Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans lose faith in the US supreme court: Politics Weekly America – podcast

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

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

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      Archive: CNN, CBS, C-Span Listen to Tuesday’s episode of Today in Focus, with Jessica Glenza Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in to supreme court after ruling deals blow to climate crisis – as it happened

      by

      Today marked the end an extraordinary term for the supreme court, the aftershocks of which will be felt for years, decades and perhaps even generations to come. From abortion to climate, prayer in school to guns, American life looks differently today than it did just a few weeks ago. The court itself also looks differently. For the first time in its more than 200 year history, a Black women will sit on the court. Here’s what else happened today.
      The supreme court sided with conservative states in a ruling with profound implications for the global effort to tackle the climate crisis. In a statement, Joe Biden vowed to find new ways to limit greenhouse gas emissions and transition to renewable energy.
      In its final decision of the term, a majority of justices agreed that Biden could end his predecessor’s controversial immigration policy.
      A judge in Florida said he would temporarily block a law banning abortions after 15-weeks from taking effect.
      New polling by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research suggests that half of all Americans believe Donald Trump should be charged over his actions on January 6.
      The Justice Department on Thursday announced it was opening an investigation into the New York Police Department’s special victims division after concluding that there was “significant justification” to examine its handling of sex-abuse cases.
      In a new piece for the Guardian, climate scientist Peter Kalmus warns that the Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching and devastating consequences for the planet – and humanity. .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In an era of crises, global heating increasingly stands out as the single greatest emergency humanity faces,” Kalmus writes. “Global heating is driving extreme heat, drought and flooding in the US and around the world. It’s driving wildfire and ecosystem collapse, and may already be contributing to famine and warfare. Crucially, this is all worsening day by day, and it will continue to worsen until we end the fossil fuel industry.
      …
      Without a livable planet, nothing else matters. As the Earth’s capacity to support life continues to degrade, millions, eventually billions of people will be displaced and die, fascism will rise, climate wars will intensify and the rule of law will break down. The myth of American exceptionalism will offer no protection from deadly heat and climate famine.
      In the US we now live under the sway of robed, superstitious fools hellbent on rolling back basic civil liberties and rejecting scientific facts. Carl Sagan, warning against this sort of anti-science, wrote: “The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.” The consequences of ignoring scientists for too long are coming home to roost.
      We desperately need a government working to stop Earth’s breakdown rather than accelerate it, but petitions or pleas to “vote harder” will not make this happen. Due to capture by the ultra-rich, our only option is to fight. To shift society into emergency mode and end the fossil fuel industry, we must join together and do all we can to wake people up to the grave danger we are in. We must engage in climate disobedience. I believe that the tides could still turn, that power could shift suddenly. But this can only happen when enough people join the fight.The US supreme court just made yet another devastating decision for humanity | Peter KalmusRead moreAs Democrats search for ways to protect abortion access, a group of liberal senators are calling on the Pentagon to ensure military servicemembers will have access to the procedure regardless of where they are stationed. In a letter, Senate Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, led by Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono, asked Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to act to “preserve the health and welfare of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Guardians.” It asks the Department of Defense to provide a plan that ensures women seeking reproductive care in states where abortion is severely restricted or banned are allowed to travel out of state to seek care, as well as protects their privacy CNN first reported the letter. “Entrusted to your care are hundreds of thousands of troops, dependents, and Department of Defense civilians who have lost access to safe abortions and now face threats of criminal prosecution for seeking out those services,” the Democratic senators wrote. It concludes: “We owe it to these service members to look after them and ensure they have the ability to continue accessing safe reproductive health care no matter where their military service sends them.”In a dissenting opinion on Thursday, supreme court justice Clarence Thomas incorrectly suggested that Covid-19 vaccines were developed using the cells of “aborted children”. Politico spotted the claim from the conservative justice in a dissenting opinion in response to a decision by the court not to hear a challenge to New York’s vaccine mandate. Over the objection of Thomas and two other conservative justices, the supreme court on Thursday allowed New York to require all healthcare works show proof of vaccination. “They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” Thomas said of the 16 healthcare workers who brought the challenge.Rumors and conspiracy theories fueled vaccine hesitancy and undermined public faith in public health institutions in the United States, where more than 1 million Americans have died from covid-19. Here’s Politico correcting the record..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}None of the Covid-19 vaccines in the United States contain the cells of aborted fetuses. Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in testing during the Covid vaccine development process, a practice that is common in vaccine testing — including for the rubella and chickenpox vaccinations.
      A group of doctors, nurses and other health care workers brought the case, suing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in an objection to the state’s vaccine mandate on religious grounds. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, but the Court of Appeals reversed it and the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the challenge on Thursday.
      Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in his dissenting opinion. And some Thomas defenders noted that he was simply reciting the allegations made by those refusing to get the vaccine.Read the full story here.The Justice Department on Thursday announced that it had opened a civil rights investigation into the New York City police department’s special victims division after concluding there was “significant justification” to examine its handling of sex-abuse cases. In a press release, federal prosecutors said the department had received reports of deficiencies dating back more than a decade. The investigation will look at whether the division has engaged in a pattern of gender-biased policing, examining allegations that include “failing to conduct basic investigative steps and instead shaming and abusing survivors and re-traumatizing them during investigations,” the department said.“Victims of sex crimes deserve the same rigorous and unbiased investigations of their cases that the NYPD affords to other categories of crime,” Damian Williams, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement. “Likewise, relentless and effective pursuit of perpetrators of sexual violence, unburdened by gender stereotypes or differential treatment, is essential to public safety. We look forward to working with our partners in EDNY and the Civil Rights Division to assess the NYPD’s practices in this area.”As abortion clinics shutter around the country and providers navigate a fast-changing legal environment, a judge in Florida said he would temporarily block a 15-week ban from taking effect in the state. The decision comes in response to a court challenge by reproductive healthcare providers who argued that the Florida state constitution guarantees a right to the procedure.According to the Associated Press, the judge, John Cooper, issued the ruling from the bench, but it does not take effect until he signs a written order. The law, passed earlier this year by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature and signed into law by Republican governor Ron DeSantis, goes into effect Friday.Cooper said Florida’s ban was “unconstitutional in that it violates the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution.”DeSantis’ office said it would appeal the ruling.In a new statement, Biden vowed to press forward with executive actions to combat climate change despite what he called the supreme court’s “devastating” ruling on Friday that significantly hobbles the government’s ability to limit carbon gas emissions. “While this decision risks damaging our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis,” Biden said in the statement. Biden said he has directed federal agencies to review the decision in search of ways the administration might still be able to limit pollution. .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}We cannot and will not ignore the danger to public health and existential threat the climate crisis poses. The science confirms what we all see with our own eyes – the wildfires, droughts, extreme heat, and intense storms are endangering our lives and livelihoods.
      I will take action. My Administration will continue using lawful executive authority, including the EPA’s legally-upheld authorities, to keep our air clean, protect public health, and tackle the climate crisis. We will work with states and cities to pass and uphold laws that protect their citizens. And we will keep pushing for additional Congressional action, so that Americans can fully seize the economic opportunities, cost-saving benefits, and security of a clean energy future. Together, we will tackle environmental injustice, create good-paying jobs, and lower costs for families building the clean energy economy.
      Our fight against climate change must carry forward, and it will. A new survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that nearly half of US adults believe Donald Trump should be charged with a crime for his role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, compared with 31% who say he should not be. Nearly 6 in 10 US adults say he “bears a great deal or quite a bit of responsibility” for the violence that unfolded at the Capitol, it found.The survey was conducted after the first five public hearings held by the House committee investigating the attack but before Tuesday’s hearing, which featured explosive testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Trump’s final chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Unsurprisingly, views of Trump’s culpability varied widely along party lines. Nevertheless, it is perhaps a sobering data point for the former president as he toys with a second bid for the White House. It’s been a busy morning in Washington. Here’s where things stand.
      The supreme court ended a monumental session with another pair of consequential decisions. In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority sided with Republican officials and fossil fuel companies in a ruling that curbs the administration’s ability to combat global warming.
      In a second ruling, the court agreed 5-4 that Biden had the authority to end a controversial immigration policy enacted by his predecessor, known informally as the “Remain in Mexico” program.
      During a press conference in Madrid, Joe Biden said he supported changing the Senate rules to pass abortion and privacy protections. But Democrats do not have enough votes to alter, much less eliminate, the filibuster.And as long as the filibuster remains in place, they lack the Republican support to pass legislation that would codify Roe into law.
      Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in as the 116th supreme court justice. She is the first Black woman to serve on the court.
      For this history books. Ketanji Brown Jackson is sworn in as the 116th supreme court justice and the first Black woman to serve on the court.History made. Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in as the newest associate justice of the supreme court on Thursday, becoming the first Black woman in history to ascend to the nation’s highest bench. WATCH: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is officially sworn in as first Black female Justice of the Supreme Court. https://t.co/sHdcaCS1Y2 pic.twitter.com/95Oz59jW3z— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 30, 2022
      In a brief ceremony at the supreme court, Chief Justice Roberts administered the Constitutional oath. Justice Stephen Breyer, who retired at noon, delivered the judicial oath. She is the court’s 116th justice.“Are you prepared to take the oath,” Roberts asked. “I am,” Jackson said, raising her right hand. The 51-year-old Jackson joins the court at an extraordinary moment, after one of the most consequential terms in modern memory. The court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority handed down a slew of decisions that expanded gun rights, eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion and, just today, curtailed the government’s ability to fight climate change.Her confirmation was the fulfillment of a promise Joe Biden made to supporters during the 2020 presidential campaign, when he vowed to nominate a Black woman justice if a vacancy arose. Earlier this year, Breyer announced he would retire at the end of the term, paving the way for her elevation to the court. A former public defender, she brings a unique background. Her arrival is expected to do little to change the court’s ideological composition as she views herself in the mold of her predecessor, one of just three liberals on the court.Roberts said there would be a formal investiture in the fall. Senator Patrick Leahy, the 82-year-old Democrat from Vermont, will undergo hip surgery today after falling in his Virginia home, his office said in a statement. The statement notes that Leahy, a skilled photographer, was born blind in one eye and has had a “lifelong struggle” with depth perception. “He has taken some remarkable dingers over the years but this one finally caught up with him,” it said.The statement said Leahy is expected to make a full recovery but did not offer any timeline for his return. In a Senate divided 50-50, his absence could delay Democrats plans to confirm a host of judicial nominations and a new director to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It may also imperil negotiations over a reconciliation bill, that may be the vehicle for Democrats’ scaled-back climate proposals, all the more urgent in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling today. Now at risk: timely confirmation of ATF and judicial noms, including a DC Circuit judge, and possible reconciliation votes. https://t.co/nMsrox8pdj— Mike DeBonis (@mikedebonis) June 30, 2022
      Biden reiterates his support for changing the filibuster rules to pass abortion protections. We have to codify Roe v. Wade into law.And as I said this morning: If the filibuster gets in the way, then we need to make an exception to get it done.— President Biden (@POTUS) June 30, 2022 More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Giuliani associate Lev Parnas handed 20 months in prison for campaign finance fraud – as it happened

      by

      Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani who was a figure in President Donald Trump’s first impeachment investigation, was sentenced Wednesday to a year and eight months in prison for fraud and campaign finance crimes.Parnas, who had helped Giuliani connect with Ukrainian figures as part of a campaign to dig up dirt on President Joe Biden’s son, had sought leniency on the grounds that he’d helped the Congressional probe, Associated Press reported.But prosecutors said the Soviet-born businessman’s aid was in response to a subpoena and deserved little credit.Instead, they asked the judge to focus on a jury’s finding that Parnas used the riches of a wealthy Russian to make illegal donations to politicians who might aid the launch of a legal recreational-marijuana business.Prosecutors had asked that Parnas be sentenced to more than six years.An October conviction also supported a finding that he made illegal donations in 2018 to jump-start a new energy company.In March, Parnas pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud, admitting that between 2012 and 2019 he conspired with another person to give investors false information about a Florida-based business, Fraud Guarantee.Fraud Guarantee was promoted as a company that could protect investors against fraud. Giuliani accepted $500,000 from the company to act as a consultant, but was not accused of wrongdoing or charged with any crimes.The criminal case against Parnas was not directly related to his work acting as a fixer for Giuliani as the former New York City mayor tried to get Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden’s son, Hunter, before he was elected president.Giuliani, who was working at the time as a personal lawyer for then-President Donald Trump, has said he knew nothing about the crimes of Parnas and others.That’s it from us today, thanks for reading. Here’s how the day unfolded in Washington: Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani and a key figure in Donald Trump’s first impeachment investigation, was sentenced to a year and eight months in prison for fraud and campaign finance crimes. Parnas used the riches of a wealthy Russian to make illegal donations to politicians who might aid the launch of a legal recreational-marijuana business. Trump-backed candidates had a mixed Tuesday in Republican primary elections around the country. Colorado voters largely rejected most Trump-supporting candidates in Tuesday’s GOP primaries, although Lauren Boebert, the extremist Colorado Republican congresswoman, won her bid for re-election. Moderate Republicans held off challenges from more extreme challengers in Utah, Mississippi and Oklahoma, but two Trump-endorsed officials triumphed in Illinois.The Supreme Court will issue two key decisions tomorrow which could impact both the climate crisis and immigration. The court has been weighing how much power the Environmental Protection Agency should have to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and is also considering whether Joe Biden can end Remain in Mexico, the controversial Trump-era policy which sends asylum seekers to Mexico while they wait for their immigration cases to be heard.Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, said he would be “willing and able” to defend a law which banned sodomy, in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade.In an interview with News Nation, Paxton was asked about Lawrence v Texas, a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a state anti-sodomy law and made all such laws invalid nationwide.Last week Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion following the Supreme Court overturning the right to abortion, wrote that the court should also “reconsider” the Lawrence v Texas ruling.In the News Nation Paxton was asked if he would “feel comfortable defending a law that once again outlawed sodomy,” as well as gay marriage and birth control.“I mean, there’s all kinds of issues here, but certainly, the Supreme Court has stepped into issues that I don’t think there was any constitutional issues dealing with, they were legislative issues,” Paxton said. “This [abortion] is one of those issues, and there may be more.”The News Nation host then asked Paxton how he would act if Texas passed a law banning sodomy.Paxton said: “My job is to defend state law and I’ll continue to do that. That is my job under the Constitution and I’m certainly willing and able to do that.”Joe Biden has announced that the US will increase its military forces across Europe with more land, sea and air deployments, as he gathered with Nato leaders for a two-day summit in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Arriving at the meeting in Madrid, the US president announced the stationing of a brigade of 3,000 combat troops in Romania, two squadrons of F-35 fighters in the UK and two navy destroyers in Spain.“The US and its allies are going to step up. We’re stepping up. We’re proving that Nato is more needed now than it ever has been,” Biden said in a short statement he read out before the first summit meeting began.Biden’s announcement is expected to be followed by further commitments by Nato members to a strengthening of forces on the alliance’s eastern flank, which was being discussed by Nato leaders on Wednesday morning.The US president also said the US fifth army corps would establish a permanent base in Poland, extra troops would be committed to the Baltic states and extra air defence systems would be stationed in Germany and Italy.It was, Biden said, a response to Russian aggression, adding: “Together with our allies, we are going make sure Nato is ready to meet threats across every domain, land, air and in the sea”, which came “at a moment when Putin has shattered peace in Europe and the very tenets of rules-based order”.The US sent a further 20,000 troops to Europe earlier this year, taking the total based across the continent to over 100,000. Wednesday’s announcements come on top of that and Biden said the US would “continue to our adjust our posture” if necessary.A lawyer for Ginni Thomas, the wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, has dimmed prospects for a quick appearance before congressional investigators probing the January 6 Capitol riot, after the attorney asked for more information on her requested appearance.Ginni Thomas on June 16 expressed eagerness to speak with the House of Representatives panel investigating the 2021 assault, telling the Daily Caller she “can’t wait to clear up misconceptions.”The committee sent an invitation that day.On Tuesday, however, Thomas’ lawyer, Mark R. Paoletta, wrote to the committee that he did not “understand the need to speak with Mrs Thomas”.“Before I can recommend that she meet with you, I am asking the Committee to provide a better justification for why Mrs Thomas’s testimony is relevant to the Committee’s legislative purpose,” Paoletta wrote.Earlier this month the Washington Post reported that Thomas emailed 29 Arizona lawmakers in a bid to help overturn Trump’s 2020 election defeat.Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani who was a figure in President Donald Trump’s first impeachment investigation, was sentenced Wednesday to a year and eight months in prison for fraud and campaign finance crimes.Parnas, who had helped Giuliani connect with Ukrainian figures as part of a campaign to dig up dirt on President Joe Biden’s son, had sought leniency on the grounds that he’d helped the Congressional probe, Associated Press reported.But prosecutors said the Soviet-born businessman’s aid was in response to a subpoena and deserved little credit.Instead, they asked the judge to focus on a jury’s finding that Parnas used the riches of a wealthy Russian to make illegal donations to politicians who might aid the launch of a legal recreational-marijuana business.Prosecutors had asked that Parnas be sentenced to more than six years.An October conviction also supported a finding that he made illegal donations in 2018 to jump-start a new energy company.In March, Parnas pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud, admitting that between 2012 and 2019 he conspired with another person to give investors false information about a Florida-based business, Fraud Guarantee.Fraud Guarantee was promoted as a company that could protect investors against fraud. Giuliani accepted $500,000 from the company to act as a consultant, but was not accused of wrongdoing or charged with any crimes.The criminal case against Parnas was not directly related to his work acting as a fixer for Giuliani as the former New York City mayor tried to get Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden’s son, Hunter, before he was elected president.Giuliani, who was working at the time as a personal lawyer for then-President Donald Trump, has said he knew nothing about the crimes of Parnas and others. It was a mixed Tuesday for Donald Trump-backed candidates in Republican primary elections around the country. Colorado voters largely rejected most Trump-supporting candidates in Tuesday’s GOP primaries, although Lauren Boebert, the extremist Colorado Republican congresswoman, won her bid for relection. In Illinois, Mary Miller, who had been criticized after she declared the Supreme Court’s abortion decision as a “victory for white life” – a spokesman said she had mixed up her words – won in after she was backed by Trump. Darren Bailey, who was also endorsed by Trump, won the Republican gubernatorial primary in the state. Elsewhere John Curtis, and Blake Moore, Republican congressional candidates in Utah, defeated more extreme challengers. Stephanie Bice, a congresswoman from Oklahoma who – like Moore and Curtis – voted to form the January 6 commission, won her primary bid, as did Michael Guest, in Mississippi.Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court justice, has formally announced his retirement from the Court, effective Thursday.Breyer, who announced earlier this year that he would retire – Ketanji Brown Jackson has already been chosen to replace him – wrote to Joe Biden to confirm he would step down tomorrow.“This past January, I wrote to inform you of my intent to retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon the Court rising for its summer recess,” Breyer wrote.“The Court has announced that tomorrow, beginning at 10 am, it will hand down all remaining opinions ready during this Term. Accordingly, my retirement from active service under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) will be effective on Thursday, June 30, 2022, at noon.“It has been my great honor to participate as a judge in the effort to maintain our Constitution and the Rule of Law.”‘So much joy’: Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation lauded as ray of hopeRead moreThe extremist Colorado Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert won her primary on Tuesday night, shortly after attacking the separation of church and state under the US constitution.“I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk,” she said.A dedicated controversialist first elected in 2020, backed by Donald Trump and described by NBC News as a “Maga lightning rod”, Boebert convincingly beat Don Coram, a state senator, for the nomination to contest the midterm elections.At one event recently Coram, 74, told voters: “My politics are very similar to my driving. To the chagrin of both my wife and my Republican colleagues, I tend to crowd the center line and sometimes I veer over a bit.”In contrast, Boebert has heckled Joe Biden during the state of the union address; made racist attacks on Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota; vowed to carry a gun on to the House floor; and voted to object to results in swing states in the 2020 presidential election.Boebert beat Coram by 31 points.Republican Lauren Boebert wins in Colorado after denouncing separation of church and stateRead moreFox News Channel is airing the January 6 committee hearings when they occur in daytime hours – and a striking number of the network’s viewers have made clear they’d rather be doing something else, according to Associated Press.During two daytime hearings last week, Fox averaged 727,000 viewers, the Nielsen company said. That compares to the 3.09 million who watched the hearings on MSNBC and the 2.21 million tuned in to CNN.It completely flips the typical viewing pattern for the news networks. During weekdays when the hearings are not taking place, Fox News routinely has more viewers than the other two networks combined, Nielsen said.Last Thursday, Fox had 1.33 million viewers for the 2 pm Eastern hour before the hearing started – slightly below its second quarter average, but on par for early summer, when fewer people are watching TV.After the hearing started, Fox’s audience’s sank to 747,000 for the 3 pm Eastern hour and even lower, to 718,000, at 4 pm. Fox cut away from the hearing at 5 pm to show its popular panel program, “The Five,” and fans immediately rewarded them: viewership shot up to 2.76 million people, Nielsen said.The apparent lack of interest explains why the Trump-friendly network stuck with its regular lineup during the committee’s only prime-time hearing, while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC all showed the Washington proceedings.Presidential historian Michael Beschloss made a joke at Donald Trump’s expense, in the aftermath of Cassidy Hutchinson’s explosive testimony before the January 6 committee yesterday.This morning, Beschloss shared a photo to Twitter of the last meal that Richard Nixon ate at the White House before he resigned as president. “Nixon’s last lunch at White House, 1974,” Beschloss said of the photo. “Record shows that although he was leaving Presidency against his will, he did not throw this plate at the wall.”Nixon’s last lunch at White House, 1974. Record shows that although he was leaving Presidency against his will, he did not throw this plate at the wall. pic.twitter.com/joCuuCsTcg— Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) June 29, 2022
      That appeared to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to Hutchinson’s claim that Trump had a habit of throwing food when he was angry. That habit reared its head in December 2020, when the AP published an interview with then-attorney general William Barr, who said there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.According to Hutchinson, she walked into the White House dining room that day to see a valet cleaning up a dirty tablecloth. She noticed ketchup dripping down the wall where a television was mounted, and a porcelain plate lay shattered on the floor.Asked whether Trump often engaged in such behavior, Hutchinson said: “There were several times throughout my tenure with the chief of staff that I was aware of him either throwing dishes or flipping the tablecloth to let all the contents of the table go onto the floor.”New York City is suing five companies it says are involved in the sale of illegal, largely untraceable “ghost guns” flowing into the city, Reuters reports:In a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court on Wednesday, New York attorneys said the companies have created a public nuisance by selling “unfinished” firearms components that purchasers can build into guns, without undergoing background checks.The result is “a proliferation of unserialized, untraceable, unlawful ghost guns in the city’s streets and homes, making the City more dangerous for both the public and for law enforcement, causing a quintessential public nuisance,” the complaint said.Arm or Ally LLC, Rainier Arms LLC, 80P Builder, Rock Slide USA LLC and Indie Guns LLC were named as defendants The companies did not immediately respond to requests from Reuters for comment.New York City wants the defendants to stop selling ghost gun components and provide records of sales into the city over the last five years. City officials said this month that gun arrests are at a 28-year high.Colorado voters rejected most Trump-supporting candidates in Tuesday’s GOP primaries, and they weren’t the only ones.In Utah Blake Moore, a first-term US congressman who voted for an independent commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection, defeated his more extreme challengers.John Curtis, a moderate Republican, also defeated a primary opponent from the right.Stephanie Bice, a congresswoman Oklahoma from who – like Moore and Curtis – voted to form the January 6 commission, won her primary bid, as did Michael Guest, in Mississippi.Tina Peters, who became nationally known after being indicted for her role in a break-in of her own county election system, lost her bid for the GOP nomination for Colorado secretary of state.Still, there were some victories for Trump.Lauren Boebert, the extremist Colorado Republican congresswoman, who has been backed by Trump, won her bid for relection, days after denouncing separation of church and state.Mary Miller, who had been criticized after she declared the Supreme Court’s abortion decision as a “victory for white life” – a spokesman said she had mixed up her words – won in Illinois after she was backed by Trump. Darren Bailey, who was also endorsed by Trump, won the Republican gubernatorial primary in the state.Andrew Giuliani, the anti-vax, Trumpite son of Rudy Giuliani, lost his bid to be governor of New York on Tuesday night.Lee Zeldin, a US congressman who, like the younger Giuliani, supported Donald Trump, defeated his opponent by 19 points, bringing to an end a chaotic, firebrand campaign by Giuliani that failed to catch on with New Yorkers.One of Giuliani’s final campaign events was marked by his father claiming a supermarket employee had assaulted him during a campaign event. Video footage showed a man patting Rudy Giuliani on the back. Giuliani Sr said he could have been killed. Eric Adams, New York City’s mayor, has suggested Giuliani, Trump’s on-again, off-again friend/lawyer/advisor, should be prosecuted for falsely reporting a crime.What Rudy Giuliani says happened at ShopRite vs. what actually happened pic.twitter.com/ZQ1Qwi1HC0— The Recount (@therecount) June 27, 2022
      Republicans in Colorado rejected two prominent candidates whose political profiles were centered on election falsehoods, in a fresh reminder that fealty to former President Donald Trump’s lies about mass voter fraud is no guarantee of success with conservative voters, Associated Press reports:Tina Peters, the Mesa County clerk who became nationally known after being indicted for her role in a break-in of her own county election system, lost her bid for the GOP nomination for Colorado secretary of state. Instead, Republicans selected Pam Anderson, a critic of Trump’s election lies and a former clerk in suburban Denver who is well-regarded among election professionals. She is now positioned to challenge Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold.“I will continue my fight for restoring the confidence of Colorado voters against lies and the politicians or interest groups that seek to weaponize elections administration for political advantage,” Anderson said after her victory.One of Peters’ top Colorado allies, state Rep Ron Hanks, lost his bid for the party’s Senate nomination to Joe O’Dea, a businessman who has repeatedly acknowledged that Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election. That was a sharp contrast with Hanks, who attended the January 6 rally in Washington, doesn’t believe Biden is a legitimate president and says he discovered a new, animating purpose fighting election fraud after 2020.Hello and welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of the day’s political news. Here’s what we’re monitoring today:The Supreme Court is expected to give decisions today which could have lasting effects on how the US handles the climate crisis. The court has been weighing how much power the Environmental Protection Agency should have to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.Remain in Mexico, the controversial Trump-era policy which sends asylum seekers to Mexico while they wait for their immigration cases to be heard, is also on the table. The Supreme Court is due to decide whether Joe Biden can end the program, which has kept thousands of would-be immigrants in sometimes dangerous conditions across the US border.After the bombshell testimony that Donald Trump directed his supporters to march on the Capitol, despite knowing many of them were armed, the Secret Service has begun to push back. Numerous outlets have reported that members of the Secret Service are willing to testify that elements of the testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to the then White House chief of staff, are inaccurate. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      California to vote on adding abortion rights protection to state constitution

      by

      California to vote on adding abortion rights protection to state constitutionThe amendment added to this year’s ballot is part of Democrats’ aggressive strategy to expand access to abortion California voters will decide in November whether to guarantee the right to an abortion in their state constitution, a question sure to boost turnout on both sides of the debate during a pivotal midterm election year as Democrats try to keep control of Congress after the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade.The court’s ruling on Friday gives states the authority to decide whether to allow abortion. California is controlled by Democrats who support abortion rights, so access to the procedure won’t be threatened anytime soon.But the legal right to an abortion in California is based upon the “right to privacy” in the state constitution. The supreme court’s ruling declared that a right to privacy does not guarantee the right to an abortion. California Democrats fear this ruling could leave the state’s abortion laws vulnerable to challenge in state courts.California abortion clinics braced for out-of-state surge as bans kick inRead moreTo fix that, California lawmakers on Monday agreed to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year that would leave no doubt about the status of abortion in California.The amendment would declare that the state “shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives”.California joins Vermont in trying to protect abortion in its state constitution. The Vermont proposal, also on the ballot this November, does not include the word “abortion” but would protect “personal reproductive autonomy” – although there is an exception “justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means”.Meanwhile, four conservative states – Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia – have constitutions that say a right to an abortion is not protected, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights group.The amendment in California is part of Democrats’ aggressive strategy to expand access to abortion in response to the US supreme court’s ruling. Last week, Gavin Newsom signed a law aimed at shielding California abortion providers and volunteers from lawsuits in other states – a law aimed at blunting a Texas law that allows private citizens to sue people who help women in that state get an abortion.California’s massive budget includes more than $200m to expand access to abortion in the state. The money would help pay for abortions for women who can’t afford them, scholarships for abortion providers and a new website listing all of the state’s abortion services in one place.The budget also includes $20m to help women pay for the logistics of an abortion, including travel, lodging and child care. But the Newsom administration says the money can’t be used to help women from other states where abortion is illegal or severely restricted come to California to get the procedure.A dozen other bills are pending that would support those seeking and providing abortions such as allowing some nurse practitioners perform abortions without the supervision of a doctor and block disclosure of abortion-related medical records to out-of-state entities.TopicsCaliforniaAbortionRoe v WadeHealthUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More