Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans threaten our children’s freedom as well as their basic safety | Robert Reich

      by

      OpinionUS educationRepublicans threaten our children’s freedom as well as their basic safetyRobert ReichAttacks on mask mandates expose children to Covid. Attacks on the teaching of history expose them to dangerous ignorance Sun 29 Aug 2021 01.00 EDTLast modified on Sun 29 Aug 2021 01.01 EDTMy granddaughter will go to school next week. So may your child or grandchild. For many, it will be their first time back in classrooms in a year and a half.On Covid and climate we can achieve change – but we’re running out of time | Robert ReichRead moreWhat do we want for these young people? At least three things.First and most obviously, to learn the verbal, mathematical and other thinking tools they’ll need to successfully navigate the world.But that’s not all. We also want them to become responsible citizens. This means, among other things, becoming aware of the noble aspects of our history as well as the shameful aspects, so they grow into adults who can intelligently participate in our democracy.Yet some Republican lawmakers don’t want our children to have the whole picture.Over the last few months, some 26 states have curbed how teachers discuss America’s racist past. Some of these restrictions impose penalties on teachers and administrators who violate them, including the loss of licenses and fines. Many curbs take effect next week.These legislators prefer that our children learn only the sanitized, vanilla version of America, as if ignorance will make them better citizens.Why should learning the truth be a politically partisan issue?The third thing we want for our children and grandchildren heading back to school is even more basic. We want them to be safe.Yet even as the number of American children hospitalized with Covid-19 has hit a record high, some Republican lawmakers don’t want them to wear masks in school to protect themselves and others.The governors of Texas and Florida, where Covid is surging, have sought to prohibit school districts from requiring masks. Lawmakers in Kentucky, also experiencing a surge, have repudiated a statewide school mask mandate.Why should the simple precaution of wearing a mask be a politically partisan issue?Paradoxically, many of these same Republican lawmakers want people to have easy access to guns, even though school shootings have become tragically predictable.Between last March and the end of the school year in June – despite most elementary, middle and high schools being partially or entirely closed due to the pandemic – there were 14 school shootings, the highest total over that period since at least 1999.Since the massacre 22 years ago at Columbine high school near Denver, more than a quarter of a million children have been exposed to gun violence during school hours.How can lawmakers justify preventing children from masking up against Covid while allowing almost anyone to buy a gun?The answer to all of this, I think, is a warped sense of the meaning of freedom.These lawmakers – and many of the people they represent – equate “freedom” with being allowed to go without a mask and to own a gun, while also being ignorant of the shameful aspects of America.To them, personal freedom means taking no responsibility.While Delta spreads, Republicans deflect and resort to Trump demagoguery | Robert ReichRead moreYet this definition of freedom is precisely the opposite lesson our children and grandchildren need. To be truly free is to learn to be responsible for knowing the truth even if it’s sometimes painful, and responsible for the health and safety of others even if it’s sometimes inconvenient.The duty to help our children become responsible adults falls mainly on us as parents and grandparents. But our children also need schools that teach and practice the same lessons.America’s children shouldn’t be held hostage to a partisan political brawl. It’s time we focused solely on their learning and their safety.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS educationOpinionUS domestic policyUS politicsFloridaTexasKentuckyRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      From the archive: Republicans and race – Politics Weekly Extra

      by

      Jonathan Freedland revisits an enlightening conversation with Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican national committee, who campaigned for a Joe Biden victory in last year’s US presidential election

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      Listen to the original episode here Send us your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Michigan judge sanctions pro-Trump lawyers who sought to overturn state’s 2020 elections

      by

      MichiganMichigan judge sanctions pro-Trump lawyers who sought to overturn state’s 2020 electionsAttorneys who alleged widespread election fraud presented unsubstantiated claims and abused the justice system, judge rules Maya Yang in New YorkThu 26 Aug 2021 12.23 EDTLast modified on Thu 26 Aug 2021 13.16 EDTA federal judge in Michigan has sanctioned a team of nine pro-Trump lawyers, including Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, who sought to overturn the state’s 2020 elections as part of a sweeping effort across the nation to challenge Joe Biden’s presidential victory via court action.In a 110-page ruling released on Wednesday, judge Linda Parker of the federal district court in Detroit ruled that the attorneys who alleged widespread election fraud in Michigan presented unsubstantiated claims and abused the justice system.“This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process,” Parker wrote. “This case was never about fraud – it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so,” she added.Parker ordered the lawyers to pay legal fees to the city of Detroit and state of Michigan, and will require them to attend legal education classes on pleading standards and election law within six months.She also referred the lawyers to the Michigan attorney grievance commission and other appropriate disciplinary authorities, where they could face further investigation and potential suspension or disbarment in the state.In a frenzied effort in the swing state of Michigan, then president Donald Trump last November met with Republican leaders from the state at the White House in an increasingly desperate attempt to subvert democracy after a series of courtroom defeats over his and his campaign’s allegations of voter fraud.This was all despite officials at the local and federal level declaring it the most secure election in American history.The Michigan lawsuit, which was filed in late November, was one of a series of lawsuits known as the “Kraken” cases that Powell filed across the country, alleging that Dominion Voting System’s voting machines were deliberately tampered with.The lawsuit argued that Biden’s win was fraudulent and asked Parker to declare Trump the winner of the state’s 16 electoral college votes.Parker rejected the request in December, writing: “If granted, the relief would disenfranchise the votes of the more than 5.5 million Michigan citizens who, with dignity, hope, and a promise of a voice, participated in the 2020 general Election.”Wednesday’s ruling marked the latest development in a series of legal woes mounting against pro-Trump attorneys who promoted election conspiracies.In January, Dominion Voting Systems sued Powell and Trump’s former personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, in a $1.3bn defamation lawsuit. A month later, Smartmatic USA, a rival election-technology company, sued the two lawyers for $2.7bn.Meanwhile, Lin Wood was facing his own legal headaches in Georgia, where he is challenging a state bar request that he take a confidential mental competency exam after it conducted an extensive review of his alleged legal misconduct over election challenges.In July, a US appeals court suspended Giuliani from practicing law in Washington DC, a month after he was suspended from practicing law in New York after a court ruled that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public in trying to overturn the election results”.One of the sanctioned lawyers from the Michigan lawsuit, Scott Hagerstrom, responded to Wednesday’s ruling, saying: “This is all political. This is all about sticking it to Donald Trump and the Republicans.”The other eight lawyers involved have yet to comment on the ruling.TopicsMichiganUS politicsRepublicansDonald TrumpUS elections 2020Reuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US House passes voting rights bill, restoring critical provision of landmark law

      by

      US voting rightsUS House passes voting rights bill, restoring critical provision of landmark lawBill that requires places with history of discrimination to be under federal supervision passes 219-212 – but could fail in the Senate Sam Levine in New YorkTue 24 Aug 2021 19.25 EDTLast modified on Tue 24 Aug 2021 22.25 EDTThe US House of Representatives has passed an update to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, restoring a critical provision of the landmark civil rights law that requires places with a history of voting discrimination to be under federal supervision.The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act passed 219-212 on a party-line vote.Kamala Harris Vietnam trip delayed after two US officials report Havana syndromeRead moreThe bill now faces an uncertain future in the US Senate, where it needs the support of 10 Republican Senators to overcome the filibuster and pass. While Senator Joe Manchin, a key Democratic swing vote, supports the bill, just one Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has indicated that she does.The House passed a similar version of the legislation in 2019, gaining just one GOP vote, but it never passed the Senate, which was then under GOP control.The legislation is one of two pillars of congressional Democrats’ push to protect voting rights. It sets a 25-year look-back period for assessing voting rights in jurisdictions. If courts have documented at least 15 voting rights violations in a state over that period, the state will have to get any change in voting rules approved by the federal government before it goes into effect (if the violation is committed by the state as a whole only 10 violations are required to trigger federal oversight).The updated formula comes eight years after the US supreme court said the formula in the law that determined which states were subject to pre-clearance was outdated and struck it down. Voting advocates have said that ruling, in a case called Shelby County v Holder, has offered states a green light to discriminate against Black voters.“Old battles have indeed become new again. While literacy tests and poll taxes no longer exist, certain states and local jurisdictions have passed laws that are modern day barriers to voting,” Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat who represents Selma in Congress, said on the floor of the House Tuesday.The states that would have to get election changes approved are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas, Peyton McCrary, a former Justice Department historian, testified earlier this month. Several large counties in the US, including Los Angeles county in California, Cook county in Illinois, Westchester county in New York, Cuyahoga County in Ohio, and Northampton County in Virginia could also be covered, according to McCrary.The law also outlines several procedures that would be subject to federal pre-clearance everywhere in the country, including changes to voter ID laws, reductions in polling locations and changes in policies that determine who gets removed from the voter rolls.Republicans decried the measure as unnecessary, saying it gives the federal government too much power to oversee elections.“If you vote for this legislation, you are voting for a federal takeover of elections,” said congressman Rodney Davis, an Illinois Republican. “I hope my colleagues and the American people will see this bill for what it is, a partisan power-grab.”During debate on the bill, Democrats scoffed at the notion that the bill was not needed. They noted it came as Republican lawmakers across the country have taken up hundreds of bills to enact voting restrictions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described it as “the worst voter suppression campaign in America since Jim Crow”.While federal pre-clearance is the most touted portion of the bill, the legislation also includes several other new provisions to protect voting rights. It essentially undoes a supreme court decision from earlier this year that makes it extremely difficult to bring challenges to voting laws under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It also strengthens protections under the Voting Rights Act for minority voters during the redistricting process.The legislation would also address two issues that emerged in the unprecedented slew of litigation during the 2020 election. First, courts could not simply decline to strike down a law because an election is close – something that several courts did in 2020. Second, courts would have to offer an explanation for their reasoning in voting rights cases, a provision designed to take aim at the supreme court’s practice of not issuing explanations in emergency cases on its “shadow docket.”Beyond the John Lewis bill, Democrats are also trying to pass the For The People Act, sweeping legislation that would outlaw severe partisan gerrymandering, set minimum requirements for early voting and require automatic, same-day and online voter registration, among other measures. Voting rights experts say both measures are needed to fully protect voting rights, though Democrats have not unveiled a plan to get either around the filibuster.TopicsUS voting rightsUS politicsDemocratsUS CongressRepublicansnewsReuse this content More