Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump freewheels towards debate as Biden rehearses at Camp David

      by

      Presidential political surrogates fanned out across the Sunday talkshows to prepare the ground for next week’s televised debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, which could help the Democratic incumbent and his Republican predecessor focus the minds of undecided or unengaged voters on November’s election.But the candidates themselves are taking strikingly different approaches. Biden is hunkered down at Camp David in debate preparation, reportedly with his personal attorney Bob Bauer standing in for Trump in mock exchanges.Bauer told Politico last week that his job was “to approximate as closely as you possibly can how it is that that individual, the opponent, is going to debate”.Trump, however, is not known to have a debate surrogate – or been in any debate practice. Instead, he has been out on the campaign trail. In Philadelphia on Saturday, he continued his rhetoric on immigration, at one point saying he would suggest to Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, that the organization pit a league of fighters who are immigrants against the “regular” league fighters with the champion of each then squaring off.That left the talkshows to mull the impending clash with campaign surrogates talking up – or talking down – mounting expectations for a decisive exchange. However, there are also concerns that without a live TV audience to provide voter interaction, it could also fall flat.“I expect President Biden to do an excellent job just like he did the last few debates,” Biden’s campaign co-chairperson Mitch Landrieu told NBC’s Meet the Press.Referring in part to Trump’s conviction in the criminal prosecution involving hush-money paid to the adult film actor Stormy Daniels, Landrieu said: “It really doesn’t matter how Donald Trump shows up, if he comes in unhinged, like he has most of the time, or he sits there and is quiet, people are going to know that he’s a twice-impeached convicted felon who has been found to have defamed somebody, sexually abused somebody and going bankrupt six times.”Landrieu said that Biden was “really anxious to tell his story to the American people”, adding: “This race is going to be tight. Everybody knows that.”Trump, Landrieu said, “wakes up every day pretty much thinking about himself, thinking about his rich friends … really thinking about ways to hurt people with the power that he would have if he were the president of the United States again”.Biden, Landrieu added, “wants to be really clear about the difference between those two that everybody will see again on Thursday”.Also for the Democrats was the US senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a member of the national advisory board for Biden’s re-election campaign. With the second anniversary of the elimination of federal abortion rights previously granted by Roe v Wade falling on Monday, Warren sought to bring reproductive rights to the forefront of the looming presidential race, a posture that let Democrats retain control of the Senate and blunted the Republican House majority in 2022.Warren said that if Biden is re-elected and Democrats are given a majority in Congress, her party would be able to defend and restore access to abortion, contraception and in vitro fertilization.“We’re going to make Roe v Wade [the] law of the land again,” Warren said. “Understand this. I want to say this as clearly as I can. If Donald Trump is elected to the presidency, he and the extremist Republicans are coming after abortion, contraception, and IVF in every single state in this country. Not just the [conservative] states.”Trump has said his VP pick will be in the audience in Atlanta on Thursday – a contest that is reported to have narrowed to the North Dakota governor, Doug Burgum, Florida senator Marco Rubio, and Ohio senator JD Vance.Trump told reporters on Saturday he had made a determination but has not let them know. “In my mind, yeah”, Trump told reporters at a cheesesteak restaurant in Philadelphia.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMeanwhile, Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor who was once considered a strong contender to be Trump’s running mate, on Sunday continued trying to bounce back from a disastrous passage in her recently published book in which she recounted shooting a dog to death that she claimed had become dangerous to her family.Noem’s admission came after Biden’s German shepherd, Commander, was merely banished from the White House after biting three dozen Secret Service agents during an 18-month reign of terror.Noem said she thought Thursday’s clash would be “an important debate” and “a great opportunity for President Trump to talk about his policies and how his policies when he served as president of this country were good”.Nonetheless, Noem confirmed that she had not received paperwork from Trump relating to his vice-president pick that others reportedly had. “I’ve had conversations with the president, and I know that he is the only one who will be making the decisions on who will be his vice-president,” she said diplomatically.A strong contender for the role, Burgum told CNN’s State of the Union that Biden’s team had made a real effort to lower expectations. He challenged the network, which is the debate host, to ask tough questions, including over Biden’s assertion when he last debated Trump in 2020 that the furore around Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation”.Though many claims about its contents have not been confirmed, the laptop was admitted as evidence in the recent trial which led to Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges.“If he’s that good at lying about that four years ago, the question is what might he do this time,” Burgum added. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Atlanta center of US political universe once again with Biden-Trump debate

      by

      Joe Biden will debate Donald Trump on Thursday night in an unnerving repeat of the 2020 election cycle, and once again Atlanta is the center of the political universe.The question is whether the two candidates can influence Atlanta, or if Atlanta, which influences everything in American politics, is beyond their influence.Elections in Georgia have been in a state of trench warfare since 2018, the rise of Stacey Abrams and election outcomes predicated more on supercharged turnout than convincing anyone of anything they didn’t already believe. Georgia’s 2020 election was decided by a figurative hair – the infamous 11,780 votes Trump asked the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to find in a “perfect phone call” that led to his indictment here.Within the state, Atlanta has extra significance this year. The Biden administration has sent Kamala Harris to the city repeatedly this year, a sign of Democratic anxiety about losing Black voters in a historically Black city. Biden himself came last month to give the commencement speech at Morehouse College, a historically Black college, to a generally positive reception.Trump also has a relationship with Atlanta, of course. It is markedly less positive.Whether Trump is returning to the scene of the crime is a matter to be decided, eventually, by a Fulton county jury. Trump had his notorious – and lucrative – mug shot taken at the Fulton county jail about two miles north-west of the empty studio he and Biden will debate in, across the street from Centennial Olympic Park downtown.“All I can see coming out of this is memes,” said Bem Joiner, an Atlanta cultural critic and creative consultant. Joiner doesn’t want to diminish the importance of a presidential debate, and knows there are issues for which the public craves substantive argument, but people have already picked a side, he said.“I think it is what it is with this race,” Joiner said. “I cannot see questions being answered in a way that changes the mind of anyone at this point, with these two people. You can only, maybe, do something to fuck it up more for you.”View image in fullscreenFor all the symbolism of a debate in the heart of Atlanta, the format is made largely for the national stage. The two men will be standing in an otherwise-empty room, interrogated by two CNN anchors – Jake Tapper and Dana Bash – who neither live nor work in the city.Perhaps the spare environment will limit casualties from collateral fire. In the 2016 debates, Trump lied repeatedly and floridly about his performance on the pandemic, race relations and the economy, while interrupting the moderators and Biden. We remember Trump telling Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” and Biden, exasperated by yet another interruption, asking Trump to just shut up for once.The vitriolic chaos effectively ended the Presidential Commission on Debates as a mechanism for administering the events. This time, Biden is the one defending a presidential record. Trump wants to focus on that record, looking for a wedge to separate Biden from what pliable voters remain in America. Biden is likely to be comfortable explaining the accomplishments of his administration, but will try to use the debate to remind America of the reasons they got rid of Trump in the first place.CNN’s studios in downtown Atlanta are mostly empty today. The network has been forsaking the CNN Center bit by bit for a decade, accelerating their shift to DC and New York after AT&T sold the building to developers in 2021. The halls are filled with echoes of Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer, abandoned set signs in the walkways and ghosts in the studios. The markers of life, such as the Cartoon Network store in the moribund food court, are gone.Workers carted away the CNN sign in March. They just call it “the Center” now.Atlanta itself is thriving, generally, despite the protestations of conservatives like Trump, who has repeatedly attacked its elected leaders and its people over the years. Atlanta also has a flair for expressing its displeasure at such things.Trump even unloaded on the Atlanta civil rights leader and congressman John Lewis in 2017 after the congressman skipped Trump’s lightly-attended inauguration. “Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities of the US. I can use all the help I can get,” he tweeted.Atlanta responded with a barrage of snark under the hashtag #defendthefifth, posting idyllic pictures of children playing in parks or strolling along the BeltLine. Those hashtags were still being used by people standing in line to vote in Atlanta in 2020.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump also showed up to the college football championship at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in 2018. But the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America projected the words “Fuck Trump” on to the side of the stadium while he was there, and not one soul did a thing to stop them.Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that Trump had to cart in Black supporters for a publicity stunt presented as authentic community support for his campaign two months ago at a Chick-fil-A up the street from the stadium. Even so, Trump claims he’s winning Black voters in record numbers, which – if it were true – might represent the margin of victory in Georgia.“What is absolutely true is the Republicans cannot win the White House without Georgia,” said Stephanie Jackson Ali, policy director for the New Georgia Project, a voter outreach organization. “Either way, Georgia is going to be critical this year for any side to perform well in.”“Georgia is also unique in being such a southern state with a large Black population, but also a growing Latino population and API [Asian/Pacific Islands] population. This perfect storm of reasons makes Georgia such a great place to come to, because you can talk to so many people from so many backgrounds, all in one place.”The New Georgia Project’s political action fund is hosting a watch party, “Vibe and Vote”, at a cigar bar on Peachtree Street on debate night, focusing on Black men and voter turnout. Trump’s reported gains with Black men have prompted a wave of outreach from progressive groups.Harris, meanwhile, may as well put down a deposit on a Buckhead condo considering all the time she spends in town. She has made a point of discussing the administration’s investments in the Black community generally and Atlanta specifically, like a $158m plan to use infrastructure dollars on a project to build a cap over Atlanta’s most traveled highway, the Downtown Connector.She again visited Atlanta on Tuesday – her fifth visit to Georgia this year – for a talk with Migos rapper Quavo to discuss gun violence.Biden and Trump are competing for a vanishingly small portion of the electorate – people who haven’t made up their mind about two people who have been in the public eye for much of the last two decades of American life. Neither is popular. But many people have simply tuned out politics, even here in the center of the political storm.The first debate is a warning bell for them, that election season is upon us more than ever and it is time to pay attention. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      In Trump we trust: religious right on crusade to make their man president

      by

      God’s army is on the march. And many of its foot soldiers are wearing “Make America great again” regalia, sensing that their unlikely standard-bearer, former US president Donald Trump, is once again close to the promised land.“I do not believe that America can survive another four years of Joe Biden,” Ralph Reed, founder and chair of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, told a gathering of the religious right in Washington on Friday. “I haven’t felt this way since Jimmy Carter was president.” The audience burst into knowing laughter.Reed promised they would knock on 10m doors of Christian and conservative voters in every battleground state, make 10m phone calls, send 25m text messages and put 30m voter guides in 113,000 churches, producing “the biggest turnout of Christian voters in American history”.The election result will be clear, he added. “This time there aren’t gonna need to be any lawsuits. We’re not going to have to go to court and we’re not going to have to wait until 2.30 in the morning for Donald Trump to declare victory. He’s going to do it at 9 o’clock at night!”With Trump running ahead of Biden in many swing state polls, religious right voters scent a historic opportunity to impose a radical agenda that could ban abortion nationwide, curb LGBTQ+ rights and blur the separation of church and state. At Friday’s conference, speaker after speaker framed it as righteous crusade and the only way to resist a tide of liberal secularism sweeping America.Ben Carson, a former housing secretary in Trump’s first term, praised Republican-dominated Louisiana for becoming the first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every government school classroom.“Aren’t you glad that yesterday the governor of Louisiana signed into law – put the Ten Commandments back in the schools?” he said to cheers and applause before warning of a 60-year communist project to change America by taking over schools, churches and Hollywood and removing God from the public square.Josh Hawley, a Republican senator for Missouri, warned of a “radical anti-faith agenda” gripping the country. He said: “Who’s dividing America is the radical left and that’s why I say to you we don’t need less Christian influence in our society, we don’t need less Christian witness in our society; we need more in every part of government, in every part of society.”To approving roars from the audience, Hawley added: “We ought to take the Pride flag out of schools and put the Bible back in. You know what? We ought to take the trans flag down from all of our federal buildings and over every federal building in America write the words: ‘In God we trust.’ In God we trust. Amen.”The couching of an Armageddon election, in which religious truth itself is at stake, with victory representing divine providence and defeat spelling total catastrophe, was crystallised by Monica Crowley, a rightwing political commentator and former assistant secretary of the treasury.She described the election as a “hinge moment” comparable to the American revolution, American civil war, second world war and September 11 terrorist attacks. She spoke of a “war” against “the enemy within” that has spent nearly half a century “infiltrating, undermining and destroying” America with “godless philosophies”.Crowley lamented that Hollywood no longer produces “patriotic films” like those of John Wayne and, extraordinarily, defended the communist witch-hunts of the 1950s. “Senator Joe McCarthy was right, and he was trying to ring the bell in the 1950s about communist infiltration in our government and the same deep state that is now going after Donald Trump,” he said.“The same deep state that removed Richard Nixon, the same deep state that went after Ronald Reagan and anybody else who stood up to them. That deep state became very insidious and in the 1950s smeared and attacked Joe McCarthy for speaking the truth about godless communism in very halls of our government.”Notably, little was said by the dozen main stage speakers about abortion, a live political grenade for which Republicans have struggled find a coherent message since the supreme court overturned the landmark Roe v Wade precedent two years ago.Religious conservatives’ pact with Trump appears to be holding. Some were sceptical about the thrice-married reality TV star when he first ran for president in 2016 but the concerns were assuaged by his running mate, born-again evangelical Christian Mike Pence, and by a first term that saw him shift the judiciary to the right.Not even Trump’s conviction in New York last month on 34 felony counts in a trial involving hush-money payments to an adult film star has shaken his grip on this constituency. Many who complain that their faith is under siege regard him as a blunt instrument with which to fight back against the radical left.They often rationalise their vote by saying they are choosing a president, not a pastor. Some evangelicals have likened him to Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who, according to the Bible, enabled Jews to return to Israel from their exile in Babylon.View image in fullscreenRobert P Jones, the president and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute thinktank in Washington, wrote on Substack recently: “The transformation of Trump from a person to a symbol is the key to understanding the power of the Maga movement and the internal logic of the upside-down world where a unanimous guilty verdict in a fair trial results in solidified support, record fundraising, and desperate Christian defenses of a convicted felon.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe presumptive Republican nominee has exploited this totemic status. Earlier this year, he launched his own brand of Bible, selling for $59.99 each. During the trial, he shared social media posts comparing himself to Jesus Christ.At Friday’s Road to Majority policy conference, it was not uncommon to hear of the Almighty and Trump spoken in the same breath. Crowley said: “We do have a fearless leader in Donald Trump, where they have thrown the kitchen sink at this man over nine years and they cannot believe that he is still standing. Hand of God!”Kari Lake, a senate candidate in Arizona, said: “We gotta bring Him back into our culture, into our lives, into our hearts and souls – and then also let’s work to bring Donald J Trump back on November 5.”Inside the upmarket Washington hotel hosting the conference, there were vendors selling Maga merchandise, lifesize cardboard cutouts of Trump and an area where attendees could pose with head shots of their choice for his running mate.Stephen Sandrelli, 60, posed with a picture of the US representative Elise Stefanik against an Oval Office backdrop. “First of all, we’ve got to deport millions – at least 15 million people,” he said of a second Trump term. “The Democrats are terrorists. They hate our nation. They hate humankind.“They’re trying to replace us – replacement theory, whatever you want to call it – and Trump cares about us. I believe he’s a man that God has touched and he’s doing the right thing. He’s only blessed our country. He’s only helped people.”Sandrelli, a former Democrat and federal government officer from Fitchburg, Massachusetts, added: “Anybody who supports abortion is supporting murder.”But sensing political danger, Trump has refused to endorse a national abortion ban. Some here felt let down. Wearing a red Maga cap, Thomas Dinkel, 16, who goes to a school in Morgantown, West Virginia, said: “I’m going to be honest with you: as a pro-life Christian, it hurts. I see why he and a lot of other national Republicans are doing it. They’re slowly backing away from the issue. It’s ruffled some feathers.“I do back an abortion ban. For right now, it’s at the state level, and I respect that, but if it ever went as a federal ban, I would back that. I understand why Trump is having a stance on that, just like some other stances he’s been taking lately. I pray that when he gets in, the least he can do for the pro-life communities is continue to back and appoint pro-life justices.”But Dinkel is supporting Trump and is willing to overlook his moral shortcomings, saying: “Listen, I’m a Christian. I mess up, you mess up. Everyone in this room messes up. We sin, we fall short, we turn away from God, and Trump has admitted to that. He’s not the best person. He’s not a perfect person. None of us are. He says that he’s repented of his sins, and I’m called to forgive Trump.”Dorothy Harpe, an African American woman who is retired from a church in Atlanta, Georgia, was wearing a Maga cap and badge that said: “Trump was right!” The 74-year-old said: “He tells the truth. People don’t want to believe him, they think he always doing something wrong, but he’s not. He’s innocent of all the bogus charges they brought against him. God knows every man’s heart, and I believe he is a Christian.” More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court’s rightwing justices are fighting legal monsters of their making | Moira Donegan

      by

      In the late 18th century, when the constitution was ratified, men’s abuse of women was penalized by neither custom nor by the law. Men were allowed to beat their wives, their children and any women they held authority over in their personal lives: such beatings were not generally illegal, nor especially frowned upon, but understood as a private prerogative that all men held over the women in their lives.Many men still treat such beatings this way: as an entitlement of manhood. The supreme court’s 2022 Bruen decision, authored by Clarence Thomas – a ruling that drastically expanded gun rights and restricted government ability to regulate guns to a sphere no greater than that which was practiced at the time of the constitution’s ratification – would have largely agreed with them. At least, until this Friday.In the wake of the 2022 ruling, lower courts have ruled that, under Bruen, no gun restriction is permissible unless it has an exact historical analogue from the founding era. In the fifth circuit, this interpretation would have restored gun rights to Zackey Rahimi, a brutal and prolific domestic abuser, according to police and court records, who challenged the federal government’s right to take his guns away. In an 8-1 ruling on Friday, the supreme court narrowed its Bruen decision to keep guns out of Rahimi’s hands.The decision is likely to save lives. Two-thirds of women who are murdered by their current or former intimate partners are killed with a gun; a woman whose abuser has access to a gun is five times more likely to die at his hands. That a circuit court would have restored gun rights to men who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders reflects just how extreme the federal judiciary’s gun jurisprudence has become – and, as in their abortion jurisprudence, how casual and careless many federal judges are with women’s lives.But the supreme court’s decision in United States v Rahimi also reveals the logical inconsistencies in the foundation of so-called “originalist” legal interpretation, the unworkability of the court’s insistence on historical precedent for every government regulation and the growing divisions among the conservative justices about just what “history and tradition” should mean.The court’s ultimate ruling was lopsided, with eight of the justices joining John Roberts’s majority opinion and only Thomas, Bruen’s original author, dissenting. But the decision in Rahimi seems to have been an unusually contentious one, animating and dividing the court. In addition to Roberts’s majority opinion and Thomas’s dissent, Rahimi yielded no fewer than five concurrences – with Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each chiming in to explain their vote against abusers’ rights individually, and Jackson and Sotomayor also writing independently to express their concern about Bruen’s methodology.Roberts stressed that the historical test in Bruen was loose enough to allow for some gun restrictions, including those on domestic abusers. It was a mistake, he said, to read Bruen “to require a ‘historical twin’ rather than a ‘historical analogue’.” His reasoning was echoed by Barrett, who advocated for a historical test of what she called “original contours”, one that “looks at historical gun regulations to identify the contours of the [second amendment] right”.Gorsuch, meanwhile, was much more sympathetic to the Thomas dissent, suggesting that an abuser like Rahimi might have prevailed in securing access to guns again if he had challenged the federal law on narrower grounds. Kavanaugh, as usual, said nothing of importance. Only Thomas insisted that Bruen’s originalism created a demand for an exact historical precedent for government regulation; he would have rearmed Rahimi, the man who was only exercising what, in the late 18th century, would have been understood as his private right.The case is another signal of infighting among the court’s conservatives: they cannot decide what they think “originalism” demands, or what they mean when they say “history and tradition”. The court’s appeal to history has always been selective and pretextual, deployed with little consistency, intellectual honesty or concern for historical accuracy, in order to achieve the preferred policy outcomes of Republican justices.That so many of the justices who voted for Thomas’s interpretation of Bruen just two years ago voted against that same interpretation today just goes to show how hollow an approach “originalism” really is – it is a doctrine that can expand or contract based on the justices’ political preferences in whichever case happens to be before them. Similarly, that this “originalism” remains the guiding force of a majority of the justices goes to show how unaccountable the supreme court’s vast policymaking power has become: they have so much control over the law, and so much indifference to precedent and consistency in how they wield it, that they can call upon virtually any interpretive scheme they choose, label it “originalism”, and claim to have exercised a principled interpretive strategy.Perhaps the justices don’t care about being consistent: perhaps the capaciousness and mutability of “originalism” is precisely its appeal: it works well as a cover for their actual project, which is the exercise of raw power. But it has never been a workable or acceptable reality that “originalism” and its selective, often fact-free fantasies of the past, has been called upon to determine policy outcomes in the present.The lives of women who have survived domestic abuse should never have depended on what nine unaccountable jurists imagine the founding era to have been like; that they did is an insult to citizenship itself.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump announces Teamsters union chief to speak at Republican convention

      by

      Sean O’Brien, the president of the Teamsters union, will speak at the Republican national convention in Milwaukee next month, a move that could spell trouble for Joe Biden’s support among blue-collar workers ahead of the November election.Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, announced on Friday on his Truth Social platform that O’Brien had accepted his invitation to speak at the convention and that he was looking forward to seeing him represent the Teamsters.“Our GREAT convention will unify Americans and demonstrate to the nation’s working families they come first,” Trump wrote. “When I am back in the White House, the hard-working Teamsters, and all working Americans, will once again have a country they can afford to live in and be respected around the world.”A Teamsters spokesperson confirmed the news, saying it was “truly unprecedented since it will be the very first time a Teamsters general president has addressed the RNC”. The powerful union represents more than a million members across sectors such as trucking, packaging, manufacturing and logistics.“Our 1.3 million members represent every political background, and their message needs to be heard by as wide an audience as possible, and that includes all political candidates running for elected office,” the spokesperson said. “We appreciate former President Trump’s openness to inviting a labor leader to speak on behalf of working families.”The Republican national convention will kick off on 15 July, where Trump will once again be nominated as the GOP presidential candidate. The Teamsters spokesperson said O’Brien had made an identical request to appear at the Democratic national convention in Chicago the following month.The Teamsters endorsed Biden over Trump in the 2020 presidential election. But O’Brien, who took over in March 2022, has yet to publicly back a candidate in this election cycle.O’Brien has invited Biden, Trump and the independent presidential candidates Robert F Kennedy Jr and Cornel West to speak to his group. O’Brien drew anger from the union’s progressive members after he held a private meeting with Trump earlier this year. O’Brien later met Biden, who he described as having been “great” for workers. But he stressed there was “still a lot of work to be done” to bolster unions.O’Brien’s appearance at the Republican national convention would challenge Biden’s historic alliance with organized labor and threatens to undercut his claim that he is the most pro-union president in US history.Biden kicked off his re-election campaign last June at a union-backed rally, and has since been endorsed by the United Auto Workers (UAW) after he walked the picket line with union president Shawn Fain during its strike against America’s three biggest car manufacturers. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge dismisses fake electors charges against Trump allies in Nevada

      by

      A Nevada state court judge dismissed a criminal indictment on Friday against six Republicans accused of submitting certificates to Congress falsely declaring Donald Trump the winner of the state’s 2020 presidential election, potentially killing the case with a ruling that state prosecutors chose the wrong venue to file the case.Nevada’s attorney general, Aaron Ford, stood in a Las Vegas courtroom a moment after the Clark county district court judge Mary Kay Holthus delivered her ruling, declaring that he would take the case directly to the state supreme court.“The judge got it wrong and we’ll be appealing immediately,” Ford told reporters afterwards. He declined any additional comment.Defense attorneys bluntly declared the case dead, saying that to bring the case now to another grand jury in another venue such as Nevada’s capital, Carson City, would violate a three-year statute of limitations on filing charges that expired in December.“They’re done,” said Margaret McLetchie, attorney for the Clark county Republican party chairman, Jesse Law, one of the defendants in the case.The judge called off the trial, which had been scheduled for next January, for defendants that included the state GOP chairman, Michael McDonald; national party committee member Jim DeGraffenreid; national and Douglas county committee member Shawn Meehan; and Eileen Rice, a party member from the Lake Tahoe area. Each was charged with offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged instrument, felonies that carry penalties of up to four or five years in prison.Defense attorneys contended that Ford improperly brought the case in Las Vegas instead of Carson City or Reno, northern Nevada cities closer to where the alleged crime occurred. They also accused prosecutors of failing to present to the grand jury evidence that would have exonerated their clients, and said their clients had no intent to commit a crime.All but Meehan have been named by the state party as Nevada delegates to the 2024 Republican national convention next month in Milwaukee.Meehan’s defense attorney, Sigal Chattah, said her client “chose not to” seek the position. Chattah ran as a Republican in 2022 for state attorney general and lost to Ford, a Democrat, by just under 8% of the vote.After the court hearing, Hindle’s attorney, Brian Hardy, declined to comment on calls that his client has faced from advocacy groups that say he should resign from his elected position as overseer of elections in northern Nevada’s Story county, a jurisdiction with a few more than 4,100 residents. Those calls included ones at a news conference on Friday outside the courthouse by leaders of three organizations.Nevada is one of seven presidential battleground states where slates of fake electors falsely certified that Trump had won in 2020, not Democrat Joe Biden.Others are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.Criminal charges have been brought in Michigan, Georgia and Arizona.Trump lost Nevada in 2020 by more than 30,000 votes to Biden and the state’s Democratic electors certified the results in the presence of Nevada’s secretary of state, Barbara Cegavske, a Republican. Her defense of the results as reliable and accurate led the state GOP to censure her, but Cegavske later conducted an investigation that found no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in the state. More

    • 188 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden says supreme court preserved ‘critical protections’ for domestic violence survivors – as it happened

      by

      Joe Biden said the supreme court’s ruling today upholding a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing guns preserves “critical protections” for victims of abuse.“No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun. As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades,” the president said.“Vice President Harris and I remain firmly committed to ending violence against women and keeping Americans safe from gun violence. We will continue to call on Congress to further strengthen support and protections for survivors and to take action to stop the epidemic of gun violence tearing our communities apart.”The supreme court upheld a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing firearms, in a decision cheered by Joe Biden, and supported by all justices on the conservative-dominated court, with the exception of Clarence Thomas. Kamala Harris, however, warned that the law was exactly the type of thing Donald Trump would go after, if elected president. Meanwhile, all signs point to a blockbuster week for the court beginning Wednesday. The justices will release more decisions that day, perhaps including cases on Trump’s immunity petition, whether cities can stop people from sleeping outside, and whether the Biden administration can require states to perform emergency abortions.Here’s what else happened today:
      Steve Bannon, the influential Trump ally, has asked the supreme court to delay the start of his jail sentence after being convicted of contempt of Congress.
      Anti-Trump group the Defend Democracy Project said the supreme court has “very likely guaranteed” that his trial on federal election subversion charges is not resolved before the November election.
      New York prosecutors are asking judge Juan Merchan to preserve parts of the gag order imposed on Trump in his business fraud case.
      Trump’s lawyers are planning a legal offensive against part of his indictment over allegedly possessing and hiding classified documents, the Guardian can reveal.
      A Nevada judge dismissed charges brought against six Republicans for allegedly plotting to submit fake certificates saying Trump won the state’s electoral votes in 2020.
      A judge in Nevada has ordered charges dismissed against six Republicans indicted last year for allegedly plotting to submit fake certificates certifying that Donald Trump won the state’s electoral votes in 2020, the Associated Press reports.The state’s attorney general Aaron Ford vowed to appeal the ruling by judge Mary Kay Holthus, who said the charges were filed in the wrong venue. Here’s more, from the AP:
      A Nevada state court judge dismissed a criminal indictment Friday against six Republicans accused of submitting certificates to Congress falsely declaring Donald Trump the winner of the state’s 2020 presidential election, potentially killing the case with a ruling that state prosecutors chose the wrong venue to file the case.
      Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford stood in a Las Vegas courtroom a moment after Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus delivered her ruling, declaring that he would take the case directly to the state Supreme Court.
      “The judge got it wrong and we’ll be appealing immediately,” Ford told reporters afterward. He declined any additional comment.
      Defense attorneys bluntly declared the case dead, saying that to bring the case now to another grand jury in another venue such as Nevada’s capital city of Carson City would violate a three-year statute of limitations on filing charges that expired in December.
      “They’re done,” said Margaret McLetchie, attorney for Clark County Republican party chairman Jesse Law, one of the defendants in the case.
      The judge called off trial, which had been scheduled for next January, for defendants that included state GOP chairman Michael McDonald; national party committee member Jim DeGraffenreid; national and Douglas County committee member Shawn Meehan; and Eileen Rice, a party member from the Lake Tahoe area. Each was charged with offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged instrument, felonies that carry penalties of up to four or five years in prison.
      Supreme court rulings can have long and impactful ripple effects. This week, for instance, Louisiana’s Republican governor signed legislation to require the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms, which the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington reports was a consequence of decisions the court handed down two years ago:Louisiana’s decision to force public schools to display the Ten Commandments is the latest fallout from a spate of controversial rulings from the rightwing supermajority of the US supreme court which has opened up a Pandora’s box that is fueling efforts to turn America into a theocratic state.The new law, signed on Wednesday by the hard-right governor, Jeff Landry, puts Louisiana in the vanguard of a decades-long movement to obliterate the foundational US separation of church and state. It puts wind in the sails of those who want the US to be reinvented as an overtly Christian nation, and comes in the wake of two highly contentious opinions from the highest court.Both rulings, delivered within six days of each other in 2022, were backed by the six ultra-conservative justices who now have a stranglehold on the country’s most powerful court. The supermajority is one of the main legacies of Donald Trump, who placed three of the justices on the bench.The Second Amendment Foundation, a group supporting gun rights, gave a mixed review to the supreme court’s ruling today upholding a federal law that bars domestic abusers from keeping firearms.In a statement, the group said that though the justices did not narrow their 2022 Bruen ruling, which expanded the ability to carry a firearm in public, as much as gun control advocates hoped, they took issue with the reasoning behind their ruling today in United States v Rahimi:
      Rahimi posed a difficult issue for the Court to resolve. And while the Court may have arrived at a conclusion that society believes to be best, it did so in a manner that poses some inconsistencies with what Bruen demands. To be clear, domestic violence is abhorrent and those who commit such acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – for which a conviction would result in their disarmament through imprisonment.
      As Justice Thomas wrote “the question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order – even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.” Stripping an individual of their Second Amendment rights, when they have not been accused or convicted of a crime, is not consistent with what the Constitution protects.
      The Court’s justification in upholding the law by cobbling together bits and pieces of historical laws to find a “historical analogue” may allow future courts to uphold various infringements on the Second Amendment by the same sort of manufacture.
      Donald Trump has been criminally indicted four times, with one of his cases leading to a felony conviction on business fraud charges in New York City.The other three cases are stalled, for various reasons. Our case tracker tells you why:While the supreme court issued five decisions today, including one in a closely watched case dealing with gun restrictions, it has yet to rule on Donald Trump’s petition for immunity from the federal charges brought against him for trying to overturn the 2020 election.Trump’s trial on those charges cannot proceed until the court issues its ruling – which the Defend Democracy Project says is the point. In a statement, the anti-Trump group’s chair Mike Podhorzer and Norman Eisen, a legal analyst who assisted Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, accused the court’s conservative justices of “an act of election interference” by delaying their decision for so long that it is unlikely the case will go to trial prior to the November 5 election:
      Week after week, we all have waited for a ruling on Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim. It’s time to acknowledge that the delay is the ruling. Regardless of the substance of the decision on presidential immunity, the delays engineered by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the three judges Trump named to the Court have very likely guaranteed that he will avoid a jury verdict for his criminal conspiracy to overturn the last election before the American people vote in the next one. Those justices have ensured an irreconcilable showdown in the fall between the ordinary operations of the criminal justice system, which would require Trump’s speedy pre-trial and trial proceedings, and the ordinary functioning of the presidential election system, in which both nominees are free to campaign.No matter what the Supreme Court concludes, the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have already achieved their goal. The MAGA wing of the court has shielded Trump from facing a jury of his peers for so long that it has become an act of election interference. It’s been over six months since the court was first petitioned on December 11 to address Trump’s ludicrous version of presidential immunity that embraces the right to assassinate his political rivals. These delays blow past the markers for prior cases of comparable importance. They are a lifeline for Trump to escape the final judgment of a jury before the next election, and a reminder that the American people lack the impartial judiciary we all deserve.
      Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, said he is “relieved” that the supreme court upheld the ban on domestic abusers possessing guns, writing on X that there was “absolutely no sane legal argument” for striking down the ban.Blumenthal added that Friday’s ruling was the court’s attempt “to try to clean up its own mess” after the “legal catastrophe” of the landmark ruling of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, in which the six conservative justices allowed handguns to be carried in public in most instances. Blumenthal added:
      While I welcome today’s correct decision, I remain fearful about the fate of future gun violence prevention laws in the hands of this ideologically inconsistent & extreme Court.
      While sifting through his work emails one February afternoon, Clyde Estes saw a message that dismayed him.“I started reading it and was just shocked,” recalled Estes, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. “It’s something you don’t expect to see.”It relayed what Kristi Noem said at the state legislature just a few days prior. In her address at the state capitol, the second-term South Dakota governor blasted US immigration policy, saying that “invasion is coming over the southern border”.Noem alleged that tribal leaders in South Dakota were profiting off drug cartel activity. These remarks, and her controversial comments about Native children, have been met with staunch condemnation from Indigenous leaders, and have dredged up a bitter history between the tribes and the state.As a result, all nine of South Dakota’s federally recognized tribes, which cover more than 12% of the state, have now banned Noem from their reservations.If the governor attempts to enter the reservation, Estes said that tribal law enforcement would notify county sheriffs and ask her to voluntarily leave the reservation.“She would be charged with trespassing,” said Estes, calling the situation “very, very unfortunate”.
      We’re going to stand up to defend our people.
      Read the full story here: Native tribes on banning Kristi Noem from reservations: ‘She’d be charged with trespassing’Kamala Harris has released her own statement responding to the supreme court’s ruling upholding a federal ban preventing anyone placed under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.Harris’ statement echoes the one earlier distributed by the Biden campaign, where she says while she and Joe Biden “stand up to the gun lobby, Donald Trump bows down.”She notes that the Biden administration have passed “the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years” and have “stopped nearly 30,000 firearms sales to convicted domestic abusers”, adding:
      If Donald Trump returns to power, all that progress would be at risk.
      Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has doubled down on his accusations that the US is holding back weapons and ammunition from Israel in its war in Gaza.The Israeli leader caused a furious reaction in Washington this week after he posted a video on social media saying that it was “inconceivable” that the Biden administration had held up weapons shipments to Israel, and implied that Israel’s ability to prevail in the nine-month war with Hamas was being hampered as a result.The White House responded by cancelling a high-level meeting with Israeli officials on Iran.John Kirby, the White House’s national security adviser, strongly denied the claims and called Netanyahu’s comments “vexing”, “disappointing” and “incorrect”.Netanyahu, in an interview with Punchbowl News published this morning, said he had aired his criticisms because he “felt that airing it was absolutely necessary after months of quiet conversations that did not solve the problem.” He said:
      I raised this issue with Secretary Blinken. And I said that we are being told by our Defense Department officials that barely a trickle is coming in. He said, ‘Well, everything is in process. We’re doing everything to untangle it and to clear up the bottlenecks.’ And I said, ‘Well, that’s what I expect to happen. Let’s make sure that it does happen.’ It must happen.
      The supreme court has upheld a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing firearms, in a decision cheered by Joe Biden, and supported by all justices on the conservative-dominated court, with the exception of Clarence Thomas. Kamala Harris, however, warned that the law was exactly the type of thing Donald Trump would go after, if elected president. Meanwhile, all signs point to a blockbuster week for the court beginning Wednesday. The justices will release more decisions that day, perhaps including cases on Trump’s immunity petition, whether cities can stop people from sleeping outside, and whether the Biden administration can require states to perform emergency abortions.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      Steve Bannon, the influential Trump ally, has asked the supreme court to delay the start of his jail sentence after being convicted of contempt of Congress.
      New York prosecutors are asking judge Juan Merchan to preserve parts of the gag order imposed on Trump in his business fraud trial.
      Trump’s lawyers are planning a legal offensive against part of his indictment over allegedly possessing and hiding classified documents, the Guardian can reveal.
      The supreme court is scheduled to release more opinions on Wednesday of next week, and chances are good that the justices will by then decide at least one of the cases concerning major constitutional questions that are pending before them.University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck has a rundown of the court’s unfinished business:Prominent on that list is Trump v United States, which is the former president’s request for immunity from the federal election meddling charges against him.Also outstanding is Idaho v United States, which concerns whether the Biden administration can require the state’s federally funded hospitals to carry out emergency abortions, despite the state’s strict ban on the procedure. There’s also City of Grant’s Pass v Johnson, which deals with whether municipalities can pass laws against people sleeping outside.In a statement distributed by Joe Biden’s re-election campaign, Kamala Harris warned that Donald Trump would present a threat to gun laws such as the one the supreme court upheld today, which bans domestic abusers from possessing firearms.Harris’ statement was markedly more political than the president’s, who instead focused on the importance of protecting domestic abuse victims. Here’s what she had to say:
      While President Biden and I stand up to the gun lobby, Donald Trump bows down. Trump has made clear he believes Americans should ‘get over’ gun violence, and we cannot allow him to roll back commonsense protections or appoint the next generation of Supreme Court justices. I have worked my entire career to protect women and children from domestic violence—from prosecuting abusers to supporting survivors. President Biden and I will never stop fighting for the rights of every American, including every survivor of domestic violence, to live free from the horror of gun violence. To continue that work, we must defeat Donald Trump in November.
      Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s presumptive opponent in the November presidential election, Donald Trump, remains under a gag order imposed by the judge in his business fraud case that prevents him from attacking witnesses, jurors and other players.The Associated Press reports that prosecutors have asked Juan Merchan, the judge who presided over the case, to maintain parts of the order ahead of Trump’s debate face-off with Biden scheduled for next Thursday.Here’s more:
      Prosecutors on Friday urged the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal hush money case to uphold provisions of a gag order that bar him from criticizing jurors and court staff, while agreeing to lift a restriction on his public statements about trial witnesses.
      In court papers filed Friday, prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office argued that portions of the gag order remained necessary given the Republican former president’s “singular history of inflammatory and threatening public statements,” as well as efforts by his supporters to “identify jurors and threaten violence against him.”
      “Since the verdict in this case, defendant has not exempted the jurors from his alarming rhetoric that he would have ‘every right’ to seek retribution as president against the participants in this trial as a consequence of his conviction because ’sometimes revenge can be justified,” the filing states.
      The gag order, issued in March, prohibited Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses, jurors and others connected to the case. It does not restrict comments about the judge, Juan M. Merchan, or Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office prosecuted the case.
      Attorneys for Trump have called on the judge to lift the order following the culmination of his trial last month, which ended in his conviction on 34 felony counts for falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal. Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, is set to be sentenced on July 11.
      Joe Biden said the supreme court’s ruling today upholding a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing guns preserves “critical protections” for victims of abuse.“No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun. As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades,” the president said.“Vice President Harris and I remain firmly committed to ending violence against women and keeping Americans safe from gun violence. We will continue to call on Congress to further strengthen support and protections for survivors and to take action to stop the epidemic of gun violence tearing our communities apart.”Steve Bannon, a prominent ally to Donald Trump, has appealed to the supreme court to delay the beginning on his four month-prison sentence for contempt of Congress, the Associated Press reports.Bannon was ordered to report to prison by 1 July after being convicted nearly two years ago of charges related to defying a subpoena from the January 6 committee. He is now asking for the intervention of the nation’s highest court, which turned down a similar request from Peter Navarro, another former Trump White House adviser who was convicted of similar charges.Here’s more, from the AP:
      The request came after a federal appeals court panel rejected Bannon’s bid to avoid reporting to prison by July 1 to serve his four-month sentence. It was addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in Washington, D.C.
      The high court swiftly denied a similar request from another Trump aide in March. Bannon’s request comes a week before the court is set to begin its summer recess.
      Bannon was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the Jan. 6 House Committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
      Bannon has cast the case as politically motivated, and his attorney David Schoen has said the case raises “serious constitutional issues” that need to be examined by the Supreme Court.
      If Bannon goes to prison next month, he will likely have to serve his full sentence before the high court has the chance to review those questions, since the court is due to take its summer recess at the end of June, attorney Trent McCotter wrote in his emergency application.
      Attorney general Merrick Garland said the justice department will continue enforcing the federal law that bars domestic abusers from possessing guns, after the supreme court’s ruling today in United States v Rahimi.“The Justice Department will continue to enforce this important statute, which for nearly 30 years has helped to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence from their abusers. And we will continue to deploy all available resources to support law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and victim advocates to address the pervasive problem of domestic violence,” Garland said in a statement.Here’s more:From the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington, here’s more on the significance of the supreme court’s ruling today in United States v Rahimi, in which the justices upheld a law banning domestic abusers from carrying guns, while weighing in on a major 2022 decision that expanded the ability to carry weapons in public nationwide: The US supreme court has upheld a federal ban preventing anyone placed under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.The ruling in US v Rahimi, supported by eight justices to one, with Clarence Thomas dissenting, will leave in place legal protections against a major source of gun violence in America. Writing the opinion, the chief justice, John Roberts, said that individuals can be temporarily disarmed if they pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” without violating the second amendment to the constitution that allows the right to bear arms.“Since the founding, the nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” he wrote.The judgment will come as a relief to gun control advocates who had feared that the ability to disarm dangerous people might fall prey to the radical interpretation of the second amendment advanced by the court’s conservative supermajority. In the 2022 ruling New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, the six conservative justices allowed handguns to be carried in public in most instances.They said that any restrictions on ownership had to conform to the “history and tradition” of firearms regulations stretching back to the 18th century. Gun control groups feared that the ruling might be used to unravel America’s already lax regulations, with potentially disastrous consequences.The ruling in United States v Rahimi comes two years after the supreme court’s Bruen decision, in which the court’s conservative supermajority dramatically expanded the ability to carry weapons in public.But many of those same justices today found in Rahimi that the government could also take weapons away from domestic abusers. That opinion was supported by five of six conservatives, all of whom supported the ruling in Bruen. The court’s three liberals also signed on to Rahimi, with conservative justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter: More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Rightwing cases built on made-up stories keep making it to the US supreme court | Moira Donegan

      by

      The first of many lies at the center of Moore v United States, the major tax case that the supreme court decided on Thursday, was that the issue at stake was an existing tax law.Conservative movement lawyers had taken up the cause of Charles and Kathleen Moore, a Washington state couple who own a substantial stake in an India-based company that manufactures farm equipment. The Moores were given a one-time, $15,000 tax bill for their stake in the company under 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the law colloquially known as the Trump tax cut. To pay for the steep cuts to federal revenue, that bill included a tax on foreign assets held by American shareholders – hence the bill that the Moores received from the IRS.The Moores were nominally arguing that this provision was unconstitutional under the 16th amendment. But their argument was not confined to a narrow argument about that specific tax, because the case wasn’t really about the 2017 law at all. Rather, the Moores’ lawyers sought to use their case to drastically limit the scope of Congress’s taxation power, with an eye toward pre-emptively banning the wealth tax that has been proposed by the senator Elizabeth Warren.The 2017 provision, then, was a mere pretext: the case that came before the court was a much broader project, one that, by some estimates, would have unraveled as much as a third of the federal tax code.Ultimately, the court ruled 7-2 to uphold the tax, thereby preserving both the theoretical possibility of a future wealth tax and also much of the federal government’s funding structure. The majority opinion was authored by Brett Kavanaugh. Clarence Thomas, joined by Neil Gorsuch, dissented, and would have thrown out the tax, narrowing congressional taxation power only to “realized income”. That interpretation has not carried the day – not yet.But the fact that the case came before the supreme court at all reflects a troubling trend in the conservative legal movement, aided by Republican-controlled lower courts: the advancement of cases that promise to promote rightwing policy priorities even when the alleged facts are demonstrably untrue. Because Moore v United States was based on another lie, too: the lie that the Moores have not received income from their investment in the Indian company. They have.The Moores’ case relies on the notion that the tax they faced is unconstitutional because they were minority shareholders without a major role in the operation of the company, who had not yet profited from their investment. Such are the facts as alleged by their lawyers. But these are not the facts in reality.In truth, the Moores invested much more money in the company than they initially claimed; Charles Moore, the husband, served as the director of its board for years. He traveled repeatedly to India to oversee it, and was reimbursed for that travel; he lent the company almost a quarter-million dollars and earned back interest. He seems to have worked closely with the founder of the company, a friend of his, to lower his stake in the company, so as to avoid the 2017 tax liability – and, perhaps, so as to make himself a more plausible plaintiff for a conservative movement legal vehicle.These lies did not persuade the court in this case. But Moore v United States is one of a growing number of high-profile, high-stakes lawsuits brought before the supreme court by the conservative legal movement that have turned out to be based on inaccuracies, falsehoods and outright deceptions as to the underlying facts that are presented by rightwing lawyers in their briefings.Some of these lie-based cases have had dramatic policy implications. In 303 Creative v Elenis, a case challenging a Colorado civil rights law that required companies to provide equal service to gay people, a website creator alleged that her religious freedom had been violated by the prospect of having to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, and cited a request for such a website she had received from a man named Stewart, who was planning to marry his partner, Mike.Only Stewart never asked for a wedding website: when the New Republic’s Melissa Gira Grant contacted him, she discovered that the “Stewart” whose supposed request was at the center of the case was a straight man living in San Francisco, who had long been married to a woman; he was never going to marry a man named “Mike” let alone ask a bigoted religious extremist to make him a website in the process.“Somebody’s using false information in a supreme court filing document,” Stewart told Grant. No matter: the supreme court ruled in favor of the website designer anyway, thus dramatically limiting public accommodation non-discrimination protections in civil rights law.At times, the blatant disregard for facts on the part of the conservative legal movement – and the willingness to concoct stories of imaginary injuries in order to further cases that have conservative policy implications – has seemed to baffle and frustrate the court’s liberals. In her dissent in Kennedy v Bremerton, the so-called praying coach case, the justice Sonia Sotomayor included multiple photographs of the incidents in question – in which a Washington state high school football coach’s prayers before games were clearly public, coercive and made into a spectacle – to contradict the majority’s bold misrepresentation of the prayers as private and silent.The fabricated-facts trend has already appeared before the court once so far this term: in the mifepristone case. In a challenge to the FDA’s regulation of access to the abortion drug, a group of anti-choice doctors fabricated far-fetched claims of their own injury, based on scientifically illegitimate studies that have since been retracted, in order to try to take the drug away from abortion seekers. That case didn’t work, either: the court unanimously threw it out on standing grounds.But the fact that the case got all the way to the supreme court, with district and appellate judges either credulous of the false claims or indifferent to their veracity, says a lot about how far the conservative legal movement is willing to divorce its briefings from reality.It might be notable that this term, two cases based on fabricated claims were both thrown out in opinions authored by Kavanaugh. For figures so powerful and unaccountable as supreme court justices, psychologizing becomes necessary in imputing their motives, and Kavanaugh, perhaps more than any other justice in the conservative majority, is a deeply insecure man: he is aware of the stench of scandal and malfeasance that has attached to him since his confirmation, aware of the public perception that he is not the intellectual equal of some of his colleagues. His public statements evidence a deep and anxious desire to be liked.Perhaps this is why, though he doubtless shares the conservative legal movement’s policy agenda, he has been less willing to cooperate with their most transparent lies. He possesses, at least in some small degree, the only force that seems able to check the conservative justices’ impulses: shame.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More