United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Man Who Threatened to Kill Arizona Official Over Election Gets 2½ Years in Prison

      by

      Joshua Russell, 46, of Ohio, left threatening messages for Katie Hobbs in 2022, when she was Arizona’s secretary of state and successfully ran for governor.An Ohio man who threatened to kill Katie Hobbs in 2022 when she was secretary of state in Arizona and running to be governor was sentenced Monday to two and a half years in prison, prosecutors announced.The man, Joshua Russell, 46, of Ohio, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Arizona in August to one count of making an interstate threat, according to the Justice Department. He was indicted in December 2022 on charges that he had left several voice messages containing death threats with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office during the midterm election season, in which Ms. Hobbs was elected governor.Ms. Hobbs, a Democrat, was secretary of state in Arizona and was the state’s top election official when Joe Biden’s 2020 victory there was certified. She was not named in court documents, but a letter filed in court last week on Mr. Russell’s behalf was addressed to her.In the letter, Mr. Russell apologized to Ms. Hobbs and said that he was being treated for anger and drug and alcohol abuse, which he cited as a factor in making the threats.“Social media and news reports (that I didn’t know if they were true or false) became another addiction for me, and only fueled my depression, anxiety and anger,” Mr. Russell wrote.The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday night, and Mr. Russell’s public defenders could not immediately be reached.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Former Justice Breyer Says He Is Open to Supporting a Supreme Court Age Limit

      by

      Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the liberal judge who retired from the Supreme Court in 2022, said in an interview aired on Sunday that he would be open to supporting an age limit for the justices.“Human life is tough, and moreover, you get older,” Justice Breyer, 85, said during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “When you’ve been there quite a while, other people also should have a chance to do these jobs. And at some point, you’re just not going to be able to do it.”Justice Breyer suggested that an 18- or 20-year term could dissuade members of the court from “thinking about the next job” just as effectively as a lifetime appointment does now. He retired reluctantly in 2022 after mounting calls from liberals who wanted to ensure that the 6-to-3 conservative majority on the court did not get larger after an untimely death or resignation. President Biden then appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson, once a law clerk for Justice Breyer, to the Supreme Court that same year.An age limit “would have avoided, for me, going through difficult decisions on when you retire and what’s the right time,” Justice Breyer said.He also reiterated his criticism of the conservative Supreme Court majority and its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, referring to his dissent in the 2022 case. Justice Breyer — along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — said in the dissent that the majority’s opinion that a right to terminate pregnancy was not “deeply rooted” in the history and tradition of the United States would mean “all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure.”Justice Breyer said on Sunday that such a reading of the Constitution, which focuses on the text and the original intent of its writers — a legal doctrine often referred to as originalism — “doesn’t work very well” because it prevents judges from doing what they think is right and forces them to “be bound by the text.”In a forthcoming book, Justice Breyer calls originalists on the Supreme Court stunningly naïve in their claim that overturning Roe v. Wade would simply return the question of abortion to the political process. He said on Sunday that he had tried to warn the conservative majority that Roe’s demise would lead to more lawsuits challenging state-level abortion bans.“What’s going to happen when a woman’s life is at stake, and she needs the abortion?” Justice Breyer asked during the interview. “Do you think if a state forbids that, then that won’t come to the court? We thought it probably would. And we thought there will be a lot of issues coming to the court coming out of the decision to overrule Roe v. Wade.”The retired justice’s new book is set to be published on Tuesday, the day the Supreme Court hears a major case on access to pills used to terminate pregnancies. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Insurance Companies and the Prior Authorization Maze

      by

      More from our inbox:Elect the U.S. Attorney GeneralFriendship MemoriesA Leadership GapInsurance companies have weaponized a seemingly benign process to protect their profits, and it’s putting patients at risk.To the Editor:Re “‘What’s My Life Worth?’ The Big Business of Denying Medical Care,” by Alexander Stockton (Opinion video, March 14), about prior authorization:Mr. Stockton’s video captures a current snapshot of an important truth about medical insurance in our country and in doing so does a service to all citizens by making them aware of this threat to themselves and their families.The immediate truth is that medical insurance companies are inadequately regulated, monitored and punished for their greed. In their current iteration they are bastions of greed, power and money. They need to be reined in.But there are other truths as well. Some physicians, just like some pharmaceutical companies, are unable to contain their greed and allow avarice to cloud their judgment, compromise their ethics and in some cases cross the line to Medicare fraud or other illegal activity.Medical care in our country is very big business involving billions of dollars. Without proper controls, regulation and monitoring, malfeasance follows. The challenge in such a complex and multifaceted context is how to implement such controls and monitoring without making things worse.Ross A. AbramsJerusalemThe writer, a retired radiation oncologist, is professor emeritus at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.To the Editor:The Times’s video exploits tragic outcomes and does not mention basic important facts about the limited yet key role of prior authorization in ensuring that patients receive evidence-based, affordable care.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris Visits Parkland and Urges States to Adopt Red-Flag Gun Laws

      by

      At the site of the 2018 school shooting in Florida, the vice president announced federal help for states to limit weapon access for people deemed to be threats.Vice President Kamala Harris stood beside the parents of children killed in the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., and announced a new federal resource center to help states implement their red-flag laws.Drew Angerer/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesVice President Kamala Harris on Saturday toured the still-bloody and bullet-pocked classroom building in Parkland, Fla., where a gunman killed 14 students and three staff members in 2018, using the grim backdrop to announce a new federal resource center and to call for stricter enforcement of gun laws.The freshman building at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had been preserved as evidence for criminal trials and is set to be demolished this summer. For now, it remains a memorial to one of the most shocking mass shootings in the history of the United States.In remarks after taking her tour and meeting for more than an hour with family members of victims of the attack, Ms. Harris said the experience had been a compelling one.“Let us, through the courage and the call to action of these families, find it in ourselves to consider what they’ve been through as some level of motivation and inspiration for all of us,” she said.“This school is soon going to be torn down,” the vice president added. “But the memory of it will never be erased.”Ms. Harris said the attack, carried out by a former student with a history of mental health and behavior problems, should prompt officials around the country to embrace local red-flag laws. These allow courts to temporarily seize firearms and other dangerous weapons when they believe a person may be a threat to themselves or others. The Parkland shooter had purchased his gun legally.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Ocasio-Cortez, in House Speech, Accuses Israel of ‘Genocide’

      by

      Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had called for a permanent cease-fire in the war between Israel and Hamas, but had resisted labeling the conflict a genocide.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned on Friday that Israel’s blockade of Gaza had put the territory on the brink of severe famine, saying publicly for the first time that the nation’s wartime actions amounted to an “unfolding genocide.”In a speech on the House floor, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, forcefully called on President Biden to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel unless and until it begins to allow the free flow of humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip.“If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like, open your eyes,” she said. “It looks like the forced famine of 1.1 million innocents. It looks like thousands of children eating grass as their bodies consume themselves, while trucks of food are slowed and halted just miles away.”The comments were a sharp rhetorical escalation by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, the de facto leader of the Democratic Party’s left wing, and they illustrated the intense pressure buffeting party officials as they grapple with how to respond to Israel’s war tactics and the deepening humanitarian crisis.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, defying party leaders, has been a proponent of a permanent cease-fire since Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel on Oct. 7, and has called for putting conditions on American military aid to Israel. But she had resisted describing the ensuing war, which has killed 30,000 Gazans and left the territory in ruins, as a genocide.Israel has firmly denied that the term applies, and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez indicated in January that she was waiting for the International Court of Justice to render an opinion on a legal designation. Privately, she has expressed concerns to some allies that the highly contentious term would alienate potential supporters of a cease-fire.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Sherrod Brown Embarks on the Race of His Life

      by

      Ohio will almost certainly go for Donald Trump this November. The Democratic senator will need to defy the gravity of the presidential contest to win a fourth term.Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, has always had the luxury of running for election in remarkably good years for his party. He won his seat in 2006, during the backlash to the Iraq War, won re-election in 2012, the last time a Democrat carried the state, and did so again in 2018, amid a national reckoning of Donald J. Trump’s presidency.His campaign in 2024 will be different, and most likely the toughest of his career, with a Republican Party determined to win his seat and a Democratic president hanging off him like one of his trademark rumpled suits. In an election year when control of the Senate relies on the Democratic Party’s ability to win every single competitive race, an enormous weight sits on the slumped shoulders of the famously disheveled 71-year-old.“I fight for Ohioans,” Mr. Brown said in an interview on Wednesday. “There’s a reason I win in a state that’s a little more Republican.”Mr. Brown’s tousled hair and gravelly voice have spoken to working-class voters since he was elected Ohio’s secretary of state in 1982. His arms may be clenched tightly around his chest, but he projects a casual confidence that he can win once again in firmly red Ohio, where he is the last Democrat holding statewide office.But beneath that image is trouble. On Monday, he had just received an endorsement from the 100,000-strong Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council, when a retired bricklayer, Jeff King, pulled him aside in a weathered union hall in Dayton.Mr. Brown has had plenty of achievements to run on, Mr. King, who made the trip from his local in Cincinnati, told the senator. But, he asked, would workers in a blue-collar state that has twice handed Mr. Trump eight-percentage-point victories understand who should get the credit?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Look at Previous U.S. Vetoes of Gaza Cease-Fire Resolutions in the U.N.

      by

      Before the United States presented a resolution at the United Nations Security Council on Friday calling for an “immediate and sustained cease-fire” in Gaza, it had vetoed three previous ones demanding a halt to the fighting. The United States has long used its veto power as a permanent Security Council member to block measures that Israel, its close ally, opposes. But the Biden administration has become increasingly vocal in criticizing Israel’s approach to the war against Hamas, and the resolution offered on Friday reflected that, using the strongest language the United States has supported at the U.N. in an effort to pause the war. (The resolution failed after Russia and China vetoed it.)Here is a look at the three previous resolutions and how the U.S. position has changed:OctoberLess than two weeks after the war began in response to the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, Brazil put forward a resolution that condemned the attacks while calling for humanitarian access and protection of civilians in Gaza and the immediate release of hostages captured in the incursion. The United States was the only no vote; Russia and Britain abstained, and the two other permanent members of the Council, France and China, joined with the remaining 10 members in voting for passage.Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said the United States couldn’t support the resolution without a mention of Israel’s right to self-defense. DecemberThe United States cast the lone dissenting vote against a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, one that the U.N. secretary general, António Guterres, and some U.S. allies including France supported. The vote was 13 to 1, with Britain abstaining. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More