Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Johnson’s Spending Plan Falters, Facing Resistance From Both Parties

      by

      The speaker’s first effort to avert a government shutdown ran into a buzz saw of opposition from both far-right and mainstream Republicans.Speaker Mike Johnson’s initial plan to avert a government shutdown has run into a wall of Republican opposition, as lawmakers from an array of factions in his party balk at a six-month stopgap funding measure that Democrats have already rejected.Mr. Johnson has said he plans to bring up a spending bill this week that would extend federal funding through March 28, which includes a measure that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote. The addition of the voting restriction bill was a nod to the right flank of his conference and an effort to force politically vulnerable Democrats to take a fraught vote.But his $1.6 trillion proposal was almost immediately met with an outpouring of skepticism by House Republicans on Monday evening as they returned to Washington after a lengthy summer recess. Hard-line conservatives, including Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, said they would oppose the legislation because it would extend current spending levels they believe are too high.The legislation “doesn’t cut spending, and the shiny object attached to it will be dropped like a hot potato before passage,” Mr. Massie said, referring to the voting restriction. He added: “I refuse to be a thespian in this failure theater.”On the other hand, Republican defense hawks, including Representative Mike D. Rogers of Alabama, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said they opposed the plan because extending current spending levels for such a lengthy period would amount to a cut to military spending, which would otherwise be slated to increase in the coming months.The internal divisions were the latest headache for Mr. Johnson in a seemingly interminable series of skirmishes over government funding that have dogged him since Republicans took control of the House. Every episode has ended with the same result: passage of a bipartisan spending bill that has angered the right flank of the House Republican conference.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      California Can Ban Guns in Parks and Bars, but Not Hospitals, Court Says

      by

      California and Hawaii banned guns from various public venues. A federal appeals court dusted off the history books to help determine where to allow prohibitions.A federal appeals court on Friday partly reinstated firearm bans in California and Hawaii, finding that California could, for example, prohibit guns in parks, playgrounds and bars but not in banks or hospitals.The 3-0 ruling, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, said that the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of gun rights was “seemingly arbitrary” and “hard to explain” at the moment. The court’s findings applied only to laws in those two states.The judges found that most of the prohibitions enacted last year by California and Hawaii met the constitutional standards set in a 2022 Supreme Court decision that drastically narrowed the legal standard for restrictions on firearms.That decision struck down a New York law that had strictly limited the carrying of guns outside homes. The Supreme Court found that restrictions on guns are constitutional only if courts can find an analogue “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” But, the court added, states could ban guns in “sensitive places” such as schools and courthouses.Democratic-led states rushed to rewrite laws to comply with the new interpretation, in some cases banning guns in dozens of specific locations. But federal judges last year struck down new laws in California and Hawaii.The Ninth Circuit judges ruled on Friday that California could prohibit guns in libraries, sports arenas, casinos, museums and restaurants that serve alcohol, in addition to parks, playgrounds and bars. Hawaii can ban guns on parks and beaches and in establishments serving alcohol.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      La Cámara de Diputados en México aprueba en lo general la propuesta del presidente en materia judicial

      by

      Fue el primer paso hacia un sistema en el que casi todos los jueces del país serían elegidos por voto popular. El proyecto pasa ahora al Senado.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Los legisladores de la Cámara de Diputados del Congreso de México aprobaron el miércoles en la madrugada en lo general una amplia propuesta para rediseñar todo el poder judicial, el primer paso para cambiar el país a un sistema en el que casi todos los jueces sean elegidos por voto popular para el cargo.La votación avanza una de las revisiones judiciales de mayor alcance de las últimas décadas en cualquier gran democracia, lo que eleva las tensiones en México sobre si las medidas mejorarán el funcionamiento de los tribunales del país o politizarán el poder judicial a favor del partido gobernante Morena y sus aliados. En el sistema actual, los jueces se nombran en función de una formación y unas calificaciones especiales.Ahora, la Cámara de Diputados tendrá que discutir más de 600 detalles del proyecto de ley antes de que pase al Senado, donde al bloque gobernante solo le falta un escaño para alcanzar la mayoría calificada, aunque se espera que la medida sea aprobada.El martes, cuando los legisladores se reunieron para discutir la propuesta, ocho de los 11 ministros de la Suprema Corte votaron a favor de suspender las sesiones durante el resto de la semana en apoyo a los empleados judiciales en huelga del alto tribunal, que iniciaron un paro durante la semana, con lo que se sumaron a los cientos de trabajadores judiciales y jueces federales de todo México que iniciaron una huelga indefinida el mes pasado por los cambios propuestos.Con la esperanza de retrasar la votación, los trabajadores en huelga formaron una cadena humana para bloquear el acceso a la Cámara de Diputados. Pero los legisladores cambiaron de sede y prosiguieron con el debate, que a menudo se convirtió en un tenso intercambio de acusaciones.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump propuso que la fertilización in vitro fuera gratuita. ¿Es posible?

      by

      Conseguir que se cubran los costosos tratamientos de fertilidad sería algo que no puede hacer un presidente solo, dijeron los expertos en políticas de salud.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]El expresidente Donald Trump dijo el jueves en campaña que quiere que el tratamiento de fertilización in vitro (FIV) sea gratuito para todos los estadounidenses.“Bajo un gobierno de Trump, tu gobierno pagará o tu compañía de seguros estará obligada a pagar todos los costos asociados con el tratamiento de fertilización in vitro”, dijo Trump el jueves en un mitin en Potterville, Míchigan.La fecundación in vitro suele costar decenas de miles de dólares. Las políticas para cubrir esos costos serían difíciles de implementar, dijeron los expertos.Exigir a las aseguradoras que paguen estos procedimientos probablemente significaría aprobar leyes en el Congreso o persuadir a un panel de expertos para que añadan la FIV a una lista de servicios preventivos gratuitos de salud femenina establecidos por la Ley de Asistencia Asequible, la ley de cobertura de salud que Trump trató de derogar.Si el gobierno pagara directamente la FIV, se crearía un sistema de pagador único para una sola condición. El enfoque requeriría que el Congreso financie una nueva división del gobierno federal para supervisar el programa.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Are Right: One Party is ‘Anti-Family and Anti-Kid’

      by

      In attacking Democrats and Kamala Harris, Republicans have been making a legitimate point: One of our major political parties has worked to undermine America’s families.The problem? While neither party has done enough to support families and children, the one that is failing most egregiously is — not surprisingly — the one led by the thrice-married tycoon who tangled with a porn star, boasted about grabbing women by the genitals and was found by a jury to have committed sexual assault.You’d think that would make it awkward for the Republican Party to preach family values. But with the same chutzpah with which Donald Trump reportedly marched into a dressing room where teenage girls were half-naked, the G.O.P. claims that it’s the Democrats who betray family values.“The rejection of the American family is perhaps the most pernicious and most evil thing that the left has done in this country,” JD Vance said in 2021. Pressed on those remarks last month, he went further in a conversation with Megyn Kelly, saying that Democrats “have become anti-family and anti-kid.”This is gibberish. Children are more likely to be poor, to die young and to drop out of high school in red states than in blue states. The states with the highest divorce rates are mostly Republican, and with some exceptions like Utah, it’s in red states that babies are more likely to be born to unmarried mothers (partly because of lack of access to reliable contraception).One of President Biden’s greatest achievements was to cut the child poverty rate by almost half, largely with the refundable child tax credit. Then Republicans killed the program, sending child poverty soaring again.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Farm Workers Union Battles With California Grower, Wonderful Nurseries

      by

      Wonderful Nurseries, owned by Stewart and Lynda Resnick, has sued the state to overturn a labor organizing law championed by the United Farm Workers.The allegations ricocheted through the agricultural fields and into a Central Valley courthouse, where one of California’s most powerful companies and an iconic union were trading charges of deception and coercion in a fight over worker representation.Some farmworkers at Wonderful Nurseries — part of the Wonderful Company, the conglomerate behind famous brands of pomegranate juice and pistachios, as well as Fiji Water — said they had been duped into signing cards to join a union. On the other side, the United Farm Workers, the union formed in the 1960s by labor figures including Cesar Chavez, contends that the influential company, owned by the Los Angeles billionaires and powerhouse Democratic donors Stewart and Lynda Resnick, is trying to thwart the will of workers through intimidation and coercion.For months, the back and forth has played out before the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which arbitrates labor fights between workers and growers, and in a courthouse not far from Wonderful’s sprawling fields.In May, the company filed a legal challenge against the state that could overturn a 2022 law that made it easier for farmworkers to take part in unionization votes.After vetoing a previous version over procedural concerns, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure following public pressure from President Biden and Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker. The U.F.W. heralded the bill’s enactment as a critical victory, but several big growers said that it would allow union organizers to unfairly influence the process.The law paved the way for farmworkers to vote for union representation by signing union authorization cards, a process known simply as card check. Its passage coincided with an era of greater mobilization to unionize workers during the pandemic and a willingness to press demands for better working conditions and respect from employers, said Victor Narro, project director and labor studies professor at the U.C.L.A. Labor Center.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Section 230 Is Being Used Against Tech Giants Like Meta

      by

      A Massachusetts professor has filed a lawsuit against Meta using a novel interpretation of Section 230, a law known primarily for shielding social media companies from liability.Facebook, X, YouTube and other social media platforms rely on a 1996 law to insulate themselves from legal liability for user posts. The protection from this law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is so significant that it has allowed tech companies to flourish.But what if the same law could be used to rein in the power of those social media giants?That idea is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in May against Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The plaintiff in the suit has asked a federal court to declare that a little-used part of Section 230 makes it permissible for him to release his own software that lets users automatically unfollow everyone on Facebook.The lawsuit, filed by Ethan Zuckerman, a public policy professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is the first to use Section 230 against a tech giant in this way, his lawyers said. It is an unusual legal maneuver that could turn a law that typically protects companies like Meta on its head. And if Mr. Zuckerman succeeds, it could mean more power for consumers to control what they see online.“I see and appreciate the elegance of trying to use a piece of law that has made user generated content possible, to now give users more control over those experiences and services,” he said.Section 230, introduced in the internet’s early days, protects companies from liability related to posts made by users on their sites, making it nearly impossible to sue tech companies over defamatory speech or extremist content.Mr. Zuckerman has focused on a part of Section 230 that spells out protection for blocking objectionable material online. In 2021, after a developer released software to purge users’ Facebook feeds of everyone they follow, Facebook threatened to shut it down. But Section 230 says it is possible to restrict access to obscene, excessively violent and other problematic content. The language shields companies from liability if they censor disturbing content, but lawyers now say it could also be used to justify scrubbing any content users don’t want to see.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More