Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘An abomination’: Pelosi leads outcry on supreme court draft abortion ruling

      by

      ‘An abomination’: Pelosi leads outcry on supreme court draft abortion rulingSpeaker warns scrapping Roe v Wade would be ‘greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years’ as AOC calls for Senate reform

      US politics – live coverage
      Supporters of abortion rights reacted with outrage to the leak on Monday night of a supreme court decision overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which has safeguarded the right till now.According to Politico, the draft ruling, written by Samuel Alito, is supported by Clarence Thomas and the three conservative justices appointed by Donald Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.It would also overturn Planned Parenthood v Casey, a 1992 decision which upheld Roe.Supreme court voted to overturn Roe v Wade abortion law, leaked draft opinion reportedly showsRead moreNancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House, said: “If the report is accurate, the supreme court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans.“The Republican-appointed justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history,” Pelosi said.“Several of these conservative justices, who are in no way accountable to the American people, have lied to the US Senate, ripped up the constitution and defiled both precedent and the supreme court’s reputation.”Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator and former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said an “extremist supreme court” was poised to “impose its far-right, unpopular views on the entire country.“It’s time for the millions who support the constitution and abortion rights to stand up and make their voices heard,” she said. “We’re not going back – not ever.”If confirmed, the ruling would make abortion rights a state matter. As many as 26 Republican-run states are poised to end or restrict access.Congress could codify Roe into law but it would require scrapping the filibuster, the Senate rule that requires a 60-vote majority for most legislation. That seems unlikely, given the 50-50 split in the chamber and opposition from moderate Democrats such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia.Republican senators including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who have expressed concern over abortion rights, were slower to react to the Politico report than their Democratic counterparts. Their support would be needed for filibuster reform.Among progressives, outrage was fierce.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York congresswoman, tied her outrage to calls for Senate reform and to impeach Thomas, the senior conservative on the court, over the political activities of his wife around the January 6 insurrection.Tell us: have you had to travel to another US state for an abortion? Read moreOcasio-Cortez also warned of possible court moves on other hitherto protected rights.“[The court] isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage and civil rights.“Manchin is blocking Congress codifying Roe. House has seemingly forgotten about Clarence Thomas. These two points must change.”Ocasio-Cortez also took aim at Joe Biden, calling for the use of executive actions.“People elected Democrats precisely so we could lead in perilous moments like these – to codify Roe, hold corruption accountable and have a president who uses his legal authority to break through congressional gridlock on items from student debt to climate. It’s high time we do it.“If we don’t, what message does that send? We can’t sit around, finger-point and hand-wring as people’s futures and equality are on the line. It’s time to be decisive, lead with confidence, fight for a prosperous future for all and protect the vulnerable. Leave it all on the field.”Campaigners were equally vocal.The National Women’s Law Center called the “language in the draft opinion … outrageous, irresponsible and shocking”. Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the women’s health provider Planned Parenthood, called the draft ruling “horrifying and unprecedented”.Laphonza Butler, president of the advocacy group Emily’s List, pointed to the effect the draft ruling could have on Democratic campaigning and turnout in the November midterm elections.Supreme court abortion law leak: what happened and why does it matter?Read more“For years, anti-choice politicians have worked overtime to strip away our fundamental rights and give government control of critical healthcare decisions. They are working to ban abortion, full stop. This was the plan all along.“It’s past time to vote out every official who stands against the pro-choice majority.“We will fight harder than ever to make them pay, by electing more Democratic pro-choice women at all levels of government who will protect our rights and ensure that our abortion rights do not depend on our zip code or our financial situation. And we will work to vote every one of them out.”Cecile Richards, formerly president of Planned Parenthood, pointed to polling which shows clear support for abortion rights.“This is not what the American people want,” she said. “This is Republican politicians putting government in charge of your pregnancy. Full stop.”TopicsAbortionUS supreme courtUS politicsNancy PelosiAlexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocratsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Tuesday briefing: Bombshell leak that could indicate the end of Roe v Wade

      by

      Tuesday briefing: Bombshell leak that could indicate the end of Roe v WadeIn today’s newsletter: seismic news from the US which could mean 50 years of the right to an abortion are at an end

      Sign up here for our new daily newsletter, First Edition
      Good morning. A truly seismic story has broken in the US overnight: the leak of a draft majority opinion which appears to show that the supreme court has privately voted to overturn half a century of protection for abortion rights.The leak, to the Politico website, was immediately the subject of intense textual and legal analysis by US journalists and experts trying to corroborate its authenticity. It would be the worst security breach in the court’s history.Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am.But while caution is obviously the right approach on such a momentous story, there was every sign – from the document’s formatting and footnotes to the distinctive tone of conservative author Justice Samuel Alito – that it is legitimate. There was no comment from the supreme court itself.The court could still vote the other way. But if the end of Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which enshrined the constitutional right to an abortion, does happen, it would be news of generational significance for American women and a huge blow for supporters of reproductive rights around the world.With protesters immediately descending on the supreme court building to voice their fury over the news, today’s newsletter explains what’s at stake, and what happens next. That’s right after the headlines.Five big stories
      Asylum | Priti Patel may face a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of Ukrainians stuck in a “chaotic” visa backlog as they seek to come to the UK. Only 15% of the 74,700 Ukrainians to apply under the sponsorship route have made it to Britain.
      Politics | Councillors in the UK face abuse, threats and intimidation as part of a “truly toxic” atmosphere that discourages new candidates, local government bodies have warned.
      Housing | The government could revive Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme to make up to 2.5m households eligible to buy their homes at a 70% discount. Housing experts said the proposals risked reducing the stock of affordable homes.
      Suisse Secrets | Swiss politicians are to debate the country’s controversial banking secrecy law amid ongoing pressure to scrap rules allowing the prosecution of whistleblowers. The debate follows a leak of data on potentially criminal Credit Suisse clients to a consortium of outlets including the Guardian.
      Theatre | The curtain will come down on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s West End musical Cinderella less than a year after its opening, causing dismay among some cast members who had no notice of the closure. The show has suffered heavy losses during its lockdown-affected run.
      In depth: the end of the US right to an abortion?What happened?A draft supreme court opinion, apparently by conservative justice Samuel Alito, was leaked to Politico in a story published late Monday night. It appears to show that the court is preparing to rule in favour of Mississippi in a case over whether the state can outlaw nearly all abortions at and after 15 weeks gestation – a direct challenge to the guarantee of abortion rights enshrined in Roe v Wade.The 98-page document, which includes 118 footnotes and a 31-page appendix on historical state abortion laws, was published in full. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” it says. “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.”It says Roe v Wade “must be overruled” and goes on: “It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”What is Roe v Wade?Roe v Wade is the court decision which protects the right to an abortion in the US up to the point a foetus can survive outside the womb, widely regarded as 24 weeks gestation. A full term pregnancy is 39 weeks gestation. The 1973 ruling is among the most controversial in American history and has been subjected to many legal challenges over the year – but survived until now.For more details on the challenge to the law currently under consideration, take a look at Jessica Glenza’s explainer from December.What does the leak tell us about the court’s decision?While the opinion is purportedly a draft, it would have been written following a vote on the question at hand by the court – and indicates that a majority of justices reached the same view as Alito. Politico reported that four other Republican-appointed justices supported the decision, meaning a total of at least five votes on the 9-member court.After such a vote, a justice is assigned the majority opinion and then writes a draft, which is then circulated and subject to edits. It is possible for changes to be made to the opinion, or even for votes to change, before the court’s final ruling, which is expected in the next couple of months.How significant is a leak of a draft supreme court ruling?The Guardian’s Washington correspondent David Smith called the leak “stunning and unprecedented” and said it would be “the worst security breach” in the court’s history. Theories abounded over the likely source of the leak, from a clerk for a liberal justice hoping to raise public pressure on the court before it publishes its decision to a conservative who wants to soften the impact of the decision when it comes – in other words, nobody knows.A tweet from Scotusblog, a respected news and analysis site, said that it was “impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.”How did reproductive-rights advocates react to the news?With fury. A BuzzFeed reporter posted a video of about 200 protesters outside the court chanting slogans like “abortion is healthcare” and “my body, my choice”. Another video showed somebody urging attendees: “If you feel like fucking screaming, then just scream”.What about politicians?Democrats said that overturning Roe v Wade would be a catastrophe. They were led by House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, who issued a joint statement saying such a move would be “an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history”.They also immediately sought to make Roe v Wade an issue for crucial upcoming midterm elections: Christie Roberts, Democratic senatorial campaign executive director, said that “At this critical moment, we must protect and expand Democrats’ Senate majority with the power to confirm or reject supreme court justices”. Republicans by turns praised the apparent vote and condemned the leak itself.Now what?It is worth reiterating that it is still possible that votes could change and mean that the apparent draft opinion remains just that – a draft. But if the supreme court does rule along the lines suggested by the leaked document, the consequences will be rapid and hugely consequential.Because the US congress has never enshrined the right to terminate a pregnancy, the overturning of Roe v Wade would mean individual states can immediately make their own decisions over the way forward. Twenty-six of them would be expected to move quickly to do so, with many having “trigger” laws on the books which would automatically come into effect in those circumstances. That means that women in those states would immediately face severe restrictions on their ability to have an abortion, and the US would become one of only four countries to curtail that right in nearly 30 years.What else we’ve been reading
      If you’re working your way through Netflix’s final dump of Ozark episodes, you’ll enjoy Stuart Jeffries’ farewell to “some of the most rewarding TV around”. And if you didn’t spend half the weekend gorging the lot of it, rest assured: it sticks the landing.
      As the question of how the war in Ukraine will end becomes more pressing, Orysia Lutseyvych of Chatham House argues that “a long-term simmering conflict that locks Ukraine in a grey zone of instability” is no better than defeat.
      Simon Hattenstone spoke to Graham Nash – as in, Crosby, Stills and … – about sex, drugs, rock’n’roll, and why he’d kill Vladimir Putin given half a chance. Too many amazing quotes to list, so click here instead.
      Tens of thousands of people have faced deportation from the US over convictions which were later overturned. Sam Levin’s piece on Sandra Castaneda, who spent 19 years in prison for a murder she didn’t commit and is still facing deportation, justifies the term ‘Kafkaesque’.
      Why is it so hard to give up sugar? This long read by Raj Telhan, a doctor, is both absorbing personal history and examination of the roots of our obsession.
      Sport
      Snooker | Ronnie O’Sullivan beat Judd Trump 18-13 to win the snooker world championship. O’Sullivan overcame a spirited comeback from Trump to go level with Stephen Hendry’s record of seven world titles.
      Football | Russia’s bid to host the men’s European Championship has been rejected and their team will be replaced by Portugal in the women’s tournament this summer, Uefa said.
      Athletics | Sir Mo Farah said his career as an elite athlete is “for sure” over after a shock defeat by a club runner in a 10,000 metre race on Monday. The amateur who won, Ellis Cross, had been turned down for an elite spot in the race.
      The front pagesThe Guardian leads with “Patel faces mass legal action from Ukrainians stuck in visa backlog”. The Telegraph also focuses on the war in Ukraine with “Johnson: Ukraine is ready for its finest hour”. The Mail has “Where have our GPs gone?”, while the Times goes with “Rising inflation to blow £7,000 hole in pensions”. The i newspaper has “Tories hit by infighting on eve of election” and the Daily Express leads with “Boris’ right to buy plan is a vote winner”. The Mirror reports on the Madeline McCann disappearance with “Maddie prime suspect ‘a danger to society’”. The Financial Times has “Johnson enlisted for last-ditch bid to wrestle Arm into listing”. And the Sun says “Queen’s guards let fake priest stay night”.Today in FocusThe Wagatha Christie case – part twoAs the so-called ‘Wagatha Christie’ trial approaches, neither side is backing down from a case that has legal fees running into the millions, says media editor Jim Waterson.Cartoon of the day | Martin RowsonThe UpsideA bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all badGood news has been thin on the ground in Ukraine these past few months – but one bright spot has been the generosity of those horrified by the actions of Russia and what it has meant for the citizens of the country. Take this story about a nursing home in Donbas that the Guardian first wrote about in April – that story inspired a Ukrainian expat in New Orleans to raise the funds necessary to rehome the elderly residents in a disused school. “The biggest chunk of the money will go towards making the accommodation suitable for the old people,” said the nursing home’s director, Ievhen Tkachov.Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every SundayTopicsAbortionFirst EditionRoe v WadeUS politicsUS supreme courtHealthLaw (US)newslettersReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Proud Boys member pleads guilty for role in US Capitol attack

      by

      Proud Boys member pleads guilty for role in US Capitol attackPlea agreement filed in federal court calls for Louis Enrique Colon to admit to a single felony charge and cooperate with prosecutors A member of the far-right Proud Boys group on Wednesday pleaded guilty to obstructing police officers when he joined the 6 January 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol by supporters of then-president Donald Trump, in their attempt to overturn his election defeat.The plea agreement filed in federal court in Washington, DC, calls for Louis Enrique Colon of Missouri to admit to a single felony charge and cooperate with prosecutors.Colon admitted to crossing police barricades during the riot before climbing a wall to gain access to a higher level of the Capitol.While inside the Capitol building, Colon used his hands and a chair to obstruct police officers who were trying to lower retractable doors to stop rioters from streaming into the building.The attack followed a rally led by Trump near the White House, in which he urged thousands gathered to advance to the Capitol and “fight like hell” while both chambers of the US Congress were convening to certify Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 election.Biden’s win was certified in the early hours of the following day after lawmakers, staff and journalists had fled for their lives during the deadly riot at the Capitol.Colon, 45, was charged in February 2021, along with four other members of the Kansas City metro chapter of the Proud Boys group. He is the first defendant in that case to plead guilty.A judge had imposed monitoring conditions on Colon while he awaited trial. Colon will be sentenced later this year, and he faces a statutory maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.He will probably receive a reduced sentence because of his admission of responsibility and cooperation.Colon was not charged in the same conspiracy case as Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys chairman and one of the most high-profile of the 800 people facing criminal charges relating to the riot.Colon’s plea comes two weeks after a Proud Boys leader, Charles Donohoe, pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding, and assaulting and impeding police officers.Meanwhile, in a different criminal case, one of the dozens of police officers injured during the insurrection testified on Wednesday that he didn’t punch or pick a fight with a retired New York police officer charged with attacking the officer.Thomas Webster, whose trial on an assault charge started this week, claims he was acting in self-defense when he tackled Metropolitan police department officer Noah Rathbun outside the Capitol on 6 January 2021.Rathbun said he reached out with an open left hand and pushed Webster in the face after the New York man shoved a bike rack at him. Rathbun said he was trying to move Webster back from a security perimeter that officers were struggling to maintain behind rows of bike racks.“It’s unfortunate to be in the nation’s capital and be treated like that by another citizen,” Rathbun said during the second day of Webster’s trial.Videos shown by prosecutors depict Webster shoving a bike rack at Rathbun before swinging a flag pole at the officer in a downward chopping motion, striking a metal barricade in front of the officer.After Rathbun grabbed the broken pole and retreated, Webster charged at the officer and tackled him to the ground.Rathbun said he started choking and couldn’t breathe when Webster grabbed his gas mask and the chin strap pressed against the officer’s neck.Separately from the hundreds of criminal prosecutions, a special House of Representatives committee is investigating any links between Trump, his White House team, congressional Republicans and the insurrection.TopicsUS Capitol attackThe far rightLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court’s coming abortion ruling may spark a new era of US unrest | Stephen Marche

      by

      The supreme court’s coming abortion ruling may spark a new era of US unrestStephen MarcheThere’s a strong risk that the case will spark anger and violence – whether the court overturns Roe v Wade or not Civil wars don’t always begin with gunfire. Sometimes civil wars begin with learned arguments. In April 1861, Confederate forces shot on Fort Sumter, but at the time even Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, had doubts about whether the event mattered all that much. It was, he claimed, “either the beginning of a fearful war, or the end of a political contest”; he could not say which. During the decades that preceded the assault on Fort Sumter, complex legal and political fissures had been working their way through the United States, slowly rendering the country ungovernable and opening the path to mass violence.The US is the middle of another such legal crackup, this time over the question of abortion. The courts today face the crisis American courts faced in the 1850s: is there any way to make laws for a country with furious and widening differences in fundamental values?Tell us: have you had to travel to another US state for an abortion? Read moreThis summer, when the US supreme court makes its long-expected decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it will inevitably alienate half the country. In anticipation of the overturning of Roe v Wade, several states have passed draconian anti-abortion laws, in the expectation that they won’t be challenged. Idaho has already imitated the Texas law which allows private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman procure an abortion, a law that the supreme court has refused to overturn.Two American blocs are emerging. In the south and parts of the west and midwest, abortion laws are about to return to where they were in the 1950s. The rest of the country has already set itself in opposition to these laws. The division will not stay considerate and respectful, particularly in areas where liberal and conservative states neighbour one another. In anticipation of a post-Roe world and a flood of out-of-state patients, abortion providers have established a series of abortion clinics in Illinois, across the river from more conservative Missouri. Oregon recently invested in a $15m fund for medical refugees traveling from Idaho for abortions.There are, right from the beginning, two reactions to the new division. The first is the use of force, as in the case of a 26-year-old Texan woman, Lizelle Herrera, who was recently arrested for murder for allegedly self-inducing an abortion. The local district attorney’s office ultimately released her without charge, explaining that “in reviewing applicable Texas law, it is clear that Ms Herrera cannot and should not be prosecuted for the allegation against her”. To be clear, current applicable Texas law doesn’t apply to Herrera’s case. When it does, they will charge people like her with murder. How far will the forces opposing abortion take a custodial approach? Do they want to set up a DEA-style birth police? Any enforcement mechanism will also probably be highly ineffective. After billions of dollars spent on the war on drugs, the average price of a hit of heroin on the street is between $5 and $20. Women with means who want abortions are going to get them.Texas advocates file new legal challenge to near-total abortion ban Read moreThe second reaction to an America divided along abortion lines will be interstate conflict. Missouri is leading the way here. A recent bill proposed a travel abortion ban, explicitly focused on clinics in Illinois. This looks, on the face of it, like a straight violation of the 14th amendment, but the supreme court is a partisan institution and interpretation of the constitution now follows the partisan affiliation of the justices. They’ll come up with something.No matter what decision the supreme court makes, civil unrest will follow. Anti-abortion activists will feel that their political system has failed them no matter what the court does. They have sacrificed everything – the dignity and integrity of their party, the value of their national institutions – in the name of getting enough justices on the court to enact this one legal change. If the court upholds Roe v Wade, they will quite naturally feel betrayed. If the court overturns Roe v Wade, they will discover a fact the new Texas law has inadvertently revealed: that the criminalization of abortion doesn’t work. Their basic assumption, that the government can outlaw abortion, is simply untrue. At first, the Texas law appeared to cause abortions to decline by half. But quickly the numbers reasserted themselves. The decline is less that ten percent. Women went out of state or bought chemical abortions. The overturning of Roe v Wade will makes women’s medical treatment more difficult and impersonal and humiliating. It won’t change the abortion rate significantly.Meanwhile, from the other side, an overturning of Roe v Wade will be experienced as oppression pure and simple, especially given the number of justices appointed by presidents who did not receive the popular vote. In November 1860, five months before Fort Sumter, in the immediate aftermath of Lincoln’s election, a judge in South Carolina announced that the state would no longer register indictments in federal court. Andrew Magrath, in a deliberate act of rejection, removed his judicial robe and folded it over his chair. He would now serve as a justice of his state, not his country. The audience recognized the gravity of the act. As one commentator at the time noted: “Here was a great political movement precipitated, not by bloody encounters in the street or upon the field, but by a deliberate and reasoned act in the most unexpected and conservatives of all places – the United State courtroom.” From that moment on, there were two legal systems. All that remained was the war. A similar breakdown in the legal system of the United States is already apparent.Needless to say, this entire conflict is futile and stupid. Abortion in the United States is in rapid decline without the negligible effects of criminalization. The number of procedures dipped 19% between 2011 and 2017. If activists want fewer abortions, there are plenty of strategies that are vastly more effective than making them illegal. Canada, which has no federal laws of any kind on abortion, has a fraction of the abortion rate of the US.But that’s not really the point. Abortion is only a stand in for a fundamental conflict in political vision: morality against policy, community values against personal agency. There are two countries, at least, in the United States. The legal system is only catching up.
      Stephen Marche is the author, most recently, of The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future
      TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionAbortionUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘No sign Putin is serious’ about Ukraine negotiations, says Blinken – as it happened

      by

      US politics liveUS politics‘No sign Putin is serious’ about Ukraine negotiations, says Blinken – as it happened
      Senators question secretary of state
      Kamala Harris tests positive for Covid
      White House unveils latest Covid-19 strategies
      Supreme court justices hint at support for Biden immigration policy
      Russia-Ukraine war – follow live updates
      Sign up to receive First Thing – our daily briefing by email
       Updated 39m agoRichard LuscombeTue 26 Apr 2022 16.13 EDTFirst published on Tue 26 Apr 2022 09.42 EDT01:03Show key events onlyLive feedShow key events onlyFrom More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Overcoming Trumpery review: recipes for reform Republicans will never allow

      by

      Overcoming Trumpery review: recipes for reform Republicans will never allow The depth of Trump’s corruption is familiar but still astonishing when presented in the whole. Alas, his party shares itThe great abuses of power by Richard Nixon’s administration which are remembered collectively as Watergate had one tremendous benefit: they inspired a raft of legislation which significantly strengthened American democracy.The Presidency of Donald Trump review: the first draft of historyRead moreThis new book from the Brookings Institution, subtitled How to Restore Ethics, The Rule of Law and Democracy, recalls those far-away days of a functioning legislative process.The response to Watergate gave us real limits on individual contributions to candidates and political action committees (Federal Election Campaign Act); a truly independent Office of Special Counsel (Ethics in Government Act); inspector generals in every major agency (Inspector General Act); a vastly more effective freedom of information process; and a Sunshine Law which enshrined the novel notion that the government should be “the servant of the people” and “fully accountable to them”.Since then, a steadily more conservative supreme court has eviscerated all the most important campaign finance reforms, most disastrously in 2010 with Citizens United, and in 2013 destroyed the most effective parts of the Voting Rights Act. Congress let the special counsel law lapse, partly because of how Ken Starr abused it when he investigated Bill Clinton.The unraveling of Watergate reforms was one of many factors that set the stage for the most corrupt US government of modern times, that of Donald Trump.Even someone as inured as I am to Trump’s crimes can still be astonished when all the known abuses are catalogued in one volume. What the authors of this book identify as “The Seven Deadly Sins of Trumpery” include “Disdain for Ethics, Assault on the rule of law, Incessant lying and disinformation, Shamelessness” and, of course, “Pursuit of personal and political interest”.The book identifies Trump’s original sin as his refusal to put his businesses in a blind trust, which led to no less than 3,400 conflicts of interest. It didn’t help that the federal conflict of interests statute specifically exempts the president. Under the first president of modern times with no interest in “the legitimacy” or “the appearance of legitimacy of the presidency”, this left practically nothing off limits.The emoluments clause of the constitution forbids every government official accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” but lacks any enforcement mechanism. So a shameless president could be paid off through his hotels by everyone from the Philippines to Kuwait while the Bank of China paid one Trump company an estimated $5.4m. (As a fig leaf, Trump gave the treasury $448,000 from profits made from foreign governments during two years of his presidency, but without any accounting.)Trump even got the federal government to pay him directly, by charging the secret service $32,400 for guest rooms for a visit to Mar-a-Lago plus $17,000 a month for a cottage at his New Jersey golf club.The US Office of Special Counsel catalogued dozens of violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity by federal officials. Miscreants included Peter Navarro, Dan Scavino, Nikki Haley and most persistently Kellyanne Conway. The OSC referred its findings to Trump, who of course did nothing. Conway was gleeful.“Let me know when the jail sentence starts,” she said.There was also the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, addressing the Republican convention from a bluff overlooking Jerusalem during a mission to Israel. In a different category of corruption were the $43,000 soundproof phone booth the EPA administrator Scott Pruitt installed and the $1m the health secretary Tom Price spent on luxury travel. Those two actually resigned.The book is mostly focused on the four-year Trump crimewave. But it is bipartisan enough to spread the blame to Democrats for creating a climate in which no crime seemed too big to go un-prosecuted.Barack Obama’s strict ethics rules enforced by executive orders produced a nearly scandal-free administration. But Claire O Finkelstein and Richard W Painter argue that there was one scandal that established a terrible precedent: the decision not to prosecute anyone at the CIA for illegal torture carried out under George W Bush.This “failure of accountability” was “profoundly corrosive. The decision to ‘look forward, not back’ on torture … damaged the country’s ability to hold government officials to the constraints of the law”.However, the authors are probably a little too optimistic when they argue that a more vigorous stance might have made the Trump administration more eager to prosecute its own law breakers.The authors point out there are two things in the federal government which are even worse than the wholesale violation of ethical codes within the executive branch: the almost total absence of ethical codes within the congressional and judicial branches.The ethics manual for the House says it is “fundamental that a member … may not use his or her official position for personal gain”. But that is “virtually meaningless” became members can take actions on “industries in which they hold company stock”.Dignity in a Digital Age review: a congressman takes big tech to taskRead moreThe Senate exempts itself from ethical concerns with two brilliant words: no member can promote a piece of legislation whose “principal purpose” is “to further only his pecuniary interest”. So as long as legislation also has other purposes, personal profit is no impediment to passage.The authors argue that since the crimes of Watergate pale in comparison to the corruption of Trump, this should be the greatest opportunity for profound reform since the 1970s. But of course there is no chance of any such reform getting through this Congress, because Republicans have no interest in making government honest.Nothing tells us more about the collapse of our democracy than the primary concern of the House and Senate minority leaders, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell. Their only goal is to avoid any action that would offend the perpetrator or instigator of all these crimes. Instead of forcing him to resign the way Nixon did, these quivering men still pretend Donald Trump is the only man qualified to lead them.
      Overcoming Trumpery is published in the US by Brookings Institution Press
      TopicsBooksDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsUS political financingUS voting rightsUS constitution and civil libertiesreviewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court rules against air force officer who refused Covid vaccine

      by

      US supreme court rules against air force officer who refused Covid vaccine Majority of court sides with Pentagon over challenge by lieutenant colonel who cited religious grounds for refusal to get vaccine The supreme court has allowed the US Department of Defense to take disciplinary action against an air force lieutenant colonel who refuses to get a Covid-19 vaccine.In a brief, two-sentence ruling on Monday, a majority of the court sided with the Pentagon. Three justices in the conservative majority – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – dissented.The ruling was merely the court’s latest on challenges to Covid-19 vaccine mandates.In January, the court blocked a Biden administration requirement that employees of large businesses be vaccinated and wear masks on the job.The court ruled in March that the US navy had the authority to determine the job assignments of 35 service members who refused to get vaccinated.The case in question on Monday involved Lt Col Jonathan Dunn, previously commander of a 40-member squadron in California, according to court documents filed by the US solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar.Prelogar argued that while Dunn cited religious grounds for his refusal to get vaccinated, he did not “assert that the Covid-19 vaccine or compulsory vaccination in general is inconsistent with his Christian faith”, noting that he has received other vaccinations without objection.Dunn instead cited a speech given by Joe Biden that led him to conclude that “the vaccine ceased to be merely a medical invention and took on a symbolic and even sacramental quality”.His religion, he said, forbade him from participating in such “religious ritual”.Upon denial of his exemption request, Dunn sent to a major general “a one-word memorandum that simply read: ‘NUTS!’”.Prelogar noted that while Dunn maintains he meant no disrespect, “NUTS!” has a “well-known ‘military historical connotation’”.She cited the case of Anthony McAuliffe, a key US military officer in the second world war who responded to a German message requesting American surrender with the one-worded answer. The American officer who delivered McAuliffe’s message to German officers clarified that, “If you don’t understand what ‘nuts’ means, in plain English, it is the same as ‘Go to hell.’”The court documents say that the air force took disciplinary action against Dunn, including his removal from command and non-punitive disciplinary measures, citing his commanding officer who said he had “lost trust in [Dunn’s] leadership and judgment” due to the memorandum and that he displayed a “pattern of a lack of respect for military authority”. Prelogar said that Dunn’s actions independent of his refusal to be vaccinated warranted the measures against him.The US solicitor general also said that Dunn’s unit has to be ready to be deployed anywhere in the world with as little as three days’ notice, including countries that require proof of vaccination for entry. Prelogar also noted that the military has a long history of requiring vaccinations and currently requires nine vaccinations for service members.The deadline for air force members to get vaccinated was 2 November. In December, an air force spokesperson told NBC News that the military branch discharged 27 active-duty members who refused to get the vaccination and were not exempted. The US military that same month said 97% of its service members had received the Covid-19 vaccine.TopicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)CoronavirusUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Attempt to bar Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress can proceed, judge says

      by

      Attempt to bar Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress can proceed, judge saysFederal judge cites ‘whirlpool of colliding constitutional interests’ in allowing 14th-amendment challenge to far-right Republican An attempt to bar the far-right Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress over her support for the January 6 attack can proceed, a federal judge said.‘Election integrity summits’ aim to fire up Trump activists over big lieRead moreCiting “a whirlpool of colliding constitutional interests of public import”, Amy Totenberg of the northern district of Georgia sent the case on to a state hearing on Friday.A coalition of liberal groups is behind the challenge, citing the 14th amendment to the US constitution, passed after the civil war.The amendment says: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”Supporters of Donald Trump attacked the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, seeking to stop certification of his defeat by Joe Biden. A bipartisan Senate committee connected seven deaths to the riot. About 800 people have been charged, some with seditious conspiracy.Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection. Acquitted, he is free to run again.Organisers of events in Washington on January 6 have tied Greene to their efforts. Greene has denied such links and said she does not encourage violence.In October, however, she told a radio show: “January 6 was just a riot at the Capitol and if you think about what our Declaration of Independence says, it says to overthrow tyrants.”In the immediate aftermath of the Capitol attack, Greene was one of 147 Republicans in Congress who objected to results in battleground states, an effort inspired by Trump’s lies about electoral fraud.An effort to use the 14th amendment against Madison Cawthorn, an extremist from North Carolina, was unsuccessful, after a judge ruled an 1872 civil war amnesty law was not merely retroactive.In her ruling on Greene’s attempt to dismiss her challenge, on Monday, Totenberg said: “This case involves a whirlpool of colliding constitutional interests of public import. Upon a thorough analysis of each of the claims asserted in this case, the court concludes that [Greene] has not carried her burden of persuasion.”Even if a state judge rules against Greene, she could challenge the ruling. The Georgia primary is on 25 May, cutting time short. Greene seems likely to win re-election.Writing for the Guardian this month, the Georgetown University professor Thomas Zimmer said: “Greene’s position within the Republican party seems secure … in fact, Greene is the poster child of a rising group of rightwing radicals … [not] shy about their intention to purge whatever vestiges of ‘moderate’ conservatism might still exist within the Republican party.”Extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene are the future of the Republican party | Thomas ZimmerRead moreOne of the groups behind the challenge to Greene is Free Speech for the People. In January, the group’s legal director, Ron Fein, told the Guardian the group aimed to set “a line that says that just as the framers of the 14th amendment wrote and intended, you can’t take an oath to support the constitution and then facilitate an insurrection against the United States while expecting to pursue public office”.On Monday, Fein said: “We look forward to asking Representative Greene about her involvement [in January 6] under oath.”Mike Rasbury, an activist with the Bernie Sanders-affiliated Our Revolution group and a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Greene, said he was “elated” by Totenberg’s ruling.Greene, Rasbury said, “took an oath of office to protect democracy from all enemies foreign and domestic, just as I did when I became a helicopter pilot for the US army in Vietnam. However, she has flippantly ignored this oath and, based on her role in the January 6 insurrection, is disqualified … from holding any future public office”.TopicsRepublicansThe far rightUS Capitol attackUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsUS constitution and civil libertiesnewsReuse this content More