Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Bipartisan US lawmakers ramp up gun control talks amid crisis of violence – live

      by

      The US Senate is back in session today after its latest recess and there will be close attention on a bipartisan group of senators that is exuding increased confidence that a package of gun control measures can advance and make it into law.Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy is fond of the word significant. Just days ago, less than a week after the mass shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 young children and two teachers, he talked of “an opportunity right now to pass something significant”. Murphy yesterday added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Murphy believes measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.Read more here.The founder of the People of Praise, a secretive charismatic Christian group that counts supreme court justice Amy Coney Barrett as a member, was described in a sworn affidavit filed in the 1990s as exerting almost total control over one of the group’s female members, including making all decisions about her finances and dating relationships.The court documents also described alleged instances of a sexualized atmosphere in the home of the founder, Kevin Ranaghan, and his wife, Dorothy Ranaghan.The description of the Ranaghans and accusations involving their intimate behavior were contained in a 1993 proceeding in which a woman, Cynthia Carnick, said that she did not want her five minor children to have visitations with their father, John Roger Carnick, who was then a member of the People of Praise, in the Ranaghan household or in their presence, because she believed it was not in her children’s “best interest”. Cynthia Carnick also described inappropriate incidents involving the couple and the Ranaghan children. The matter was eventually settled between the parties.Read the Guardian’s full report:Legal claims shed light on founder of faith group tied to Amy Coney BarrettRead moreNo more opinions are due today from the US Supreme Court, with all the biggest decisions still awaited. We’ll be keeping an eye on the court’s calendar and on the indispensable Scotusblog for upcoming dates and the rulings issued on those dates. For anyone curious to know a bit more about how this works, the Scotusblog FAQ page is handy, here. The court doesn’t give lots of notice about which will be opinion days in June and, likely, edging into July with such a big caseload. And the public isn’t told what opinions are coming down until they land. However, of course there was the early May bombshell leak of the draft opinion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case out of Mississippi, which explicitly includes a request from the state authorities to the court to overturn the pivotal 1973 Roe v Wade decision that afforded the constitutional right to an abortion in the US.The final opinion is awaited… US shaken to its core by supreme court draft that would overturn Roe v WadeRead moreThis blog is now handing over to the Guardian’s new US politics blogger Chris Stein, based in Washington, and our colleague there Joanie Greve, who was at the helm of the blog but in recent months took on her new role as one of our senior politics reporters. They’ll take you through the rest of today’s politics news. For all the breaking news on UK politics today involving a no-confidence vote in prime minister Boris Johnson, please follow our London team here as they bring you the events as they happen there, in the UK politics live blog.Here’s Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas again, this time putting his name to a decision in the case of Southwest Airlines v Saxon.In an eight to zero opinion (Amy Coney Barrett was recused from this case), Thomas issued the decision that the court essentially said an airline worker is not required to go to arbitration over her pay dispute with Southwest and can fight her case in the courts.The Supreme Court adopts a broad interpretation of an important exception in the Federal Arbitration Act. The upshot of the 8-0 ruling is that an airport worker (and others similarly situated) can bring a claim for overtime pay in court, rather than being forced into arbitration.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
      The Bloomberg Law site notes that the case could have a wide impact on worker arbitration rights. It explained that Latrice Saxon:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Sued the airline in 2019, alleging it failed to pay her and hundreds of current and former ramp supervisors time-and-a-half earned for their overtime work. The Dallas-based carrier countered that its employee was contractually bound to bring the claim in arbitration, rather than in court. While a federal district judge agreed with the airline, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit did not. The supreme court took up the case.The US supreme court has issued three opinions today, moments ago, although they are not the cases the nation is on the edge of its proverbial seat about – abortion and gun rights.The court just ruled that the Florida authorities can recoup $300,000 in medical expenses out of a settlement paid in the case of Gianinna Gallardo, who suffered appalling injuries at 13, in 2008, when she was hit by a truck after getting off a school bus. A 7-2 majority, with the opinion written by Clarence Thomas and joined by liberal-leaning Elena Kagan, opined for the state over the Gallardo family.A few minutes prior, the court ruled in a case, Siegel v Fitzgerald, about the constitutionality of increased US Trustee’s fees charged to companies in chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.Details on the third ruling in a tick.The Supreme Court strikes down Congress’ decision to increase bankruptcy fees in most states while leaving a different system in place in two states. SCOTUS unanimously holds that the two different fee systems violates the Constitution’s requirement of “uniform” bankruptcy laws.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
      The US supreme court is about to issue ruling(s) on cases decided in the current term.We’ll keep you up to date on what happens, when the opinion(s) are handed down at 10am ET.As Scotusblog notes, there’s a lot for the bench to get to:We’re live now:https://t.co/S5A4KeL5nQ https://t.co/ddml8iKgtC— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2022
      The four big cases we at the Guardian are watching most closely are an environmental case out of West Virginia, a gun rights case stemming from New York, an immigration case via Texas involving the US-Mexico border and the pivotal Mississippi abortion case that also includes the state authorities asking Scotus to overturn Roe v Wade.The US Senate is back in session today after its latest recess and there will be close attention on a bipartisan group of senators that is exuding increased confidence that a package of gun control measures can advance and make it into law.Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy is fond of the word significant. Just days ago, less than a week after the mass shooting at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 young children and two teachers, he talked of “an opportunity right now to pass something significant”. Murphy yesterday added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Murphy believes measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.Read more here.Good morning, US politics blog readers, it’s going to be an exceptionally busy, high-stakes week in Washington with Americans’ constitutional rights and democracy itself under the spotlight.Here’s what’s on the agenda.
      The US Senate is back in session on the Hill today after its latest recess and a bipartisan group of senators is exuding confidence that a package of gun control measures can make progress, while the leading lawmaker in talks warns of “significant” consequences of failure.
      Talks continue amid another series of deadly shootings at the weekend, following grotesquely on the heels of the school massacre in Uvalde, Texas and the racist killing of Black Americans in a supermarket in Buffalo.
      New measures under discussion do not include the demands of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for a ban on assault weapons, following the recent carnage, but there is more progress being made right now on legislative talks than there has been for years.
      The US Supreme Court is due to issue opinions today and Thursday, June being the crunch month for decisions arising in cases from the current term and with more than 30 decision to be declared. The public (and press) are not party to which cases will be announced until the bench speaks up.
      Last but not least for this briefing note: the special House committee investigating events on and around the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol by extremist supporters of then-president Donald Trump is in final preparations for its first public hearing, this Thursday in prime time – and the right is already revving up its riposte. More

    • 225 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats and Republicans at an impasse over US gun control as Biden demands action – as it happened

      by

      Washington is ending its week on a quiet note, with few major developments in Congress or at the White House as officials continue grappling with the fallout from the shooting in Uvalde, Texas.Here’s what happened today:
      Peter Navarro, a top former White House adviser to Donald Trump, was taken into custody after being indicted by a federal grand jury on Friday on two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.
      A fourth grader who survived the Uvalde, Texas shooting will testify before a US House panel next week, as Democrats attempt to convince their GOP counterparts that something must be done to prevent the epidemic of mass shootings.
      People affected by the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 students and two teachers last month have taken initial steps to sue Daniel Defense, manufacturer of the weapon used in the massacre.
      US Capitol police say they arrested a man outside the building carrying a BB gun, high-capacity magazines, a fake badge and body armor.
      May employment data confirmed that robust job growth is continuing in the United States, with the economy adding a better-than-expected 390,000 positions and the unemployment rate remaining at 3.6% – a hair above where it was before the pandemic caused tens of millions of people to lose their employment.
      John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania lieutenant governor and Democratic nominee for US Senate, said he “almost died” after suffering a stroke last month, the Washington Post is reporting.“The stroke I suffered on May 13 didn’t come out of nowhere,” Fetterman said in a statement. “Like so many others, and so many men in particular, I avoided going to the doctor, even though I knew I didn’t feel well. As a result, I almost died.”He added: “I didn’t do what the doctor told me. But I won’t make that mistake again.”Fetterman did not give a date for his return to the campaign trail. On Friday he released a letter from his doctor saying he had been diagnosed with an irregular heart rhythm in 2017 , but had not scheduled a follow up appointment, and had not visited any doctor for five years since that 2017 appointment. John Fetterman, who has been criticized for not providing more details about his health following his stroke, releases a letter from his doc saying he was first diagnosed in 2017 with an irregular heart rhythm. Said he ignored doctor’s advice for five years until he had a stroke pic.twitter.com/1LpZ1J214S— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 3, 2022
      Pennsylvania is a crucial contest for Democrats as they aim to avoid losing the Senate in the November midterm elections. Fetterman, 52, had previously faced criticism for not providing a timetable on his return to campaigning.Ohio’s House of Representatives has passed a bill that would ban transgender girls from school sports and require verification from a doctor if a student’s sex is called into question, Reuters reported.The Republican-sponsored legislation comes in the run-up to the 2022 midterm elections, with transgender rights emerging as a major front in the US culture wars.The bill next goes to a vote in the state Senate when it reconvenes in several months after a recess.Several other states have passed anti-trans sports bills in recent months, but few are as extreme as the Ohio legislation, which would require students whose sex is “disputed” to provide a physician’s statement verifying “internal and external reproductive anatomy” and other criteria.These provisions target “a handful of Ohio students and their families who simply want to play sports like everyone else,” LGBTQ+ rights group Equality Ohio said in a statement.People affected by the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas that killed 19 students and two teachers last month have taken the initial steps to sue Daniel Defense, manufacturer of the weapon used in the massacre, Reuters reports. An attorney representing Alfred Garza, father of Robb Elementary School student Amerie Jo Garza, sent the Georgia-based gun manufacturer a request for information about its marketing to children and teens. “We ask you to begin providing information to us now, rather than force Mr. Garza to file a lawsuit to obtain it,” his lawyers wrote in a letter to the company.School employee Emilia Marin has also filed a petition in Texas state court to depose Daniel Defense over its marketing, and to turn over documents.Daniel Defense did not respond to Reuters’s request for comment. Remington Arms, manufacturer of the weapon used in the Sandy Hook school shooting that left 20 students and six adults dead in 2012, agreed earlier this year to pay $73 million to some of the victims of that attack, though a federal law complicates many lawsuits against gun makers.Sandy Hook families reach $73m settlement with gun manufacturerRead moreImagine that you are wanted for a crime. Imagine that you are in the United States, perhaps in a state not far from the Mexican border. You may think, based on what you’ve seen in movies or read on the news, that if you can get to Mexico, you can go scot-free. You would be wrong, according to an excellent Washington Post article that profiles the “Gringo Hunters,” a Mexican police unit tasked with tracking down foreign criminals on the run in their country.American politicians, most famously Donald Trump along with other conservatives, have characterized Mexico as a source of criminals who flood over the border into the United States. The piece flips that stereotype on its head, as reporter Kevin Sieff goes on the hunt with the officers who go after the many alleged murderers, rapists and child abusers that pour into their country from their northern neighbor:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}It was late March. The unit had been busier than at any other time in its history. While politicians in Washington argued over whether there was a crisis at the border, it felt to the Gringo Hunters that crime was spilling over in the opposite direction.
      “Honestly, I think it’s all the drugs over there,” said Moises, the liaison unit’s commander. Like other unit members, he spoke on the condition that his last name be withheld so he can continue to work undercover.
      In its office, the unit keeps a whiteboard with the month’s apprehensions tallied by name, date and charge. In the first three weeks of March, there were eight accused of drug trafficking, two of murder and one of pedophilia.US Capitol police say they have arrested a man outside the building carrying a BB gun, high-capacity magazines, a fake badge and body armor.Officers encountered the man after he parked his Dodge Charger at Peace Circle on the US Capitol’s west side around 5am on Friday, the agency said in a statement:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} The man was identified as 53-year-old Jerome Felipe out of Flint, Michigan.
      Felipe, who is a retired police officer out of New York, presented the USCP officers with a fake badge that had “Department of the INTERPOL” printed on it. Felipe also made a false statement that he was a criminal investigator with the agency.
      Felipe gave officers permission to search his vehicle. The officers discovered a BB gun, two ballistic vests, several high capacity magazines, and other ammunition in the car. No real guns were found.
      Investigators are still working to determine the reason Felipe was parked near the US Capitol.
      Felipe is facing charges for Unlawful Possession of High Capacity Magazines and Unregistered Ammo.A top deputy to Mike Pence warned the Secret Service about a security risk to the then vice-president the day before the January 6 attack, the New York Times is reporting.The warning was conveyed by Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, to his main Secret Service agent, Tim Giebels, on 5 January, before a crowd of more than 2,000 people stormed the US capitol following a speech by Donald Trump. In their conversation before that happened, Short warned Giebels that Trump was going to publicly repudiate Pence, whom he had chosen as his running mate during his successful 2016 run for the White House.According to the Times:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Mr Short did not know what form such a security risk might take, according to people familiar with the events. But after days of intensifying pressure from Mr Trump on Mr Pence to take the extraordinary step of intervening in the certification of the Electoral College count to forestall Mr Trump’s defeat, Mr Short seemed to have good reason for concern. The vice president’s refusal to go along was exploding into an open and bitter breach between the two men at a time when the president was stoking the fury of his supporters who were streaming into Washington. Trump’s election advisers were like ‘snake oil salesmen’, ex-Pence aide saysRead more
      The need for meaningful gun control reforms, following the mass shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo, continues to dominate political conversation, but Republicans and Democrats appear no closer to a consensus.
      On Thursday Joe Biden asked: “How much more carnage are we willing to accept?” and called for a series of gun control measures. But Republicans snubbed serious discussion of stricter gun laws at a hearing on Thursday.
      A fourth grader who survived the Uvalde, Texas shooting will testify before a US House panel next week, as Democrats attempt to convince their GOP counterparts that something must be done to prevent the epidemic of mass shootings.
      Peter Navarro, a top former White House adviser to Donald Trump, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of contempt of Congress, after he defied a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.
      Democrats are increasingly blaming Joe Biden’s climate office for holding up progress on measures that could cut US emissions, according to Politico. “Micromanaging” by the office of other government bodies has stalled a series of environmental efforts, Politico reported.
      With Biden having failed to get his major proposals to fight rising global temperatures through Congress, Politico reports that Democrats are increasingly blaming his climate office for holding up progress on other measures that could cut US emissions.The Climate Policy Office headed by Gina McCarthy has gotten in the way of actions that Biden could take without Congress’s approval, according to the article, which cited nine Democratic sources both inside and outside the Biden administration:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} The office’s micromanaging of other government bodies has weakened the Interior Department’s efforts to rein in oil and gas leases on federal lands, stalled a redo of federal ethanol policies and slowed White House efforts to address pollution in low-income and minority communities, said the Democrats, who include congressional staff and current or former Biden administration officials.Much of Biden’s emissions-cutting strategy was contained in Build Back Better, his failed attempt to spend potentially trillions of dollars revamping American social services and also fighting climate change. Despite passing the House, it failed to win enough votes among Senate Democrats, and the fate of its proposals remains up in the air. Why the collapse of Biden’s Build Back Better would be a major blow to the climate fightRead moreA fourth-grader who survived last week’s mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas will testify before a US House panel next week, alongside the parents of victims killed in both the Uvalde and Buffalo shootings.Miah Cerrillo, a student at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, will appear before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday, as Congress faces calls to take meaningful action on gun control. Cerrillo will be joined by Felix Rubio and Kimberly Mata-Rubio, the parents of Lexi Rubio, who was ten-years-old when she was killed at Robb elementary.Zeneta Everhart, the mother of Zaire Goodman, who survived after being shot at the mass shooting at a Buffalo grocery store, will also speak before the House committee.Carolyn Maloney, the New York Democrat who chairs the committee, said the hearing “will examine the terrible impact of gun violence and the urgent need to rein in the weapons of war used to perpetrate these crimes”.“It is my hope that all my colleagues will listen with an open heart as gun violence survivors and loved ones recount one of the darkest days of their lives,” Maloney said. “This hearing is ultimately about saving lives, and I hope it will galvanize my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation to do just that.”Until the US senate is accountable to America, we’ll never get gun control | Osita NwanevuRead morePeter Navarro may not be the only former Trump official facing Washington’s wrath. My colleague Peter Stone has reported that there is evidence the Justice Department is looking into lawyers who advised the former president on how to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Legal experts believe the US Justice Department has made headway with a key criminal inquiry and could be homing in on top Trump lawyers who plotted to overturn Joe Biden’s election, after the department wrote to the House panel probing the January 6 Capitol attack seeking transcripts of witness depositions and interviews.
      While it’s unclear exactly what information the DoJ asked for, former prosecutors note that the 20 April request occurred at about the same time a Washington DC grand jury issued subpoenas seeking information about several Trump lawyers including Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, plus other Trump advisers, who reportedly played roles in a fake electors scheme.
      Giuliani, Trump’s former personal lawyer, worked with other lawyers and some campaign officials to spearhead a scheme to replace Biden electors with alternative Trump ones in seven states that Biden won, with an eye to blocking Congress’ certification of Biden on January 6 when a mob of Trump loyalists attacked the Capitol.US Justice Department could be zeroing in on Trump lawyers, experts sayRead more More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Bipartisan group of US senators push for compromise on gun control legislation – as it happened

      by

      Democratic and Republican US Senators are holding talks this week, mostly virtually, as efforts continue to forge what Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy has called “a significant package” of gun safety measures that will actually pass.There’s no avoiding the fact that expectations are limited and Murphy demurred when asked at the weekend if Republicans in the talks are ready to raise the age when you can buy an assault rifle from 18 to 21.Senators aren’t expected to even broach ideas for an assault weapon ban or other restrictions that could be popular with the public as ways to curb the most lethal mass shootings, the Associated Press noted, adding that the US has not passed a major federal gun control measure since soon after the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Connecticut that left 26 dead.The sessions are being led by Murphy and John Cornyn of Texas, whom Joe Biden has called a rational Republican.Democrat Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Republican Thom Tillis are involved and talks so far a “very constructive conversation”.House judiciary committee chairman and New York Democrat Jerry Nadler plans to hold a hearing tomorrow on the “Protecting our Kids Act”, the AP reports – a package of eight bills that has almost no hopes of passing the Senate but would serve as a marker in the debate.It includes calls to raise the age limits on semi-automatic rifle purchases from 18 to 21; create a grant program to buy back large-capacity magazines; establish voluntary safe practices for firearms storage and build on executive measures to ban bump stock devices and so-called ghost guns made from 3-D printing.Murphy has mentioned measures in Senate talks such as red flag laws and more widespread (though not universal) background checks before gun purchases.Murphy just retweeted star of stage and screen Marg Helgenberger who quote tweeted him on gun control.We can’t become numb to gun violence in our country. Stay vigilant & stay loud! https://t.co/8i3g08JfsE— Marg Helgenberger (@MargHelgen) June 1, 2022
      It was a quieter day than we are used to in Washington, perhaps because much of the media’s gaze was directed beyond the capital to a celebrity trial in Fairfax, Virginia.Here’s what happened today:
      The president convened a roundtable with infant-formula manufactures to outline the steps the administration was taking to address what many participants described as a crisis – a shortage of baby formula on US shelves. Amid criticism that the administration was slow to respond, Biden asked several of the CEOs when they realized the closure of an Abbott plant would affect supply. Several said the knew immediately. Pressed by reporters after the roundtable, Biden said: “They knew. I didn’t.”
      Ahead of the meeting, the White House announced airlifts of infant formula from the UK and Australia in an effort to relieve the shortages causing deep anxiety for parents in the US. The transports, part of the administration’s Operation Fly Formula initiative launched last month, will deliver millions of bottles-worth of baby formula to California and Pennsylvania stores across the country in the coming weeks, the White House said.
      A bipartisan group of senators is continuing negotiations in an effort to find some compromise on gun control legislation in the wake of the Uvalde massacre.
      In a glass ceiling-shattering moment, Admiral Linda Fagan takes the oath this afternoon as commandant of the US Coast Guard, becoming the first woman to lead one of the US military services.
      Biden is now posing questions to some of the manufactures who are participating in the roundtable. Of the Reckitt’s CEO, Biden asked a question that has been posed to the administration by its critics: when the Abbott recall happened, and its plant shut down, did his company anticipate immediately the impact this would have on the supply of infant formula?“We knew from the very beginning this would be a very serious event,” said Robert Cleveland, the SVP North America and Europe Nutrition at Reckitt.Several other CEOs echoed the response, saying it was immediately clear that the recall and closure of the Abbott plant would have huge consequences for the infant formula market.In closing, Biden thanked the manufactures for stepping up: “I ask you to keep focused, stay focused. Stay in high-gear. We can’t let up on the infant-formula market until it’s all the way back to normal and that’s going to take a couple more months but we’re making significant progress.”When the meeting concluded, Biden was pressed on why the administration didn’t act sooner. A CNN reporter notes that the manufacturers say they knew the Abbott plant closure would cause major disruptions to the supply of infant formula. “They did, but I didn’t,” Biden replied. President Biden tells us he didn’t realize the depth of the baby formula shortage until April. The Abbott facility — which caused most of the issues — was shuttered in April.— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 1, 2022
      “As a father and a grandfather, I understand how frustrating this shortage has been,” Biden says at the start of the roundtable with infant-formula manufacturers.He says the US has been ramping up production of “safe formula,” noting the closure of the Abbott Nutrition’s plant in Sturgis, Michigan due to contamination problems. Biden said Abbott accounts for 40% of the overall infant-formula market in the United States, and the Sturgis factory was one of their largest plants. Abbott is not among the companies invited to participate in today’s roundtable. “The last thing we should ever do is allow unsafe formula to be sold to parents,” Biden said. The administration recently announced plans to re-start production at the factory, but it would still take several weeks or more before the product is available again on shelves.Biden then outlined the major steps the US has taken to ramp up production of infant-formula, including invoking the Defense Production Act as well as Operation Fly Formula to transport bottles and powder from abroad to the US. The Food and Drug Administration is also taking a series of new steps to make it easier to increase supply of infant formula, he said. “We have work to do though, but we’re making critical progress,” Biden said.Biden has now convened the virtual infant formula roundtable, in the White House’s South Court auditorium. The administration officials participating in person include Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra and the surgeon general Vivek Murthy. Among the infant-formula manufactures participating virtually are CEOs and senior officials from ByHeart, Bubs Australia, Gerber, Reckitt and Perrigo Company.Biden will meet shortly with the manufacturers of infant formula, a meeting meant to highlight the efforts the administration is making to address the shortage that has left shelves empty and parents desperate. Ahead of the meeting, the White House announced that 3.7m bottles-worth of Kendamil infant will be shipped to the US from the UK, to be made available at Target stores across the country and online in the coming weeks. The White House also announced that the administration had sourced two flights to transport 4.6m bottles-worth of Bubs Australia infant formulas from Melbourne, Australia to Pennsylvania and California on 9 June and 11 June respectively. It said more shipments would be announced in the “coming days.”This comes amid reporting that the shortage is getting worse, not better. The Wall Street Journal reported today that the crisis is deepening, hitting low-income families in the south and southwest the hardest. It cites new data by the market-research firm IRI that found 23% of powdered baby formula was out of stock nationally in the week that ended on 22 May, compared with 21% during the previous week. By comparison, in early January before Abbott Laboratories recalled the formula produced in its facilities, just 11% of powdered baby formula was out of stock because of pandemic-related supply-chain shortages and inflation. Read the full WSJ report here.Republicans have seized on the issue as part of their midterm messaging hammering Biden over his handling of the economy. On Wednesday, the RNC released a statement accusing the administration of doing “nothing to prevent the empty shelves parents experience today.” Then, broadening then attack to blame Biden for inflation, the statement concluded: “No excuses from Biden will relieve parents’ worries about feeding their children, affording groceries, and filling up their cars.”In a surprising revelation General Paul Nakasone, the head of US cyber command, told Sky News’ Alexander Martin that American military hackers have “conducted a series of operations” in support of Ukraine since the Russian invasion. It is the first time the US has acknowledged its participation.“We’ve conducted a series of operations across the full spectrum; offensive, defensive, [and] information operations,” Nakasone said in the interview, conducted in Tallinn, adding that the operations were lawful and conducted under proper oversight. “My job is to provide a series of options to the secretary of defense and the president, and so that’s what I do,” he said. 🚨 Scoop: In an exclusive interview with Sky News, General Paul Nakasone confirmed that Cyber Command has conducted offensive operations in support of Ukraine.https://t.co/HdLmwM17Uq— Alexander Martin (@AlexMartin) June 1, 2022
      Nakasone also told the news network that he is concerned “every single day” about the risk of a Russian cyber attack targeting the US. It’s been a talkative day on Capitol Hill and at the White House and there more to come, so please stay tuned.Here’s where things stand:
      Connecticut Democratic US Senator Chris Murphy continues to lead negotiations with a select group of fellow Democrats and what the president terms “rational Republicans” over moderate action on gun control.
      The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack has reportedly told Republican congressman Jim Jordan it expects him to comply with its subpoena by 11 June.
      In a glass ceiling-shattering moment, Admiral Linda Fagan takes the oath this afternoon as commandant of the US Coast Guard, becoming the first woman to lead one of the US military services.
      Democratic and Republican US Senators are holding talks this week, mostly virtually, as efforts continue to forge what Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy has called “a significant package” of gun safety measures that will actually pass.There’s no avoiding the fact that expectations are limited and Murphy demurred when asked at the weekend if Republicans in the talks are ready to raise the age when you can buy an assault rifle from 18 to 21.Senators aren’t expected to even broach ideas for an assault weapon ban or other restrictions that could be popular with the public as ways to curb the most lethal mass shootings, the Associated Press noted, adding that the US has not passed a major federal gun control measure since soon after the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in Connecticut that left 26 dead.The sessions are being led by Murphy and John Cornyn of Texas, whom Joe Biden has called a rational Republican.Democrat Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Republican Thom Tillis are involved and talks so far a “very constructive conversation”.House judiciary committee chairman and New York Democrat Jerry Nadler plans to hold a hearing tomorrow on the “Protecting our Kids Act”, the AP reports – a package of eight bills that has almost no hopes of passing the Senate but would serve as a marker in the debate.It includes calls to raise the age limits on semi-automatic rifle purchases from 18 to 21; create a grant program to buy back large-capacity magazines; establish voluntary safe practices for firearms storage and build on executive measures to ban bump stock devices and so-called ghost guns made from 3-D printing.Murphy has mentioned measures in Senate talks such as red flag laws and more widespread (though not universal) background checks before gun purchases.Murphy just retweeted star of stage and screen Marg Helgenberger who quote tweeted him on gun control.We can’t become numb to gun violence in our country. Stay vigilant & stay loud! https://t.co/8i3g08JfsE— Marg Helgenberger (@MargHelgen) June 1, 2022
      In more midterms news, independent Tiffany Bond of Maine has secured enough verified signatures to qualify for a spot on the ballot this November, according to the Press Herald. This upends one of the most closely-watched races of the cycle: a rematch between Democratic congressman Jared Golden and former Republican congressman Bruce Poliquin for Maines second congressional district. Maine uses a ranked-choice voting system, which was put to use in 2018 when Poliquin won a plurality but not a majority. That year Bond came in third and was eliminated. After the second-place votes were tabulated, Golden won. Roughly two-thirds of Bonds’ voters chose Golden as their second choice.Republicans are favored to win the House this cycle, and Golden is seen as one of the most vulnerable Democrats. But the entry of a third-party candidate changes the dynamics of the race making a competitive race even more uncertain. Golden is a conservative Democrat who often breaks with his party. He was the only House member to split his vote during Trump’s first impeachment trial, voting for one article and not the other. The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack has told Republican congressman Jim Jordan it expects him to comply with its subpoena by 11 June, according to a letter sent to Jordan from the panel’s chairman Bennie Thompson, per CNN.The committee had initially asked for Jordan to comply by 27 May, but is giving him more time. The Jan. 6 committee tells Rep. Jim Jordan it still expects him to comply with its subpoena but is giving him a little more time to do so, setting a new deadline for June 11, per new letter sent to the Ohio Republican. Story w/ @ryanobles https://t.co/Dt5Z8uQ23H— Zachary Cohen (@ZcohenCNN) June 1, 2022
      Last week, Jordan responded to the committee’s subpoena by asking House investigators to share with him all materials they intended to rely upon in questioning, materials in which he is referenced, and legal analyses about subpoenaing members of Congress. In his response, he also questioned the constitutionality of the committee, writing: “Your subpoena was unprompted and, in light of the unaddressed points from my January 9 letter, plainly unreasonable. I write to strongly contest the constitutionality and validity of the subpoena in several respects.”Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House, offered a similar response to the committee last week, telling investigators that he would not cooperate with a subpoena unless he could review deposition topics and the legal rationale justifying the request.Elsewhere in the sprawling investigation into the January 6th attack, Hugo Lowell reports that Trump’s lawyer Kenneth Chesebro wrote in a memo dated 13 December 2020 to Giuliani that vice president Mike Pence should recuse himself from running the electoral count and hand the gavel to a senior Republican, such as South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally. A day before the January 6 attack, senior Republican senator, Chuck Grassley, said he didn’t expect Pence to preside, Lowell notes. NEW: Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro said in 13 Dec 2020 memo to Giuliani that VP Pence should recuse himself from running the electoral count and hand the gavel to a senior GOP senator like Graham — recall that Sen. Grassley said on Jan. 5 he didn’t expect Pence to preside pic.twitter.com/iqyqg9U1sr— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) June 1, 2022
      Jim Jordan demands material on him before complying with January 6 subpoenaRead moreKevin McCarthy refuses to comply with January 6 attack panel subpoenaRead moreIt’s official: admiral Linda Fagan is the 27th commandant of the United States Coast Guard, making her the first woman ever to lead any branch of the US armed services. After the change of command, Fagan takes to the podium to outline her vision for the Coast Guard. Touching on the historic nature of her promotion, she expresses gratitude to one of her predecessors, the late Owen Siler, for his decision to integrate the service academies in 1975. “If it was not for Owen Siler’s courage I do not believe I would be standing here today,” she said, adding that she was wearing the “shoulder boards that he wore as the 15th commandant just to acknowledge the long blue line.”Biden is now at the US Coast Guard headquarters in southwest Washington, where he is speaking at the change of command ceremony. “There’s no one more qualified to lead the proud women and men of the Coast Guard and she will also be the first woman to serve as Commandant of the Coast Guard, the first woman to lead any branch in the United States Armed Forces – and it’s about time,” Biden said to loud applause. Biden thanked her daughter, Aileen, for following in her mother’s footsteps as a graduate of the US Coast Guard Academy graduate and her husband John for supporting her service to the nation. “With her trailblazing career, Admiral Fagan shows young people entering the service that we mean what we say: there are no doors – no doors – closed to women,” Biden said. “Now we need to keep working to make sure Admiral Fagan may be the first but not the only.”Turning to his Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden said when Mayorkas finally sent him Fagan’s name to nominate her the post he joked: “what in the hell took you so long?”Speaking before Biden, Mayorkas said: “Today is an historic day for the Coast Guard and a historic day for the United States.”Biden is making his way to the US Coast Guard headquarters for a change of command ceremony, where retiring Admiral Karl Schultz will be relieved by Admiral Linda Fagan as the commandant of the branch. This is a glass ceiling-shattering moment: When Fagan takes the oath this afternoon, she will become the first woman to lead one of the US military services.Fagan has been the Coast Guard’s second in command since last summer. She graduated from the Coast Guard Academy in 1985, only the sixth class that accepted women. She steadily rose through the ranks, serving on all seven continents, where she worked as an icebreaker and earned the distinction as the longest-serving Marine Safety officer. She is also the first woman to hold the rank of four-star admiral in the Coast Guard.“We’re getting past the ‘firsts,’” Fagan said recently, according to the New York Times. “I hope sometime soon we’re talking about the second female commandant, and the third female commandant, and that we’ll have a Black male commandant.”This just in: vice president Kamala Harris will travel to Reno Nevada to speak at the Conference of Mayors’ Annual Meeting. She will then travel to Los Angeles, where she will attend the Ninth Summit of the Americas.According to Politico, Harris’s western tour is part of the administration’s new push on the economy to better “communicate … our accomplishments” to voters who say their top concern is inflation. In Reno, she will outline the administration’s plan to tackle risings costs and detail actions the White House has already taken to boost the economy. All this month the administration is dispatching senior officials and cabinet secretaries across the country to make the case that the president is acting to help the economy.The aftershocks of New York’s new maps continues to reverberate through Empire State politics. New York congressman Mondaire Jones told NY1’s Kevin Frey that congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, a fellow New York Democrat and the chair of the DCCC, called to apologize for failing to give Jones a ‘heads up’ that he was planning to run in Jones’ newly-drawn district. “I don’t want to speak for my friend Mondaire Jones. But I think you will find that he is focused and excited about the opportunity before him, and so am I. And I think it’s all worked out,” @spmaloney also says. #NY10— Kevin Frey (@KevinFreyTV) May 31, 2022
      Maloney, already facing heat for his handling of the Democrats’ midterm strategy, announced he would run for re-election in New York’s 17th congressional district after his district was re-drawn to become more Republican. This sparked furious criticism among progressives that the chair of the DCCC would jump into the district currently held by a Black freshman lawmaker viewed as a rising star in the party. Jones is now running for New York’s 10th congressional district. “I could have handled things better. And I tried to take accountability for that,” Maloney told NY1, after Jones revealed that the DCCC called him to “apologize for not giving me a heads up.”In that interview, Jones would not say whether he accepted Maloney’s apology or whether Maloney should continue as DCCC chair. In a separate interview, Maloney attempted to spin the debacle as a win for everyone. “I don’t want to speak for my friend Mondaire Jones. But I think you will find that he is focused and excited about the opportunity before him, and so am I. And I think it’s all worked out,” he told NY1.”I don’t want to speak for my friend Mondaire Jones. But I think you will find that he is focused and excited about the opportunity before him, and so am I. And I think it’s all worked out,” @spmaloney also says. #NY10— Kevin Frey (@KevinFreyTV) May 31, 2022
      But but but… it’s not necessarily alls well that ends well. Maloney faces a tough re-election battle in a year where Republicans are favored to take control of the House. Meanwhile, the Democratic primary for New York’s 10th congressional district is hotly contested and rapidly expanding. Just today Axios reported that Dan Goldman, best known as the lead counsel for House Democrats during their first impeachment of former president Donald Trump, intends to run for Congress in New York’s 10th Congressional District.Should Goldman jump into the race for the heavily Democratic district, he would face Jones, as well as former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, and New York Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou. A new story from Politico this morning provides an inside look at the concerted effort by Republicans to “target and potentially overturn” votes in heavily Democratic precincts. The story, based on video recordings of GOP operatives meeting with conservative activists, offers new details about Republicans’ plans to engineer a partisan takeover of state and local election administration. The strategy is blessed by the Republican National Committee and includes installing party loyalists and election conspiracy theorists as poll workers and linking them with party attorneys. Here is how reporter Heidi Przybyla describes it:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The plan, as outlined by a Republican National Committee staffer in Michigan, includes utilizing rules designed to provide political balance among poll workers to install party-trained volunteers prepared to challenge voters at Democratic-majority polling places, developing a website to connect those workers to local lawyers and establishing a network of party-friendly district attorneys who could intervene to block vote counts at certain precincts.The results could spell chaos in 2022 and 2024. “This is completely unprecedented in the history of American elections that a political party would be working at this granular level to put a network together,” Nick Penniman, founder and CEO of Issue One, an election watchdog group, tells Przybyla. “It looks like now the Trump forces are going directly after the legal system itself, and that should concern everyone.”Read the full report here. In a new op-ed published by the New York Times, Joe Biden lays out the US’ intentions in Ukraine. In the piece, titled What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine, Biden also extrapolates on what he views as the US’ “aims” in Ukraine, after rushing billions of dollars in weapons and aid to help the nation beat back a Russian invasion, now in its fourth month. .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}America’s goal is straightforward: We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression, Biden writes.Biden says that the US will not pressure privately or publicly to “make any territorial concessions’’ as part of its negotiations to end the conflict. The US president again emphasized that the US would not engage in direct combat in Ukraine or Russia. “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders,” he writes. “We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.”In the essay, Biden confirms that the US will provide Ukraine with advanced rocket systems and munitions, a development our sister blog on Ukraine has covered in depth. Read the full essay here. Good morning, and welcome to Wednesday’s US politics blog.What we’re watching this morning:
      Both the House and the Senate are on recess. But a bipartisan group of senators, led by Connecticut senator Chris Murphy, are continuing discussions as part of an effort to reach an ever-elusive compromise on gun control legislation in response to the Uvalde massacre that left 17 children and two teachers dead. The senators will hold another virtual meeting today. The talks are centered around background checks and so-called “red flag” laws, which allows law enforcement to remove firearms from individuals deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or other people. These are not major steps. In fact, most gun reform advocates are frustrated at how little is on the table given the extraordinary toll of gun violence.

      Joe Biden is will participate in the US Coast Guard change of command ceremony at 11am, where Linda Fagan will take over as the commandant to become the first female service chief in US history. Later on Wednesday he will meet virtually with administration officials and major infant formula manufacturers to discuss his administration’s efforts to address the shortage at 2:45pm.

      The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, will brief reporters at 3:30pm. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Austin resolution aims to ‘decriminalize’ abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned

      by

      Austin resolution aims to ‘decriminalize’ abortion if Roe v Wade is overturnedGroup of city council members seeks to protect patients from criminal prosecution if supreme court ends abortion rights A group of Austin, Texas city council members is preparing a resolution to “decriminalize” abortion there in the event the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, a landmark case decided nearly five decades ago that protects the federal right to terminate a pregnancy.An unprecedented leaked supreme court draft decision showed a conservative majority of the nine justices are open to reversing Roe v Wade entirely. If that happened, 26 states would be certain or likely to ban abortion, including in Texas. The state has a “trigger” ban that would almost immediately ban abortion.A final supreme court decision is expected in June.“The resolution does two things – one, [it] restricts city funds from being used to essentially investigate any kind of alleged abortion crimes,” said José “Chito” Vela, an Austin councilman. “The other thing it does is to make the investigation of any abortion-related crime the lowest priority for our police department.”The resolution seeks to protect patients and medical professionals from criminal prosecution and would also advise Austin police not to assist other law enforcement, such as state police, in such investigations.Texas has already proven to be a legal pioneer in restricting abortion. The state banned abortion after six weeks gestation, before most women know they are pregnant, through a novel law that allows citizens to sue anyone, anywhere who “aids or abets” a woman in terminating a pregnancy.“We need them focusing on historically classic criminal activity – not politically disfavored groups that factions in the government want to harass and punish,” said Vela. “That’s the real core of what we’re trying to do.”Mainstream anti-abortion groups have long argued they oppose prosecution of women and cast women as victims of abortion providers. Similarly in Texas, the trigger ban would make the performing of an abortion a first degree felony punishable by up to 99 years in prison, an article likely to heavily impact medical providers.However, a vocal minority of abortion “abolitionists” , a word appropriated from anti-slavery campaigners, have also recently pushed lawmakers to classify abortion as murder.In May, Louisiana lawmakers considered a bill to charge women who have abortions with homicide. “We all know that it is actually very simple – abortion is murder,” one of the bill’s supporters, state representative Danny McCormicktold colleagues, according to CBS News. The bill was pulled after it failed 65-26.Although many anti-abortion groups say they oppose prosecution of women, anti-abortion restrictions and rhetoric have nevertheless resulted in more than 1,600 instances of women since 1973 being, “arrested, prosecuted, convicted, detained, or forced to undergo medical interventions that would not have occurred but for their status as pregnant persons,” National Advocates for Pregnant Women said in a recent brief to the supreme court.At least one recent, high-profile example from Texas, 26-year-old woman Lizelle Herrera was charged with murder via “self-induced abortion”, a criminal statute that does not appear to exist. Charges were dropped after public outcry. The prosecutor apologized.Austin’s Guarding the Right to Abortion Care for Everyone or “Grace” Act is still in draft form, and text is not expected to be immediately released. Vela said the council would likely consider the act after the supreme court releases its final decision in the highly anticipated abortion case.It is a case out of Mississippi, formally called Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the southern state has argued that the court should use the case to overturn Roe.“Whatever your thoughts on abortion, criminal prosecution of women who have abortion is absolutely unacceptable and abuse by the criminal justice system,” said Vela. TopicsTexasAustinAbortionUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court guts lifeline for prisoners who claim wrongful convictions

      by

      Supreme court guts lifeline for prisoners who claim wrongful convictionsDecision bars federal courts from hearing new evidence not presented in a state court as a result of ineffective legal counsel The US supreme court on Monday gutted constitutional protections that for years have provided a federal lifeline to innocent prisoners facing prolonged incarceration or even execution following wrongful convictions stemming from poor legal counsel given to them by the states.In a 6 to 3 ruling, the newly-dominant rightwing majority of the nation’s highest court barred federal courts from hearing new evidence that was not previously presented in a state court as a result of the defendant’s ineffective legal representation.The decision means that prisoners will no longer have recourse to federal judges even when they claim they were wrongfully convicted because their lawyers failed to conduct their cases properly.The decision eviscerated the supreme court’s own precedent in a move that the three liberal justices called “illogical” and “perverse”. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor slammed the decision, warning it would leave “many people … to face incarceration or even execution without any meaningful chance to vindicate their right to counsel”.The ruling in Shinn v Ramirez was written by Clarence Thomas, the rightwing justice who has come to the fore as a result of the court’s sharp shift to the right following Donald Trump’s three appointments. He was supported by all five other conservative justices, including the chief justice, John Roberts.In his opinion, Thomas presented the case as one of states’ rights. He said that federal courts should not be allowed to override the states’ “core power to enforce criminal law”.That continues to be the case, the majority ruled, even where defendants are given bad legal advice by counsel provided for them by the very same states that are condemning them to long prison sentences or even execution.In future, they will have no recourse to a federal court to try and reverse their wrongful conviction.The case before the justices arose after state officials in Arizona petitioned the supreme court to prevent two of the state’s death row inmates – one with a strong case of proclaimed innocence, the other with a history of family abuse – from seeking relief in federal court from capital punishment.The state argued that the condemned men should not be allowed to present new evidence to a federal judge when they had failed to do so previously in state court.Lawyers for the condemned men pointed out that they had only failed to present the evidence in state court because the legal counsel they had been assigned by the state was woefully inadequate.If they were blocked from petitioning a federal court, the men would in effect be sent to the death chamber simply because incompetent lawyers had missed a filing deadline or failed to uncover a glaring truth.Monday’s majority ruling prompted an outpouring of angry and anguished criticism from innocence rights groups and death penalty experts.The Innocence Project said that overturning wrongful convictions was never easy, and that “today’s supreme court decision makes it that much harder to secure justice for wrongly-convicted people”.Thomas’s opinion also overturns previous supreme court rulings, in an abrogation of the court’s own adherence to the principle of stare decisis – that is, being faithful to precedent. In 2012 the supreme court ruled in Martinez v Ryan that prisoners could have access to federal court in cases where they had suffered from ineffective legal counsel in the state courts.“The supreme court seems hell-bent on disrespecting precedent and rolling back rights,” said Janai Nelson, president of LDF, America’s first civil and human rights law organization.In her dissenting opinion, Sotomayor decried the ruling. “This decision is perverse. It is illogical,” she wrote.Sotomayor argued that under the court’s own precedent, prisoners cannot be held accountable – and effectively punished – for “their attorneys’ failures to present claims in state court”.She concluded that as a result of the majority decision from the nine-member supreme court bench, the Sixth Amendment to the US constitution’s guarantee that criminal defendants have the right to effective legal counsel at trial “is now an empty one”.In future, she said, prisoners who have had poor legal assistance would have no relief. “The responsibility for this devastating outcome lies not with Congress, but with this court.”TopicsUS supreme courtUS prisonsLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Don’t believe those who say ending Roe v Wade will leave society largely intact | Laurence H Tribe

      by

      Don’t believe those who say ending Roe v Wade will leave society largely intactLaurence H TribeIf the high court adopts Alito’s draft opinion, it will be a legal tidal wave that sweeps away a swath of rights unlike anything America has ever seen Now that the dust has begun to settle after the initial explosive news that the US supreme court is poised to overrule the right to abortion and that Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization represents what a majority of the court initially voted to do, among the most revealing ways to understand the devastation the court appears ready to wreak on America’s long march toward “liberty and justice for all” is to examine the kinds of arguments being made in the opinion’s defense.The argument that such a ruling would simply return a divisive issue to the people had long since been widely dismantled. It certainly wouldn’t be returned to the people most profoundly affected once women were told they may have to remain pregnant despite whatever urgent reasons they might have for seeking a safe and legal abortion. It couldn’t be described as returning the abortion issue to the states, now that the possibility of a nationwide ban that the supreme court might uphold is on the horizon. And to the extent the issue is returned to the states, it would be returned to state legislatures so gerrymandered that they often represent the views of a distinct minority of the people anyway.Ending Roe v Wade is just the beginning | Thomas ZimmerRead moreThe argument that “only” abortion is involved because Alito’s draft assures readers that the supreme court’s opinion won’t be treated as precedent for anything that doesn’t involve killing an unborn human is both profoundly insulting and manifestly misleading. It insults every sentient person by minimizing the significance of commandeering the bodies and lives of half the population – and re-inserting government power into every family. And it misleads every reader of Alito’s words by suggesting that a court has the power to shape how future lawmakers and judges will build on its decisions and the reasoning underlying them. Alito’s hollow promise brings to mind similar assurances in notorious cases like Bush v Gore, is inconsistent with how the judicial process works, and wouldn’t offer any solace to anyone who might become pregnant or whose miscarriage might be treated as a crime scene for police to investigate.The foolishness of the argument that there’s nothing to see here other than the future of abortion law is underscored by some of what is said in its support. We’re told not to worry about the future of decisions like Loving v Virginia, ensuring the right to marry someone of a different race than your own because, after all, Justice Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage. We’re told not to worry about the right to same-sex marriage because, after all, Justice Brett Kavanaugh would never vote to overturn Obergefell v Hodges, the most iconic opinion written by his proud mentor, Anthony Kennedy – the man who left the court only after he had hand-picked Kavanaugh as his successor. We’re told not to worry about contraception (despite the way quite a few people view Plan B or IUDs as forms of abortion) because even supreme court nominees like Amy Coney Barrett, who were cagey about just how “settled” a precedent they deemed Roe v Wade, said they couldn’t imagine anybody today challenging Griswold v Connecticut. All that prognostication is cold comfort to the millions of people whose lives are profoundly affected by these shaky predictions.The most substantial argument is one that is equally fallacious but more sophisticated and in some ways more devious and dangerous: it is the argument that supreme court reversals of precedent, like the reversal of Plessy v Ferguson by Brown v Board of Education, are often to be welcomed as needed course corrections, and that this “course correction” wouldn’t be the first time the supreme court has rolled back decades-old constitutional rights. The many commentators who persisted in describing Alito’s draft in those terms – as an unprecedented retreat in the arc of ever-expanding rights – have recently been denounced as either inexcusably ignorant or deliberately duplicitous by distinguished scholars like Yale’s Akhil Amar, who says that every first-year law student learns that the very same thing happened during FDR’s second term as president, when the supreme court in 1937 in West Coast Hotel v Parrish overturned a long line of decisions that had blocked minimum wage and maximum hours and other worker-protection laws in the name of employers’ rights of “private property” and the “liberty of contract”. To be sure, Amar’s argument echoes that of the Alito draft, which cites Parrish and says, in effect, “nothing to see here, we did the same thing before” when we rolled back the liberty of contract line of decisions in 1937.Justice Alito and Professor Amar are simply wrong: profoundly so. That so-called (and quite misleadingly labeled) “switch in time that saved the nine” was nothing like the switch that Dobbs would represent. The 1937 “switch” was no sudden politically driven turnabout but was in fact the culmination of long-simmering movements in legal and economic thought – movements that were reflected both in scholarship and in judicial opinions from the earliest days of the 20th century in places like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent in Lochner v New York insisting that “the 14th amendment does not enact Mr Herbert Spencer’s social statics,” movements that represented the growing conviction that the “freedom” to work at low wages and in miserable conditions was an illusion lacking both moral and legal foundations and one that simply helped perpetuate economic inequality and the exploitation of relatively powerless, not-yet-unionized workers by wealthy and powerful corporations.Indeed, it is noteworthy that West Coast Hotel v Parrish – the 29 March 1937 decision that is usually marked as the pivot point in the great constitutional upheaval – was handed down by precisely the same set of nine justices as the nine who had rendered a decision pointing in the opposite direction less than a year earlier, on 1 June 1936, in Morehead v New York ex rel Tipaldo. One justice of the nine, a moderate Republican named Owen J Roberts, who had been rethinking his position on the underlying legal theories, had foreshadowed his shifting views by writing a landmark opinion upholding milk price regulation, Nebbia v New York, by a 5-4 vote in 1934 – less than two months after the court had upheld a state mortgage moratorium law by a 5-4 vote in Home Building & Loan Ass’n v Blaisdell, a decision clearly foreshadowing the 1937 repudiation of Lochner’s legacy by reconceiving the meaning of the constitution’s clause forbidding all state impairments of the obligation of contracts.That history is important to keep in mind if one is to understand the depth of the error made by those who seek to compare the 2022 tsunami that Dobbs would represent with the gradual shift in current represented by the 1937 movement away from liberty of contract to protection of workers and consumers. The head-spinning and altogether untimely switch in the supreme court’s abortion jurisprudence that Dobbs would represent – if the decision the court announces late this June or early July is in substance what the leaked Alito draft indicated it would be – will reflect not the steady maturation of a long-developing jurisprudential movement but the crude payoff to a partisan political program to take over the federal judiciary, one beginning with Ronald Reagan’s presidency and the rise of the Federalist Society, and advancing with supreme court appointments made by Republican presidents all of whom lost the popular vote (George W Bush, appointing Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts; Donald J Trump, appointing Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett), and made in circumstances of dubious legitimacy.Professor Amar treats as laughably naïve the observation by ACLU national legal director and Georgetown law professor David Cole that, although “Parrish took away some rights of business owners … its real effect was to expand rights protections for millions of Americans subject to exploitation by powerful corporations.” Amar’s rebuttal? He says, and I’m serious here, that it’d be equally legitimate to say that “Dobbs’ real effect would be to expand rights protection for millions of innocent, unborn Americans … unborn humans, subject to extermination by society.”It’s hard to know where to begin in unraveling that alleged parallel. Suffice it to note that the status as rights-bearing persons of embryos and fetuses remains a matter of profound sectarian controversy in America and throughout the world while no such controversy attends the status as rights-bearing persons of the array of workers whose rights, at least under laws designed to limit economic exploitation if not directly under the constitution itself, were indisputably expanded by virtue of the Parrish decision and the overturning of the Lochner line of cases.Perhaps no less important is the indisputable fact that, although there remain a few commentators who continue to think that Lochner was rightly decided and Parrish was wrong, there is a nearly universal consensus, certainly covering the ideological spectrum on the current supreme court, that the “rights” protected by Lochner and the other decisions that Parrish tossed into the dustbin of history were not constitutionally sacrosanct, and that inequalities of bargaining power prevented the common-law baseline that Lochner treated as immune to legislative modification from having any special constitutional status. At the same time, the notions of personal autonomy and bodily integrity that provide the constitutional foundation for the substantive “liberty” at stake in cases like Roe and Casey are almost universally accepted as real, although deep disagreements remain about whether, to what degree, and from what point in fetal development the protection of the unborn fetus can properly trump that liberty.The upshot is that the radical change in law and society that Dobbs would represent truly has no parallel in the history of the supreme court or in the history of the United States. As David Cole writes, the “proper analogy is not Brown overruling Plessy, but a decision reviving Plessy, reversing Brown, and relegating Black people to enforced segregation after nearly 70 years of equal protection.” For, as Jamelle Bouie rightly observed, “equal standing is undermined and eroded when the state can effectively seize your person for its own ends – that is, when it can force you to give birth.” Whether or not one compares that compulsion and forced labor to literal enslavement, as I did in my 1973 article on Roe v Wade, attempts to minimize the huge retrogression this would represent must be dismissed as little more than shameful efforts to camouflage the carnage the supreme court of the United States is about to unleash both on its own legitimacy and, even more important, on the people in whose name it wields the power of judicial review.
      Laurence H Tribe is the Carl M Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University, the author of numerous books and articles, a distinguished supreme court advocate, and holder of 11 honorary degrees
      TopicsAbortionOpinionUS politicsRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida signs bill into law banning protests outside homes

      by

      Florida signs bill into law banning protests outside homesGovernor Ron DeSantis signs law, citing picketing outside homes of US supreme court justices following leak of draft abortion ruling Protests outside homes are now banned in Florida after the state’s rightwing Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, signed a bill into law prohibiting such demonstrations.DeSantis, who is both an ally and potential 2024 rival to Donald Trump, is a rising star in Republican circles as he courts the party’s rightwing base and eyes a possible White House run.A prepared statement from DeSantis on the bill-signing on Monday cited liberal picketing outside the homes of conservative US supreme court justices following the leak on 2 May of a draft ruling which showed the court was ready to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision that essentially legalized abortion nationwide.The protests outside the justices’ homes generally have been peaceful and within bounds of the US constitution’s first amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to freely express themselves and assemble peaceably. Nonetheless, DeSantis’s statement labeled those protesting for the protection of abortion rights as “unruly mobs”.“Sending unruly mobs to private residences, like we have seen with the angry crowds in front of the homes of supreme court justices, is inappropriate,” DeSantis said. “This bill will provide protection to those living in residential communities and I am glad to sign it into law.”Florida’s ban on so-called residential picketing won passage in the state’s house of representatives and the senate by votes of 76-41 and 28-3, respectively. House Bill 1571 takes effect on 1 October and calls for those found guilty of breaking the new law to face up to 60 days in jail as well as a maximum fine of $500.Florida governor Ron DeSantis signs ‘don’t say gay’ bill into lawRead moreThe legislation comes a week after DeSantis signed into law a bill requiring that Florida students receive at least 45 minutes’ instruction about the “victims of communism” on 7 November. That action came after DeSantis endorsed a state ban on discussions of gender identity and sexual preference through its “don’t say gay” law.And DeSantis – a self-professed opponent of student “indoctrination” – also signed into law a ban on dozens of mathematics textbooks which purportedly reference critical race theory, the academic practice that examines how racism operates in US laws and society.The protesters criticized by DeSantis are concerned by how abortion would be outlawed almost overnight in 26 states – more than half the country – if the leaked provisional decision that showed five conservatives on the nine-justice supreme court had voted to reverse Roe v Wade becomes final.Demonstrators across the US protest expected reversal of Roe v WadeRead moreWhile conservatives have hailed the leak, liberals have protested against it, with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets this past Saturday to signal their support for the rights granted through Roe v Wade.US senators last week swiftly passed legislation expanding security for supreme court justices and their immediate family members in the wake of the leaked draft ruling. But the bill is awaiting approval from the US House.TopicsFloridaRon DeSantisProtestLaw (US)US politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Nancy Pelosi: supreme court ‘dangerous to families and to freedoms’

      by

      Nancy Pelosi: supreme court ‘dangerous to families and to freedoms’House speaker rails against conservative judges appointed by Trump as justices prepare to finalize draft abortion ruling The supreme court is “dangerous to families and to freedoms in our country”, Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday, as justices prepare to finalize a draft ruling stripping almost have a century of abortion rights in the US.The House speaker railed against conservative judges appointed by former president Donald Trump in an interview Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, in which she urged Democrats to keep their “eye on the ball” to protect other freedoms she sees under threat.“Beware in terms of marriage equality, beware in terms of other aspects,” she said.“Understand this. This is not just about terminating a pregnancy. This is about contraception, family planning.“This is a place where freedom and the kitchen table, issues of America’s families, come together. What are the decisions that a family makes? What about contraception for young people? It’s beyond just a particular situation. It’s massive in terms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, a woman’s right to decide.”Speaking the day after hundreds of protest events took place nationwide, Pelosi insisted Democrats had done what they could in terms of protecting abortion rights through legislation. She pointed out the House had passed a bill before the women’s health protection act failed in the Senate on Wednesday, and she said she was still optimistic of a resolution with the support of pro-choice Republicans.But she said the 60-vote requirement in the Senate was “an obstacle to many good things”, and that Democrats needed to rally ahead of November’s midterm elections to “get rid of the damage” caused by conservative justices, including Trump’s three appointments, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.“Whoever suspected a creature like Donald Trump would become president, waving a list of judges he would appoint, therefore getting the support of the far right and appointing those anti-freedom justices to the court?” she said.“This is not about a long game. We played a long game, we won Roe v Wade a long time ago, we voted to protect it over time. Let’s not take our eye off the ball. The ball is this court, which is dangerous to families, to freedoms in our country.“The genius of our founders was to have a constitution that enabled freedom to expand. This is the first time the court has taken back a freedom that was defined by precedent and respect for privacy.”Independent Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, on NBC’s Meet the Press, said he remained hopeful that abortion rights legislation could be resurrected before the midterms.“Nobody should think this process is dead. We should bring those bills up again, and again and again,” he said.“People cannot believe you have a supreme court and Republicans who are prepared to overturn 50 years of precedent. What we should do is on this bill end the filibuster, do everything that we can to get 50 votes on the strongest possible bill to protect a woman’s right to control her own body.”An NBC News poll conducted after the leak of a draft opinion and reported by the network Sunday showed six out of 10 voters were in favor of abortion rights, and that 52% of voters were “less likely” to support a candidate who backed the supreme court’s draft ruling.But the poll found that inflation and the economy remained the biggest concerns for voters as the midterms approach.TopicsUS supreme courtNancy PelosiHouse of RepresentativesAbortionUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More