Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      What was affirmative action designed to do – and what has it achieved?

      by

      The US supreme court banned the use of affirmative action policies in college admissions on Thursday. The court ruled that race-conscious admissions violate the equal-protection clause under the US constitution.Envisioned as a tool to help remedy historical discrimination and create more diverse student bodies, affirmative action policies have permitted hundreds of colleges and universities to factor in students’ racial backgrounds during the admissions process. That consideration is supplementary, and taken in tandem with other factors such as applicants’ test scores, grades and extracurricular activities.Even with race-conscious admissions, however, many selective public and private colleges and universities struggle to enroll diverse student populations that accurately reflect society. At the University of North Carolina, for example, in a state where 21% of people are Black, just 8% of the school’s undergraduates are Black.Opponents of affirmative action, such as the advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions, argue that considering race as a factor in the admissions process amounts to racial discrimination – particularly against Asian Americans. SFA has brought cases against Harvard University, the nation’s oldest private university, and UNC, the nation’s first public university, to challenge their affirmative action policies, which the group contends favors Black and Latino students. Ultimately, it hopes that race considerations will be nixed from the admissions process entirely, and replaced by race-neutral or “color-blind” policies.What was affirmative action designed to do?The concept of affirmative action originated in 1961 when President John F Kennedy issued an executive order directing government agencies to ensure that all Americans get an equal opportunity in employment. President Lyndon Johnson took it one step further in 1965, barring public and private organizations that had a federal contract from discriminating based on race, color, religion and national origin. The prohibition was added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.In 1969, President Richard Nixon’s assistant labor secretary, Arthur Fletcher, who would eventually be known as the “father of affirmative action”, pushed for requiring employers to set “goals and timetables” to hire more Black workers. That effort, known as the Revised Philadelphia Plan, would later influence how many schools approached their own race-conscious admissions programs.The practice was challenged when Allan Bakke, a white man who was twice denied entry to the medical school at the University of California at Davis, sued the university, arguing that its policies, which included allocating seats for “qualified” students of color, discriminated against him. In 1978, the supreme court narrowly rejected the use of “racial quotas”, but noted that colleges and universities could use race as a factor in the admissions process. Justice Lewis Powell noted that achieving diversity represented a “compelling government interest”.What has affirmative action in college admissions actually achieved?After generations of near total exclusion of Black students and other students of color, colleges and universities began admitting more diverse groups in the 1960s and 70s, and soon thereafter incorporated race-consciousness into their admissions policies.Data shows that the rise of affirmative action policies in higher education has bolstered diversity on college campuses. In 1965, Black students accounted for roughly 5% of all undergraduates. And between 1965 and 2001, the percentage of Black undergraduates doubled. The number of Latino undergraduates also rose during that time. Still, the practice of factoring race into the admissions process faced repeated attacks. In 1998, during an era of conservatism, California voters approved Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action in any state or government agency, including its university system. Since then, eight more states have eliminated such race-conscious policies.What could happen next?The end of affirmative action at those state levels shows just how impactful the consideration of race in admissions has been: a UC Berkeley study found that after the ban in California, the number of applicants of color in the UC system “sharply shifted away from UC’s most selective Berkeley and UCLA campuses, causing a cascade of students to enroll at lower-quality public institutions and some private universities”. Specifically, the number of Black freshmen admitted to UC Berkeley dropped to 3.6% between 2006 and 2010 – almost half of its population before the ban.In an amicus brief in the Harvard case, attorneys for the University of Michigan, which had to stop considering race in admissions in 2006, argued that despite “persistent, vigorous and varied efforts” to achieve diversity, it has struggled to do so without race-consciousness. The number of Black and Native American students has “dramatically” dropped since the end of affirmative action in the state.Though students of color remain underrepresented at selective colleges and universities today, institutions argue that their presence helps shape students’ on-campus experiences. The removal of race consideration from college admissions could set a precedent for a less diverse school system, which stands in stark contrast to an increasingly diverse world. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court’s blow to US affirmative action is no coincidence | Eddie R Cole

      by

      On Thursday, in a 6-3 decision, the US supreme court ruled against affirmative action in American colleges and universities. The obvious concern now is whether the ruling will significantly reduce the number of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students enrolled at elite institutions. But a more dire reality undergirds the court’s decision: it reflects a decades-long drive to return higher education to white, elite control.That movement predates affirmative action by at least a century, because no entity impacts American life more than higher education. During the Reconstruction era following emancipation, Black people were allowed to advance in political and various other roles, but white powerbrokers drew a hard line at higher education. On 28 September 1870 the chancellor of the University of Mississippi, John Newton Waddel, declared: “The university will continue to be, what it always has been, an institution exclusively for the education of the white race.”Waddel was not alone in his appraisal. Following the civil war, many white academic leaders and faculty members believed higher education was designed solely to educate white people. Waddel and other white academics maintained that the University of Mississippi’s faculty “never, for a moment, conceived it possible or proper that a Negro should be admitted to its classes, graduated with its honors, or presented with its diplomas”.Over the past century, Black Americans’ struggles to secure equal educational opportunity have always been met with white resistance. The recent lawsuits filed by Students for Fair Admissions – an organization led by anti-affirmative-action activist Edward Blum – against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are not about academic merit or even the mistreatment of white or Asian American students; they are an extension of this movement to ensure American higher education can be used to maintain social norms.This is why, in defending affirmative action, the argument for campus diversity falls short. Rather than make wealthy, majority-white campuses more diverse, affirmative action was intended to acknowledge and address the nation’s history of racism and atone for past racial harms that disproportionately affected descendants of enslaved Black people.This was made plain in 1963 – one of the most racially tumultuous years of the civil rights movement. By summer, John F Kennedy – a Harvard University alumnus in his third year in the White House – was forced to take immediate action about racial segregation, in part because it had become a foreign policy embarrassment to the United States that belied the nation’s stated commitment to democracy.Kennedy sought assistance from many leading administrators in American higher education. “I write you personally to seek your help in solving the grave civil rights problems faced by this nation,” Kennedy wrote, on 12 July 1963, to select college presidents and chairs of trustee boards. “The leadership that you and your colleagues show in extending equal educational opportunity today will influence American life for decades to come.”Kennedy explained to academic leaders that the nation’s problems affected “both white and Negro students and their families”. He asked academic leaders to implement “special programs” to address said problems, but did not specify what the programs should be. He deferred to academic leaders to ensure initiatives were “carried out” toward that goal.Motivated by Kennedy’s appeal, Black and majority-white colleges and universities worked together to address racism. By October 1963, racial initiatives were discussed at meetings of the American Council on Education and the Association of American Universities. In April 1964, presidents and faculty from Black campuses met at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which hosted a two-day conference on “Programs to Assist Predominately Negro Colleges and Universities”.The leaders of wealthy majority-white campuses committing to numerous programs, most of them focused on Black colleges and universities. The programs – supported by the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and other foundations – included new opportunities for Black college faculty to attend summer institutes and graduate schools and created exchange programs between faculty and students on Black and white campuses. Harlan H Hatcher, president of the University of Michigan, explained that his university’s partnership with the Tuskegee Institute “can help them in the development of a strong liberal arts program. They, in turn, will advise us on the [racial] programs.”For Michigan and its peer institutions, considering race in college admissions was part of a broad range of affirmative action practices launched in the 1960s. Affirmative action was a comprehensive set of programs that sought system-wide change to expand educational opportunity. The goal was not to ensure that some Black people could attend a few dozen of the nation’s wealthiest institutions, but instead that there be widespread investment in creating a more equitable higher education system – investing in the Black colleges and universities that long served the people most disenfranchised because of the nation’s history of racism.The blowback was immediate, however. By the 1970s, white academic leaders and foundation officers mostly abandoned their support of Black colleges and universities, and the lasting remnant of that era was racial consideration in admissions on select wealthy, majority-white campuses. That changed with the supreme court’s ruling this week.The ongoing racial backlash in this country extends beyond affirmative action. We’re witnessing a battle over ideology, and higher education is at the center. The efforts to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; dismantle the faculty tenure system; restrict how aspects of Black history are taught; and withhold billions from Black universities are also part of this sinister movement. The movement limits Black presence, Black thought, and even Black control of Black institutions to return all of academia to white, elitist control. Those seeking control have no desire for higher education – the environment most concerned with solving complex problems – to have any role in redressing the legacy of racism.The dismissal of race and racism dialogue in higher education should alarm all Americans, because the supreme court decision is not about restricting unfair racial advantage in college admissions – it is about maintaining the social inequality that has long restricted most Americans, regardless of their race, while a few are allowed to preserve and maintain their privileged status in society. The result is a weakened university that does not solve racial problems but instead upholds them.
      Eddie R Cole is an associate professor of education and history at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of The Campus Color Line: College Presidents and the Struggle for Black Freedom More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court denied a wild election theory. But don’t relax yet | David Daley

      by

      Such is the dismal state of the US supreme court that it is genuinely surprising any time the court’s conservative supermajority turns down an opportunity to further distort American democracy to the benefit of their partisan benefactors and enhance the prospects of enduring one-party minority rule.Moore v Harper – the case from North Carolina involving the so-called “independent state legislature” (ISL) theory, the ludicrous notion that state legislatures have a free hand when it comes to election law and redistricting, unfettered by pesky state constitutions, state supreme courts or even gubernatorial vetos – was satisfyingly swatted away on Tuesday by a 6-3 majority.This theory, spawned from a footnote in the then Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s concurrence in Bush v Gore, and nurtured for two decades in the hothouse of conservative legal academia, lacks any grounding in American history, represents a terrifying threat to elections as we know them, and should never have made it this far in the courts.The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, makes it clear that the constitution’s elections clause does not carve out an exception to the fundamental principle of judicial review. “When state legislatures prescribe the rules concerning federal elections, they remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Roberts wrote, in a decision joined by the court’s three liberals and justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.It’s good news and a welcome sigh of relief. Taken to its extreme – as seems to be the practice in so many conservative state legislatures these days – the ISL theory could have handed state legislatures, many already deeply gerrymandered and beyond the control of state voters, dangerous unchecked powers with regard to election certification and presidential electors. And it could have removed state courts, constitutions, governors and potentially even independent redistricting commissions and ballot initiatives as any meaningful check on runaway legislatures.But while the headlines proclaim victory for American democracy, and supreme court reporters hoist the chief justice back on their shoulders as a great centrist hope, it’s far too soon to celebrate. Buried within the details of this decision, as well as a short concurrence by Kavanaugh, are the seeds of future cases to come. This decision is hardly the silver bullet antidote to take down this dangerous zombie notion once and for all.The court’s decision makes clear that the elections clause does not liberate state legislatures from state constitutions and state law, but also that federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review. “This Court has an obligation to ensure that state court interpretations of state law do not evade federal law,” Roberts writes.Furthermore, state courts, according to the decision, must “not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections”.What does that mean? The court does not tell us. As the NYU law professor Rick Pildes points out, the decision does not adopt any standard at all, set any boundaries whatsoever, or even rule on whether the North Carolina state court exceeded its role. We head into the 2024 presidential election without any sense of what the federal courts believe to be an appropriate and non-transgressive role for state courts to play.That means that one of the most important lines from the decision might be this one from Kavanaugh’s short concurrence: “In other words, the Court has recognized and articulated a general principle for federal court review of state court decisions in federal election cases. In the future, the Court should and presumably will distill that general principle into a more specific standard such as the one advanced by Chief Justice Rehnquist.”The court’s decision invites future cases. (Kavanaugh issued a similar invitation for future cases in a short concurrence in the Alabama redistricting case this month that affirmed what remains of section two of the Voting Rights Act.) They may arrive in the days after the 2024 presidential election. And they could prove crucial in deeply gerrymandered Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona, three extraordinarily close states that provided President Biden’s electoral college victory in 2020 with the slenderest of margins, and where election deniers, some in the state legislature, made mischief with the results.A court that has already proven, time and again, its willingness to put the thumb on the scale for its own side in cases at the heart of American democracy may decide those future cases on a case-by-case basis, with no clear standard at all, based on how the individual justices feel about that state supreme court’s interpretation, and perhaps the consequence of that ruling. It’s an uncomfortable position to begin a presidential election, given the fact that, in many states, election deniers are in a stronger place today than they were on 6 January 2021.There are so few moments to breathe easier these days. Today’s surprising reasonableness from the court offers a respite. It may only be a brief one.
      David Daley is the author of Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count and Unrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy. He is a senior fellow at FairVote More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      McCarthy says Trump ‘stronger today than in 2016’ after doubting his ability to win earlier – live

      by

      From 6h agoThe impacts of the supreme court’s ruling in Moore v Harper extend to redistricting, and beyond.Its most immediate effect is to preserve longstanding norms over state courts’ ability to weigh in on legislatures’ actions when it comes to federal elections, as the Guardian’s Sam Levine reports:
      The 6-3 decision in Moore v Harper is a blow to North Carolina Republicans who had asked the court to embrace the so-called independent state legislature theory – the idea that the US constitution does not allow state courts to limit the power of state legislatures when it comes to federal elections. Such a decision in the case would have been a major win for Republicans, who control more state legislatures than Democrats do. Some of the conservative justices on the court had urged the bench to embrace the idea.
      “We will have to resolve this question sooner or later, and the sooner we do so, the better,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent at an earlier stage in the case that was joined by Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. “If the language of the elections clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections.”
      The court’s decision means that state courts can continue to weigh in on disputes over federal election rules. State courts have become increasingly popular forums for hearing those disputes, especially after the US supreme court said in 2019 that federal courts could not address partisan gerrymandering.
      But Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor focusing on American elections, sees broader implications in the justices’ rejection of the fringe independent state legislature (ISL) theory, which Republican lawmakers from North Carolina has asked them to endorse in the case:Here’s more from Sam on the case:A New York appeals court has ordered that Ivanka Trump be dismissed from a civil fraud case filed by New York attorney general Letitia James against Donald Trump, the Trump Organization and three of his adult children.James’ lawsuit, filed last September, accused Trump of lying from 2011 to 2021 about the value of his properties, including his Mar-a-Lago estate and Trump Tower penthouse, as well as his own net worth, to receive favorable loans. The lawsuit alleged that Trump’s children were involved in a conspiracy to commit the crimes.The lawsuit seeks at least $250m in damages from the former president, his sons Donald Jr and Eric, his daughter Ivanka, the Trump Organization and to stop the Trumps from running businesses in New York.The appellate division in Manhattan, in today’s unanimous ruling, dismissed the claims brought against Ivanka Trump by James, noting that those claims were barred by New York’s statute of limitation. It said:
      The allegations against defendant Ivanka Trump do not support any claims that accrued after February 6, 2016. Thus, all claims against her should have been dismissed as untimely.
      The appeals court has returned the case to the state supreme court judge presiding over the case to determine whether the claims against the other defendants should be limited.A trial is scheduled to begin 2 October.Republican presidential hopeful Nikki Haley has said “what’s happening with the Uyghurs is disgusting” after her rival, Francis Suarez, appeared not to have heard of the persecuted Chinese minority group.Haley, during a foreign policy speech about China in Washington, said:
      We promised never again to look away from genocide, and it’s happening right now in China. And no one is saying anything because they’re too scared of China.
      Part of American foreign policy should always be that we fight for human rights for all people. And what’s happening with the Uyghurs is disgusting. And the fact that the whole world is ignoring it is shameful.
      Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy has insisted that Donald Trump is “stronger today than he was in 2016”, hours after he appeared to question whether the former president was the strongest GOP nominee to win the 2024 election.McCarthy, in an interview with Breitbart News, said:
      As usual, the media is attempting to drive a wedge between President Trump and House Republicans as our committees are holding Biden’s DoJ accountable for their two-tiered levels of justice.
      He pointed to a Morning Poll published today that showed Trump with a three-point lead over Joe Biden in a hypothetical head-to-head match. McCarthy said:
      Just look at the numbers this morning – Trump is stronger today than he was in 2016.
      It comes after he was asked, in an interview earlier today with CNBC, whether Trump could win an election despite all his legal troubles. McCarthy replied:
      Yeah he can … the question is, is he strongest to win the election? I don’t know that answer.
      Investigators from special counsel Jack Smith’s office are set to interview Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in Atlanta, as part of the federal investigation into efforts by Donald Trump and his advisers to overturn the 2020 election results.Raffensperger’s interview, first reported by the Washington Post, will be his first with US justice department investigators.Smith’s office subpoenaed Raffensperger back in December, but NBC News reports that the move was for documents and not for him to appear or testify in person.In a phone call after the 2020 election, Trump demanded Raffensperger “find” the votes needed for him to win Georgia – a state Joe Biden won by nearly 12,000 votes.Trump told Raffensperger:
      All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.
      A new federal law that requires employers to provide accommodations to pregnant and postpartum employees took effect on Tuesday, providing protections to millions of eligible people.The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires that employers with more than 15 workers provide “reasonable accommodations” to people who are pregnant, postpartum or have a related medical condition, NBC News reported.The legislation covers accommodations for a myriad of pregnancy-related conditions including morning sickness, pregnancy loss and postpartum depression.Examples of possible accommodations include being able to sit and drink water, having flexible hours and having uniforms that fit properly, according to information from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Accommodations could also include time off for childbirth recovery and time to access an abortion, the 19th News reported.Under the act, a pregnant employee can request accommodations from their employer, with both parties having a discussion on if the accommodation can be granted.Read the full story here.Kamala Harris is out with a statement cheering the supreme court’s decision in the Moore v Harper case out of North Carolina, but acknowledging that more must be done to safeguard voting rights across the United States.Here are the vice-president’s thoughts:
      Voting is the bedrock of our democracy. Today’s decision preserves state courts’ critical role in safeguarding elections and protecting the voice and the will of the American people. We know that more work must to (sic) be done to protect the fundamental right to vote and to draw fair maps that reflect the diversity of our communities and our nation. The President and I will keep fighting to secure access to the ballot box, but we cannot do this alone. We continue to call on Congress to do their part to protect voters and our democracy and pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.
      If the supreme court had ruled in favor of Republicans in a major election law case decided today, it would have represented a “truly horrible” blow to American democracy, a congressman from North Carolina, the state at the heart of the decision, said in an interview.Speaking to the Guardian’s US politics live blog, Wiley Nickel, a first-term Democratic House representative from the Raleigh area, said that while the decision handed down might represent a victory in the battle against partisan gerrymandering, he still expects Republicans who control North Carolina’s state legislature to proceed with redrawing congressional maps to their advantage.“We had something truly horrible that didn’t happen and it would have been the beginning of the end of democracy in America if the court had sided with Tim Moore in the Moore v Harper case,” Nickel said, referring to the Republican speaker of the state’s House of Representatives whose name was on the supreme court case.But because the US supreme court has now ruled against North Carolina’s Republicans and declined to endorse a fringe theory that could have prevented state courts from weighing in on federal election rules, “It’ll mean that we have a check with the courts and with our constitution … it just moves us on to the next stage of the fight to make sure that we get fair maps in this next election.”Nickel was elected last year after North Carolina’s supreme court struck down a GOP-drawn congressional map and replaced it with one that produced a 7-7 split between Republicans and Democrats in the state’s delegation following the midterm election. While Democrats still lost control of the US House, that ruling was one of many factors that helped the party’s lawmakers across the country perform better than expected.In North Carolina, the GOP has since taken the majority on its top court, which, together with the party’s control of the House and Senate, will allow it to move forward with a partisan gerrymander of the state’s congressional districts.Nickel expects that the boundaries of his district, which leans slightly Republican, will remain pretty much the same, but other Democratic congressional representatives may be at risk.“It goes back to our state legislature and they’re going to draw maps and it’s going to be, I think, bad overall for Democrats,” he said. How bad it is will be yet another factor determining whether Joe Biden’s allies are able to retake control of the House in the next election, set for November 2024.In the long run, Nickel supports federal legislation to end partisan gerrymandering, but acknowledges that among the current crop of Republicans in the House, “The majority of them right now, if anything, they’re going in the opposite direction.”He takes some solace from another supreme court ruling released earlier this month that maintains parts of the Voting Rights Act and could help Democrats hang onto some districts in North Carolina and elsewhere in the south. Nickel also noted that if the Tar Heel State’s Republicans push too hard to make maps that disadvantage Democrats, it raises the chances a legal challenge against them will succeed.“Every single time we talk about maps in North Carolina, the real question is, how greedy are they going to get? And if they get too greedy, the state courts, federal courts are going to get involved,” he said.The third “Florida Man” in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Miami’s mayor Francis Suarez, suffered an embarrassment during an interview with a conservative radio host when he was asked about the plight of the oppressed Uyghurs, a Muslim minority in China.“The what?” Suarez replied when asked by the presenter Hugh Hewitt if he would be talking about them during his campaign, reported by the Miami Herald.“The Uyghurs,” Hewitt repeated.“What’s a Uyghur?” Suarez asked.“OK, we’ll come back to that. You gotta get smart on that,” Hewitt said.“What did you call it, a Weeble?” Suarez asked at the conclusion of the 15-minute conversation.In a later tweet, Hewitt called Suarez’s interview “pretty good for a first conversation”, apart from the “huge blind spot” on the Uyghurs.In a statement, Suarez claimed he had merely misheard. “Of course, I am well aware of the suffering of the Uyghurs in China,” he claimed.“China has a deplorable record on human rights and all people of faith suffer there. I didn’t recognize the pronunciation my friend Hugh Hewitt used. That’s on me.”You can listen to the interview here.Speaking of Donald Trump and 2024, Kevin McCarthy made a curious comment this morning in an interview with CNBC.Asked if he thought Trump could win an election despite all his legal troubles, the Republican House speaker replied, “Yeah he can … the question is, is he strongest to win the election? I don’t know that answer. But can … anybody beat Biden? Yeah, anybody can beat Biden. Can Biden beat other people? Yes, Biden can beat them.”Make of that what you will. Here’s the full clip:During his campaign swing through New Hampshire, Ron DeSantis was asked about his views on the January 6 insurrection.Donald Trump has repeatedly insulted DeSantis, who is his closest rival for the Republican presidential nomination next year, but that apparently isn’t enough to earn the Florida’s governor’s condemnation of the former president’s involvement in the attack on the Capitol:Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House, has also praised the supreme court’s ruling in Moore v Harper.Posting to Twitter, Pelosi said:
      Today, the Supreme Court rejected a fringe, far-right assault on a sacred pillar of American Democracy: the right to vote.
      With its ruling in Moore v. Harper, the Court refused the MAGA Republicans’ radical theory and reaffirmed our Founders’ vision of checks and balances.
      The White House has responded to the supreme court’s ruling in Moore v Harper, calling it a “critical” move for voting rights.White House spokesperson Olivia Dalton said the “extreme” legal theory would have let politicians undermine the will of the people.Florida governor Ron DeSantis, at a campaign event in Hollis, New Hampshire, also vowed to tear down Washington’s traditional political power centers, AP reports.Asked about people who had voted twice for Donald Trump because of promises to “drain the swamp” in the nation’s capital, DeSantis replied:
      He didn’t drain it. It’s worse today than it’s ever been.
      He said he would take power out of Washington by instructing cabinet agencies to halve the number of employees there, adding:
      I want to break the swamp.
      Florida governor Ron DeSantis has vowed to succeed where Donald Trump failed and to “actually” build the wall between the US and Mexico, as the two held dueling campaign events in New Hampshire.DeSantis, at a town hall in Hollis, spoke about his new immigration policy proposal which includes calling for ending birthright citizenship, finishing the border wall and sending US forces into Mexico to combat drug cartels, AP reports.He said:
      We’re actually going to build the wall. A lot of politicians chirp. They make grandiose promises and then fail to deliver the actual results. The time for excuses is over. Now is the time to deliver results and finally get the job done. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      White House condemns McCarthy for impeachment threats against Merrick Garland – as it happened

      by

      From 5h agoAs he looks to promote his economic record and turn around negative public approval ratings, Joe Biden announced his administration would work to get all Americans access to low-cost high-speed internet by 2030.“We’re announcing over $40bn to be distributed to 50 states, Washington DC and territories to deliver high speed in places where there’s neither service or it’s too slow,” the president said.“Along with other federal investments, we’re going to be able to connect every person in America to reliable high-speed internet by 2030.”He compared his administration’s push to the rural electrification campaign of Democratic icon Franklin Delano Rosevelt in the 1930s.“Today, Kamala and I are making an equally historic investment to connect everyone in America, everyone in America to … affordable high speed internet by 2030. It’s the biggest investment in high-speed internet ever, because for today’s economy to work for everyone, internet access is just as important as electricity or water, or other basic services.”Joe Biden eased into his re-election campaign with the announcement of a nationwide push to expand high-speed internet, and plans for a speech on “Bidenomics” set for Wednesday. The president’s idea is to campaign for another four years in the White House not with promises of new policies, but rather with a reiteration of the proposals that got him elected in the first place. Meanwhile, Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy signaled an openness to impeaching the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, if the US attorney involved in prosecuting Hunter Biden doesn’t speak to the judiciary committee. The House is on recess for the next two weeks or so, but we’ll keep an eye on if that goes anywhere.Here’s what else happened today:
      A White House spokesman condemned McCarthy for threatening to impeach Garland.
      The supreme court ordered Louisiana to draw a new majority-Black congressional district as the fallout from a recent decision concerning the Voting Rights Act continues.
      A top Democratic senator thinks the supreme court’s conservatives know they’ve gone too far.
      The Biden administration plans yet another aid package for Ukraine, while the president said the US had “nothing to do” with the attempted mutiny in Russia over the past weekend.
      There is yet another balloon over Montana, but it’s not suspicious, Norad says.
      The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports that Aileen Cannon, the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s trial in Florida on charges of conspiring to store classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, denied a request from the justice department to keep its witness list secret:The justice department can appeal the decision. The decision is one of several expected in the pretrial motions before the start of the proceedings, which are currently scheduled for the middle of August but likely to change.Appointed to the federal bench by Trump, Cannon faced criticism for decisions made in the case prior to his indictment that some analysts saw as partial to the former president.White House spokesman Ian Sams has released a statement criticizing Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy for threatening to impeach the US attorney general, Merrick Garland.Here’s what Sams had to say:
      Speaker McCarthy and the extreme House Republicans are proving they have no positive agenda to actually help the American people on the issues most important to them and their families. The President and his entire Administration are spending this whole week traveling the country to talk about the important economic progress we have made over the last two years – creating more than 13 million jobs as we’ve sparked the strongest recovery of any country in the world – and laying out the Biden plan to put the middle class ahead of those at the very top. Perhaps Congressional Republicans are desperate to distract from their own plan to give even more tax cuts to the wealthy and big corporations and add more than $3 trillion to the deficit, but instead of pushing more partisan stunts intended only to get themselves attention on the far right, they should work with the President to actually put the middle class and working Americans first and expand the historic progress to lower costs, create jobs, boost U.S. manufacturing and small businesses, and make prescription drugs more affordable.
      There is, once again, a balloon flying over Montana – but it’s not a spy balloon, Norad assures us.The US-Canadian air defense force, whose name is an acronym for North American Aerospace Defense Command, says it is aware of the balloon, but does not regard it as suspicious:There is, of course, a political angle to this. Matt Rosendale, a Republican senator from Montana, earlier today attempted to use the balloon’s presence to attack the Biden administration:Joe Biden’s approval rating has seen a slight uptick in recent weeks, but is still pretty bad, Gallup reports.In a survey conducted on 1-22 June, Gallup reports the president’s approval is at 43%, up from the 37% low that his presidency hit in April. That’s not a particularly high rating at all, and the survey also found 54% of American adult respondents disapproved of his job performance.The last time Biden’s approval was above 50% was in July 2021 – before the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Delta wave of Covid-19 that led many Americans to again don masks and avoid large gatherings. Another factor that pushed Biden’s approval lower and kept it there was the wave of inflation that intensified throughout 2021 and 2022, forcing Americans to pay higher prices for essentials like gasoline and food.According to NBC News, “five or six” US Secret Service agents have now testified before the January 6 grand jury.NBC cited two unnamed sources “familiar with testimony”.The special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 is a source of further legal jeopardy for Donald Trump.Twice indicted already, the former president and current Republican frontrunner is widely believed likely to face further indictment by Smith, who has already handed down charges over Trump’s handling of classified information.NBC said: “While the exact content of their subpoenas and appearances is not known, Secret Service agents who were close to Trump on January 6 may be able to confirm, deny or provide more details on a story first told by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to the … January 6 committee in Congress.“One year ago, Hutchinson told the committee she heard secondhand that Trump wanted Secret Service agents to drive him to the Capitol to join the rioters, tried to grab the car’s steering wheel and then reached for the ‘clavicles’ of the driver, Secret Service agent Bobby Engel. Trump later denied this account.”NBC also notes that agents may have been asked about what the agency knew and discussed leading up to and during the January 6 attack, in which Trump supporters sought to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election win.NBC said the agents who have testified could “inform the grand jury about the extent to which Trump knew about the potential for violence on January 6 and how he responded to threats made against then-Vice President Mike Pence”.Pence is now a competitor for the Republican presidential nomination.Joe Biden was asked earlier, by the Fox News White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, if he had ever lied about ever speaking to his son, Hunter Biden, about his business dealings (the subject of Republican attacks passim, and current musings about impeaching the attorney general, Merrick Garland).The president said: “No.”Video is here.Joe Biden has marked the concurrent anniversaries of three supreme court rulings which affirmed the right to same-sex marriage – a right some observers think will soon come under threat from a conservative-dominated court which removed the right to abortion.The president said: “Ten years ago today, the supreme court rulings in United States v Windsor and Hollingsworth v Perry made significant strides laying the groundwork for marriage equality in our country. They were followed two years later, to the day, by the ruling in Obergefell v Hodges, finally allowing millions of LGBTQ+ Americans to marry who they love.“These monumental cases moved our country forward, and they were made possible because of the courageous couples and unrelenting advocates in the LGBTQ+ community who, for decades, fought for these hard-won rights.“Last year, I was proud to build on their legacy by signing into law the Respect for Marriage Act … surrounded by many of the plaintiffs from these cases. But more work lies ahead, and I continue to call on Congress to pass the Equality Act, to codify additional protections to combat the increased attacks on the rights and safety of those in the LGBTQ+ community.”Further reading:Fox News announced earlier that Jesse Watters will move into the 8pm prime-time weeknight slot formerly filled by Tucker Carlson.Announcing the full shake-up, Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News, said: “The unique perspectives of Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, Sean Hannity and Greg Gutfeld will ensure our viewers have access to unrivaled coverage from our best-in-class team for years to come.”Here’s some (possibly) unrivaled coverage of Watters’ many unique perspectives over the years, from the progressive watchdog Media Matters for America.It’s a long list, so I’ll just link to it here while listing the subheadings provided:In his own statement, the Media Matters president, Angelo Carusone, explained his group’s view of Watters:“After Fox News fired Tucker Carlson, [Fox Corp co-chair] Lachlan Murdoch said there would be ‘no change’ in the network’s programming strategy. Today, Fox is making good on that promise.“Crowning odious Jesse Watters as the new face of Fox News is a reflection of Fox’s dogged commitment to bigotry and deceit as well as an indication of their desperation to regain audience share. It won’t work, though. Fox’s audience abandoned the network post-Tucker, and those viewers never returned. Jesse Watters’ buffoonish segments of bigotry and culture war vitriol won’t fix that problem for Fox; he’s a liability and a ticking time bomb.“Dominion exposed Fox News for the partisan propaganda operation that it is. Instead of trying to adjust and attempt to establish a beachhead of credibility, the network is going back out to sea by leaning in on their most toxic personalities – like Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters. The network is transparently appealing to the fringes here.“Advertisers and cable providers beware: things at Fox News are about to get a whole lot worse.”Here’s some more reading on Fox News post-Tucker, with contributions from Brian Stelter, a seasoned Fox-watcher formerly of CNN:Joe Biden is easing into his re-election campaign with the announcement of a nationwide push to expand high-speed internet, and plans for a speech on “Bidenomics” set for Wednesday. The idea is to campaign for another four years in the White House not with new promises, but rather with a reiteration of the proposals that got him elected in the first place. Meanwhile, Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy signaled an openness to impeaching attorney general Merrick Garland if the US attorney involved in prosecuting Hunter Biden doesn’t speak to the judiciary committee. The House is on recess for the next two weeks or so, but we’ll keep an eye on if that goes anywhere.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      The supreme court ordered Louisiana to draw a new majority-Black congressional district as the fallout from a recent decision concerning the Voting Rights Act continues.
      A top Democratic senator thinks the supreme court’s conservatives know they’ve gone too far.
      The Biden administration plans yet another aid package for Ukraine.
      Joe Biden’s push for more affordable high-speed internet access comes as he plans to announce a major theme for his re-election campaign on Wednesday.The president is scheduled to travel to Chicago and speak about the employment and wage gains Americans have seen since he took office, which the White House is calling “Bidenomics”.According to Axios, Biden plans to focus his re-election campaign on the same promises he made when running for his first term in office, rather than announcing a new slate of policies. But the approach is risky, particularly since surveys indicate two-thirds of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.As he looks to promote his economic record and turn around negative public approval ratings, Joe Biden announced his administration would work to get all Americans access to low-cost high-speed internet by 2030.“We’re announcing over $40bn to be distributed to 50 states, Washington DC and territories to deliver high speed in places where there’s neither service or it’s too slow,” the president said.“Along with other federal investments, we’re going to be able to connect every person in America to reliable high-speed internet by 2030.”He compared his administration’s push to the rural electrification campaign of Democratic icon Franklin Delano Rosevelt in the 1930s.“Today, Kamala and I are making an equally historic investment to connect everyone in America, everyone in America to … affordable high speed internet by 2030. It’s the biggest investment in high-speed internet ever, because for today’s economy to work for everyone, internet access is just as important as electricity or water, or other basic services.”The United States was not involved in the weekend mutiny by Wagner mercenary group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin against Russian president Vladimir Putin.“We made clear that we were not involved. We had nothing to do with it,” Biden said at the White House event on high-speed internet. “This was part of a struggle within the Russian system.”“We’re going to keep assessing the fallout of this weekend’s events and the implications for Russia and Ukraine. But it’s still too early to reach a definitive conclusion about where this is going.”The president added that, “We’re going to keep assessing the fallout of this weekend’s events and the implications for Russia and Ukraine. But it’s still too early to reach a definitive conclusion about where this is going.”Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are kicking off a speech where they’ll unveil tens of billions of dollars in investments to improve high-speed internet access across the United States.The Washington Post reports that the Biden administration will spend $42 bn to expand access to the internet, using funds made available by the infrastructure overhaul Congress approved two years ago:Follow along here for the latest on the speech. More

    • 250 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      White House restates call for abortion to be enshrined in law as Biden signs contraception protection – as it happened

      by

      From 5h agoSpecial counsel Jack Smith has offered limited immunity to at least two Republican fake electors in return for their testimonies to a grand jury over Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new CNN report.Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that in instances where prosecutors granted immunity to witnesses, “The special counsel’s office arrived at the courthouse in Washington ready to compel their testimony after the witnesses indicated they would decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment.”Within the last two weeks, at least one other witness spoke with federal investigators outside of the federal grand jury with an agreement that the witness be granted limited immunity from prosecution, CNN reports.The testimonies in recent days have largely surrounded fake electors’ schemes that were designed by attorneys affiliated with the Trump campaign three years ago.According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, “The numbers, profile of the witnesses and prosecutor tactics suggest a probe picking up its pace.”It is slightly past 4pm in Washington DC. Here is a wrap up of the day’s key events:
      The supreme court has rejected Texas and Louisiana’s challenge to Biden deportation policy prioritizing groups of unauthorized immigrants, including suspected terrorists, convicts and those caught at the border for deportation. The states wanted the authority to fight the policy in court. The court holds that the states do not have legal standing to challenge the policy, another win for the Biden administration, especially since conservative justice Samuel Alito was the only dissent.
      Joe Biden signed an executive order Friday to protect access to contraception, one day before the anniversary of the supreme court decision that struck down the federal right to an abortion. In a statement, the president highlighted reproductive health as a top priority of his administration in the wake of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling from the conservative-led court that reversed the Roe v Wade abortion protections in place for half a century.
      Two Russian intelligence officers who attempted to interfere in a local election as part of Moscow’s “global malign influence operations” were sanctioned Friday by the US government. Yegor Sergeyevich Popov and Aleksei Borisovich Sukhodolov, both members of Russia’s federal security service, worked to undermine democratic processes in the US and other countries through a network of co-conspirators, the treasury department said in a statement, reported by Reuters.
      Special counsel Jack Smith has offered limited immunity to at least two Republican fake electors in return for their testimonies to a grand jury over Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new CNN report. Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that in instances where prosecutors granted immunity to witnesses, “the special counsel’s office arrived at the courthouse in Washington ready to compel their testimony after the witnesses indicated they would decline to answer questions under the fifth amendment.”
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reaffirmed the Biden-Harris administration’s support for reproductive healthcare rights. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Jean-Pierre said: “President Biden and Vice-President Harris stand with the majority of Americans who believe the right to choose is fundamental. As the president has made clear, the only way to ensure women in every state have access to abortion is for Congress to pass a law, restoring the protections of Roe.”
      Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has rolled out a list of 15 endorsements from South Carolina lawmakers on Thursday. According to the Associated Press which reviewed the list, the endorsement includes 11 state House members and four state senators.
      Several reproductive rights organizations have announced their endorsement of the Biden-Harris administration in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. The organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice America , and EMILYs List, a political action committee dedicated to electing Democratic pro-choice women into office.
      That’s it from me, Maya Yang, as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has rolled out a list of 15 endorsements from South Carolina lawmakers on Thursday.According to the Associated Press which reviewed the list, the endorsement includes 11 state House members and four state senators.
      “Governor DeSantis’ leadership has made Florida a refuge for those seeking freedom in a nation where it is under attack,” said state senator Josh Kimbrell, one of DeSantis’s endorsers, the Hill reports.
      “No Republican in the country has beaten the radical left more than governor DeSantis, and he is the only candidate in this race who can defeat Joe Biden, put energy back in the executive, and deliver on a bold conservative agenda that Republicans across South Carolina are looking for,” he added.
      On Thursday, DeSantis campaigned in North Augusta, South Carolina, drawing a crowd of supporters whom he told, “You run this process, you compete and you respect the outcome of the process… I think I’m going to be the nominee no matter what happens I’m going to work to beat Joe Biden, that’s what you have to do.”GOP presidential hopeful Chris Christie got booed on stage as he delivered his address at the Freedom and Faith Coalition in Washington DC.In his address, the former New Jersey governor criticized Donald Trump, saying:
      “I’m running because he has let us down. He has let us down because he’s unwilling to take any responsibility of the mistakes that were made, any of the faults that he has and any of the things he has done. And that is not leadership, everybody. That is a failure of leadership.”
      In response, the crowd quickly booed Christie.
      “You can boo all you want. But here’s the thing: Our faith teaches us that people have to take responsibility for what they do,” Christie continued.
      He addressed the boos in a later interview with CNN, saying:“I knew that’s what was going to happen when I accepted the invitation but I’m not changing my message and pandering to anybody. The truth matters and I’m telling the truth about Donald Trump…” Christie told host Dana Bash.This is the third executive order that Biden has passed to protect abortion access since the rollback of Roe v Wade last June.Read more on his first and second executive order here:Several reproductive rights organizations have announced their endorsement of the Biden-Harris administration in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.The organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice America , and EMILYs List, a political action committee dedicated to electing Democratic pro-choice women into office.
      “President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have been committed to fighting back against the onslaught of attacks against our reproductive freedom. And we need them to continue this critical work.
      Abortion is health care… We need leaders who are committed to protecting our freedoms, not taking them away. That is why we must re-elect President Biden and Vice President Harris: people we can trust to keep rebuilding a path forward, because we know the journey to rebuilding our rights will be met with challenges,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
      NARAL-Pro Choice America echoed similar sentiments, with its president Mini Timmaraju saying:
      “President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are the strongest advocates for reproductive freedom ever to occupy the White House, and NARAL Pro-Choice America proudly endorses their reelection. It’s as simple as this: Abortion matters to Americans. In elections since the Supreme Court took away our right to abortion, voters have mobilized in massive numbers to elect Democrats who will fight to restore it…”
      EMILYs List president Laphonza Butler released the following statement:
      “When the Dobbs decision ended a constitutional right for the first time in this country’s history, we were grateful to have leaders in the White House like President Biden and Vice President Harris, who have been vocal advocates for abortion rights across the government and across the country… For her work as a groundbreaker, tireless advocate for reproductive freedom, and inspiring change-maker, EMILYs List is thrilled to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for reelection.”
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre pushed back against claims that president Joe Biden’s latest executive action on expanding contraception access is “largely symbolic”, saying:
      “It builds on the progress that we believe that we have made already and expanding contraception access for women. If you think about the Affordable Care Act, it helped millions of women save billions of dollars on birth control that they need and want. And so we understand that there are gaps still as it relates to that snd so that’s what this executive order does today.
      It does a couple of things. It’s strengthening access to affordable high quality contraception and family planning services, and increased contraception options. It lowers out-of-pocket costs. It maximizes contraception access through the following ways: insurance coverage for those covered under the Affordable Care Act … Medicaid, Medicare, federal funded healthcare programs, including community health centers …
      So we don’t believe this is symbolic. We believe that this is another step to really deal with this gap that we’re seeing across the country and to do everything that we can to continue to fight for fundamental rights.”
      In response to a question from a reporter on whether president Joe Biden calling China’s president Xi Jinping a “dictator” is the “official position” of the White House, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said:
      “The president spoke for himself. I’m just not going to go beyond what he said… The president is going to speak candidly. That will never change.”
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reaffirmed the Biden-Harris administration’s support for reproductive healthcare rights.Speaking to reporters on Friday, Jean-Pierre said:
      “President Biden and vice president Harris stand with the majority of Americans who believe the right to choose is fundamental. As the president has made clear, the only way to ensure women in every state have access to abortion is for Congress to pass a law, restoring the protections of Roe.”
      Jean-Pierre also spoke of Biden’s new executive order on furthering contraception access, saying:“Access to contraception has become more important than ever following the Supreme court’s decision and ensuing crisis for women’s health. And today’s action helps ensure that women can make decisions about their own health lives and also their families.”Attorney general Merrick Garland has responded to concerns from Republicans over the justice department’s integrity, saying, “Nothing could be further from the truth.” In a press briefing on Friday, a reporter asked Garland:
      “Republicans in Congress have flirted with the idea with holding the FBI director in contempt, it’s become a talking point on the campaign trail, the alleged corruption in the FBI and federal law enforcement agencies. Do the American people have cause to be concerned about the integrity of components of this justice department and…how they’re acting?”
      In response, Garland said:
      “I certainly understand that some have chose to attack the integrity of the justice department as components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike. This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy… Nothing could be further from the truth…
      We make our cases based on the facts and the law. These are not just words. These are what we live by…”
      Mike Pence pledged to end gender-affirming services amongst minors during his Faith and Freedom Coalition address today in Washington DC.
      “When I am President, American families will have a champion in the White House!
      We will give every parent the right to choose where their child goes to school, we will end the gender ideology that is running rampant in our schools and we will ban chemical and surgical gender transition treatment for kids under the age of 18!” he said.
      Pence’s comments come amid multiple Republicans’ pledges to end ‘wokeism,’ should they become president, including presidential candidate and Florida governor Ron DeSantis.Special counsel Jack Smith has offered limited immunity to at least two Republican fake electors in return for their testimonies to a grand jury over Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new CNN report.Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that in instances where prosecutors granted immunity to witnesses, “The special counsel’s office arrived at the courthouse in Washington ready to compel their testimony after the witnesses indicated they would decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment.”Within the last two weeks, at least one other witness spoke with federal investigators outside of the federal grand jury with an agreement that the witness be granted limited immunity from prosecution, CNN reports.The testimonies in recent days have largely surrounded fake electors’ schemes that were designed by attorneys affiliated with the Trump campaign three years ago.According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, “The numbers, profile of the witnesses and prosecutor tactics suggest a probe picking up its pace.”An Arizona Republican election official has filed a lawsuit against unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate and staunch Donald Trump supporter Kari Lake who claims that she lost the 2022 race due to fraud.In an op-ed published in the Arizona Republic, Maricopa county recorder Stephen Richer said that as a result of Lake’s false claims, he has faced “violent vitriol and other dire consequences.”
      “Rather than accept political defeat, rather than get a new job, she has sought to undermine confidence in our elections and has mobilized millions of her followers against me,” Richer wrote.
      “She has gone far outside of the bounds of protected free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution.
      That’s why I’m suing Kari Lake, her campaign and her political action committee for engaging in a concerted campaign to defame, threaten and isolate me,” he added.
      The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa county, Arizona on Thursday, names Lake, her political campaign, as well as her fundraising roup as defendants.According to the lawsuit, Richer is seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as the removal of all false claims from Lake’s social media.The American Civil Liberties Union has issued a statement in response to the supreme court’s rejection of Texas and Louisiana’s challenge to the Biden administration’s deportation policy.
      “This decision soundly rejects the misguided attempt by Texas and Louisiana to force the government to implement the most draconian immigration enforcement policy,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
      In the case which ACLU filed an amicus brief, the supreme court ruled that the states lacked the standing to “order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests.”Republican presidential candidate Mike Pence appeared undeterred from his staunch anti-abortion stance, according to a new interview with Politico.The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports from Washington:Speaking one year since the US supreme court removed the federal right to abortion, Mike Pence said candidates for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination should stand firm on the electorally unpopular issue and take a hard line on bringing in national limits.
      “For me, for our campaign, we’re going to stand where we’ve always stood, and that is without apology for the right to life,” the former congressman, Indiana governor and vice-president to Donald Trump told Politico.
      Later, addressing the Faith & Freedom conference in Washington, Pence said every Republican candidate “should support a ban on abortions before 15 weeks, as a minimum nationwide standard”.Claiming this was a “reasonable and mainstream standard”, Pence said:
      “American abortion policy has more in common with China and North Korea than it does with the nations of Europe – and it is time for that to change.”
      For the full story, click here: More

    • 250 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Modi White House visit: Joe Biden says both US and India ‘cherish freedom’ and human rights – as it happened

      by

      From 3h agoBiden also mentioned press freedom in his opening statement, saying that both countries “cherish freedom and celebrate the democratic values of universal human rights which face challenges around the world and in each of our countries.” “Press freedom, religious freedom, tolerance, diversity…India now is the most populous country in the world… The backbone of our people…and talents and traditions make us strong as nations,” said Biden.“The friendship between our nations is only going to grow as we face a future together,” he added.It is 4pm in Washington DC. Here is a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
      India’s prime minister Narendra Modi was at the White House for his bilateral meeting today with Joe Biden. Modi was met with a series of performances and ceremonies on the White House lawn and the two leaders proceeded to discuss press freedom, trade, technological advancements, as well as the Russia-Ukraine war.
      Former US president Barack Obama has addressed Modi’s visit to the United States in a new interview with CNN, saying, “The protection of Muslim minorities in a majority Hindu India, that’s something worth mentioning.” “I do think it is appropriate for the president of the United States…to challenge, whether behind closed doors or in public, trends that are troubling…” he said.
      New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced in a statement late Wednesday that she will “boycott” a joint address to Congress from Modi. “I will be boycotting Prime Minister Modi’s address to Congress tomorrow, and encourage my colleagues who stand for pluralism, tolerance, and freedom of the press to join me in doing the same,” said Ocasio-Cortez’s statement, shared to Twitter.
      Bernie Sanders has also joined several Democratic lawmakers in their condemnation of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi over his human rights abuse allegations. “Prime Minister Modi’s government has cracked down on the press and civil society, jailed political opponents, and pushed an aggressive Hindu nationalism that leaves little space for India’s religious minorities,” Sanders wrote in a tweet.
      During a press conference with Modi, a reporter asked Biden about comments he made calling China president Xi Jinping a “dictator” and if such remarks complicate progress that the Biden administration has made on maintaining a relationship with China. “The answer to your first question is no,” said Biden.
      Human rights group Amnesty International has publicly criticized Modi’s visit to the White House, calling on the Biden administration to address “grave human rights issues” in the US and India. Amnesty International called out increasing violence against religion minorities in India during Modi’s tenure, as well as “criminalization of dissent”.
      The two individuals who guaranteed bail for New York’s Republican congressman George Santos has ben identified as his father and aunt. The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports: “The revelation that Gercino dos Santos Jr and Elma Preven were the people behind Santos’ bail solves a running mystery that had fascinated Washington-watchers and also a wider American public obsessed with the travails of a politician famous for playing fast and loose with the truth.”
      Georgia’s far-right representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has explained why she called Colorado’s equally far-right representative Lauren Boebert “a little b****” yesterday in Congress. “It’s purely for fundraising… It’s throwing out red meat so that people will donate to her campaign because she’s coming up on the end of the month, and she’s trying to produce good fundraising numbers,” Greene told Semafor.
      That’s it from me, Maya Yang, as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.You can read our latest full report here:For a quick refresher on all the 16 candidates currently vying for the presidential office, here is our latest guide to all contenders, ranging from Ron DeSantis to Cornel West:Currently, 12 candidates are running for the GOP nomination while 2 Democrats – Robert F Kennedy Jr and Marianne Williamson, are looking to unseat Joe Biden.Meanwhile, progressive activist Cornel West has announced that he is running for office as a member of the People’s party, a third party.Georgia’s far-right representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has explained why she called Colorado’s equally far-right representative Lauren Boebert “a little b****” yesterday in Congress.Speaking to Semafor, Greene explained the verbal altercation between the two lawmakers yesterday which erupted over both their efforts to impeach the president.“I was sitting down, and so I stood up and I said, ‘I’m happy to clarify my public statements to your face… I told her exactly what I think about her,” Greene said, referring to public comments she made yesterday about Boebert whom she said “basically copied my articles” in her own separate privileged resolution (which would bypass House Republican leadership and instead head straight to the floor for voting).
      “It’s purely for fundraising… It’s throwing out red meat so that people will donate to her campaign because she’s coming up on the end of the month, and she’s trying to produce good fundraising numbers,” Greene added.
      Donald Trump’s efforts at obtaining a new trial in the civil case involving writer E. Jean Carroll is “magical thinking,” Carroll’s lawyers said on Thursday.Reuters reports:Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presential nomination, on June 8 asked for a new trial after the jury awarded Carroll $5 million, saying the damages were excessive because the jury did not find she was raped and because the alleged conduct did not cause her a diagnosed mental injury.In court papers filed Thursday in opposition to Trump’s request, Carroll’s lawyers maintained that the attack has harmed her ability to have romantic and sexual relationships, and she has suffered intrusive memories.They pointed to a psychologist’s testimony at trial that Carroll had some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.“Trump’s motion is nothing more than his latest effort to obfuscate the import of the jury’s verdict by engaging in his own particular Trump-branded form of magical thinking,” her lawyers wrote.Trump’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.For the full story, click here:Several progressive lawmakers have released a joint statement to announce they will boycott Modi’s joint address to Congress.Missouri representative Cori Bush; Michigan representative Rashida Tlaib; Minnesota represetatiev Ilhan Omar; and New York representative Jamaal Bowman shared the statement on Thursday.They will be joining other legislators, including New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are not attending Modi’s address in light of human right abuses in India.Read the joint statement below:
      When it comes to standing up for human rights, actions speak louder than words. By bestowing Prime Minister Modi with the rare honor of a joint address, Congress undermines its ability to be a credible advocate for the rights of religious minorities and journalists around the world.
      Modi has a notorious and extensive record of human rights abuses. He was complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots that killed over 1,000 people, leading to the revocation of his U.S. visa. His government has openly targeted Muslims and other religious minorities, enabled Hindu nationalist violence, undermined democracy, targeted journalists and dissidents, and suppressed criticism using authoritarian tactics like Internet shutdowns and censorship.
      It is shameful to honor these abuses by allowing Modi to address a joint session of Congress. We refuse to participate in it and will be boycotting the joint address. We stand in solidarity with the communities that have been harmed by Modi and his policies. We must never sacrifice human rights at the altar of political expediency and we urge all Members of Congress who profess to stand for freedom and democracy to join us in boycotting this embarrassing spectacle.
      The two individuals who guaranteed bail for New York’s Republican congressman George Santos has ben identified as his father and aunt.The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports:The revelation that Gercino dos Santos Jr and Elma Preven were the people behind Santos’ bail solves a running mystery that had fascinated Washington-watchers and also a wider American public obsessed with the travails of a politician famous for playing fast and loose with the truth.Santos had tried to stop the legal process of them being named, arguing disclosure could threaten the guarantors’ safety amid a “media frenzy” and “hateful attacks”.Santos’s lawyer had also said that his client would rather go to jail himself than have his guarantors unmasked. But Santos seemed to have backed off that wish by not asking to change the conditions of his bail after a federal judge in New York dismissed his appeal to keep the names sealed.Media organisations and the House ethics committee had asked that the names be revealed.Santos, 34, won election in New York last year, in a district covering parts of Long Island and Queens. He has been dogged by controversy and calls to resign. His résumé has been shown to be largely made-up and past behavior – sometimes allegedly criminal, other times bizarrely picaresque – widely reported.Santos has admitted to embellishing his résumé but denies wrongdoing. In court in May, he pleaded not guilty to all charges.For the full story, click here:Biden and Modi have wrapped up their joint press conference, where they discussed a range of issues including climate change and democracy.Here is an update from Mary Yang for the Guardian with updates on what the two world leaders discussed.Another reporter asked Biden about criticisms that the US is not implementing solutions to climate change or transferring technologies to developing nations that would address warming.Both countries have agreed to work on tackling climate change as apart of the G20 forum.Here is an explainer on progress made during the last summit in November 2022.A reporter asked Biden about comments he made calling China president Xi Jinping a “dictator” and if such remarks complicate progress that the Biden administration has made on maintaining a relationship with China.“The answer to your first question is no,” said Biden, adding that he expects to be meeting with Jinping soon and that State Secretary Antony Blinken had a productive trip to the country recently.Biden was also asked about criticisms he faces about overlooking human rights violations in India, including the targeting of religious minorities and dissent.Biden added: “The prime minister and I had a good discussion about democratic values. That’s the nature of our relationship, we’re straight forward with each other and we respect each other.”Biden noted that both India and US are democracies, compared to China.Biden also mentioned press freedom in his opening statement, saying that both countries “cherish freedom and celebrate the democratic values of universal human rights which face challenges around the world and in each of our countries.” “Press freedom, religious freedom, tolerance, diversity…India now is the most populous country in the world… The backbone of our people…and talents and traditions make us strong as nations,” said Biden.“The friendship between our nations is only going to grow as we face a future together,” he added.In Joe Biden’s opening statement, the president talked about a series of topics discussed with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi, including technological advancements such as semi-conductor supply chains, telecommunication networks, and growing major defense partnerships with further joint exercises.Biden also talked about the expansion of educational opportunities for Indian students and to build “on the record of 125,000 student visas for Indians to study in the United States.”The Ukraine-Russia was was also discussed, with Biden saying, “We talked about our shared efforts to mitigate humanitarian tragedies unleashed by Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine and to defend core principles of the UN charter.”Joe Biden and Narendra Modi have started their press conference.Former US president Barack Obama has addressed Modi’s visit to the United States in a new interview with CNN, saying, “The protection of Muslim minorities in a majority Hindu India, that’s something worth mentioning.”Speaking to CNN host Christiane Amanpour, Obama said:“I do think it is appropriate for the president of the United States…to challenge, whether behind closed doors or in public, trends that are troubling…If the president meets with prime minister Modi, then the protection of Muslim minorities in a majority Hindu India, that’s something worth mentioning… If I had a conversation with prime minister Modi…part of my argument would be if you don’t protect the rights of ethnic minorities in India, there’s a strong possibility India starts pulling apart.”As we wait for the press conference with Biden and Modi, here is the Committee to Protect Journalists’ statement urging India to stop its media crackdowns and to release detained journalists.
      “Press freedom is under attack in India,” said CPJ, adding, “India is the world’s largest democracy, yet it is one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the media…
      Leaders around the world who value democracy must urger those in power in India to stop the threats against journalists there. Democracy depends on a free press.”
      CPJ’s president Jodie Ginsberg also issued a statement, saying, “Since Modi assumed power in 2014, there has been an increasing crackdown on India’s media…
      India is the world’s largest democracy and it needs to live up to that by ensuring a free and independent media – and we expect the United States to make this a core element of discussions.”
      US president Joe Biden and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi are scheduled to host a press conference soon.We will be bringing you the latest updates. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      What is affirmative action designed to do – and what has it achieved?

      by

      The US supreme court could be poised to ban the use of affirmative action policies in college admissions as soon as Thursday. The court, which is expected to deliver its ruling either this week or next, will determine whether race-conscious admissions violate the equal-protection clause under the US constitution.Envisioned as a tool to help remedy historical discrimination and create more diverse student bodies, affirmative action policies have permitted hundreds of colleges and universities to factor in students’ racial backgrounds during the admissions process. That consideration is supplementary, and taken in tandem with other factors such as applicants’ test scores, grades and extracurricular activities.Even with race-conscious admissions, however, many selective public and private colleges and universities struggle to enroll diverse student populations that accurately reflect society. At the University of North Carolina, for example, in a state where 21% of people are Black, just 8% of the school’s undergraduates are Black.Opponents of affirmative action, such as the advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions, argue that considering race as a factor in the admissions process amounts to racial discrimination – particularly against Asian Americans. SFA has brought cases against Harvard University, the nation’s oldest private university, and UNC, the nation’s first public university, to challenge their affirmative action policies, which the group contends favors Black and Latino students. Ultimately, it hopes that race considerations will be nixed from the admissions process entirely, and replaced by race-neutral or “color-blind” policies.What is affirmative action designed to do?The concept of affirmative action originated in 1961 when President John F Kennedy issued an executive order directing government agencies to ensure that all Americans get an equal opportunity in employment. President Lyndon Johnson took it one step further in 1965, barring public and private organizations that had a federal contract from discriminating based on race, color, religion and national origin. The prohibition was added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.In 1969, President Richard Nixon’s assistant labor secretary, Arthur Fletcher, who would eventually be known as the “father of affirmative action”, pushed for requiring employers to set “goals and timetables” to hire more Black workers. That effort, known as the Revised Philadelphia Plan, would later influence how many schools approached their own race-conscious admissions programs.The practice was challenged when Allan Bakke, a white man who was twice denied entry to the medical school at the University of California at Davis, sued the university, arguing that its policies, which included allocating seats for “qualified” students of color, discriminated against him. In 1978, the supreme court narrowly rejected the use of “racial quotas”, but noted that colleges and universities could use race as a factor in the admissions process. Justice Lewis Powell noted that achieving diversity represented a “compelling government interest”.What has affirmative action in college admissions actually achieved?After generations of near total exclusion of Black students and other students of color, colleges and universities began admitting more diverse groups in the 1960s and 70s, and soon thereafter incorporated race-consciousness into their admissions policies.Data shows that the rise of affirmative action policies in higher education has bolstered diversity on college campuses. In 1965, Black students accounted for roughly 5% of all undergraduates. And between 1965 and 2001, the percentage of Black undergraduates doubled. The number of Latino undergraduates also rose during that time. Still, the practice of factoring race into the admissions process faced repeated attacks. In 1998, during an era of conservatism, California voters approved Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action in any state or government agency, including its university system. Since then, eight more states have eliminated such race-conscious policies.What could happen next?The end of affirmative action at those state levels shows just how impactful the consideration of race in admissions has been: a UC Berkeley study found that after the ban in California, the number of applicants of color in the UC system “sharply shifted away from UC’s most selective Berkeley and UCLA campuses, causing a cascade of students to enroll at lower-quality public institutions and some private universities”. Specifically, the number of Black freshmen admitted to UC Berkeley dropped to 3.6% between 2006 and 2010 – almost half of its population before the ban.In an amicus brief in the Harvard case, attorneys for the University of Michigan, which had to stop considering race in admissions in 2006, argued that despite “persistent, vigorous and varied efforts” to achieve diversity, it has struggled to do so without race-consciousness. The number of Black and Native American students has “dramatically” dropped since the end of affirmative action in the state.Though students of color remain underrepresented at selective colleges and universities today, institutions argue that their presence helps shape students’ on-campus experiences. The possible removal of race consideration from college admissions would set a precedent for a less diverse school system, which stands in stark contrast to an increasingly diverse world. More