Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Senators stir ghosts of Scalia and Ginsburg for Amy Coney Barrett hearing

      by

      Depending on your point of view, the woman seated before the Senate judiciary committee for her first day of questioning was either the female Scalia or the anti-RBG. Or maybe, of course, both.As proceedings commenced in a brightly lit and deeply sanitized hearing room, Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s third nominee to the supreme court, described herself as an originalist in the tradition of her mentor. Like the late Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked, she subscribes to a theory of constitutional interpretation that attempts to understand and apply “meaning that [the constitution] had at the time people ratified it”.That time was the 1780s, when only white and land-owning men could vote. Oddly, Scalia often produced opinions that delighted conservatives. Outside the Capitol on Tuesday, a group of conservative women gathered to sing and pray, hands extended heavenward.Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican committee chair, asked Barrett if it was appropriate to call her the “female Scalia”. She demurred.“If I am confirmed, you would not be getting Justice Scalia,” she said. “You would be getting Justice Barrett.”All of the young conservative women out there, this hearing to me is about a place for youLindsey GrahamThat, of course, is exactly what Democrats fear.In several rounds of questioning, Democratic senators portrayed the would-be justice as a rightwing crusader, chosen to undermine the civil rights legacy of the justice she hopes to replace, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, a world-famous champion of women.Outside the Capitol on Monday, progressive activists had worn blood-red robes and bonnets, symbols of female oppression taken from The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel.Barrett has roots in a charismatic Catholic group, People of Praise, which has been cited as an inspiration for Atwood. Such citations are wrong, but in the hearing room on Tuesday Democratic senators nonetheless painted a determinedly dystopian picture, of an America ruled by a conservative court.In their telling, millions – constituents with names, faces and gut-wrenching stories the senators took took pains to tell – stand to lose access to life-saving services provided by the Affordable Care Act; poor women who cannot afford to travel for an abortion will be forced to make dangerous choices; same-sex couples may no longer have the right to marry.Barrett declined to answer questions on such issues – and in doing so, perhaps provocatively, cited RBG. A dictum Ginsburg set forth during her 1993 confirmation hearing: “No hints, no forecasts, no previews.”“These are life and death questions for people,” insisted Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the panel. Barrett’s repeated refusal to answer questions on abortion was “distressing” Feinstein said, noting that Ginsburg was far more forthcoming about her views on the issue.“I have no agenda,” Barrett said, not for the first or last time.But Donald Trump does.The president chose Barrett from a list of what he called “pro-life” judges. He has said he hopes, even expects, the court will overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that established the right to abortion.The president tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for himDick DurbinThe president has also insisted he needs a ninth justice on the court before the election, in case the result is contested.“Who came up with this notion, this insulting notion, that you might violate your oath?” Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, wondered sarcastically, in response to Republicans’ accusation that his party was impugning Barrett’s judicial independence merely by asking where she stood on key issues.“Where could this idea have come from? Could it have come from the White House? Could it have come from the president’s tweets of what he expects a supreme court nominee to do politically for him? That is where it originated.”Despite it all, the hearing played out with an air of inevitability. Graham was clear. This was “the hearing to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court”, rather than the traditional opportunity to “consider” her nomination. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Amy Coney Barrett dodges abortion, healthcare and election law questions

      by

      On the second day of hearings before the Senate judiciary committee, Democrats pressed supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on healthcare, election law and abortion rights – and met with little success.Donald Trump’s third nominee for the highest court dodged questions on how she might rule on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA); if she would recuse herself from any lawsuit about the presidential election; and whether she would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v Wade, which made abortion legal.In an exchange with the Democratic Delaware senator Chris Coons, Barrett said: “I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.”Multiple Democratic senators pressed Barrett on whether she would recuse herself from a possible case about the outcome of the 2020 election. The Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal said he was “disappointed” in Barrett’s refusal to commit to a position. He added: “It would be a dagger at the heart of the court and our democracy if this election is decided by the court rather than the American voters.”Barrett argued that she was not a pundit, citing remarks by Justice Elena Kagan and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in saying that outside of reviewing a specific case, it was not her place to offer a position.“No hints, no previews, no forecasts,” Barrett quoted Ginsburg as saying, after the California senator Dianne Feinstein questioned her about how she might rule in any case challenging the legality of abortion.Barrett is a devout Catholic whose previous statements and affiliations have been closely examined by Democrats and the media. Trump has said overturning Roe v Wade would be “possible” with Barrett on the court.When she was asked about a newspaper ad she signed criticizing Roe v Wade, first reported by the Guardian, Barrett said she had “no recollection” of it and stressed she had nothing to hide.At another point in Tuesday’s hearing, Barrett cited Kagan in saying she would not give “a thumbs up or thumbs down” on any hypothetical ruling.Most of the questioning from Democrats centered on the ACA, known popularly as Obamacare, and how a ruling by the high court overturning the law would take away healthcare from millions of Americans. A hearing is due a week after election day. Democrats see protecting the ACA as a productive electoral tactic, having focused on it in the 2018 midterms, when they took back the House.Barrett said she was not hostile to the ACA, or indeed abortion or gay rights, another area worrying progressives as the court seems set to tilt to a 6-3 conservative majority. Barrett said she was simply focused on upholding the law.“I am not hostile to the ACA,” Barrett said. “I apply the law, I follow the law. You make the policy.”Asked about gay rights, Barrett said: “I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”Her choice of words conspicuously suggested that to her, sexuality is a choice. Amid scrutiny of Barrett’s past, meanwhile, it has been reported that she was a trustee at a school whose handbook included stated opposition to same-sex marriageRepublican senators also questioned Barrett on healthcare, the Iowa senator Chuck Grassley asking if she had been asked during the nomination process if she supported overturning the ACA.“Absolutely not,” Barrett said. “I was never asked and if I had been that would’ve been a short conversation.”Barrett said it was “just not true” that she wanted to strike down protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions.Asked if she thought same-sex marriage should be a crime, she said the ruling in Obergefell v Hodges, in 2015, made it the law of the land.Asked if she would recuse herself on any lawsuit over the outcome of the 2020 election, however, Barrett declined to commit. Instead she said: “I have made no commitment to anyone – not in the Senate, not in the White House – on how I would decide a case.”It was the first of two sessions of questioning, after which outside witnesses will be called. Tuesday’s opening exchanges produced a mere continuation of Barrett’s seemingly serene journey into Ginsburg’s seat.Trump and Republicans are eager to move quickly. The president has said he wants to see Barrett confirmed before election day, which is in three weeks’ time, suggesting that this is in part because he hopes she will rule in his favor if a challenge to the election result reaches the highest court.In a conference call with reporters, Senate Democrats fretted about their chances of stopping Barrett.“The fact of the matter is this nominee is extreme,” the Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal said. “Her views are outliers.“I think we are going to demonstrate today and tomorrow what’s at stake and how extreme and far right this nominee is.”He conceded that Democrats had no “magic” tool to block Barrett. They would, he said, use every procedural tool they have but “the politics are difficult here. Republicans are practically boasting that they have the votes.”Blumenthal said Democrats were “ultimately making our case to the American people”, to make them realize the impact Barrett’s nomination was likely to have. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Mitt Romney decries US politics: ‘The world is watching with abject horror’

      by

      Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released an extraordinary statement on Tuesday, decrying a political scene he said “has moved away from spirited debate to a vile, vituperative, hate-filled morass, that is unbecoming of any free nation”.“The world is watching America with abject horror,” he added.The presidential election is on 3 November. Donald Trump, the incumbent, trails challenger Joe Biden by double digits in many national polls and by smaller but significant margins in battleground states.On Tuesday morning, Trump’s Twitter feed was as usual filled with abuse of Biden and other presidential hate figures. Romney, a Utah senator who was the 2012 Republican nominee for president, decried such attacks on Biden, his running mate Kamala Harris, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, recently the subject of an alleged kidnap plot by anti-government domestic terrorists.But Romney also sought to blame both sides, saying: “Pelosi tears up the president’s State of the Union speech on national television. Keith Olbermann calls the president a terrorist.”Why Romney felt it necessary to single out Olbermann, a former MSNBC and ESPN host and GQ columnist who campaigns online to save stray dogs, was not immediately clear.Romney tweeted his statement under the title “My thoughts on the current state of our politics”.“I have stayed quiet,” he said, “with the approach of the election.”In fact the senator has spoken out on a range of issues recently, prominent among them Trump’s hugely controversial attempt to ram his nominee Amy Coney Barrett on to the supreme court so close to election day, a key cause of bitter partisan debate.Claiming the US was a “centre-right” country, a position not supported by polling on key issues before the court including healthcare and abortion rights, Romney has said he supports the move to establish a 6-3 conservative majority.“But I’m troubled by our politics,” the sole Republican to vote to impeach Trump added in his statement.“The president calls the Democratic vice-presidential candidate ‘a monster’. He repeatedly labels the Speaker of the House ‘crazy’. He calls for the justice department to put the prior president in jail. He attacks the governor of Michigan on the very day a plot is discovered to kidnap her.“Democrats launch blistering attacks of their own, though their presidential nominee refuses to stoop as low as others.”The “media”, Romney said in a statement which he released to the media, “on the left and right, amplify, all of it.“The rabid attacks kindle the conspiracy mongers and the haters who take the small and predictable step from intemperate word to dangerous action. The world is watching America with abject horror.”Romney also said: “More consequently, our children are watching. Many Americans are frightened for our country, so divided, so angry, so mean, so violent. It is time to lower the heat.“The leaders must tone it down, leaders from the top and leaders of all stripes. Parents, bosses, reporters, columnists, professors, union chiefs, everyone. The consequence of the crescendo of anger leads to a very bad place. No sane person can want that.” More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      US election 2020: why are so many Americans being denied a vote? – podcast

      by

      Millions of American voters will be unable to cast their ballot in this year’s presidential election and those affected will be disproportionately first-time voters and from minority groups, reports Sam Levine

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      As the November election approaches, Donald Trump is continuing to make stark claims about voter fraud, particularly focused on postal voting. Despite a lack of evidence, many are interpreting the president’s claims as a prelude to his challenging the result should he be defeated. Fears of fraud are also being used by many states to place more hurdles in the way of voters trying to cast their ballots. The Guardian’s Sam Levine tells Anushka Asthana about the bureaucratic steps required to cast a legal vote in some states and how research shows that they mean the discounting of votes from disproportionately younger and minority voters. He also describes how millions of former prisoners are being denied votes decades after release due to bureaucratic errors or minuscule unpaid fines. He met Alfonso Tucker, a resident in Alabama, who was struck from the register over a $4 fine and whose son of the same name was also prevented from voting. Meanwhile, there are growing fears of intimidation at the polls, not least following Trump’s performance at the presidential debate in which he failed to denounce white supremacists, telling the rightwing Proud Boys group to “stand back and stand by”. More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      California investigates unauthorized ballot boxes installed by Republicans

      by

      California authorities have launched a criminal investigation into unauthorized ballot boxes that the Republican party has placed in several counties, with authorities warning that these set-ups are illegal.The boxes have appeared in Fresno, Los Angeles and Orange counties at locations including political party offices, campaign headquarters and churches, according to the California secretary of state. The GOP admitted Monday that it owned the boxes and defended the practice.The secretary of state issued a memo to county registrars this weekend clarifying that unofficial drop boxes are illegal and ballots must be returned by mail or to official polling places, vote centers or ballot drop-off locations.The memo comes after a regional field director for the California Republican party in Orange county supporting the congressional campaign of Michelle Steel posed in a social media photo with a box labeled “official ballot drop off box” and encouraged voters to message him for “convenient locations” to drop their ballots, the newspaper reported. Steel, a county supervisor, is challenging Harley Rouda, a Democrat, for his seat in Congress.There was a report about a similar box at a church in the Los Angeles county community of Castaic. The church posted on social media the box was “approved and brought by the GOP”, the Orange County Register reported.In Orange county, the registrar of voters, Neal Kelley, said official drop boxes were clearly recognizable and carried the official county elections logo. He said it wasn’t clear how many voters had used these unofficial drop boxes in his county but after receiving reports about them, he notified the state and district attorney’s office.“It would be like me installing a mailbox out on the corner – the post office is the one that installs mailboxes,” Kelley told the newspaper.The Orange county district attorney has launched a criminal investigation into at least two unauthorized ballot boxes in the county, a spokeswoman, Kimberly Edds, told the Guardian. The DA’s office received numerous reports from concerned residents, though she declined to specify where the boxes were located while the investigation continues. There are prosecutors available 24-7 to investigate these claims, and the DA has set up a hotline for reports about fraud.“This is something we take extraordinarily seriously,” Edds said, adding that it was too early to comment on how many voters may have been affected. She noted that residents could track their ballots online if they had concerns.Lance Trover, a spokesman for Steel’s campaign, referred questions to the state Republican party.Hector Barajas, a spokesman for the party, pointed to a state law that allows a third party to collect voters’ ballots. Republicans have long decried the law.“In California, where you can have convicted felons and individuals with a criminal history go door to door and collect ballots from voters, Democrats are now upset because organizations, individuals and groups are offering an opportunity for their friends, family, and patrons to drop off their ballot with someone they know and trust,” Barajas said in the statement.“The Democrat anger is overblown when state law allows organizations, volunteers or campaign workers to collect completed ballots and drop them off at polling places or election offices.”But reliance on the law is misleading. The provision says the voter must authorize the person who returns the ballot and that the third party must sign the return envelope. People who collect ballots cannot be compensated based on the number of ballots they return and must bring a ballot to the elections office shortly after receiving it.Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor, noted that voters had a right to choose how they delivered their ballots, and that the unauthorized boxes were misleading voters.“Republicans have been saying, ‘You can’t trust the system, there is fraud,’ and then they engage in arguably fraudulent behavior and create the problems they are complaining about,” she said, adding she feared a chilling effect, even if few people were directly impacted.People were already fearful about voting in person due to Covid, and wary about voting by mail due to concerns with possible delays, Levinson said: “It creates a psychological question and undermines the integrity of the election at a moment when it’s so important for voters to be able to trust the elections.”The party questioned on Twitter this weekend what would be wrong with a group providing an option for associates to drop off ballots in a safe location rather than handing them to an individual.A message was left seeking comment with California’s Democratic party. Ada Briceño, chair of the Democratic party in Orange county, said in a statement the boxes were an attempt at voter suppression.“Voters need trust in our election system, and this latest attempt by senior Republicans only erodes that trust,” she said.Orange county is one of the most conservative regions in California and has been the site of numerous pro-Trump rallies. In 2016, however, the county went blue for the first time in decades, with voters backing Hillary Clinton.Ana Gonzalez, a representative for the state Democratic party in San Bernardino county in southern California, said there was a lot of confusion about mail ballots and that volunteers were canvassing to ensure voters are educated about the process.“People are desperate right now with the pandemic and the GOP is taking advantage of this and distracting and misleading folks,” she said. “In marginalized communities, we’ve got to make sure that voters have the right information and are safely turning in their ballots. We’ve got to stay vigilant.”Trump has continued to escalate baseless attacks on mail-in voting, repeating false claims about voter fraud and spreading lies about the process in California.Agencies contributed reporting More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Amy Coney Barrett supreme court hearing sets stage for partisan clash

      by

      Judge Amy Coney Barrett will appear on Capitol Hill for the opening of her supreme court confirmation hearings on Monday, setting the stage for an extraordinary partisan clash three weeks before election day.Four days of hearings are scheduled before the Senate judiciary committee, beginning with opening statements on Monday, followed by two days of questioning. Thursday, the Senate panel will hear from outside experts.Republicans are moving ahead with the nomination over the strident objections of Democrats, who have argued that the winner of the November election should nominate the next justice to the supreme court as was the case in 2016, after the death of Antonin Scalia.Donald Trump thrilled conservatives and anti-abortion activists when he nominated Barrett last month to fill the vacancy left by the death of justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon whose legacy was championing women’s rights.Upon Scalia’s death in February 2016, the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, took the unprecedented step of refusing to hold a hearing for President Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, explaining that it was too close to a presidential election.McConnell has already lost the support of Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine locked in a tight re-election battle, who said she would vote against Barrett on the floor if the vote was held before the election. Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, also said she believed the Senate should wait until after the election to move forward with the nomination.But Republicans are confident that they will have the votes to rush Barrett’s nomination through before the election.Complicating this, however, is a coronavirus outbreak at the White House, which infected the president and has spread to senior government officials and Republican lawmakers.Two Republican senators on the committee – Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina – tested positive for the coronavirus after attending a Rose Garden ceremony for Barrett on 26 September. Two other members – Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Ted Cruz of Texas – are self-quarantining after possible exposure to the virus but have tested negative. All plan to attend the hearing in person, though the committee chairman, Lindsey Graham, has said members would be allowed to participate remotely.If any more members fall ill or are unable to participate in person, the math could be complicated for McConnell. But for now, Republicans are determined to press forward. More