rapturous reception for Vladimir Putin. These grand gestures may be welcomed by the North Korean and Russian leaders, but are intended as much for their global audience as for each other. The real prize is the strategic partnership treaty that they signed during Mr Putin’s first visit to Pyongyang since 2000. The question is what it will mean in practical terms.The relationship has been reinvigorated by events outside Asia, but hopes of containing it lie within the region. The proximate cause is evidently Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: an isolated and impoverished Pyongyang is already believed to have supplied millions of artillery shells in return for cheap oil, food and other sorely needed goods. Russia might also benefit from North Korean manpower, though much more likely for labour than combat.Further back lies Donald Trump’s disastrous wooing and dismissal of Mr Kim. Entirely predictably, by handing him a top-level summit without any realistic strategy to improve relations in the long term, the then president ensured Mr Kim gave up on improving relations with the US and looked elsewhere. He also prompted Mr Putin and Xi Jinping, who had kept Mr Kim at a distance, to hug him closer.The revival of a Soviet-era pledge of mutual support against “aggression” sounds primarily symbolic given North Korea’s nuclear prowess. More disturbing is Mr Putin’s remark that the partnership could include “military technical cooperation”. US intelligence officials have said that they believe Russia is providing nuclear submarine and ballistic missile technology, though it is likely to extract a high price for such expertise and to have mixed feelings about North Korea’s advances. At a minimum, Russia – which signed up to sanctions in the Obama years – is now obstructing diplomatic action to restrain North Korea.The west has long feared a stronger relationship between Pyongyang, Moscow and Beijing. The launch of the Australian, UK and US (Aukus) security pact, a reaction to China’s growing forcefulness in the Asia-Pacific region, has in turn raised Beijing’s hackles. But China does not regard the others as peers and does not want to be seen as part of a trilateral axis with two pariah states, hence the lack of a Beijing stop on Mr Putin’s Asian tour itinerary. It would also like to retain primacy in managing North Korea, and to limit its weapons development. It does not want the US to become more active in the region and is concerned that it is growing closer to Japan and South Korea, which are also increasing their defence capabilities. Mr Kim’s shift from the long-held commitment to unification with the South to stressing hostility has not helped.South Korea also said explicitly that it will consider sending arms to Ukraine in reaction to the Russian-North Korean deal, spelling out the message to Moscow. Until now, Seoul has limited direct support to non-lethal supplies, though it has signed hefty arms deals with allies of Kyiv. Russia, which has also ramped up its own arms manufacturing at speed, may in the longer term seek to rekindle relations with South Korea and Japan anyway; their large economies compare strikingly to the limited attractions of North Korea. That too offers hope that this deal could be constrained both in extent and duration. The danger is how much damage is caused in the meantime. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Robert F Kennedy Jr doesn’t meet requirements to take part in CNN debate

      by

      Robert F Kennedy Jr, who is running as an independent presidential candidate, will not be included in CNN’s debate next week after failing to meet the network’s criteria.A Wednesday midnight deadline passed without Kennedy being able to demonstrate that he had met the conditions necessary to share the debate platform with Joe Biden and Donald Trump.CNN has stipulated that participants need to have secured ballot access in enough states to capture the 270 electoral college votes necessary to win the presidency, while recording 15% support in at least four national polls.Kennedy, an environmental lawyer who has gained a reputation for engaging in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, has been confirmed on the ballot in only five states – Utah, Delaware, Oklahoma, Michigan and Tennessee – according to the Washington Post.Additionally, CNN credited him with being on the ballot in California and Hawaii, where he is the presumptive nominee for several smaller parties where the states have yet to certify him. In total, the states account for 100 electoral votes.As of Wednesday, Kennedy had reached the 15% polling threshold in just three national surveys.Kennedy’s campaign has threatened to sue CNN if it does not include him in the 27 June debate. The campaign has claimed that he is on the ballot for nine states and has collected enough signatures to be given ballot access in 14 more.Kennedy has also filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission arguing that his exclusion is unfair.Analysts have speculated that his competing as a third-party candidate could have a potentially significant effect on the outcome of November’s election, with polls showing Biden and Trump running neck-and-neck, both nationally and in several battleground states.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHowever, it is unclear which of the two main candidates’ prospects are more harmed by his presence. He initially attempted to run as a Democrat before withdrawing to stand independently.While his public profile from sharing the name of America’s most illustrious political families could attract many Democrats, his anti-Covid vaccine views have appeared popular among right-leaning voters who would normally favour Trump. More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s dangerous attacks on rule of law have US historical precedents | Corey Brettschneider

      by

      Donald Trump’s threats to democracy – including his promise to govern as a dictator on “day one” and his refusal to abide by the norm of a peaceful transition of power – are often called unprecedented. While commentators and journalists are rightly focused on the danger of the moment, there are precedents for what we face today. Three examples, far from minimizing the current danger, show both how fragile American democracy has always been and how American citizens can fight successfully to save it.The first example of a presidential threat to democracy came close to the founding. The second US president, John Adams, criminalized dissent and sought to prosecute his critics. The number of these prosecutions was vast. The most recent research on the subject identifies 126 individuals who were prosecuted. These cases were not just based on the hurt feelings of a thin-skinned president (although they were partly that). They came in response to reports that Adams’s party was attempting a kind of self-coup, not unlike the events of January 6.Specifically, when a newspaper editor published a plan that Adams’s Federalist party had developed to refuse to certify electoral votes for their opponents, Adams signed a retaliatory law that allowed for the punishment of critics of the president. The law was drafted with its targets in mind. It made criticism of the president a crime but held no such penalty for critics of the vice-president, Thomas Jefferson, a leader of the opposition party. And the prosecutions were swift and harsh. Newspaper editors found themselves facing prison for their words.The second example came after the civil war. Andrew Johnson’s presidency was devoted to defending white supremacy and ensuring that the end of slavery did not mean equality for Black Americans. It was also marked by threats against his perceived enemies, including a notorious speech in which he called for violence against his pro-Reconstruction opponents in Congress.The third example came more recently. Like Adams, Richard Nixon sought to silence his enemies, but not by signing a questionable law – by engaging in a criminal conspiracy. We know now that his plans included crimes well beyond those of Watergate, even potentially firebombing the Brookings Institution. Nixon believed that a safe at Brookings held documents damaging to him. When his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, told him that such documents should be retrieved by a legal process, he retorted: “I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”One major target of Nixon’s criminal schemes was Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers. In an an interview shortly before his death, Ellsberg told me that, as recently released evidence suggests, Nixon sought to “incapacitate” him.The danger of presidencies like Adams’s, Johnson’s and Nixon’s consisted not just of their attacks on legal and democratic norms. It also lay in the way they read the constitution to support an authoritarian vision of the presidency. Adams saw analogies between monarchs and presidents. Johnson compared himself to Moses. Nixon spoke of his vast domestic powers that were the result of what he saw as an ongoing civil war with student protesters – a view that led him to famously proclaim, in his interview with David Frost, that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”.In each of these three dangerous moments, however, American democracy fought back. During the Adams administration, the newspaper editors standing trial published stories about their own prosecutions to highlight Adams’s authoritarianism and to demand a right to dissent under the first amendment. They also turned the outrage at Adams into a major issue in the 1800 election, resulting in the election of Jefferson. When Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” he sent a clear signal that the Sedition Act, the Adams administration’s tool for prosecuting opponents, would be allowed to expire.As for Johnson, the House impeached him, and though he survived his Senate trial, he was so discredited that he failed to receive his own party’s presidential nomination in 1868. The general election in that year saw pro-Reconstruction citizens elect Ulysses S Grant with the aim of putting down Klan violence and protecting equal citizenship, promises partially realized with the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act and the indictments of more than 3,000 white supremacist terrorists. Pro-Reconstruction Americans rallied around the cause of equal citizenship championed by Frederick Douglass, who opposed Johnson in a White House confrontation and in his public speeches.In the case of Nixon, Ellsberg, rather than allowing himself to be silenced, only grew bolder in criticizing the president. In fact, he used his own trial to expose Nixon’s abuses, just as newspaper editors had done under Adams. Ultimately the judge in his trial dismissed the case. Finally, the unknown citizens of Grand Jury One, convened in the Watergate trial, fought to gather the evidence of Nixon crimes, handing over information to Congress that led to his resignation.In stark contrast to Nixon’s authoritarian understanding of the constitution, these citizens emphasized the idea that no person, not even a president, was above the law.These three examples demonstrate that the danger to American democracy has always lain partly in the power of the presidency itself. At the founding, Anti-Federalists argued against ratifying the constitution on the grounds that presidential power was too vast and dangerous. The behavior of Adams, Johnson and Nixon shows clearly that the Anti-Federalists’ worries were well founded – and that presidential threats to democracy are not unique to today’s moment.Despite these precedents, however, there is one sense in which the current moment is uniquely dangerous. In these past examples, authoritarian presidents were cast into the dustbin of history, lacking the political power to continue their constitutional abuses. This time, a president who threatened democracy is doubling down, and we risk seeing him take office once again.The current threat is also unique in that Trump has learned from his previous term where the choke points of American democracy lie. Unlike Adams, Johnson and Nixon, he threatens to recapture the presidency with a clear roadmap for toppling the traditional checks on the office.Trump understands, for instance, that with a loyalist attorney general, he might never face accountability for his crimes. He would certainly see to it that such an AG fired special prosecutor Jack Smith, currently pursuing two cases against him. Thanks in part to sympathetic justices he appointed, he might also be immunized by the supreme court for any future crimes committed in office as long as these crimes are construed as “official acts”. While Nixon eventually resigned under threat of impeachment and indictment, Trump withstood two impeachments with no hint of even remotely backing down. Unlike Nixon, Trump not only shamelessly refused to resign but has continued his assault on democracy.So, what can we learn about the threat of the moment from these historical examples? One lesson is clear: we the people are ultimately responsible for rescuing democracy and our democratic constitution. We should find inspiration from those figures who opposed Adams, Johnson and Nixon as we demand accountability in two senses.First, we should demand the legal accountability Nixon escaped. The jury in Trump’s New York case has made the first step here. And that legal accountability should continue in the other cases against the president.Second, and most importantly, the American people need to seek accountability at the ballot box. This election, just like the elections in 1800 and 1868, is a referendum on the future of self-government. In those past moments, the American people rejected authoritarianism and voted for presidents who sought to restore fundamental pillars of American democracy that were under threat.Today, we must persuade our fellow Americans to do the same.
      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