US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump shares posts of Gold Star families praising cemetery visit and criticizing Harris

      by

      Donald Trump shared statements from the relatives of 13 soldiers killed during the chaotic US evacuation from Kabul as they hit out at Kamala Harris after she criticized the former president’s involvement in a ceremony honoring the service members.The dispute over the ceremony at Arlington national cemetery, during which Trump campaign aides allegedly shoved a cemetery worker so they could film Trump laying a wreath, contravening rules against political activity at the site, escalated after the vice-president said Saturday that Trump “disrespected sacred ground, all for the sake of a political stunt”.But eight members of the “Gold Star” families who lost relatives posted messages on Trump’s Truth Social platform Saturday saying they had invited Trump to the ceremony and criticized the Biden-Harris administration for the Afghanistan pull-out three years ago.“Why did we want Trump there? It wasn’t to help his political campaign,” Mark Schmitz, father of Marine lance corporal Jared Schmitz, said in one video. “We wanted a leader. That explains why you and Joe didn’t get a call.”Darren Hoover, the father of Marine staff Sgt Taylor Hoover, said Harris lacks “empathy and basic understanding” about the event, and emphasized that Trump’s appearance was respectful.The army said this week that a cemetery official was “abruptly pushed aside” while interacting with Trump’s staff.On Saturday, congressional Democrats called on the army to deliver a report on what had taken place at the cemetery on Monday. Harris later posted on Twitter/X that the military burial site is “not a place for politics”.“Let me be clear: the former president disrespected sacred ground, all for the sake of a political stunt,” Harris added, and said she would “never politicize” such an event.The dispute continued on Sunday, when former Democratic congresswoman and Iraq veteran Tulsi Gabbard, now a member of Trump’s transition team, told CNN’s State of the Union that she was at the ceremony and saw “a very grave and somber remembrance and honoring of those lives that were lost”.Gabbard said she saw Trump “spending time at the invitation of these Gold Star families with them” and did “not see or hear about any kind of altercation until something came out in the news later on”.Gabbard rejected Harris’s statement saying she stood with the veteran’s families. Gabbard told CNN: “President Biden and Harris, I heard, were invited by some of these family members. They not only didn’t come – they didn’t even respond to that invitation.”Senator Tom Cotton continued the Republican pushback, telling NBC’s Meet the Press that the Gold Star families had invited Trump, but also Joe Biden and Harris, and he disputed that photos and video were meant for political purposes.“Joe Biden was sitting on a beach. Kamala Harris was sitting in her mansion in DC … She was four miles away. Ten minutes. She could have gone to the cemetery and honored the sacrifice of those young men and women,” Cotton said.A White House official and a Harris aide disputed Cotton and Gabbard’s account that the president and Harris had been invited to the ceremony, according to NBC News.As the political fallout from the Arlington ceremony continues, it has drawn in Utah governor Spencer Cox, a moderate Republican who kept his political distance from the Republican presidential candidate until the attempted assassination on Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July.Cox, a Latter-day Saint, later said he believes God had a hand in saving Trump’s life, even calling it a miracle.Cox attended the controversial ceremony and published photos from the event on his official account. Cox’s re-election campaign later issued an apology.“Honoring those who serve should never be ‘political’,” it read, adding that the campaign was committed “to ensure that we run the best campaign possible and we’ll accomplish that by not politicizing things that shouldn’t be politicized”. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Senior adviser rejects rumors of shake-up in Trump campaign leadership

      by

      Trump campaign senior official Corey Lewandowski has rejected rumors of shake-up in the management of the former president’s election bid, saying the operation’s leadership will not change.Lewandowski, Trump’s 2016 campaign manager who recently joined the 2024 team, told Fox News Sunday that campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita will remain at the top.“We are solely focused on one thing, which is making sure Donald Trump has the opportunity to lay out his vision for America over the next nine weeks,” Lewandowski said.Lewandowski, a controversial figure who was fired by Trump in 2016 after grabbing the arm of a reporter and four years later lost his position overseeing a pro-Trump political fund amid claims he made unwanted sexual advances on a Trump donor, was re-admitted to the campaign last month.That prompted speculation that Lewandowski would be appointed campaign chairperson as Trump’s polling began to slip against a reformulated Democratic party operation with a new candidate. Some reports asserted that Trump had “been feeling superstitious and nostalgic of late”.But rising speculation that Wiles and LaCivita might be pushed aside in favor of Lewandowski and former presidential counsellor Kellyanne Conway have not materialized into a campaign shake-up.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA Trump campaign statement last month said that Trump “thinks Ms Wiles and Mr LaCivita are doing a phenomenal job and any rumors to the contrary are false and not rooted in reality”.An ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday showed Kamala Harris with a four-point lead over Trump among registered voters 50%-46%, and a six-point advantage among likely voters, 52%-46%.But neither Trump nor Harris appeared to get a boost from their respective party’s conventions. However, more voters were also willing to say Harris is “too liberal” to be president (46%) than indicate Trump is “too conservative” (43%).“The race between them remains close, with no overall bounce in support for Harris out of her nominating convention,” said Gary Langer, president of Langer Research Associates, which conducted the survey. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      More than 10,000 US hotel workers strike on Labor Day weekend

      by

      Thousands of US hotel workers went on strike on Sunday for improved pay and conditions in a dispute likely to disrupt many Labor Day weekend holiday travelers, amid union warnings that industrial action could escalate.More than 10,000 workers walked off the job at hotels in Boston, Seattle, Honolulu, Kauai and Greenwich, Connecticut, as well as the Californian cities of San Francisco, Sand Diego and San Jose after contract talks with the establishments’ owners collapsed.The Unite Here union, which represents workers in hotels, casinos and airports across the US and Canada, warned that staff in other city were ready to join the strike.“Strikes have also been authorised and could begin at any time,” a union statement said, adding that hotels in Baltimore, Providence, Oakland, New Haven could be affected.Staff are demanding wage increases and the reversal of pandemic era job cuts that union organisers say has increased the workload of remaining workers and imposed “painful” working conditions.“The hotel industry has rebounded from the pandemic, and room rates are at record highs,” Gwen Mills, Unite Here’s international president, said in a statement. “But hotel workers can’t afford to live in the cities that they welcome guests to. Too many hotel workers have to work two or sometimes three jobs in order to make ends meet.“We won’t accept a ‘new normal’ where hotel companies profit by cutting their offerings to guests and abandoning their commitments to workers.”The union said that, as of Sunday morning, the strike had impacted 24 cities with a total of 23,000 hotel rooms.It was taking place on a weekend which was expected to be the busiest on Labour Day records, according to Transport Security Administration forecasts.Unite Here, which has more than 275,000 members, has accused the hotel industry of using cutbacks triggered by Covid-related lockdowns to permanently cut staff and reduce guest services.It has asked traveling guests at affected hotels to cancel their visit and demand refunds.The strike, which is scheduled to last three days, follows months of talks between workers and the Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott and Omni hotel chains.Hyatt said it was disappointed by the decision to strike. “We look forward to continuing to negotiate fair contracts and recognise the contributions of Hyatt employees,” said Michael D’Angelo, the firm’s head of labour relations. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Hunter Biden tax trial: less politically fraught, but set to be just as lurid

      by

      Hunter Biden may not be the political football he was when his father, Joe Biden, was still running for re-election as president, but he will be under a bright spotlight as he faces multiple counts of tax fraud and tax evasion in Los Angeles this week and, if found guilty, risks as long as 22 years behind bars.The case is likely to delve into all the lurid details of the younger Biden’s life – the millions he earned from lucrative foreign consultancies, his string of broken relationships and high-living Hollywood lifestyle, his crack cocaine addiction and the tens of thousands he spent on online pornography – that, not so long ago, had partisan Republicans chomping at the opportunity to inflict political damage on the incumbent in the Oval Office.Now, though, the political optics may be quite different since this trial, coming on top of an earlier one in June in which Hunter Biden was found guilty on a federal gun charge, will probably undermine the argument pushed by the former president Donald Trump and others that the Biden administration has politicized and “weaponized” the justice department to go after its enemies.It is even possible that the Hunter Biden trial will coincide with Trump’s sentencing in the first of his criminal trials in New York state, in which the former president was found guilty in May of 34 counts of falsifying records to cover up a sexual encounter he had with the adult film star Stormy Daniels. That sentencing has been set for 18 September, and if that date holds – the overlap with the Hunter Biden trial will only blunt Trump’s habitual rhetoric about being the victim of a rigged system, with Joe Biden as its mastermind.“So much for weaponization,” the former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin told CNN after Hunter Biden’s last trial. “This is a testament to the fact that the justice department … is trying its very best to steer straight down the middle.”In Los Angeles, Hunter Biden will face nine charges stemming from his failure to file four years’ worth of taxes on time, including two felony counts of filing a false return and an additional felony count of tax evasion.The narrative presented by federal prosecutors in their indictment would make uneasy reading for any defendant, much less the son of a sitting president. Biden, the prosecutors allege, failed to file his taxes on time from 2016 to 2019, despite earning millions of dollars from his consultancy work with the Ukrainian industrial conglomerate Burisma and a Chinese private equity firm.When he did eventually file his 2018 return, the indictment further alleges, he mischaracterized personal expenditures as business deductions, including college tuition fees for his children and more than $27,000 that he spent on online pornography.Biden cannot legitimately plead financial hardship, prosecutors say, because he was earning more than enough to meet his tax obligations and because a well-connected Hollywood entertainment lawyer named Kevin Morris, referred to in the indictment as “personal friend”, spotted him $1.2m, which he spent on a lavish rental property near Venice Beach, a Porsche and other items.“Between 2016 and October 15, 2020,” the indictment goes on, “the Defendant spent [his] money on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature, in short, everything but his taxes.”In pre-trial hearings, Biden’s defense team has not challenged the facts of what paperwork he filed and what payments he made when. Rather, they appear poised to make an argument about diminished responsibility, pointing to his drug addiction during the years under scrutiny and seeking to explain it as a result of trauma going all the way back to Hunter Biden’s childhood, when his mother and sister were killed in a car crash.“They [the prosecution] are creating a portrait for the jury of someone who was plopped down in West Hollywood and decided to just party and do cocaine as if he didn’t have a care in the world,” Biden’s lead counsel, the celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos, complained in court last month. Out of context, Geragos argued, such a depiction was “a form of character assassination” and a deliberate attempt by the prosecution to make his client “look bad”.The judge, Mark Scarsi, gave such arguments short shrift, denying Geragos’s request to introduce evidence about his client’s childhood and warning him that violating this ruling could lead to “six-figure sanctions”. “I don’t know if there’s any good evidence as to what causes addiction,” Scarsi said. “Why is the cause of Mr Biden’s addiction relevant?”The prosecution made a similar point. “No matter how many drugs you take,” the assistant US attorney Leo Wise said, “you don’t suddenly forget that when you make $11m, you have to pay taxes.”Unlike the gun trial in Delaware in June, this case will probably revive controversy over Hunter Biden’s business connections – since they account for his high salary – and the question, which Republicans have been pushing hard for years, of whether he owed these connections to his family’s name and influence.In a report concluding an abortive attempt to bring impeachment charges against Joe Biden, Republican House representatives claimed once again last week that Hunter Biden had taken advantage of his father’s position as vice-president under Barack Obama to obtain “favorable outcomes in foreign business dealings and legal proceedings”.The allegation about foreign business dealings may still sting, even if it no longer has the same potency now that Biden has stepped aside as the Democratic nominee in favor of Kamala Harris. The allegation about legal proceedings, meanwhile, might be short-lived if the jury returns the second guilty verdict against Hunter Biden in four months.Jury selection begins on Thursday, with opening arguments expected on Monday 9 September. Lawyers for both sides have said the trial is likely to last about two weeks. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr sues North Carolina elections board to remove his name from ballot

      by

      Robert F Kennedy Jr is suing North Carolina’s state board of elections after it refused to remove his name from the electoral ballot following his decision to drop his independent presidential campaign and endorse Donald Trump.The legal action comes after a series of ballot woes that initially impeded Kennedy’s campaign but are now threatening to undermine the impact of his decision to end it.Kennedy announced the suspension of his presidential bid on 23 August, saying he planned to remove his name from the ballot in 10 states, including vital swing states where his was presence was likely to damage Trump in knife-edge contests with Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.“Our polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues,” Kennedy told journalists when he announced his withdrawal in Phoenix, Arizona, last month.He has since been enthusiastically embraced by Trump, who has appointed him to his transition team, despite concerns among conservative Republicans about Kennedy’s Democratic past and his support for abortion rights.However, Kennedy’s request to remove his name in North Carolina – a key battleground where recent opinion surveys have shown Harris taking a small lead – was rejected by the state election board after it said around 1.7m ballot papers had already been printed and that producing new ones would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.“It would not be practical to reprint ballots that have already been printed and meet the state law deadline to start absentee voting,” the board said in a 29 August statement.Sixty seven of the states 100 counties have already received their absentee mail-in ballots, meaning creating batches would create logistical problems, officials said. “When we talk about the printing a ballot we are not talking about … pressing ‘copy’ on a Xerox machine. This is a much more complex and layered process,” the election board’s executive director, Karen Brinson Bell, said.Board members split three to two along Democratic-Republican party lines in denying Kennedy’s request.A law suit filed on his behalf claims that the decision has damaged his rights of free speech.“By refusing to acknowledge Kennedy’s statutory rights and entitlements, defendants have irreparably harmed him,” the suit argued. “Even worse, by forcing Kennedy to remain on the ballot against his will, defendants are compelling speech in violation of [the US constitution].”The dispute with North Carolina is mirrored in two other states seen as vital to the outcome of the 5 November election.Kennedy has also been refused permission to remove his name from the ballot in Wisconsin and Michigan, where polls indicate his presence could help Harris at the expense of Trump.In Michigan, Harris gains 0.1% with Kennedy’s name on the ballot, according to RealClearPolitics, which already gives her a 2.2% lead over Trump from recent polling averages. The same analysis sees her gaining 0.5% through Kennedy’s presence in Wisconsin, where she already has a one point advantage in recent surveys.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWisconsin – where Kennedy was nominated by the Natural Law Party – rejected his request to remove his name on 27 August, citing election law that states that only death could result in a candidate’s removal once nominated.“Any person who files nomination papers and qualifies to appear on the ballot may not decline nomination,” the state’s election law says. “The name of that person shall appear upon the ballot except in case of death of the person.”Kennedy has successfully removed himself from the ballot in several other battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Nevada and Arizona.His struggle to get off the ballot in some states has been mirrored by his difficulties in getting on in others, where his presence is unlikely to affect the outcome.In New York, an appeals committee last week upheld a judge’s decision to exclude from the ballot on the grounds that he lived in California and that an address he filed as a state residence was that of a friend.“This is not a situation where Kennedy erroneously listed a former residence in the nominating petition, but rather, Kennedy listed an address at which the record evidence reflects he has never resided,” the panel of judges wrote.Ironically, Georgia – another battleground state where Kennedy’s presence could adversely affect Trump – recently ruled that he was “not qualified” to appear on the ballot because of doubts about his New York residence. The Georgia secretary of state’s office has said that Kennedy’s name “will not be appearing on the ballot in Georgia this election”. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      For decades, it’s been a man’s world on Capitol Hill – that’s finally changing

      by

      The halls of the US Congress were, for many years, a man’s world. The first woman elected to Congress, the Republican Jeannette Rankin of Montana, joined the House in 1917, three years before the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote and decades before the civil rights movement enabled ballot access for women of color.Now, more than a century later, 150 women serve in Congress, marking an all-time high. And as more women have joined the House and Senate, the ranks of senior staffers on the Hill have shifted alongside them. More women, specifically young women, are leading congressional offices as chiefs of staff, giving them invaluable access to lawmakers and opportunities to influence the policies that shape Americans’ lives.Data shows that white male staffers are still more likely to hold senior roles on Capitol Hill, but the young women who lead congressional offices want to help change that. And among Democratic chiefs of staff, this year represents an inflection point: many of them were first inspired to get involved in politics after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, and the country now has another opportunity to not only defeat Donald Trump but elect Kamala Harris as the first female president.“It’s really important for women in positions of power to be speaking out and sharing their experiences,” said Marie Baldassarre, 29, chief of staff to the Democratic congressman Ro Khanna. “The more of those examples that young women can have, then the less we doubt ourselves – because we’ve seen other people do it.”A call to action after 2016Multiple Democratic chiefs of staff said they had not envisioned a career in politics before Trump’s victory in 2016. They certainly did not expect to rise to the level of a chief of staff, who holds the most senior role in a congressional office and can directly consult with a House member on legislative and political decisions.After her family emigrated to the US from Iran when she was seven, Armita Pedramrazi, chief of staff to the Democratic representative Mary Gay Scanlon, thought she might go into pro-bono immigration law. Then a mentor suggested she apply for a job with the then congresswoman Susan Davis.“I applied completely on a whim, thinking there was absolutely no way that someone without political connections or without some sort of leverage could work for a congressional office,” said Pedramrazi, 32. “It felt like this incredibly far away, impossible thing.”She got the job and eventually moved to Washington DC in 2016, expecting to do immigration policy work with Hillary Clinton’s administration. That did not come to pass, but she stayed on in her legislative role with Davis before arriving in Scanlon’s office and working her way up to chief of staff.For Amy Kuhn, chief of staff to Democratic congresswoman Sara Jacobs, Clinton campaign’s in 2016 marked her first foray into political work. And although Clinton lost, the experience allowed Kuhn to meet her current boss and underscored the importance of the work.“I’m a gay woman who grew up in the very red state of Montana, so a lot of my life has been very political by its nature,” said Kuhn, 35. “[The Clinton campaign] was such a good experience, but the outcome was so personal and painful, and we were all reckoning with what it meant for Donald Trump to become president.”If Trump’s presidency spurred them into action, several chiefs of staff said the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022 served as a reminder of why they chose this professional path.“My mom dedicated her career to fighting for reproductive rights, and that was something I really viewed as a threat when I first got involved in politics,” Baldassarre said. “Now that Roe has been overturned, it just motivates me that the fight isn’t over.”Since launching her campaign, Harris has placed a renewed emphasis on the importance of protecting abortion access. She has embraced the rallying cry of “we’re not going back” to bolster her argument that this election represents an existential fight over Americans’ fundamental freedoms.For young women working in Democratic politics, the excitement around Harris’s candidacy demonstrates the importance of deploying effective messengers who understand the gravity of issues like abortion access.View image in fullscreen“She’s a trustworthy narrator. She can talk about the issue from personal experience, as so many women can,” said Abby May, 28, chief of staff to the Democratic congressman Wiley Nickel. “Being able to speak to the millions of women out there who are worried about having their rights ripped away, and knowing that she’s someone who understands exactly what’s at stake, is hugely impactful.”The same logic applies to the young women who lead congressional offices, Pedramrazi argued.“Being a young woman in this moment, there are ways that we can talk about the issues facing the electorate and our constituents that are much more personal,” she said.“To me, that’s the benefit of any type of diversity. You have people who are bringing a different kind of fire to the issues that affect them personally. And I think that is as true being a young woman chief of staff as it is for anyone.”More work remainsEven as more young women step into senior roles in congressional offices, they remain somewhat of an anomaly. According to 2019 data compiled by the left-leaning thinktank New America, 22% of female Hill staffers serve in senior roles compared to 33% of male Hill staffers. Women were also less likely than men to serve in roles focused on political leadership, which tend to be more senior and better paid. Among female staffers on the Hill, 11% of them worked in political leadership in 2019, compared to 17% of male staffers.People of color face their own challenges on the Hill. According to a 2022 report from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, people of color account for only 18% of top House staff, even as they make up 40% of the national population. In the personal offices of white Democratic members, people of color represent 14.8% of top staff, compared to 5.2% in the personal offices of white Republican members.And although those under 35 made up a majority of Hill staffers, political leadership roles tend to be held by those more advanced in their careers. In 2019, the average tenure for all staffers was roughly three years, according to New America’s data, but the average tenure for those in political management roles was more than 14 years.The impact of remaining in the minority is felt by many of the staffers. May said that, even as her boss has expressed unwavering confidence in her capabilities, she has still had the experience of being mistaken for his daughter or intern.“I think the main challenges are with external folks who come in expecting one type of face when they’re meeting with the chief of staff and get mine,” May said. “Being taken seriously at all levels when we are doing such important work is still a reality that I think all women chiefs of staff – and women around the country – deal with.”Baldasarre echoed that sentiment, while praising Khanna and other mentors for giving her opportunities for advancement. “I think the biggest challenge that I’ve faced has actually been much more subtle, which is that women, people of color, younger people, we just aren’t given the same benefit of the doubt when we walk into a new room,” she said.Despite those challenges, there are signs of slow change. The New America data found the percentage of women in senior staffer roles increased by 5%, from 17% to 22%, between 2017 and 2019, although the percentage of men in senior staffer roles rose by 11 points in that same time period. The report from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that the percentage of people of color in top House staffer positions rose from 13.7% to 18% between 2018 and 2022.“I’m grateful that the institution of Congress is sort of changing along with us,” Kuhn said. “We go into weekly meetings with all the Democratic chiefs, and it is a remarkably diverse room.”The young women chiefs of staff are bringing about change in their own offices as well, encouraging colleagues to take mental health days and providing younger employees the opportunity to voice their opinions.Pedramrazi wants to build an experience for her younger coworkers that feels distinctly different from her own early memories on the Hill, when she often felt condescended to by external groups. She got the impression that her contributions or concerns were dismissed out of hand because she wasn’t taken seriously by external advisers.“No one really was standing to attention when a brown, 24-year-old young woman was speaking,” Pedramrazi said. “And I think part of the amazing experience of being a chief of staff now is … creating a really safe environment for our staffers – regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race – to feel really heard in the office.”May hopes that by building more equitable offices, more young women will be motivated to get involved in politics. In a year where the enthusiasm of young voters could decide the outcome of a presidential election, that mission feels more urgent than ever.“Representation of young women only encourages more young women to get involved and get their own seats at the table,” May said. More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Erwin Chemerinsky on the need for a new US constitution: ‘Our democracy is at grave risk’

      by

      Among progressive scholars of the US constitution, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, is widely considered pre-eminent. Now 71, he studied at Northwestern and Harvard and has also taught at DePaul, USC, Duke and UC Irvine. He has argued several cases at the US supreme court and written extensively about it.His last book, Worse Than Nothing, was a broadside against originalism, the doctrine touted by rightwing justices as they take an axe to hard-won rights. In his new book, Chemerinsky goes to the root of the problem with a still starker title: No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.Less than a hundred days from a presidential election which could see the return of Donald Trump, a candidate widely held to threaten cherished freedoms, Chemerinsky says: “I see an American government that is increasingly dysfunctional and that has lost the confidence of the people, in a society that is increasingly politically polarised. I worry greatly for the future of American democracy.View image in fullscreen“I wrote the book to explain how much of the problem stems from the constitution and suggest how it can be fixed.”In conversation, Chemerinsky patiently outlines the problem. It boils down to this: the US constitution is not fit for purpose.It was created in 1787 by a small group of white men who hashed out a deal in their own interests, chief among them protecting smaller states and owners of enslaved people. Those framers made foundation stones of economic and racial inequality and also erected enduring barriers to political equality including an electoral college that makes minority victory possible in presidential elections and two senators for each state regardless of population.The constitution has been changed, significantly in 1791, with the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights, and between 1865 and 1870, after the civil war, with amendments to abolish slavery, expand the citizenry and give Black men the vote. There have been other major changes, not least the 19th amendment, which gave women the vote in 1920. A century later, though, change seems harder than ever.Consider the plight of the Equal Rights Amendment, which simply says “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” and which, as Chemerinsky describes it, “was passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1972” as “a simple and un-objectionable statement”, but “even though 38 states at some point ratified it … is still not part of the constitution”.The ERA is stymied by pure politics. Pure politics – as practised by Republicans who benefit most from the enshrinement of minority control, as found in the stubborn persistence of Senate rules such as the filibuster that exist to block change – is of course eternal. And so as another election year grinds on, Democrats hoping to fend off Trump, Republicans seeking to tighten their grip on the levers of power, there the constitution sits, physically in the National Archives in Washington, theoretically near-impossible to change.Chemerinsky offers pointers to how change might be achieved – mostly by Democrats winning majorities in statehouses and Congress and working to sway public opinion towards the need for radical change, via a new constitutional convention. But he concludes with striking pessimism.“Our government is broken and our democracy is at grave risk, but I don’t see any easy solutions,” he writes. “A book that describes problems ideally should offer realistic fixes, but none are apparent … I desperately want to be wrong, either about my premise (that American democracy faces a serious crisis), or my conclusion (that fixing the problems will be hugely difficult or even impossible).”In conversation, Chemerinsky strikes a more hopeful note.“The constitution is revered,” he says, referring not just to the document itself but to rhetoric, teaching and even popular entertainment that has made demigods of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and other framers. “That reverence has a cost in that it has kept us from focusing on its flaws and how much they contribute to our crisis of democracy.“I have argued that there should be a progressive interpretation of the constitution. But I also think it is time to begin considering a new constitution. I think people could ratify a new constitution even though this mechanism is not provided for in the constitution.”In short, as in most aspects of politics, it’s all a matter of will.On the page, Chemerinsky also devotes space to the question of free speech, a right guaranteed by the first amendment but forever contested. Among progressives, such contests now rage regarding protests against US support for Israel in its war in Gaza. Last April, that debate burst into Chemerinsky’s backyard – literally. A traditional dinner for students, given with his wife, the law professor Catherine Fisk, was interrupted by protesters.As Chemerinsky wrote, for the Atlantic, he was “stunned to see the leader of Law Students for Justice in Palestine … stand up with a microphone that she had brought … and begin reading a speech about the plight of the Palestinians”.Chemerinsky and Fisk “immediately approached her and asked her to stop speaking and leave the premises. The protester continued. At one point, [Fisk] attempted to take away her microphone. Repeatedly, we said to her: ‘You are a guest in our home. Please leave.’“The student insisted that she had free-speech rights. But our home is not a forum for free speech; it is our own property, and the first amendment – which constrains the government’s power to encroach on speech on public property – does not apply at all to guests in private backyards.”It was one dramatic and traumatic event in an episode that has turned the left against itself. Understandably, Chemerinsky is guarded about what happened in his backyard in April and its implications. But he is happy to explain his approach to free speech issues.“Absolutism rarely makes sense,” he says. “Free speech cannot be absolute. Perjury is speech, but it can be punished. An employer who says to an employee, ‘Sleep with me or you’re fired,’ is engaged in speech, but can be held liable. No one suggests gun rights can be absolute. No one believes that there is a right to have guns in courthouses or airports.”No one in normal society, perhaps. In the age of Trump, extreme beliefs surge.Chemerinsky also grapples with the specter of secession, amid increasing debate over the idea that in an age of deep division, states either right or left, red or blue, might decide to start out anew, perhaps prompting a new civil war.To Chemerinsky, secession by progressive states is just as possible as a rightwing move to secede, particularly if Trump wins the White House and Republicans take full control of Congress.“I do not think secession is likely,” he says, “and I certainly don’t think it is desirable. But I think it is a possible path we could be discussing more in the years ahead if there are not changes.”

      No Democracy Lasts Forever is published in the US by Liveright More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Elizabeth Warren condemns Trump for ‘changing his tune’ on IVF

      by

      The US senator Elizabeth Warren has accused Donald Trump of trying to have it “both ways” with in vitro fertilization (IVF), two days after the former president vowed to force health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for the treatments if he is elected in November.Speaking on MSNBC, Warren said Trump was simply adapting his positions according to what he perceived his audience’s preference to be.“So when he thinks he’s talking to his radical base, he says: how radical do you need for me to be?” Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, said Saturday.“Donald Trump will go there and go further. But when he’s talking to the overwhelming majority of Americans, who very much oppose that radical approach to abortion and IVF, he tries to change his tune, and then is shocked when each side now is starting to call him out on that.”The Republican nominee for November’s presidential election has recast his position on IVF as a strong supporter of the pricey treatment – a characterization Democrats reject, accusing him of shifting his position only after US voters signaled broad support for reproductive rights.Similarly, Democrats accuse Trump of shifting his position on abortion rights. On Friday, he said he would vote against a ballot measure in his home state of Florida that would protect abortion rights beyond six weeks after facing backlash from conservative supporters.A day earlier, Trump upset anti-abortion activists when he told NBC News that he supported the measure. “You need more time than six weeks,” said Trump, who has repeatedly boasted about how his three appointees on the US supreme court created a conservative supermajority which eliminated federal abortion rights in 2022.“I’ve disagreed with that right from the early primaries when I heard about it.”Kamala Harris issued a statement saying her opponent “just made his position on abortion very clear”.“He will vote to uphold an abortion ban so extreme it applies before many women even know they are pregnant,” Harris said.On Saturday, Warren accused Trump of playing games on IVF.She said: “Are you kidding me? He also supports – and it’s also there in his platform – that IVF will effectively be banned all across the United States. Sorry, Donald, can’t have it both ways.”Warren also accused the former president of lacking principles – which is why, she said, women do not trust him.“There’s no principle here for him other than, ‘Does it help Donald Trump?’” Warren said. “That is his single guiding principle, and American women are just flat calling him out on that and saying we are not going to trust Donald Trump.” More