Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge blocks Texas from investigating parents of transgender children

      by

      Judge blocks Texas from investigating parents of transgender childrenThe halt follows an ACLU lawsuit that accused Greg Abbott of trampling ‘on the constitutional rights of transgender children’ A Texas judge has temporarily blocked the state from investigating parents who provide their transgender children with gender-affirming medical treatments, following a hearing in which one state inspector said they were told to pursue parents even when they did not think abuse had occurred.The temporary halt, issued by a district court judge on Friday, follows a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the state’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, who the organization accused of trampling “on the constitutional rights of transgender children, their parents, and professionals who provide vital care to transgender children”.‘When a child tells you who they are, believe them’: the psychologist taking on Texas’ anti-trans policiesRead moreJudge Amy Clark Meachum held a hearing on Friday as she considered a request to temporarily block Abbot’s order. Randa Mulanax, an employee of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), was the first witness to testify.Mulanax said that she has resigned from the department because of concerns about the directive, and said cases involving gender confirming care were being treated differently than others. Mulanax said her agency did not give workers the option to determine a reported case of child abuse involving a transgender child was “priority none” status, meaning it did not merit investigation.“We had to be investigating these cases,” Mulanax testified, adding that she has handed in her resignation notice because she believes the directive is “unethical”.Such investigations could remove trans children from families and jail parents who provide them with procedures.The hearing is part of pushback by LGBTQ+ groups against conservative politicians’ proposals in dozens of US states to criminalize gender-affirming procedures for trans youth in the run up to midterm elections.Abbott ordered doctors, nurses and teachers to report such care or face criminal penalties.The ACLU asked Meachum to impose a statewide injunction on investigations by the DFPS into what the civil rights group said was “medically necessary gender-affirming care”.Meachum last week temporarily blocked an investigation into the parents of a 16-year-old transgender girl, saying it would make them the subject of “an unfounded child abuse investigation”.Opponents of gender-transitioning procedures say minors are too young to make life-altering decisions about their bodies. Advocates argue that it is crucial care that has been politically weaponized, impacting the mental health of trans youth who suffer a disproportionately high rate of suicide.More than 60 major US businesses, including Apple and Johnson & Johnson, signed their names to an advertisement that ran in Texas on Friday opposing Abbott’s directive, saying “discrimination is bad for business”.The DFPS has opened nine child welfare inquiries subject to Abbott’s directive, a spokesman said.Megan Mooney, a clinical psychologist, said the governor’s directive has caused “outright panic” among mental health professionals and families of transgender youth.“Parents are terrified that [child protective services] is going to come and question their children, or take them away,” Mooney testified. “Mental health professionals are scared that we’re either violating our standards and professional codes of conduct, or in violation of the law.”TopicsTexasLGBT rightsUS politicsLaw (US)Children’s healthnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Why dissent by conservative justices in voting rights cases is alarming

      by

      Why dissent by conservative justices in voting rights cases is alarmingDemocrats won two major victories, but a dissenting opinion from three of the supreme court’s justices set off alarms bells Hello, and Happy Thursday,It’s no secret that the US supreme court has been hostile to voting rights recently. But two recent decisions, I think, highlight why what the court is doing is both alarming and inconsistent.Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardian’s Fight to vote newsletterOn Monday evening, the court gave Democrats two major victories, blocking Republican attempts to impose unfair congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. In both states the respective state supreme courts had redrawn them to be fairer – decisions which the US supreme court upheld. Yet even though legal experts expected this outcome, a dissenting opinion from three of the court’s conservative justices set off loud alarm bells for me.The dissent was authored by Justice Samuel Alito (and joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in the North Carolina case). The three justices wrote that they would have blocked the state supreme court maps from going into effect. They pointed to a provision in the US constitution, the elections clause, that explicitly gives state legislatures the authority to set the “time, manner, and place” of federal elections. That provision, they said, likely means that state supreme courts can’t impose a new map, even if the one the legislature adopts violates a state’s constitution.“If the language of the Elections Clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” Alito wrote.Alito’s dissent embraces an idea called the “independent state legislature doctrine”. Increasingly popular among conservative litigants, it argues that state courts cannot second-guess election rules – whether it be a gerrymandered map or a new voter ID law – passed by a legislature. It would give state legislatures enormous power over elections.The theory largely fell into disuse in the early 20th century, according to a paper by Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University. The supreme court has also repeatedly rejected the idea over the last century. But in a handful of cases during the 2020 election, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas all expressed interest in the idea.The focus on this idea is also notable because it is directly at odds with what Alito and other conservative justices have said recently.Reading Alito’s dissent, I couldn’t help but think of a majority opinion that he, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh signed onto in 2019. In that case, called Rucho v Common Cause, they were part of a majority that said federal courts could not do anything to stop partisan gerrymandering. But, Roberts wrote, state laws and state courts could continue to police it. It was a clear instruction to litigants that they should take their cases about partisan gerrymandering to state courts, which is exactly what they did in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.Now, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch – and maybe Kavanaugh – seem to be backing away from that position.It’s not the only area of voting rights law where the supreme court has pulled a kind of bait-and-switch recently. In 2013, when a majority of the court, including Roberts, Alito and Thomas, gutted the the heart of the Voting Rights Act, designed to prevent voting discrimination, it pointed to another provision of the law, section 2, as a tool litigants could continue to use. But recently, the court has been slowly chipping away at section 2, too, making it harder to challenge laws under it and stepping in to overrule lower courts that have relied on it to block discriminatory maps. Taken together, the cases show how the supreme court is slowly attacking laws that are supposed to prevent Americans against voting discrimination.One other piece of Alito’s dissent deserves attention because it is, I would argue, hypocritical. In two short paragraphs, Alito explained why he didn’t think it would be a big deal for a court to step in and order North Carolina to adopt new congressional districts after candidates had begun filing for office ahead of the state’s 17 May primary. The public interest favored such a reset, he said, to ensure that districts were constitutional. All candidates would have to do, he said, was file a new form indicating they were running in the districts the legislature, not the state supreme court, had adopted. “That would not have been greatly disruptive,” he wrote.But last month, Alito took the opposite approach when he agreed with an opinion by Kavanaugh saying it would be too disruptive to impose new, non-discriminatory maps for Alabama’s 24 May primary – a week later than the one in North Carolina. Kavanaugh wrote: “Running elections statewide is extraordinarily complicated and difficult. Those elections require enormous advance preparations by state and local officials, and pose significant logistical challenges.”That argument prompted a furious response from Justice Elena Kagan, who said discrimination in Alabama should not get a free pass merely because elections were on the horizon. “Alabama is not entitled to keep violating Black Alabamians’ voting rights just because the court’s order came down in the first month of an election year,” she said.The opposing conclusions Alito reached in both cases underscores the immense discretion he is wielding on the bench to evaluate these claims. In North Carolina, when the legislature’s constitutional rights were at issue, it warranted the supreme court’s intervention. In Alabama, when Black Americans’ voting rights were at issue, he believed the court’s intervention was not needed.Also worth watching…
      A Colorado election clerk was indicted on charges she helped allow unaurthorized access to voting equipment.
      Florida Republicans are on the verge of creating a new office to investigate election crimes.
      The top election official in Texas’s largest county announced she would resign after the county experienced significant voting problems in the state’s primary.
      Newly released records in Wisconsin provide insight into a widely criticized review of the 2020 election.
      TopicsUS supreme courtThe fight to voteLaw (US)US politicsUS voting rightsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Jury begins deliberations in trial of Texas man who stormed Capitol

      by

      Jury begins deliberations in trial of Texas man who stormed CapitolGuy Wesley Reffitt’s trial could set the stage for the trial of over 750 people charged with federal crimes related to the January 6 riot An armed Texas militia member led a “vigilante mob” that overwhelmed police officers and became the first group of rioters to breach the US Capitol last year, a federal prosecutor said on Monday at the close of the first criminal trial over the riot.A 12-member jury was scheduled to begin deliberating on Tuesday for Guy Wesley Reffitt’s trial on charges that he stormed the Capitol with a holstered handgun strapped to his waist and interfered with police officers guarding the Senate doors.Trump’s private schedule reveals no plans for him to join 6 January marchRead moreHe also is charged with threatening his teenage children if they reported him to law enforcement after the attack on 6 January 2021.Assistant US attorney Risa Berkower told jurors that Reffitt drove to Washington intending to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s electoral victory, to “overthrow Congress” and to drag lawmakers out of the building.Reffitt proudly “lit the fire” that allowed others in the mob to overwhelm Capitol police officers, the prosecutor said during the trial’s closing arguments.“They were in an impossible situation – outnumbered and, they feared, outgunned,” Berkower said of police.Reffitt, 49, from Wylie, Texas, didn’t testify at his trial, which started last Wednesday. Defense attorney William Welch didn’t call any defense witnesses after prosecutors rested their case.Welch urged jurors to acquit Reffitt of all charges but one. He said they should convict him of a misdemeanor charge that he entered and remained in a restricted area.“That is what proof beyond a reasonable doubt looks like, but it ends there,” Welch said.Reffitt faces five felony counts: obstruction of an official proceeding, being unlawfully present on Capitol grounds while armed with a firearm, transporting firearms during a civil disorder, interfering with law enforcement officers during a civil disorder and obstructing justice. The obstructing justice charge relates to his alleged threats against his children.Welch denied that Reffitt had a gun at the Capitol and said there is no evidence that he engaged in any violence or destructive behavior on January 6.“Guy does brag a lot,” Welch said. “He embellishes and he exaggerates.”“Yes, Guy Reffitt brags,” assistant US attorney Jeffrey Nestler countered. “And you know what he brags about? The truth.”Reffitt was arrested less than a week after the riot at the Capitol. He has been jailed in Washington for months.Reffitt is a member of the “Texas Three Percenters” and bragged about his involvement in the riot to other members of the group, according to prosecutors. The Three Percenters militia movement refers to the myth that only 3% of American colonists fought against the British in the revolutionary war.On Friday, jurors heard testimony from a self-described Texas Three Percenters member who drove from Texas to Washington with Reffitt. Rocky Hardie said he and Reffitt both had holstered handguns strapped to their bodies when they attended Donald Trump’s Stop the Steal rally just before the riot.On Thursday, Reffitt’s 19-year-old son, Jackson, testified that his father told him and his sister, then 16, they would be traitors if they reported him to authorities and said “traitors get shot”.On 6 January 2021, Reffitt had the holstered gun under his jacket, was carrying zip-tie handcuffs and was wearing body armor when he and other rioters advanced on police officers on the west side of the Capitol, according to prosecutors.“Every step he took up the railing, the crowd came with him,” Berkhower said. “The crowd was energized and cheered him on.”Reffitt is not accused of entering the building. He retreated after an officer pepper-sprayed him in the face, prosecutors said.National Archives turns over Trump White House logs to January 6 panelRead moreBerkower played surveillance video of the rioters who poured into the building while the then vice-president, Mike Pence, was presiding over the Senate. She said it was a dark day in American history, but not for Reffitt.“He was ecstatic about what he did, about what the mob did,” she added. “What the defendant did was not just bragging or hype.”Welch accused prosecutors of rushing to judgment.“Be the grown-ups in the courtroom. Separate the facts from the hype,” he told jurors.More than 750 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the riot. A verdict in Reffitt’s case could have an enormous impact on many others. A conviction could give prosecutors more leverage over defendants facing the most serious charges. An acquittal could embolden other defendants to seek more favorable plea deals or gamble on trials of their own.More than 220 defendants have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors and over 110 of them have been sentenced. Approximately 90 others have trial dates.TopicsUS Capitol attackLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Clyburn: supreme court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘beyond politics’

      by

      Clyburn: supreme court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘beyond politics’South Carolina congressman extracted Biden’s promise to instal first Black woman on court

      Opinion: Jackson will be a superb addition to the court
      The supreme court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson should be placed “beyond politics”, the politician who extracted Joe Biden’s politically priceless promise to instal the first Black woman on the court said on Sunday.Tucker Carlson condemned for Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Rwanda’ commentsRead moreBiden introduced Jackson as his pick to replace the retiring Stephen Breyer this week.Some Republicans have complained that nominations should not be made on grounds of race or gender – ignoring promises to put women on the court acted on by Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.Others have complained about how Democrats treated one of Trump’s nominees, Brett Kavanaugh, who denied allegations of sexual assault. Others have objected on ideological grounds, for example Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate judiciary committee, claiming the Jackson nomination was the work of the “radical left”.James Clyburn, the South Carolina congressman and House Democratic whip whose endorsement both propelled Biden to the presidential nomination and produced his promise to pick a Black woman, appeared on Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation.He said: “This is beyond politics. This is about the country, our pursuit of a more perfect union, and this is demonstrative of another step in that pursuit.”Of 115 supreme court justices, 108 have been white men. Two have been Black men, five women. As well as being the first Black woman on the court, Jackson would be the fourth woman on the current nine-justice panel, joining liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett, a hardline conservative.Clyburn said he hoped “that all my Republican friends will look upon” the nomination of Jackson as being “beyond politics”.“Let’s have a debate,” he said. “Let’s talk to her about her rulings and about her philosophy. But in the final analysis, let’s have a strong bipartisan support to demonstrate that both parties are still in pursuit of perfection”.No supreme court nomination – or, most observers would argue, hearing or ruling – is ever above politics. If confirmed, Jackson will not alter the balance of a court tilted 6-3 to conservatives by Republican political hardball which gave Trump three picks.Before Biden made his decision, Clyburn and Republicans including Graham and the other South Carolina senator, Tim Scott, championed J Michelle Childs, a judge from their state. Clyburn said it would be important to instal a justice who did not go to Yale or Harvard. Jackson went to Harvard.“It’s more traditional, no question about that,” Clyburn told CBS. “This means that we will continue that tradition, and I am one, as you can see, that’s not so much for tradition. I want to see us break as much new ground as possible.“But … in the final analysis, I think this is a good choice. It was a choice that brings on to the court a background and some experiences that nobody else on the court will have. And I think when you look at not just [Jackson’s] background in the family, life, but also her profession, she was a public defender. That adds a new perspective to the court.”Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas, has pointed out that Jackson has more trial experience than four current justices combined – including the chief, John Roberts.Clyburn also said a successful confirmation process could help Biden politically with Black voters facing difficulties familiar to most Americans, particularly inflation.“When you have an opportunity to make an appointment like you just had,” he said, “and he made an African American appointment, I guarantee you, you see some of that move up. It may not move up with the people who are having income problems, but it will move up to those who have other reservations about the president.”Last year, Jackson was confirmed to the court of appeals for the DC circuit with support from three Republican senators: Graham, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska.‘Leaders lead during crises’ – but Biden’s approval rating hits new low, poll findsRead moreThis year, Democrats will be able to confirm Jackson simply by keeping their 50 votes together and using Kamala Harris’s casting vote as vice-president.But on Sunday Mitt Romney of Utah told CNN’s State of the Union he could vote to confirm Jackson.“Yes,” the former presidential nominee said, “I’m going to take a very deep dive and had the occasion to speak with her about some of the concerns when she was before the Senate to go on to the circuit court.“Look, her nomination and her confirmation would or will be historic. And like anyone nominated by the president of the United States, she deserves a very careful look, a very deep dive. And I will provide fresh eyes to that evaluation, and hope that I will be able to support her in the final analysis.”TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)US politicsRaceDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a superb addition to the US supreme court | Moira Donegan

      by

      Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a superb addition to the US supreme courtMoira DoneganUnlike most people nominated to the court, Jackson’s career has included advocating for the rights of criminal defendants and the poor She has always wanted this. Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s nominee to fill the supreme court seat left vacant by the retirement of Stephen Breyer at the end of this term, said that she wanted to become a judge one day in the yearbook from her Miami high school. By then she was already a champion in national oratory competitions, sharpening the skills of rhetoric and cadence that are the stock and trade of ambitious lawyers. Her parents – an attorney and a school principal – saw their daughter’s potential, and helped her to hoist herself from her middle-class origins onto the path followed by ambitious lawyers from more patrician backgrounds. She went to Harvard for undergrad and then to Harvard Law, eventually clerking on the court for Breyer himself – a justice known to be particularly picky with his clerkships.She seems to have pursued the law with single-minded devotion since she was very young, committing herself to the profession with all the passion and devotion of a vocation.Tucker Carlson condemned for Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Rwanda’ commentsRead moreBut her legal career took her to places most supreme court justices’ careers have not: In addition to her standard bona fides in private practice and later on the federal bench, she served on the United States Sentencing Commission, working to assess federal criminal sentencing practices and advocating for reduced sentences for drug offenders. Later, she served as a federal public defender in Washington. This makes her the first former public defender nominated to the court, and the first since Thurgood Marshall with extensive criminal defense experience. Her nomination signals a respect for a field of legal practice with great moral authority but little respect from the legal establishment: advocating for the rights of criminal defendants and the poor.When Biden nominated Jackson to a seat on the DC circuit court just last summer, the post was widely seen as a stepping-stone to the supreme court itself: Jackson had already been all but anointed as Breyer’s successor. She sailed through that confirmation, even bagging three Republican votes. The ease of her last appointment, even amid the backdrop of her future one, suggested that Senate Republicans had not been able to manufacture controversy from her record, a failure on their part that suggests remarkable discipline on Jackson’s. She seems to have behaved in a manner becoming a federal judge her whole life. It’s as if she was born wearing a black robe.And yet for much of the nation’s history, Judge Jackson’s story would have been impossible. Jackson is the first Black woman to be nominated to the supreme court, fulfilling a Biden campaign promise, and she has made her way in a legal profession – and indeed, in a country – that is accustomed to discarding Black women’s talent. In many ways she represents America’s great, if usually thwarted, promise: that hard work by individuals, combined with a moral arc of national history that bends toward justice, can deliver talented and worthy people to success despite the injustices imposed on them for their race, their sex, or their origins. That there has never been a Black woman on the court before is testament to how rarely this promise is kept: Jackson is not the first Black female legal mind worthy of the court, and if she is confirmed, she will serve alongside more than one white man of lesser intellect and character. But though she is the first, she will not be the last.When Jackson joins the court, all of the Democratic appointees will be women. Two will be women of color. That gender disparity is likely to be especially stark in abortion and LGBT rights cases the coming years, as the conservative legal movement builds off its expected success in Dobbs v Jackson, the case that will overturn Roe v Wade this summer, and sets its sights undoing the privacy right that the court has used to protect sexual freedoms. Over its coming terms, the court – whose extreme right bent will not be changed by Jackson’s addition – is likely to approve further abortion bans and restrictions, cut off contraception access, and roll back marriage equality, trans rights, and the legality of gay sex.Dissenting will be three women who stand for the rights of Americans to live lives free of the notion that biology must be destiny, and unencumbered by sex role stereotypes. These women will stand for these freedoms, and others, while a majority of six conservative justices enshrine male supremacy and forced birth into federal law. Jackson’s opinions will likely be oriented more towards young lawyers and the general public than towards her conservative colleagues, who have shown themselves petulant and unwilling to engage in good faith with the arguments of the liberals. It is not an enviable task that Jackson will face on the court, but we can be grateful that she is willing to take it.Nor will her confirmation be easy. Though Jackson has long been the favorite to replace Breyer, in recent weeks a group of conservative Democrats, led by the influential congressman Jim Clyburn, made a concerted push to encourage Biden to nominate Judge Michelle Childs, a federal district court judge from South Carolina. Childs’ nomination would have been a favor to Clyburn, whose endorsement of Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential primary is widely credited with reviving Biden’s faltering campaign. But Childs had sparked weariness from the left for her past decisions regarding criminal sentencing and her private practice work on labor disputes. Perhaps it was this criticism that endeared her to Senate Republicans, who issues warm words about Childs and dangled a bipartisan confirmation vote in front of Biden. Now that their preferred candidate has been rejected in favor of one more amenable to progressives, conservatives have endeavored to paint Jackson has an extreme leftist.“If media reports are accurate, and Judge Jackson has been chosen as the supreme court nominee to replace Justice Breyer, it means the radical left has won President Biden over yet again,” tweeted Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican on the Senate judiciary committee who voted to confirm Judge Jackson to the DC circuit last summer.Jackson’s actual jurisprudence reflects scrupulousness more than radicality. While on the DC circuit this past year, Judge Jackson presided over a case called Committee on the Judiciary v McGahn, a lawsuit concerning the Trump administration’s attempt to sabotage a congressional investigation. It’s the kind of case that ambitious judges pray to avoid: high-profile and politically charged, with one party that would declare any unfavorable outcome a process violation.Knowing she was under a microscope, Jackson delivered a measured, thorough, and lengthy ruling declaring that former White House counsel Don McGahn could be compelled to testify before Congress. It was the kind of point-by-point argument meant to be ironclad even to the least sympathetic of readers. But the opinion also contained memorable flashes of rhetoric. “Presidents are not kings,” Jackson wrote. “They do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.” It was the kind of writing that would represent the pinnacle of many judges’ careers. For Jackson, it may be only the beginning.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)Biden administrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination is rare moment of celebration for Biden

      by

      Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination is rare moment of celebration for BidenBiden is embattled on all fronts – from a stalled domestic agenda to international order – but a supreme court pick is an enduring act Two years ago exactly, Joe Biden stood on a debate stage in Charleston, South Carolina, his candidacy on the ropes, and made a promise: if elected president, he would nominate the first Black woman to the supreme court.Days later, Biden won the South Carolina primary on the strength of his support among Black voters. The victory propelled him to the Democratic nomination and then to the presidency. Last month, Justice Stephen Breyer announced his retirement, presenting Biden with an opportunity to fulfill that campaign commitment.Ketanji Brown Jackson: who is Biden’s supreme court choice?Read moreOn Friday, Biden stood before a podium in the White House’s Cross Hall to nominate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to supreme court, declaring that the highest court in the land should reflect “the full talent and greatness of our nation”.If eventually confirmed by the senate, she will be the first Black woman to serve on the supreme court in its 232-year history.It was a rare moment of celebration for Biden, embattled on nearly every front. His once hugely ambitious domestic agenda is stalled, perhaps permanently; the Democrats’ tenuous control of Congress faces historic headwinds in this year’s midterm elections; and the international order that Biden spent much of his political career defending faces its gravest threat in decades after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.But the nomination of a supreme court justice is one of the most enduring acts of any president’s legacy. And for Biden, it is particularly resonant.Biden has said that he hopes the diversity he has brought to the federal government will be long-lasting. After serving as the vice-president to the nation’s first Black president, he chose Kamala Harris to be his running mate, which led her to become the first Black and Asian American woman to serve as vice-president.His cabinet is the most diverse in US history. And in his first year, Biden nominated a record number of district and appeals court judges from a range of racial, ethnic, geographical and legal backgrounds.Black voters, and Black women especially, were the driving force behind Biden’s nomination and his presidency. According to exit polls in 2020, Black women were his most loyal supporters, with 90% casting their ballots for him.In January 2021, Black female organizers in Georgia helped Democrats win two Senate runoff elections, cementing the party’s control of the chamber and delivering to Biden narrow but meaningful congressional majorities.Yet Biden has failed to enact much of his racial justice agenda. Democrats failed to overcome a Republican filibuster of voting rights legislation, designed to combat the raft of restrictive voting laws being enacted by conservative legislatures across the country. Attempts at policing reform sputtered last year, while the economic provisions of his Build Back Better agenda intended to combat soaring income inequality remain stalled in the Senate amid opposition from his own party.In that sense, Jackson’s nomination is a rare opportunity for Biden to make good on a promise to Black women.Democrats alone could confirm Jackson to the supreme court, with Harris breaking the tie. When Jackson was confirmed to the appeals court last year, she won the support of three Republican senators. But one of them, Senator Lindsey Graham, already criticized her nomination, saying it was a sign that the “radical left has won President Biden over yet again”.But for many, and especially for Black women, Jackson’s nomination, at the end of Black History Month, was a moment of vindication and pride.“She is eminently qualified to serve our nation on our highest court,” said Harris, a former federal prosecutor. “And while she will be the first Black woman on the supreme court, Judge Jackson will not be the last.”Barack Obama, who nominated Jackson to serve as a district court judge in Washington DC, said the judge had “already inspired young Black women like my daughters to set their sights higher and her confirmation will help them believe they can be anything they want to be”.In a statement announcing his decision to nominate Jackson, Biden recalled a formative exchange between a teenage Jackson and her high school guidance counselor.When Jackson, the daughter of public school teachers whose parents grew up in the segregated south, told her counselor that she wanted to attend Harvard, the counselor warned her that she should not set her expectations “so high”.“That didn’t stop Judge Jackson,” Biden said. Jackson graduated at the top of her class from Harvard College, then attended Harvard Law School, where she excelled as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.Now, she is poised to make history as a supreme court justice.TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonJoe BidenUS supreme courtUS politicsLaw (US)analysisReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Historic day’: Democrats praise Biden supreme court pick Ketanji Brown Jackson

      by

      ‘Historic day’: Democrats praise Biden supreme court pick Ketanji Brown JacksonSome Republicans are less enthused, claiming that race and gender shouldn’t play a role in the nomination Democrats enthusiastically welcomed Joe Biden’s supreme court nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who if confirmed would serve as the first Black woman on the United States’ highest court.As reactions poured in from both sides of the political aisle, Barack Obama shared his congratulations about the news of Jackson’s nomination.Biden confirms he will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson to supreme court – liveRead more“I want to congratulate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on her nomination to the Supreme Court,” said Obama in a statement. “Judge Jackson has already inspired young Black women like my daughters to set their sights higher, and her confirmation will help them believe they can be anything they want to be.”The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, shared his support via Twitter: “With her exceptional qualifications, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a Justice who will uphold the constitution and protect the rights of all Americans, including the voiceless and vulnerable.”Senate majority whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, who is also chair of the Senate judiciary committee, also praised Jackson’ selection. He said: “To be the first to make history in our nation you need to have an exceptional life story. Judge Jackson’s achievements are well known to the Senate judiciary committee as we approved her to the DC circuit less than a year ago with bipartisan support. We will begin immediately to move forward on her nomination with the careful, fair, and professional approach she and America are entitled to.”South Carolina representative James Clyburn, who helped get Biden to make a pledge for a Black woman supreme court nominee, also celebrated Jackson’s nomination, writing in a statement: “Ketanji Brown Jackson, an outstanding judge on the DC circuit court of appeals, has been nominated by president Joe Biden to become the first African American woman on the US supreme court. This is a glass ceiling that took far too long to shatter, and I commend President Biden for taking a sledgehammer to it. I congratulate Judge Jackson and offer my full support during the confirmation process and beyond.”“This is a historic day for women, for BIPOC representation, and for our Judiciary,” tweeted Florida representative and co-chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus Lois Frankel.Progressive Massachusetts representative Ayanna Pressley also added her voice, tweeting: “Bold. Principled. Qualified. Dedicated to justice. POTUS has met the moment with the historic nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and we must have swift confirmation.”“233 years. That’s how long we have waited to have a Black woman nominated to the supreme court,” wrote Missouri representative Cori Bush about Jackson’s nomination. “There are no words to describe how my soul is moved by witnessing her nomination.”Progressive advocacy groups similarly shared their congratulations.“We need a justice on the bench who will uphold reproductive freedom. This historic nomination is a chance to shape the court for decades to come,” tweeted the pro-choice group Naral Pro-Choice, alluding to important abortion cases that the supreme court has heard recently, including the Texas abortion ban and an upcoming case that will decide the fate of Roe v Wade.Some Republicans seemed notably less joyous about Jackson’s nomination, following on their complaints that race and gender should not play a role in the selection process despite similar commitments from past Republican presidents.“If media reports are accurate, and Judge Jackson has been chosen as the supreme court nominee to replace Justice Breyer, it means the radical Left has won President Biden over yet again,” tweeted South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, adding that Democrats potentially blocked the nomination of Judge J Michelle Childs.Childs, a judge in the US district court for the district of South Carolina, had notable bipartisan support from her state’s congressional delegation due to her non-Ivy league education and judicial reputation. But she had less support from some progressives, who questioned her work at a private law firm defending employers accused of race and gender discrimination as well as sexual harassment.Graham previously voted to confirm Jackson to the DC circuit court last June.In his statement, Clyburn, a close Biden ally, also acknowledged Childs as a potential Biden pick, writing: “Although not the finalist, Judge Childs’ inclusion among the three that were interviewed continues her record of remarkable contributions to making this country’s greatest accessible and affordable for all. And, she continues to make all South Carolinians proud.”Senator Susan Collins of Maine, another Republican senator who confirmed Jackson to the DC circuit court, also released a statement on Jackson’s nomination, writing: “Ketanji Brown Jackson is an experienced federal judge with impressive academic and legal credentials. I will conduct a thorough vetting of Judge Jackson’s nomination and look forward to her public hearing before the Senate judiciary committee and to meeting with her in my office.”Republican senator Mitt Romney of Utah, a potential yes vote for Jackson’s nomination, also released a statement on her selection: “One of my most serious constitutional responsibilities as a senator is to provide advice and consent on a supreme court nomination, and I believe our next justice must faithfully apply the law and our constitution – impartially and regardless of policy preferences.“Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is an experienced jurist, and I know her historic nomination will inspire many. I look forward to meeting in person with Judge Jackson, thoroughly reviewing her record and testimony, and evaluating her qualifications during this process.”TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson to become first Black woman on supreme court

      by

      Biden nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson to become first Black woman on supreme courtWhite House praises ‘exceptionally qualified nominee’Jackson, if confirmed, will replace retiring Stephen Breyer Joe Biden on Friday nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the supreme court, seeking to elevate a Black woman to the nation’s highest court for the first time in its 232-year history.Biden’s decision to nominate Jackson to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, for whom she clerked, sets up a fierce confirmation battle in the deeply partisan and evenly-divided Senate. Breyer, the most senior jurist in the court’s three-member liberal wing, will retire at the end of the court’s current session this summer.Speaking from the Cross Hall of the White House, the president introduced the 51-year-old judge to the nation as “the daughter of former public school teachers” and a “proven consensus-builder” who has displayed “a pragmatic understanding that the law must work for the American people”.Ketanji Brown Jackson: who is Biden’s supreme court choice?Read moreHer nomination comes exactly two years to the day after Biden, struggling miserably in his third campaign for the presidency, vowed to nominate a Black woman to the supreme court if elected president.“For too long, our government, our courts, haven’t looked like America,” Biden said, flanked by Jackson and vice-president Kamala Harris, the first Black and Asian American woman to serve as vice president, whom the president said was influential in helping him make this consequential decision. “I believe it’s time that we have a court that reflects the full talents and greatness of our nation.”Jackson, who was widely considered a frontrunner for the nomination,sits on the powerful US court of appeals for the DC circuit, after winning bipartisan approval during her Senate confirmation last year, when Biden elevated her from the federal district court in the District of Columbia.Born in the nation’s capital and raised in Miami, Jackson clerked for Breyer during the supreme court’s 1999-2000 term. She is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, an elite background that matches the resumes of several justices on the supreme court but which Republicans have sought to paint her as out-of-touch.In Jackson, Biden said he found a nominee who shared a “uniquely accomplished and wide ranging background” as the justice she would replace if confirmed. In her remarks, Jackson praised the retiring justice for exemplifying “civility, grace, pragmatism and generosity of spirit”.“Members of the Senate will decide if I fill your seat,” she said. “But please know that I could never fill your shoes.”Across her broad legal career, Jackson worked as a public defender, an experience that sets her apart from most judges sitting on the federal bench. She previously served as vice-chair of the US Sentencing Commission, where she focused on reducing sentencing disparities as part of the agency’s work setting sentencing guidelines in federal criminal cases.In its statement, the White House said Biden sought a nominee “who is wise, pragmatic, and has a deep understanding of the constitution as an enduring charter of liberty”.It added: “The president sought an individual who is committed to equal justice under the law and who understands the profound impact that the supreme court’s decisions have on the lives of the American people.”Jackson’s confirmation would not affect the ideological composition of the court, controlled by a conservative super-majority of six justices, including three appointed by Donald Trump, but it does secure a liberal seat on the bench probably for decades to come.The opportunity to name a justice to the supreme court is a welcome bright spot for the president, whose approval ratings have fallen to record lows as he confronts myriad crises at home and abroad. It is also his most significant opportunity yet to shape the federal judiciary, which remains overwhelmingly white and male. In his first year, Biden nominated a record number of district and appeals court judges from a range of racial, ethnic, geographical and legal backgrounds.When Breyer announced his retirement in January, Biden vowed to nominate a jurist with “extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity”. And, reaffirming his campaign pledge, he added “that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States supreme court.”Urged by congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina ahead of his state’s primary, Biden made the pledge during a debate. Days later, with Clyburn’s endorsement, Black voters lifted Biden to a resounding victory in the South Carolina primary that set in motion a string of successes that ultimately earned him the nomination and later the White House.The promise divided Republican senators, some of whom argued that race or gender shouldn’t play a role in the selection process, despite similar commitments from Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and Trump.Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have said they intend to move forward quickly with the confirmation process.Senate leader Chuck Schumer said: “The historic nomination of Judge Jackson is an important step toward ensuring the supreme court reflects the nation as a whole. As the first Black woman supreme court justice in the court’s 232-year-history, she will inspire countless future generations of young Americans.”Schumer added: “With her exceptional qualifications and record of evenhandedness, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a Justice who will uphold the constitution and protect the rights of all Americans, including the voiceless and vulnerable.”Jackson has successfully navigated the Senate confirmation process on three occasions, winning support from both parties each time. But nothing compares to the glare of a supreme court nomination hearing. Already, her nomination is being met with resistance from Republicans.South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, one of the three Republicans who voted to confirm her to the court considered the second highest in the land in 2021, said her nomination suggested the “radical left has won President Biden over yet again”.He had expressed a preference for J Michelle Childs, a US district judge in his home state of South Carolina.Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination is rare moment of celebration for BidenRead moreUnlike for most major pieces of legislation, Democrats can confirm Jackson with their 50 votes and Harris breaking the tie.If confirmed, Jackson would become the sixth woman to serve on the court and only the third Black justice, both men. They are Clarence Thomas, a conservative who was appointed in 1991 and is still serving, and Thurgood Marshall, the first African American supreme court justice.It will be the first supreme court confirmation hearing for a Democratic president since Elena Kagan was nominated by Barack Obama 12 years ago. Republicans refused to hold a hearing for Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, which further poisoned what has become scorched-earth affairs.On the appellate court, Jackson served in the seat held by Garland, after he became the attorney general.But there are already early signs that this confirmation may be different, as Republicans weigh how aggressively to confront Biden’s nominee, particularly when it will not affect the balance of the court.With their agenda stalled and the president unpopular, Democrats are hopeful the nomination will energize their base as they brace for a political backlash in this year’s midterm elections.Closing her remarks, Jackson acknowledged the historic nature of her nomination by noting an “interesting coincidence”: she shares a birthday with Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to become a federal judge.“Today, I proudly stand on Judge Motley’s shoulders, sharing not only her birthday, but also her steadfast and courageous commitment to equal justice under law,” Jackson said.And if confirmed, she concluded, “I can only hope that my life and career, my love of this country and the constitution and my commitment to upholding the rule of law and the sacred principles upon which this great nation was founded, will inspire future generations of Americans.”TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsJoe BidenBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More