Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Bannon trial set for closing arguments after defense doesn’t call witnesses

      by

      Bannon trial set for closing arguments after defense doesn’t call witnessesFederal prosectors to make final pitch to convict Trump’s ex-adviser on charges of contempt of Congress for defying subpoena Federal prosecutors are due to make their final pitch to jurors on Friday to convict Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former presidential adviser, on charges of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena by the committee investigating last year’s attack on the US Capitol by supporters of the-then president as they sought to overturn his election defeat by Joe Biden.The prosecution and defense are expected to deliver closing arguments to the 12-member jury in federal court, with deliberations expected to begin afterward.House panel showed Trump conspired to seize the election – but was it illegal?Read moreThe defense rested its case on Thursday without calling any witnesses after the prosecution rested on Wednesday, having called two witnesses over two days.Bannon, 68, has pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor counts after rebuffing the House of Representative select committee’s subpoena requesting testimony and documents as part of its inquiry into the January 6, 2021, rampage by Trump supporters trying to stop the US Congress officially certifying Democrat Biden’s win over Republican Trump.Bannon had promised in out-of-court bluster to fight his case vigorously and make it the “misdemeanor from hell” for the authorities, but he ultimately made no presentation to the court, as the Daily Beast reported.Prosecutors said they expect their arguments on Friday to last about 30 minutes, plus 15 for rebuttal. The defense said it plans to take roughly the same amount of time to make its arguments.Bannon was barred from arguing that he believed his communications with Trump were subject to a legal doctrine called executive privilege that can keep certain presidential communications confidential. The judge also prohibited Bannon from arguing that he relied on legal advice from an attorney in refusing to comply with the congressional subpoena.Bannon’s primary defense in the trial was that he believed the subpoena’s deadline dates were flexible and subject to negotiation between his attorney and the committee.The main prosecution witness was Kristin Amerling, a senior committee staff member. She testified on Wednesday that Bannon disregarded the subpoena’s two deadlines, sought no extensions and offered an invalid rationale for his defiance – a claim by Trump involving a legal doctrine called executive privilege that can keep certain presidential communications confidential.Bannon has spoken only once in court throughout the trial. He said: “Yes, your honor,” when the judge asked if he agreed not to testify.Outside court on Thursday, Bannon said: “One last thing. I stand with Trump and the constitution.”TopicsSteve BannonJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris urges voters to elect a ‘pro-choice Congress’ in midterms

      by

      Kamala Harris urges voters to elect a ‘pro-choice Congress’ in midtermsVice-president highlights that down-ballot contests at local level would also be central to restoring abortion rights Vice-President Kamala Harris renewed pleas to voters ahead of the midterm congressional races to elect pro-choice candidates, as the Biden administration continues to face criticism from progressives over a perceived lackluster response to the recent landmark supreme court decision striking down federal abortion rights in the US.In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Harris urged voters to elect a “pro-choice Congress” in November and highlighted that down-ballot contests at the local level would also be central to restoring abortion rights in certain parts of the country.“You don’t have to advocate or believe that this is right for you or your family, but don’t let the government make the decision for her family, whoever she may be,” Harris said in a pre-recorded interview. “It means state offices, governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general. It means local races, who’s going to be your DA, who’s going to be your sheriff, enforcing laws that are being passed to criminalize medical health providers, and maybe even the women who seek the service.”On Friday, Joe Biden signed a limited executive order designed to protect access to reproductive health services by expanding access to emergency contraception and bolstering legal services to support people who cross state lines to seek an abortion.But for many abortion advocates and progressive Democrats, the president’s measures do not go far enough. The administration has, for example, resisted calls to use federal land in anti-abortion states to facilitate terminating pregnancies, or subsidizing travel to people forced to travel in order to access services.At least nine US states have banned abortion in the wake of 6-3 supreme court ruling that overturned the Roe v Wade decision that had enshrined the procedure as a constitutional right since 1973. The ruling makes it likely that around half the country – 26 states – will eventually outlaw abortion in some way.The decision followed Donald Trump’s installation of three rightwing justices to the supreme court, paving the way for a conservative super majority on the court.Harris, then a US senator, voted against the former president’s appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And she said on Sunday she had never believed assurances made in private and public by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that they respected the precedence of the Roe decision.“I start from the point of experience of having served in the Senate,” Harris said. “I never believed them. I didn’t believe them. So I voted against.”Asked if the Democrats should have done more to enshrine the right to abortion into federal law when the party controlled both chambers of Congress, Harris responded: “We certainly believe that certain issues are just settled. Certain issues are just settled. And that’s why I do believe that we are living, sadly, in real unsettled times.”Democrats have faced criticism for fundraising drives off the back of the supreme court decision and recent polling indicates their party still faces a tough day at the ballot box in November, with Biden’s approval ratings plummeting and the party looking set to lose its majority in the House of Representatives.On Sunday, Harris sought to quell calls for Biden to serve just one term as president before allowing a new Democratic nominee to contest the 2024 election.“Listen to President Biden,” Harris said. “He intends to run. And if he does, I intend to run with him.”TopicsKamala HarrisUS midterm elections 2022US politicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden signs executive order to protect US abortion access and urges Americans to ‘vote, vote, vote’ – as it happened

      by

      Biden is currently speaking on the rollback of federal abortion protections, two weeks after the supreme court voted to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark case that protected abortion rights nationwide. “This was not a decision driven by the constitution. This was not a decision driven by history,” said Biden of the supreme court overturning Roe v Wade. Discussing the conservative majority in the court, Biden said: “Today’s supreme court majority is playing fast and loose with the facts.” Later on in his remarks, Biden called on Americans to use their electoral power to elect senators who would help codify Roe v Wade, saying that it was the “fastest route” to solidifying federal abortion rights. “Your votes can make that a reality,” said Biden, acknowledging the frustration his administration has received amid urging people to vote. “You, the women of America, can determine the outcome of this issue,” adding the courts do not have a “clue about the power of American women.” “For God’s sakes, there’s an election in November. Vote, vote, vote,” said Biden. Biden’s remarks come on the same day that he is signing an executive order protecting access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare nationwide. That’s it from me today! Here’s a wrap up of everything that happened, US politics-wise:
      Joe Biden to signed an executive order to protect access to abortion and reproductive healthcare services after the rollback of Roe v wade, urging Americans to elect pro-choice senators during the midterm elections this November.
      Biden spoke critically of the conservative-leaning Supreme court, accusing the justices who voted to overturn Roe v wade of “playing fast and loose with the facts”.
      Democrats generally applauded Biden’s order, but urged him to do more amid nationwide rollbacks of abortion rights.
      US politicians published statements of condolences after the assassination of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, including Biden, Kamala Harris, and Barack Obama.
      The US job market added over 300,000 jobs in June, a sign of economic resilience amid slowed growth.
      Thank you for reading!In other news, the US economy added 372,000 jobs in June, an sign of economic resilience despite signs of slowed economic growth.Here’re more information from the Guardian’s Edward Helmore: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The US economy added 372,000 jobs in June, an indicator of resilience despite signs of slowing economic growth.
      The jobs reports is seen as a key indicator on whether high inflation – and central bank efforts to tame it with interest rates rises – is beginning to bite down on the wider American economy.
      The US unemployment rate held steady at 3.6%, the same as month earlier, the labor department said on Friday. Job growth far exceeded the projections of economists, who expected the US to add roughly 278,000 jobs last month, according to consensus estimates.
      The figures may ease some fears of a looming recession, but also show that the Federal Reserve has more room to raise interest rates, cooling consumer demand, in its fight against historically high inflation.Read the full article here. US adds 372,000 jobs in June as growth exceeds expectationsRead moreSeveral Democrats have responded to Biden’s executive order, calling the order a good first step but urging Biden to do more to protect abortion rights federally, reports Politico. From Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren:.@POTUS’ executive order will help Americans receive the reproductive health care they need. I urged the Biden administration to expand access to medication abortion, protect patient privacy, and safeguard interstate travel for care. Today’s actions are important first steps.— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 8, 2022
      The Administration should continue to explore every available option to protect access to abortion care. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this extremist Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and we must use every tool possible to address this emergency.— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 8, 2022
      From US representative Adam Smith of Washington: Today @POTUS announced actions he’s taking to protect access to reproductive health care in the wake of the Supreme Court’s dangerous decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.— Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) July 8, 2022
      The Executive Order will also protect consumer privacy, personal data, and sensitive health information and importantly will advance the safety of providers and clinics who are courageously providing essential reproductive health care services in the face of heightened risk.— Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) July 8, 2022
      These actions are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough on their own. We must codify Roe v. Wade into law, and to do so, we must be willing to scrap the filibuster – our freedoms are so much more important than Senate procedure.— Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) July 8, 2022
      On the same day that Biden signed an executive order safeguarding access to abortions, Louisiana is now able to enforce a near-total ban of abortions in the state under a judge’s order issued on Friday. Here’s a piece from the Guardian’s health reporter Jessica Glenza on the issue: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} Louisiana is fighting to become a leader in the race to criminalize doctors who allegedly provide abortions, since the US supreme court ended federal abortion protections.
      In doing so, the state may also become an example of how abortion bans could worsen maternal health in America, as criminal penalties across the US redefine where and how doctors are willing to practice.
      In turn, that is likely to worsen a leading reason some states are more dangerous places to give birth – lack of hospitals, birthing centers and obstetricians.
      “It should be no surprise that in a lot of the states where there’s a [trigger ban], there’s a strong correlation [with maternity care deserts],” said Stacey Stewart, president and chief executive of the March of Dimes, an organization that advocates for maternal and infant health and is strictly neutral on abortion.Read the rest of the piece here. Pregnant women face increasingly dangerous risks as doctors flee punitive US statesRead moreWith abortion access threatened across the country, those seeking out abortion services and other reproductive healthcare options will be forced to travel if their states do not provide it. The Guardian’s Alvin Chang, Andrew Witherspoon and Jessica Glenza have explored how the creation of abortion “deserts” throughout the country will change who can access care – and how far they will be forced to travel. Abortion deserts: America’s new geography of access to care – mappedRead moreDuring the briefing, White house press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre got into a back and forth discussion with a reporter on whether or not people can peacefully protest against Supreme court justices, even in settings like restaurants. The question was prompted after Justice Brett Kavanaugh reportedly had to leave a steakhouse when protestors confronted him for voting to overturn Roe v wade. Jean-Pierre replied to a question on if protestors could confront justices at a restaurant they’re eating at, saying that the Biden administration is against the intimidation of Supreme court justices and using violence against them. Jean-Pierre also cited recent legislation passed to protect the safety of justices. Later on in her response, Jean-Pierre clarified, saying the Biden administration supports the right to peaceful protest, even outside of a restaurant. Here is more information on the bill expanding security for Supreme court justices that passed:US House passes bill to expand supreme court security to justices’ familiesRead moreThe White house press briefing is happening right now, with questions largely focused on Biden’s executive order meant to safeguard access to abortions and other reproductive healthcare services. Questions were answered by White House Gender Policy Council director Jen Klein, who clarified actions that will be taken under the executive order. A link to watch the briefings is available below: White House Press Briefing with @PressSec Karine Jean-Pierre and @JKlein46 – LIVE online here: https://t.co/a3vT0sqXcw pic.twitter.com/YxLsmvhHhQ— CSPAN (@cspan) July 8, 2022
      Here’s additional context on Biden’s remarks from the Guardian’s health reporter Jessica Glenza:In a speech to mark an executive order to on reproductive rights, President Joe Biden emphatically called on the American people to “vote, vote, vote, vote,” in the upcoming election, describing it as the fastest way to regain abortion rights in the US. Both the speech and executive order, which directs federal agencies to enhance coordination and regulation, “just like in the Civil Rights era,” comes amid mounting criticism of the administration’s response to the end of federal abortion rights. Federal abortion rights ended nearly two weeks ago when the supreme court, controlled by a conservative supermajority, overturned Roe v Wade. The landmark 1973 case had prevented states hostile to the procedure from banning abortion. However, the president’s emphasis on voting also underscores the limitations on the federal government. While the executive order calls on agencies to protect access to the abortion pill, patient privacy, abortion clinics in states where it remains legal and interstate travel, intervention from Congress is necessary to restore the rights of people who can become pregnant in state that have already banned the procedure. “The choice is clear: if you want to change the circumstances for women and even little girls in this country please go out and vote,” said Biden. He also emphasized the stakes of abortion bans, citing the case of a 10-year-old sexual abuse victim from Ohio who was allegedly forced to travel to Indiana to obtain an abortion. “10 years old, 10 years old!” said Biden. “Raped, six weeks pregnant, already traumatized, was forced to travel to another state… Does anyone believe that it is Ohio’s majority view that should not be able to be dealt with? A 10-year-old girl should be forced to give birth to a rapist’s child?”Tracking where abortion laws stand in every stateRead moreDuring his remarks, Biden also pledged to veto any further abortion restrictions that could come across his desk if Republicans gain control of Congress during the midterm elections in November. “As long as I’m president it won’t happen, because I’ll veto it,” said Biden during his speech today, shortly before he signed an executive order safeguarding access to abortions and other reproductive healthcare services. From the Guardian’s Lauren Gambino: Biden warns that Republicans would seek a national ban on abortion if they take control of Congress in November. As long as I’m president, he said, “I’ll veto it.”— Lauren Gambino (@laurenegambino) July 8, 2022
      cc @amandalitman who told me last week that voters so far hadn’t heard Biden say clearly that he would veto any new abortion restrictions sent to him by a potential Republican-controlled Congress. https://t.co/Z8ngEYyZVm— Lauren Gambino (@laurenegambino) July 8, 2022
      It’s official; Biden has formally signed an executive order protecting access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare services. Here is a previous post detailing what is in the executive order. Biden also brought up the story of a 10-year-old girl in Ohio who was raped and forced to travel to Indiana to receive an abortion. “A 10-year-old girl should be forced to given birth to rapist’s child?” said Biden of the Ohio case, calling it an example of Republican extremism.Biden added: “Does anyone believe it’s Ohio’s majority view that that should not be able to be dealt with?”Read the Guardian’s coverage of the case by Ed Helmore here: 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortionRead moreBiden is currently speaking on the rollback of federal abortion protections, two weeks after the supreme court voted to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark case that protected abortion rights nationwide. “This was not a decision driven by the constitution. This was not a decision driven by history,” said Biden of the supreme court overturning Roe v Wade. Discussing the conservative majority in the court, Biden said: “Today’s supreme court majority is playing fast and loose with the facts.” Later on in his remarks, Biden called on Americans to use their electoral power to elect senators who would help codify Roe v Wade, saying that it was the “fastest route” to solidifying federal abortion rights. “Your votes can make that a reality,” said Biden, acknowledging the frustration his administration has received amid urging people to vote. “You, the women of America, can determine the outcome of this issue,” adding the courts do not have a “clue about the power of American women.” “For God’s sakes, there’s an election in November. Vote, vote, vote,” said Biden. Biden’s remarks come on the same day that he is signing an executive order protecting access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare nationwide. Ahead of Biden’s speech, US politicians are sharing reproductive rights resources that are currently available, modest steps the Biden administration have taken prior to the executive order expected today. From US House representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} ICYMI: in response to the Supreme Court’s assault on reproductive health care, @HHSGov created a guide for women about their reproductive rights. Abortion & other reproductive care remains safe & legal in California.ICYMI: in response to the Supreme Court’s assault on reproductive health care, @HHSGov created a guide for women about their reproductive rights.Abortion & other reproductive care remains safe & legal in California.https://t.co/b9UaitzI74— Rep. Zoe Lofgren (@RepZoeLofgren) July 8, 2022
      At 11.30am, Joe Biden will give remarks from the White House on protecting abortion access nationwide. Biden will likely speak on an executive order he is expected to sign today that would safeguard access to abortions and other reproductive healthcare services. Stay tuned to hear highlights from his remarks and watch the live speech here. Other US politicians have shared statements of condolence following the assassination of Shinzo Abe.Vice-president Kamala Harris called Abe “a close friend of the United States,” writing that the country stands “with our Japanese friends in honoring him and condemning this horrific act of violence”. Doug and I send our deepest condolences to the family of former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo and the Japanese people. He was a close friend of the United States and on this tragic day, we stand with our Japanese friends in honoring him and condemning this horrific act of violence.— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) July 8, 2022
      Former US president George W Bush released a statement today on Abe’s death, writing: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I am deeply saddened to learn of the senseless assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. I had the privilege of getting to know him during his first time as Prime Minister in 2006 and found him to be a decent and caring man. Shinzo Abe was a patriot of his country who wanted to continue serving it. Laura and I send our heartfelt condolences to Akie Abe, their family, and the people of Japan during this difficult time.In a series of tweets published today, Barack Obama wrote: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} I am shocked and saddened by the assassination of my friend and longtime partner Shinzo Abe in Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe was devoted to both the country he served and the extraordinary alliance between the United States and Japan.I am shocked and saddened by the assassination of my friend and longtime partner Shinzo Abe in Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe was devoted to both the country he served and the extraordinary alliance between the United States and Japan.— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) July 8, 2022
      In other news, Joe Biden has publicized a statement following the shooting death of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. Abe was assassinated yesterday while giving a campaign speech in the south-central Japanese city of Nara. In a statement shared on Twitter, Biden said: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} I am stunned, outraged, and deeply saddened by the news that my friend Abe Shinzo, former Prime Minister of Japan, was shot and killed.
      He was a champion of the friendship between our people. The United States stands with Japan in this moment of grief.Today, with the addition of 372,000 new jobs in June, our private sector has recovered all of the jobs lost during the pandemic – and added jobs on top of that. We have more work to do. But no country is better positioned than America to face global economic challenges.— President Biden (@POTUS) July 8, 2022
      Here are more specifics on what Biden’s executive order protecting access to abortion will entail.According to a fact sheet from the White house, the executive order will direct the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to take steps in a number of areas concerning abortion access and report back in 30 days. The HHS secretary will take steps to:
      Protect access to medication abortion, also known as abortion pills
      Ensure emergency medical care for pregnant people and anyone experiencing pregnancy loss
      Launch education and public outreach efforts
      Convene volunteer lawyers to represent patients who seek out care
      The executive order will also seek to protect patient privacy and ensure the safety of patients, providers, and clinics who provide reproductive healthcare services. Biden’s executive order comes at a time when frustration is mounting against his administration for not doing enough to protect federal abortion rights. Progressive politicians and abortion rights advocates have been public about their disappointment with the Biden administration, asking Biden and other Democrats to do more to protect reproductive rights following the overturning of Roe v Wade two weeks ago. US House representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat of New York, urged Democrats to push back harder against the rollback of abortion protections, tweeting last week: “Use the bully pulpit. We need more.”Now we’re talking! Time for people to see a real, forceful push for it. Use the bully pulpit. We need more. https://t.co/dZ1qhdu8iM— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 30, 2022
      A group of more than 20 Black Democratic congresswomen signed a letter last week, urging Biden to declare a public health emergency following the rollback of Roe v Wade. “In this unprecedented moment, we must act urgently as if lives depend on it because they do,” the legislators wrote.Biden urged to do more to defend abortion rights: ‘This is a five-alarm fire’Read moreGood morning! It’s Gloria from the New York office. Here’s what is happening today:Joe Biden is signing an executive order to protect abortion access for millions, two weeks after the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, a landmark ruling that ensured federal abortion protections for the past 50 years.According to a fact sheet, the executive order will protect access to several reproductive healthcare services, including abortion and contraception. The order also safeguards access to medication abortions, also known as abortion pills, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The executive order comes as many have been critical of the Biden administration for failing to do more to protect abortion rights, including codifying abortion access amid ongoing attacks on reproductive rights nationwide. Biden is expected to speak on the executive order and abortion rights generally at 11:30am eastern time. Joe Biden to sign executive order protecting access to abortionRead more More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans lose faith in the US supreme court

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

      The US supreme court has struck down the constitutional right to an abortion, one of several landmark decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.
      Jonathan Freedland and Jill Filipovic discuss whether it’s still possible for a deeply divided court of nine judges, a group that now has a 6-3 conservative majority, to keep the promise to the American people of ‘equal protection’, and what happens if it can’t

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      This episode was originally played on Politics weekly America You can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Spotify Archive: CNN, CBS, C-Span More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court poses a real threat to US democracy | Richard Wolffe

      by

      The US supreme court poses a real threat to Americans’ democracyRichard WolffeIt did not start with Donald Trump. And it will not end with his shuffling off stage, in handcuffs or disgrace America is not just a country. It’s an idea. But whose idea is it anyway?Peering through the mists of time, the current right-wingnut majority of the US supreme court believe they can divine the original ideas of some very dead white men.On that flimsy basis, they rule by fiat.They order states to remove sensible gun safety measures. Then they deny women reproductive rights by pretending that states can do whatever they want.They say that presidents cannot limit carbon emissions to tackle the climate crisis. And now they are ready to change the way we elect presidents.Whatever you call the current crusade of this supreme court, their approach is not conservative.There is nothing stable or traditional about throwing out a half-century of civil rights and quite possibly a century of democratic practice.This is a radical bunch of ideologues who have spent years projecting themselves onto their critics. For decades, the Republican party has picked activist judges while pretending to correct the notion of activist judges on the other side of the divide.It’s the same excuse that Fox News used for decades as it cosplayed the shows of an actual news division: it was just correcting the bias on the other side.If you can convince the suckers that the other side is misbehaving, you can justify pretty much anything.That little ruse is the last refuge of scoundrels, dictators, and bankrupt real estate developers. It’s lovely to see the supreme court following their logic.Which brings us to one of their last decisions in a very long list of reactionary and repressive opinions last month: their willingness to hear arguments about the fringe notion that state legislatures can set their own rules for federal elections. That includes picking whoever they want for president.This just happens to have been the big wet dream of one Donald Trump in the weeks after he definitively lost the presidential election of 2020.An amazing coincidence that this group of eminent jurists should glob on to the electoral priorities of a comically incompetent sociopath who just happened to appoint three of them to a lifetime of unchecked power.Who needs messy democracy when you can just have Republican rule?Since most of the state legislatures have been gerrymandered into huge Republican majorities – and the electoral college skews power towards smaller states – this wonderfully undemocratic and un-American idea is now perfectly in line with the original intent of the founders and ratifiers.The constitution may say that states can pick their own presidential electors however they want. But the electoral college has been decided by the popular vote since the 19th century when the states realized early in the nation’s life that all the other methods of picking electors led to widespread corruption.So to return to the original intent of the founders just ignores more than a century of democracy – and the very idea that the United States somehow leads the free world.To be frank, the threat to democracy posed by this supreme court is clear and present.But it did not start with Donald Trump. And it will not end with his shuffling off stage, in handcuffs or disgrace – if either are possible in this multiverse of madness.Two decades ago, another supreme court took it upon itself to steal an election for the Republican candidate. That court decided to ignore all its own high-minded principles about state rights as it shut down a state-ordered recount of votes in Florida in 2000.Its reasoning was so blatantly corrupt, the rightwing majority even declared that its own decision could not stand as precedent.The “winner” of that stolen election was George W Bush who went on to appoint two of the justices who just voted to end abortion rights as we know them: Samuel Alito and John Roberts. According to a study commissioned by major news organizations, a full statewide recount would have handed Florida’s electoral college votes – and the presidency – to Al Gore.That was, as they say, the tipping point that led to our current supreme state of upheaval. Once the court became just another political tool, it began its death spiral.No amount of novel legal fantasies about the founders’ ideas can paper over a rightwing putsch.For all those many things that are not mentioned explicitly in the constitution – like abortion, marriage, the internet, or a democratically-elected presidency – our rightwing supremes have taken it upon themselves to imagine anything they like about what the founders were thinking.Coming out of the July 4 holiday, it might seem churlish to observe that many parts of what we now see as the American idea were not, in fact, the favorite ideas of the founding fathers.Their notion of a democratic republic was what you might expect from a men’s club whose property – landed and human – allowed them to define freedom for themselves.They preferred presidents to be picked by an electoral college made up of men just like them. The people could pick the House, but real democracy would be easily demagogued by someone just like Donald Trump.If we’re going back to their original intent, let’s try to be a little consistent, shall we?The founders didn’t explicitly give the supreme court the powers this particular bunch of rightwing radicals has assumed for themselves. They didn’t say there should be only nine of them, or that they should serve until they die.So if Democrats, and a handful of Republicans, are truly interested in defending democracy, it’s time to rein in the rightwing supremes who have used the court to grab power for themselves, ignoring their own court precedents and culture.At the very least, they could introduce term limits and allow each president the pick of two justices in each term.The preamble to the constitution talks about “a more perfect union”, as if the American idea is a work in progress, not regress.It’s time for fundamental reform of American democracy – including the supreme court – before the radical right steals that democracy away forever.
      Richard Wolffe is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS supreme courtOpinionLaw (US)RepublicansUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Alarm as US supreme court takes a hatchet to church-state separation

      by

      Alarm as US supreme court takes a hatchet to church-state separation A series of court decisions has raised fears that the conservative majority are forcing religion back into the US political systemWhen America’s highest court ended the constitutional right to abortion after half a century, Jeff Landry, the attorney general of Louisiana, knew whom he wanted to thank.“This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice in it and be glad,” he said in an official statement. “Today, along with millions across Louisiana and America, I rejoice with my departed mom and the unborn children with her in Heaven!”The US supreme court is letting prayer back in public schools. This is unsettling | Moira DoneganRead moreThe southern state’s top law enforcement official was not the only Republican to reference God while taking a victory lap. Nor was he alone in rooting for the supreme court to continue a pattern of forcing religion back into the US political system and tearing down the wall that separates church from state.The court – said to be more pro-religion than at any time since the 1950s – wrapped up one of its most consequential and divisive terms this week. Critics lamented a string of decisions that they say undermine legal traditions that prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith.In May the conservative majority ruled in favor of a Christian group that wanted to fly a flag emblazoned with a cross at Boston city hall under a programme aimed at promoting diversity and tolerance among the city’s various communities.Last month they endorsed taxpayer money paying for students to attend religious schools under a Maine tuition assistance programme in rural areas lacking nearby public high schools.Then they backed an American football coach at a Washington state public high school who was suspended by a local school district for refusing to stop leading Christian prayers with players on the field after games. This ruling cast aside a 1971 precedent, known as the Lemon test, which took into account factors such as whether the challenged government practice has a secular purpose.In all three cases, the court decided against government officials whose policies and actions were taken to avoid violating the constitution’s first amendment prohibition on government endorsement of religion, known as the “establishment clause”.In addition, although their decision last week to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that legalised abortion nationwide did not involve the establishment clause, it was celebrated as a seminal victory by religious conservatives. Mike Pence, the former vice-president and a born again Christian, called for a national ban on the procedure.Paradoxically, the trend comes against the backdrop of an increasingly diverse and secular nation.Last year a Gallup survey revealed that Americans’ membership in houses of worship dropped below 50% for the first time, and last month Gallup found that the share of US adults who believe in God – 81% – was the lowest since it first asked the question in 1944.White Christians represented 54% of the population when Barack Obama first ran for president in 2008 but now make up only 45%. Former president Donald Trump’s appointment of three rightwing justices, however, helped put the court on a very different track. And the nature of its rulings have been unusually radical and sweeping.Robert P Jones, founder and chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute thinktank in Washington, said: “What we’re seeing is a desperate power grab as the sun is setting on white Christian America. In the courts, instead of moving slowly and systematically, it’s a lurch.”Jones added: “In the meantime we’re going to be left with essentially an apartheid situation in the US where we’re going to have minority rule by this shrinking group that’s been able to seize the levers of power, even as their cultural democratic representation in the country shrinks.”The establishment clause prevents the government from establishing a state religion and bars it from favoring one faith over another. Thomas Jefferson, the third president, said in an 1802 letter the provision should represent a “wall of separation” between church and state.Some far-right Republicans now brazenly challenge that premise. The Colorado congresswoman Lauren Boebert reportedly told a church service last Sunday: “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.”In its trio of provocative decisions over the past two months, the supreme court decided that government actions intended to maintain a separation of church and state had instead infringed separate rights to free speech or the free exercise of religion, also protected by the first amendment.In the ruling on school football coach Joseph Kennedy, the conservative justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the court’s aim was to prevent public officials from being hostile to religion as they navigate the establishment clause. “In no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom violations justify actual violations of an individual’s first amendment rights,” Gorsuch opined.Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the school board in the case, said the separation was “under complete attack” by the supreme court as it favours the free exercise clause at the expense of the establishment clause, thereby raising the specter of religious favoritism.“We are at risk of taking away the religious freedom of vast numbers of Americans, which should make the founders of our country be doing somersaults in their grave and I’m sure is alarming to the world as a whole, because they see America as a beacon of light when it comes to religious freedom.”The line between church and state has been crucial, Laser argues, to advances in LGBTQ equality, racial justice, reproductive freedom, protecting religious minorities, the teaching of science in schools and safeguarding democracy itself. But all this is suddenly precarious because of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.She added: “The court pandered to a religious extremist agenda and implemented it by forcing one set of religious views on all of us and taking away the right of a woman to do with her body what her religious and moral views dictate, or taking away the right of a Maine taxpayer to not fund the teaching of a religion or religious discrimination that they disagree with, or taking away the right of a Jewish or Muslim or an atheist or a Buddhist public school student not to feel pressured to pray to play and be included in public school.”Like Jones, Laser perceives in the court’s opinions a backlash against America’s religious pluralism, racial diversity, an increase in women’s power in society and the advent of marriage equality and progress on LGBTQ equality.“This is a backlash that is meant to reinforce and cement existing power structures into our law, and it panders to a white Christian right extremist agenda. It’s incredibly divisive. It’s dangerous to our democracy in that regard.”Unusually, the nine-member supreme court currently includes six Catholics: Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, all appointed by Republican presidents, and Sonia Sotomayor, seated by a Democrat. Last year the court ruled that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could ignore city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to take in foster children.But although most of the court’s religious rights decisions in recent years involved Christian plaintiffs, it has also backed followers of other religions. These included a Muslim woman in 2015 denied a retail sales job because she wore a headscarf for religious reasons and a Buddhist death row inmate in 2019 who wanted a spiritual adviser present at his execution in Texas.The court also sided with both Christian and Jewish congregations in challenges based on religious rights to governmental restrictions such as limits on public gatherings imposed as public safety measures during the coronavirus pandemic.The New York Times reported recently: “Since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has ruled in favor of religious organizations in orally argued cases 83% [now 85%] of the time. That is far more than any court in the past seven decades – all of which were led by chief justices who, like Roberts, were appointed by Republican presidents.”The shift has been welcomed by conservative pressure groups. Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said: “The court’s recent pro-religious liberty streak shows how far it has come from earlier decades. A majority of the justices continue to demonstrate a clear record of protecting religious liberty and expression, something the constitution explicitly guarantees.”Activists and academic experts, however, warn that the emboldened supermajority of six justices is out of kilter with the will of the people on government endorsement of religion and other issues. Amanda Hollis-Brusky, an associate professor of politics at Pomona College in Claremont, California, said: “It’s paradoxical but it’s also a function of our system that creates so many avenues for minority rule and that’s something that we as Americans need to really reckon with: whether this 18th-century system still works for us in the 21st century.”TopicsUS constitution and civil libertiesUS politicsUS supreme courtChristianityReligionLaw (US)featuresReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court has declared war on the Earth’s future | Kate Aronoff

      by

      The US supreme court has declared war on the Earth’s futureKate AronoffIn a major environmental case, the court has made clear that it would rather represent the interests of corporations and the super-rich than the needs and desires of the vast majority of Americans – or people on Earth In remarks to the first Earth Day gathering in 1970, the Maine senator Edmund Muskie made the case for the Clean Air Act – a bill he helped draft – in stark terms. “There is no space command center, ready to give us precise instruction and alternate solutions for survival on our spaceship Earth,” he told the crowd. “Our nation – and our world – hang together by tenuous bonds which are strained as they have never been strained before – and as they must never be strained again. We cannot survive an undeclared war on our future.”In its Thursday ruling on West Virginia v EPA – in line with a string of decisions that will make life here more dangerous – the US supreme court all but declared that war, curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate power plants under a provision of the Clean Air Act and – more worryingly – striking an opening blow to the government’s ability to do its job.It hasn’t done so alone. The foundations for today’s ruling, like the other disastrous ones delivered this term, were laid well before Muskie gave his speech in Philadelphia. Along with the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act – passed during the Nixon administration – was a last gasp of the New Deal order, putting the government to work on an audacious and unprecedented task. Muskie hoped, as he said that day, that it might bring about “a society that will not tolerate slums for some and decent houses for others, rats for some and playgrounds for others, clean air for some and filth for others” through “planning more effective and just laws and more money better spent”.That approach to governance is precisely what a coterie of rightwing philanthropists and legal activists found so threatening, and why they became a core part of the right’s decades-long crusade against the kinder, bigger state.The crowning achievement of that crusade was the election of Ronald Reagan, who proved to be a useful cipher for fossil fuel-funded thinktanks and neoliberal economists to get their message out. It was none other than Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother who helped Reagan try to strip the federal government’s environmental protection apparatus for parts. As Reagan’s pick to lead the EPA, Anne M Gorsuch made it her personal mission to shrink the body tasked with enacting the Clean Air Act. She railed against what she described as a “set of commands from Congress”. Looking back on her term, Gorsuch – who slashed the agency’s budget by a quarter – took pride in having helmed the “only agency in Washington that was truly practicing New Federalism”, devolving as many of its responsibilities as possible down to the states. Following in her footsteps, Judge Gorsuch has railed against the Chevron Doctrine that’s been a main target of the conservative legal movement (not overturned today, thankfully), saying it allowed “executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power”.But the roots of this ruling run deeper than Neil Gorsuch wanting to make mom proud. Polluters have always been happy to throw small fortunes at the right’s quest for minority rule, keen to protect fossil fuel profits and their ability to dump waste into the air and water from pesky things like democracy. As Nancy MacLean writes in Democracy in Chains, Charles Koch took a special interest in destroying public education, thus maintaining de facto segregation, before leading the charge against climate policy at every level of government. He continues to be a generous funder of the Federalist Society, an instrumental force in building and filling the pipeline of clerks, judges and cases that has created the judicial branch as we know it, and rulings like the one that overturned Roe v Wade last week. Secretive dark-money outfits like Donors Trust, as well as Chevron and the Scaife Foundation – furnished by old oil and aluminum money – have joined him.West Virginia v EPA itself was brought with the help of the Republican Attorneys General Association, a network of state attorneys general whose own funders include the country’s biggest fossil fuel companies and the beleaguered coal barons who had the most to lose from the modest power plant regulations. They also spent $150,000 sponsoring Trump’s rally on 6 January.The interests of the country’s wealthiest residents and corporations are at odds with the vast majority of people who live here. Luckily for the right, a political system designed by slaveholders provides an easy on ramp to concretize minority rule, encasing their power within definitionally undemocratic institutions. With a young, ideological rightwing majority on the court, there’s no telling how far they might go. And there’s not much that can stop them.Gorsuch, ironically, put it well in his concurring opinion. But the line applies better to him and his colleagues than to the federal bureaucrats he was railing against: “a republic – a thing of the people – would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable ‘ministers’.”
      Kate Aronoff is a staff writer at the New Republic and the author of Overheated: How Capitalism Broke the Planet – And How We Fight Back
      TopicsEnvironmentOpinionUS politicsUS supreme courtUS Environmental Protection AgencyLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Anti-abortion movement achieved goal of reversing Roe – but it is far from done

      by

      Anti-abortion movement achieved goal of reversing Roe – but it is far from done A total end to abortion in the US is the next goal – and how the movement aims to accomplish that depends on who you askThe anti-abortion movement has historically been among the best organized factions in American politics, and for decades has had a seemingly singular goal: overturn Roe v Wade.Last week, that was accomplished and as the anti-abortion movement celebrated its victory via the US supreme court, one question has emerged: what will they do next?The court’s conservative supermajority reversed the landmark 1973 decision, which had granted US women the federal right to terminate a pregnancy. The end to the constitutional right almost immediately led more than half a dozen states to ban the procedure. In the coming weeks and months, more than half of US states are expected to institute severe restrictions or outright bans.But that does not mean the end of the movement. Far from it, in fact.“There still is a singular goal,” said Mary Ziegler, a historian of abortion laws in the US, a visiting law professor at Harvard, and recent author of Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment. That goal “has never been the overruling of Roe” but fetal personhood – a legal concept that would establish “some kind of recognition of fetal rights”.Global healthcare groups and human rights advocates have called the US court’s decision “an unconscionable attack” on the health and rights of US women and girls, warned it will cause a global chilling effect on reproductive healthcare, and that abortion bans and forced birth will exacerbate already egregious maternal mortality disparities in the US.Nevertheless, the anti-abortion movement has made clear its work is not done. But how to set about achieving the next goal – a total end to abortion in the US – depends on who you ask.Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former liberal supreme court justice and famous supporter of reproductive rights, had argued Roe provided opponents of abortion, “a target to aim at relentlessly”.With the landmark case no longer an impediment to anti-abortion ambitions, “there’s much more of a kind of free-for-all about how you should achieve personhood”, Ziegler said. Now, the once rigidly cohesive movement is wrestling with the best way forward.In Georgia, where a ban on abortion at six weeks gestation is likely to go into effect, anti-abortion leaders immediately called on the Republican governor, Brian Kemp, to impanel to pass a “personhood” amendment to the state’s constitution.Such a law would imbue fertilized eggs with the rights of people, ban embryo selection for in vitro fertilization, and call into question treatment for ectopic pregnancies (in which an embryo implants outside the uterus and is never viable).“We are petitioning him to call a special legislative session,” said Zemmie Fleck, executive director for Georgia Right to Life. “Brian Kemp says he is pro-life, and if he is truly pro-life, then we’re saying this is your time to protect every innocent human life.”Fleck also opposes emergency contraception and some forms of birth control, said there should be no exemptions to allow abortions for rape, incest or fetal abnormalities, and that ectopic pregnancies should be “reimplanted” – though no such procedure exists, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Whether Georgia Right to Life will endorse prosecuting women, Fleck said, is something the group is now actively considering.“The fact someone is intentionally taking a life is a huge consideration, because we have laws in Georgia that pertain to someone who murders someone,” said Fleck. “But again [we] do not have a strict position statement.”However, anti-abortion campaigners’ strategy in Georgia is just one of many to emerge in the days leading up to and following Roe’s reversal.Former vice-president Mike Pence called for a national abortion ban. The anti-abortion group National Right to Life (NRL) issued model legislation to ban abortion except to save a woman’s life. It also suggested states ban “giving instructions over the telephone, internet or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortion”, a suggestion with enormous free speech implications.Anti-abortion leaders in several states called for constitutional amendments to clarify there is no right to abortion, such as in Alaska and Kentucky. West Virginia pioneered this path before the fall of Roe, and Kansas voters are already scheduled to cast ballots on a similar measure on 2 August.Meanwhile, the largest US anti-abortion online media site, Live Action, has been furiously fundraising to “cut through the lies about what the ending of Roe really means for children, women, and families”. One email argued treatment for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage will remain legal, although reproductive rights advocates said access to such procedures is will probably diminish when obstetricians and gynecologists fear prosecution.Addia Wuchner, executive director of Kentucky Right to Life, argued assertions that anti-abortion activists want to ban some forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization and “monitor ovulation” were not true.“These are the great lies of an industry – I know they want to be called a healthcare service – that has made great profits off the back of women,” Wuchner said about abortion providers, such as obstetricians and gynecologists.Similarly, Wuchner said concerns about the right to contraception and same-sex marriage being overturned in the courts are “blown out of proportion”. Kentucky right to life is neither working to ensure access to birth control, nor to “make it illegal”, she said.When the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas explicitly stated the court should “reconsider” cases that established same-sex marriage, same-sex intimacy and the right to contraception. Thomas’s opinion, advocates fear, was an invitation for such rights to be challenged.Debates about how to enforce abortion bans have also emerged. Some progressive prosecutors have made national headlines for refusing to enforce abortion bans. However, conservative local prosecutors have also vowed to vigorously investigate alleged abortion ban violations, such as Benton county, Arkansas, prosecuting attorney Nathan Smith.“We’ll approach it like any other potential crime,” said Smith, who sent a letter to a local Planned Parenthood affiliate assuring them he would seek criminal charges. “If somebody reports an initial violation of the statute, law enforcement will investigate it, and we’ll proceed on a case by case basis like anything else”.In the chaos that has followed the Dobbs decision, the long-term direction of the movement is difficult to predict, Ziegler said, though one aim remains – a total ban on abortion.“Ultimately, the end goal is the same for everybody,” Ziegler said.TopicsUS supreme courtAbortionWomenLaw (US)US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More