US Congress

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      USA Rugby World Cup bid attracts bipartisan support in Congress

      by

      USA Rugby World Cup bid attracts bipartisan support in CongressRepublicans and Democrats call on Joe Biden and federal agencies to support hosting men’s and women’s events US hopes of hosting men’s and women’s Rugby World Cups in 2029 and 2031 got a boost from Capitol Hill on Thursday, with the introduction of a bipartisan congressional resolution expressing support for the bid.USA will host Rugby World Cup in 2031 – or it’s back to the drawing boardRead moreThe resolution was introduced by the co-chairs of the Congressional Rugby Caucus, Alex Mooney, a West Virginia Republican, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat from Washington DC.Mooney said: “As a former college rugby player at Dartmouth College, I continue to enjoy watching the sport … as co-chairman of the Congressional Rugby Caucus, I am proud to be an advocate for the Rugby World Cup.”Holmes Norton said: “Rugby has made a difference to the youth of the District of Columbia and across the country in terms of health, self-esteem, teamwork and social skills. I am proud to support the US bids to host the men’s and women’s Rugby World Cup tournaments.”Sean Casten, an Illinois Democrat, and two Republicans, Richard Hudson from North Carolina and Paul Gosar from Arizona, also co-sponsored the measure.The US will compete at the next women’s event, in New Zealand this October, a tournament delayed by the Covid pandemic. England is World Rugby’s preferred host for the women’s tournament in 2025 while the US is in exclusive talks for 2029.The next men’s Rugby World Cup will be played in France in 2023. The US will face Chile in a two-legged qualifier this year. Australia has preferred candidate status for 2027 while the US is in “exclusive targeted dialogue” for 2031.In December, USA Rugby chief executive Ross Young told the Guardian: “We’ll either be awarded the World Cup in ’31 in May, or they’ll go back to the drawing board. They’re not going to announce anyone else.”‘Rugby was a lifeline’: Bipoc group seeks to establish game in US Black collegesRead moreRussia also launched a bid – before the invasion of Ukraine and the political, business and sporting pariah status it brought.The US men’s professional competition, Major League Rugby, is in its fifth season. Some around the world saw a Test between the US Eagles and New Zealand in Maryland last October – won 104-14 by the All Blacks – as a reversal for the US World Cup bid. Young disagreed.He said: “The huge attraction of a World Cup coming here is rugby really starting to unlock, or using this 10-year pathway to unlock, the biggest media market in the world. Or unlock the potential for that media market.”The US bid includes NFL and college football stadiums.On Thursday, the chair of the USA bid, Jim Brown, said: “Today’s resolution demonstrates a clear commitment to growing the game of rugby and advancing the United States’ Rugby World Cup bid – which will have important economic and cultural benefits at both the domestic and international level.”USA Rugby said that “in addition to conveying congressional enthusiasm for the bid”, the resolution “encourages President Joe Biden and relevant federal agencies to support the bid committee in their ongoing efforts. It also pledges that Congress will give full consideration to legislative proposals or other requests to support preparations for these important events”.Say it’s so, Joe: we know Biden’s a rugby fan – but who did he play for?Read moreThe governing body also said: “Co-ordination across local, state and federal government agencies is … ongoing. The bid leadership team has been in close contact with officials across all levels of government to discuss the commercial and cultural value of bringing one of the world’s largest sporting events to US soil for the first time.”There is a rugby fan in the White House. Biden has said he played at law school, and spoken fondly of following an All Blacks tour in Ireland when he was a young senator.The administration has not responded to Guardian requests for comment about the president’s playing and touring days.In November, however, Biden both wished Ireland’s men luck before their game against the All Blacks in Dublin and celebrated the stirring victory which followed.TopicsRugby World CupRugby unionUS sportsUSA rugby union teamWomen’s rugby unionUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Clyburn: supreme court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘beyond politics’

      by

      Clyburn: supreme court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘beyond politics’South Carolina congressman extracted Biden’s promise to instal first Black woman on court

      Opinion: Jackson will be a superb addition to the court
      The supreme court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson should be placed “beyond politics”, the politician who extracted Joe Biden’s politically priceless promise to instal the first Black woman on the court said on Sunday.Tucker Carlson condemned for Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Rwanda’ commentsRead moreBiden introduced Jackson as his pick to replace the retiring Stephen Breyer this week.Some Republicans have complained that nominations should not be made on grounds of race or gender – ignoring promises to put women on the court acted on by Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.Others have complained about how Democrats treated one of Trump’s nominees, Brett Kavanaugh, who denied allegations of sexual assault. Others have objected on ideological grounds, for example Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate judiciary committee, claiming the Jackson nomination was the work of the “radical left”.James Clyburn, the South Carolina congressman and House Democratic whip whose endorsement both propelled Biden to the presidential nomination and produced his promise to pick a Black woman, appeared on Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation.He said: “This is beyond politics. This is about the country, our pursuit of a more perfect union, and this is demonstrative of another step in that pursuit.”Of 115 supreme court justices, 108 have been white men. Two have been Black men, five women. As well as being the first Black woman on the court, Jackson would be the fourth woman on the current nine-justice panel, joining liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett, a hardline conservative.Clyburn said he hoped “that all my Republican friends will look upon” the nomination of Jackson as being “beyond politics”.“Let’s have a debate,” he said. “Let’s talk to her about her rulings and about her philosophy. But in the final analysis, let’s have a strong bipartisan support to demonstrate that both parties are still in pursuit of perfection”.No supreme court nomination – or, most observers would argue, hearing or ruling – is ever above politics. If confirmed, Jackson will not alter the balance of a court tilted 6-3 to conservatives by Republican political hardball which gave Trump three picks.Before Biden made his decision, Clyburn and Republicans including Graham and the other South Carolina senator, Tim Scott, championed J Michelle Childs, a judge from their state. Clyburn said it would be important to instal a justice who did not go to Yale or Harvard. Jackson went to Harvard.“It’s more traditional, no question about that,” Clyburn told CBS. “This means that we will continue that tradition, and I am one, as you can see, that’s not so much for tradition. I want to see us break as much new ground as possible.“But … in the final analysis, I think this is a good choice. It was a choice that brings on to the court a background and some experiences that nobody else on the court will have. And I think when you look at not just [Jackson’s] background in the family, life, but also her profession, she was a public defender. That adds a new perspective to the court.”Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas, has pointed out that Jackson has more trial experience than four current justices combined – including the chief, John Roberts.Clyburn also said a successful confirmation process could help Biden politically with Black voters facing difficulties familiar to most Americans, particularly inflation.“When you have an opportunity to make an appointment like you just had,” he said, “and he made an African American appointment, I guarantee you, you see some of that move up. It may not move up with the people who are having income problems, but it will move up to those who have other reservations about the president.”Last year, Jackson was confirmed to the court of appeals for the DC circuit with support from three Republican senators: Graham, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska.‘Leaders lead during crises’ – but Biden’s approval rating hits new low, poll findsRead moreThis year, Democrats will be able to confirm Jackson simply by keeping their 50 votes together and using Kamala Harris’s casting vote as vice-president.But on Sunday Mitt Romney of Utah told CNN’s State of the Union he could vote to confirm Jackson.“Yes,” the former presidential nominee said, “I’m going to take a very deep dive and had the occasion to speak with her about some of the concerns when she was before the Senate to go on to the circuit court.“Look, her nomination and her confirmation would or will be historic. And like anyone nominated by the president of the United States, she deserves a very careful look, a very deep dive. And I will provide fresh eyes to that evaluation, and hope that I will be able to support her in the final analysis.”TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)US politicsRaceDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ivanka Trump in talks to cooperate with January 6 panel, reports say

      by

      Ivanka Trump in talks to cooperate with January 6 panel, reports sayEx-president’s daughter may voluntarily appear for an interview, according to congressional committee Ivanka Trump is in talks with the January 6 House select committee about potentially cooperating with the panel, according to multiple US media reports.“Ivanka Trump is in discussions with the Committee to voluntarily appear for an interview,” a spokesperson for the daughter of former President Donald Trump said in a statement on Wednesday, CNN reported.According to the New York Times, which first reported the discussions, it remains unclear whether the preliminary negotiations would result in Trump actually providing substantial information to the committee.US Capitol attack panel discusses subpoena for Ivanka TrumpRead moreEarlier this month, the Guardian reported that the committee was considering issuing a subpoena to Trump to force her cooperation with the inquiry into the former president’s efforts to return himself to power on 6 January 2021.Any move to subpoena Trump and, for the first time, force a member of Donald Trump’s own family to testify against him, would mark a dramatic escalation in the January 6 inquiry that would amount to a treacherous legal and political moment for the former president.In January, the committee released a public letter addressed to Ivanka Trump in which committee members called upon her to provide “voluntary cooperation with our investigation”.“We write to request your voluntary cooperation with our investigation on a range of critical topics … We respect your privacy, and our questions will be limited to issues relating to January 6th, the activities that contributed to or influenced events on January 6th, and your role in the White House during that period,” the letter said.Sources familiar with the discussions told the New York Times that Trump had not yet agreed on a date for when she might speak with the committee and that the panel had not made any subpoena threats.Trump reportedly does not plan to follow in the steps of Steve Bannon, a staunch ally of her father who refused to cooperate with the panel and was later indicted for contempt of Congress. The sources added that Donald Trump had not requested his daughter refuse the committee’s requests.In the letter addressed to Ivanka Trump last month, the committee revealed new details about attempts to urge Donald Trump to condemn the violence on 6 January 2021.According to Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general and the former vice-president Mike Pence’s national security adviser, Ivanka Trump and White House officials urged the president twice to condemn the violence.Donald Trump allegedly said no to aides, including his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and the White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. Kellogg then asked Ivanka Trump to speak to the president, saying: “She went back in, because Ivanka can be pretty tenacious.”In an interview with the Washington Examiner last month, the former president criticized the committee’s investigation into his children, saying, “It’s a very unfair situation for my children … Very, very unfair.”TopicsUS Capitol attackIvanka TrumpDonald TrumpUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The Republican party is abandoning democracy. There can be no ‘politics as usual’ | Thomas Zimmer

      by

      The Republican party is abandoning democracy. There can be no ‘politics as usual’Thomas ZimmerRepublicans could not be clearer about their cynicism, yet some establishment Democrats act as if politics as usual is still an option Over the past few weeks, President Joe Biden has repeatedly emphasized his friendship with Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. At the National Prayer Breakfast in early February, for instance, he praised McConnell as “a man of your word. And you’re a man of honor. Thank you for being my friend.”Biden’s publicly professed affinity is weirdly at odds with the political situation. Going back to the Obama era, McConnell has led the Republican Party in a strategy of near-total obstruction which he has pursued with ruthless cynicism. It is true that he has, at times, signaled distance to Donald Trump and condemned the January 6 insurrection. But McConnell is also sabotaging any effort to counter the Republican party’s ongoing authoritarian assault on the political system.The distinct asymmetry in the way the two sides treat each other extends well beyond Biden and McConnell. Republicans immediately derided Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court – while Democratic leaders are hoping for bipartisan support; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists the nation needs a strong Republican party – meanwhile radicals like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar, who fantasize about committing acts of violence against Democrats, are embraced by fellow Republicans, proving they are not just a extremist fringe that has “hijacked” the Party, as Pelosi suggested. And when Texas senator Ted Cruz recently intimated that Republicans would impeach Biden if they were to retake the House “whether it’s justified or not,” the White House responded by calling on Cruz to “work with us on getting something done.” Republicans could not be clearer about the fact that they consider Democratic governance fundamentally illegitimate, yet some establishment Democrats act as if politics as usual is still an option and a return to “normalcy” imminent.There is certainly an element of political strategy in all of this. Democrats are eager to present themselves as a force of moderation and unity. But Biden’s longing for understanding across party lines seems sincere. He has been reluctant to make the fight against the Republican party’s assault on democracy the center piece of his agenda; Democratic leadership has proved mostly unwilling to focus the public’s attention on the Republican party’s authoritarian turn.One important explanatory factor is that many Democratic leaders are old. They came up in a very different political environment, when there was indeed a great deal of bipartisan cooperation in Congress. There is no reason to be nostalgic about this – the politics of bipartisan consensus more often than not stifled racial and social progress. But there was certainly an established norm of intra-party cooperation until quite recently. When California senator Dianne Feinstein hugged South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham at the end of the Amy Coney Barrett hearings in 2020, it was a bizarre throwback to those days of amity across party lines in the midst of a naked Republican power grab.Beyond institutional tradition and personal familiarity, this inability to grapple in earnest with the post-Obama reality in which Democratic politicians are almost universally considered members of an “Un-American” faction by most Republicans has deeper ideological roots. The way some establishment Democrats have acted suggests they feel a kinship with their Republican opponents grounded in a worldview of white elite centrism. Their perspective on the prospect of a white reactionary regime is influenced by the fact that, consciously or not, they understand that their elite status wouldn’t necessarily be affected all that much. The Republican dogma – that the world works best if it’s run by prosperous white folks – has a certain appeal to wealthy white elites, regardless of party.From that vantage point, it is rational to believe that the bigger immediate threat is coming from the “Left”: an agenda seeking to transform America from a restricted, white men’s democracy that largely preserved existing hierarchies to a functioning multiracial, pluralistic, social democracy is indeed a losing proposition for people who have traditionally been at the top. When Biden insists that “I’m not Bernie Sanders. I’m not a socialist”, and instead emphasizes his friendship with Mitch McConnell, he offers more than strategic rhetoric. Many establishment Democrats seem to believe that it is high time to push back against the “radical” forces of leftism and “wokeism.”The constant attempts to normalize a radicalizing Republican Party also have a lot to do with two foundational myths that shape the collective imaginary: the myth of American exceptionalism and the myth of white innocence. We may be decades removed from the heyday of the so-called “liberal consensus” of the postwar era, but much of the country’s Democratic elite still subscribes to an exceptionalist understanding that America is fundamentally good and the US inexorably on its way to overcoming whatever vestigial problems there might still be. This often goes hand in hand with a mythical tale of America’s past, describing democracy as being exceptionally stable. Never mind that genuine multiracial democracy has actually existed for less than 60 years in this country. What could possibly threaten America’s supposedly “old, consolidated” democracy? Acknowledging what the Republican party has become goes against the pillars of that worldview.Finally, the American political discourse is still significantly shaped by the paradigm of white innocence. Economic anxiety, anti-elite backlash, or just liberals being mean – whatever animates white people’s extremism, it must not be racism, and they cannot be blamed for their actions. The dogma of white innocence leads to elite opinion instinctively sanitizing the reasons behind the rise of rightwing demagogues, a common tendency in the commentary surrounding the success of George Wallace in the late 1960s, David Duke in early 1990s, or Donald Trump in 2016. The idea of white innocence also clouds Democratic elites’ perspective on Republican elites: Since they cannot possibly be animated by reactionary white nationalism, they must be motivated by more benign forces, fear of the Trumpian base perhaps, or maybe they are being seduced by the dangerous demagogue.“I actually like Mitch McConnell,” Biden said during a press conference a few weeks ago, providing a window into what he sees in Republicans: No matter what they do, underneath they’re good guys, they’ll snap out of it. Promise. It’s the manifestation of a specific worldview that makes it nearly impossible to acknowledge the depths of Republican radicalization – a perspective that severely hampers the fight for the survival of American democracy.
      Thomas Zimmer is a visiting professor at Georgetown University, focused on the history of democracy and its discontents in the United States, and a Guardian US contributing opinion writer
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratsRepublicansJoe BidenUS SenateUS CongressHouse of RepresentativescommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Money unites: Republicans and Democrats find rare bipartisanship over trading stocks

      by

      Money unites: Republicans and Democrats find rare bipartisanship over trading stocksDespite wide public support for banning lawmakers from trading stocks, members of both parties have expressed anxiety about the idea Nancy Pelosi probably did not expect to set off such a firestorm with her use of three words: free market economy.When the House speaker was asked in December whether she supports proposals to ban members and their spouses from trading individual stocks, she said no. “We’re a free market economy,” Pelosi said. “They should be able to participate in that.”But Pelosi’s comment sparked ire among government ethics experts and editorial boards, who argued that lawmakers’ ability to glean information from classified briefings and stakeholder meetings raised the possibility of insider trading.Some critics also noted that Pelosi’s husband, Paul, recently netted a gain of more than $5m from trading stocks of Alphabet, Google’s parent company.In the face of backlash, Pelosi has changed her tune on the stock-trading issue, but her hesitation highlighted an uncomfortable truth about how Congresshas responded to the proposal.Despite wide public support for banning lawmakers from trading stocks, members of both parties have expressed anxiety about the idea: a rare moment of bipartisanship in a divided America, but one whose subject – stock-trading politicians – is unlikely to please many voters.Government watchdog groups warn that if Congress fails to act on this issue, it will only intensify many Americans’ concern over how money has tainted their country’s political institutions.The debate over banning members’ stock-trading has been reinvigorated in recent months, after a string of high-profile controversies at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. In February 2020, Republican senator Richard Burr sold hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of stock before the market suffered a severe setback the next month. While he was overseeing those valuable stock trades, Burr was also publicly downplaying the threat of the virus. The justice department investigated Burr and three of his Senate colleagues – Republicans Kelly Loeffler and James Inhofe and Democrat Dianne Feinstein – for possible insider trading, but ultimately no charges were filed.In response to the outcry over those controversies, both Democrats and Republicans have proposed bills to crack down on members’ stock-trading. One bill, introduced by Democratic senators Jon Ossoff and Mark Kelly, would require members, their spouses and their dependent children to place their stock portfolios in a blind trust controlled by an outside party. Republican senator Josh Hawley has proposed a similar bill, although his legislation does not cover dependent children and would not fine members’ salaries for violations, as the Ossoff-Kelly bill would.Over in the House, Democrat Abigail Spanberger and Republican Chip Roy have introduced a similar bill to the Ossoff-Kelly proposal, and more than 50 members have signed on as co-sponsors to the separate Ban Conflicted Trading Act. That bill, which was first introduced by Democrat Raja Krishnamoorthi, would ban members and senior congressional staffers from trading individual stocks.“It has really gotten to a point where it’s getting a little bit too difficult for the rest of Congress to ignore,” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a co-sponsor of Krishnamoorthi’s bill, said at a town hall on Tuesday. “The fact of the matter is, we shouldn’t be able to day-trade the companies whose regulation and whose hearings and whose industries and business is before Congress.”A majority of Americans agree with her. According to a January poll from the progressive firm Data for Progress, 67% of US voters say lawmakers should be banned from trading stocks. Another recent survey, conducted by the conservative advocacy group Convention of States Action, found that 76% of voters believe lawmakers and their spouses have an “unfair advantage” in the stock market.It is illegal for members of Congress, or any American, to engage in insider trading. However, insider trading is very difficult to prove, so in 2012, Congress passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (Stock) Act to address concerns about lawmakers’ financial activities. The law prohibits members from using information gained through work for their own personal profit, and it requires them to disclose stock trades within 45 days.Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have pointed to the existing legislation to argue against banning members from trading stocks. Republican congressman Pete Sessions has described a ban as unnecessary, while one of his Democratic colleagues, Elaine Luria, attacked the proposal as “bullshit”.“Why would you assume that members of Congress are going to be inherently bad or corrupt? We already have the Stock Act that requires people to report stock trades,” Luria told Punchbowl News earlier this month. “So I’m very strongly opposed to any legislation like that.”Advocates for a stock-trading ban were quick to note that Luria and her husband own millions of dollars worth of stocks in Facebook, Netflix and Apple, among other companies.“Honestly, the stock trades by members of Congress just smell bad … Regardless of which party is doing it, it just doesn’t look good,” said RL Miller, the political director of Climate Hawks Vote. Responding to Luria’s comments specifically, Miller added: “Members of Congress expecting that they don’t prioritize companies in which they’re invested is bullshit.”Miller’s group was one of 18 progressive organizations that signed on to a letter urging Congress to hold a hearing on banning stock trades, arguing that the Stock Act and other existing laws “have not served as a sufficient deterrent to this problem”.Enforcement of the Stock Act also appears to have been spotty at best over the past 10 years. No one has ever been prosecuted under the law, and an investigation by Business Insider found that at least 55 members of Congress and 182 senior congressional staffers were late in filing their stock trades in 2020 and 2021. A late filing is supposed to be punished with a $200 fine that increases with subsequent offenses, but Congress does not keep any public record of such fines, and it’s unclear how often they are collected.“The teeth behind the Stock Act are basically non-existent,” said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, government affairs manager at the Project on Government Oversight. “We’re seeing that reporting and disclosure do not actually act as any kind of a deterrent to doing things that look, at the very least, pretty sketchy.”Government watchdog groups also argue that the Stock Act is now somewhat outdated. They say the legislation does not properly account for how lawmakers can use the 24-hour news cycle and social media platforms to affect markets and specific companies’ share prices.“We have seen countless examples of how members – not just as a body but individual members – can influence the stock market with a range of tools at their disposal,” said Donald Sherman, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Now we’re at a place in history and on the Hill where an individual member of Congress can influence the stock price with a tweet.”Groups like Crew are hopeful that the momentum for passing a stock-trading ban will soon translate into congressional action. Despite her initial reluctance, Pelosi has now adopted a more open-minded tone about the proposals, and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, has said the upper chamber should address the issue.“I think this is sort of an easy win that will have a very positive impact on policy-making and on public-facing democracy,” Sherman said.The enactment of a stock-trading ban could have the additional benefit of boosting the public’s opinion of Congress, which has suffered in recent years. According to Gallup’s January polling, only 18% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling its job. Advocates for the proposed stock-trading ban say the policy would bolster public confidence in one of America’s most important political institutions.“Anything that can restore Americans’ trust in Congress is a good thing,” Miller said. “This would help rebut that appearance of double-dealing and go a long way toward restoring Americans’ trust in their leadership.”For those members who are hesitant to give up their stocks, Hedtler-Gaudette suggested they should reconsider their chosen career.“To become a member of Congress is an extraordinarily prestigious thing. But it is not compulsory,” Hedtler-Gaudette said. “There are a number of sacrifices that you have to make to run for office … If this is a problem, then you are not required to run for Congress.”TopicsUS politicsUS CongressDemocratsRepublicansNancy PelosiStock marketsfeaturesReuse this content More