US politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Both sides of gun issue seek to stir up US voters as NRA influence wanes

      by

      Anti-gun-control groups and gun-safety advocates are launching hefty voter-mobilization drives this year with the stakes high in the fall elections given the stark differences on gun violence policy between Joe Biden and Donald Trump.But the long-powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), which has been beset with financial and legal headaches for several years, is not expected to be nearly as active as in 2016, when it spent more than $31m to back Trump’s victorious campaign by boosting his political fortunes in key states, say gun experts and ex-NRA insiders.Now, though, other anti-gun-control groups are trying to take up the slack.For instance, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), an influential firearms industry lobbying group, has begun an eight-figure voter-mobilization drive to help pro-gun interests defeat President Biden, whose strong support for gun-control measures it finds anathema.The NSSF’s general counsel, Larry Keane, said that the organization’s “GunVote” campaign will focus on seven to nine battleground states, where it will mount voter-registration, education and get-out-the-vote efforts to help Trump win the presidency again.On the other side of this year’s election brawl over gun control, Everytown for Gun Safety is planning a large effort to get its millions of supporters to help re-elect Biden and defeat Trump, who has a record of siding firmly with pro-gun priorities.“We’re going to knock on doors, make calls, rally and campaign for President Biden,” said Nick Suplina, the senior vice-president for law and policy at Everytown, which claims nearly 10 million supporters including mayors, students, gun owners, teachers and others.The stakes seem higher than usual given Biden’s successes as president backing new gun-control measures such as the first new law in three decades boosting gun safety, and Biden’s talk of doing more if he’s re-elected, including fighting for an assault weapons ban, which would probably need Democratic control of Congress to enact.By contrast, Trump has often reiterated his fealty to the pro-gun lobby, which characterized his presidency. At last month’s NRA annual meeting, Trump earned a ringing endorsement and pledged that if he wins, “no one will lay a finger on your firearms”.But the once deep-pocketed and five-million-member NRA remains mired in internal and financial headaches: its annual revenues have dropped for several years while its legal expenses have risen.The NRA’s problems were underscored when its longtime top executive, Wayne LaPierre, resigned in January as he was about to go on trial in New York, where he was convicted of looting the organization to enjoy lavish personal perks including fancy vacations and expensive clothes.“The NRA is going to again be a peripheral player for lack of funding this election cycle, and that could hurt Trump in several battleground states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota,” a former NRA board member said.“It’s a vacuum compared to 2016 when the NRA was robustly engaged,” the ex-board member added.Longtime observers of gun-control fights agree.Robert Spitzer, the author of several books on gun issues and an emeritus political science professor at Suny Cortland in New York, said the NRA was “as strongly behind [Trump] as they have been before”.“However, the organization simply does not possess the money or personnel to be as influential as they were in 2016, when they spent over $31m on his campaign, and over $70m on Republican efforts around the country. Still, the gun issue will continue to be salient to an important segment of the Trump base.”Spitzer added: “Other gun groups, such as the NSSF and state gun groups, will be working to supplant the NRA’s traditional dominance in national politics. They do not possess the degree of organization, experience and reach as the NRA of old, but they will ratchet up their efforts.”That’s what the NSSF, whose members include such gun giants as Sturm, Ruger & Co and Smith & Wesson, plus other anti-gun-control groups say they intend to do. “There’s a stark difference between Trump and Biden,” Keane said in explaining the NSSF’s hefty effort this year. “It’s clear there are ongoing challenges at the NRA.”Some ex-NRA leaders credit NSSF with trying to fill the NRA’s vacuum. “NSSF has attempted, and continues, to fill the gap left by a weakened NRA,” Jim Baker, the NRA’s former top lobbyist, said.The NRA did not respond to a call seeking comments.Further, the Trump campaign in tandem with the Republican National Committee has launched Gun Owners for Trump including firearms makers and gun-rights advocates such as Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation; Women for Gun Rights; and some NRA officials.To spur more pro-gun votes at the polls, Trump has spoken twice this year at NRA events. At their May meeting, Trump employed some incendiary conspiracy-mongering, telling the crowd that Biden “has a 40-year record of trying to rip firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionGun-control advocates and the Biden campaign are using Trump’s own pro-gun pledges and cavalier attitude towards gun violence to rev up their backers, including younger voters and women.After an Iowa school shooting in January, for instance, Trump callously opined that “we have to get over it”, a clip of which is being circulated by Democrats and pro-gun-control advocates.Likewise, another clip in circulation shows Trump boasting to NRA members in May that he “did nothing” as president on guns. Actually, Trump signed a “bump stock” ban after the country’s largest gun massacre ever in Las Vegas, but the supreme court overturned it this month.Biden cemented his gun-control credentials in 2022 when, after the Uvalde, Texas, school massacre, he pushed hard for a gun-safety bill that passed on a bipartisan basis, becoming the first new gun-control law in almost three decades.To energize his supporters, Biden spoke to an Everytown training event for about 1,000 gun-safety volunteers including students on 12 June, where he cited several major achievements, including setting up a White House office focused on curbing gun violence and beefing up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Explosives and Firearms.Biden urged a ban on assault-style weapons and universal background checks for purchases of firearms, both goals he has stressed before.“We need you to overcome the unrelenting opposition of the gun lobby,” Biden said.Suplina said Everytown’s plans for targeting states to help Biden and how much they intend to spend overall this election cycle were not ready to be announced, but he did reveal that Everytown intends to support 465 of its volunteers who are running for office this year. The majority of these races are state and local.Further, Everytown will be backing Senate and House candidates who support gun-safety measures, Suplina said.Overall, Everytown spent about $55m on 2020 election efforts.Other gun-control advocates have broad election plans“This cycle, GIiffords will use its unique identity as a gun owner and survivor-led organization to reach a broad gun safety coalition in battlegrounds – including Democrats, Republicans, young voters, gun owners, and people of color,” Emma Brown, executive director of Giffords, said in a statementThe group plans on “supporting gun safety champions in key House and Senate races, [and] communicating the Biden-Harris administration’s historic gun safety accomplishments in states across the map,” she added.Looking ahead, Spitzer stressed that Biden “has continued to speak out on gun safety, and gun-safety groups will surely redouble their efforts on his behalf, not only to help him get re-elected, but to advance the cause of down-ballot Democrats running for Congress and state offices, where the fate of many gun laws lie”. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court’s rightwing justices are fighting legal monsters of their making | Moira Donegan

      by

      In the late 18th century, when the constitution was ratified, men’s abuse of women was penalized by neither custom nor by the law. Men were allowed to beat their wives, their children and any women they held authority over in their personal lives: such beatings were not generally illegal, nor especially frowned upon, but understood as a private prerogative that all men held over the women in their lives.Many men still treat such beatings this way: as an entitlement of manhood. The supreme court’s 2022 Bruen decision, authored by Clarence Thomas – a ruling that drastically expanded gun rights and restricted government ability to regulate guns to a sphere no greater than that which was practiced at the time of the constitution’s ratification – would have largely agreed with them. At least, until this Friday.In the wake of the 2022 ruling, lower courts have ruled that, under Bruen, no gun restriction is permissible unless it has an exact historical analogue from the founding era. In the fifth circuit, this interpretation would have restored gun rights to Zackey Rahimi, a brutal and prolific domestic abuser, according to police and court records, who challenged the federal government’s right to take his guns away. In an 8-1 ruling on Friday, the supreme court narrowed its Bruen decision to keep guns out of Rahimi’s hands.The decision is likely to save lives. Two-thirds of women who are murdered by their current or former intimate partners are killed with a gun; a woman whose abuser has access to a gun is five times more likely to die at his hands. That a circuit court would have restored gun rights to men who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders reflects just how extreme the federal judiciary’s gun jurisprudence has become – and, as in their abortion jurisprudence, how casual and careless many federal judges are with women’s lives.But the supreme court’s decision in United States v Rahimi also reveals the logical inconsistencies in the foundation of so-called “originalist” legal interpretation, the unworkability of the court’s insistence on historical precedent for every government regulation and the growing divisions among the conservative justices about just what “history and tradition” should mean.The court’s ultimate ruling was lopsided, with eight of the justices joining John Roberts’s majority opinion and only Thomas, Bruen’s original author, dissenting. But the decision in Rahimi seems to have been an unusually contentious one, animating and dividing the court. In addition to Roberts’s majority opinion and Thomas’s dissent, Rahimi yielded no fewer than five concurrences – with Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each chiming in to explain their vote against abusers’ rights individually, and Jackson and Sotomayor also writing independently to express their concern about Bruen’s methodology.Roberts stressed that the historical test in Bruen was loose enough to allow for some gun restrictions, including those on domestic abusers. It was a mistake, he said, to read Bruen “to require a ‘historical twin’ rather than a ‘historical analogue’.” His reasoning was echoed by Barrett, who advocated for a historical test of what she called “original contours”, one that “looks at historical gun regulations to identify the contours of the [second amendment] right”.Gorsuch, meanwhile, was much more sympathetic to the Thomas dissent, suggesting that an abuser like Rahimi might have prevailed in securing access to guns again if he had challenged the federal law on narrower grounds. Kavanaugh, as usual, said nothing of importance. Only Thomas insisted that Bruen’s originalism created a demand for an exact historical precedent for government regulation; he would have rearmed Rahimi, the man who was only exercising what, in the late 18th century, would have been understood as his private right.The case is another signal of infighting among the court’s conservatives: they cannot decide what they think “originalism” demands, or what they mean when they say “history and tradition”. The court’s appeal to history has always been selective and pretextual, deployed with little consistency, intellectual honesty or concern for historical accuracy, in order to achieve the preferred policy outcomes of Republican justices.That so many of the justices who voted for Thomas’s interpretation of Bruen just two years ago voted against that same interpretation today just goes to show how hollow an approach “originalism” really is – it is a doctrine that can expand or contract based on the justices’ political preferences in whichever case happens to be before them. Similarly, that this “originalism” remains the guiding force of a majority of the justices goes to show how unaccountable the supreme court’s vast policymaking power has become: they have so much control over the law, and so much indifference to precedent and consistency in how they wield it, that they can call upon virtually any interpretive scheme they choose, label it “originalism”, and claim to have exercised a principled interpretive strategy.Perhaps the justices don’t care about being consistent: perhaps the capaciousness and mutability of “originalism” is precisely its appeal: it works well as a cover for their actual project, which is the exercise of raw power. But it has never been a workable or acceptable reality that “originalism” and its selective, often fact-free fantasies of the past, has been called upon to determine policy outcomes in the present.The lives of women who have survived domestic abuse should never have depended on what nine unaccountable jurists imagine the founding era to have been like; that they did is an insult to citizenship itself.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      No props, no notes, no audience – but Trump-Biden debate will have ad breaks

      by

      “Will you shut up, man?” It was hardly oratory worthy of Abraham Lincoln, but Joe Biden’s primal plea in the face of relentless interruptions and heckling from Donald Trump provided a defining soundbite of the 2020 presidential debates.The two will face each other again on Thursday for the first of two head-to-head debates for the 2024 campaign, under new rules designed to prevent matters degenerating as they did four years ago. The US president and the former president will meet in a TV studio without the presence of a partisan audience, which some saw as an essential ingredient of Trump’s rabble-rousing approach. And to counteract the repeated butting-in that so irked Biden, the candidates will have their microphones muted when they are not speaking.But the debates are also the first in decades to be held entirely by commercial TV networks – including two advertising breaks – and without the oversight of the Commission on Presidential Debates, the long-established, independent, non-partisan body that has long governed the debate rules. Some critics say they fear that commercialising the process could lead to less substantive, shorter answers, geared more to generating conflict and soundbites than enlightening voters.The verbal volleys in 2020 between Biden and Trump, under the Fox News moderator Chris Wallace, became so vitriolic that the CNN presenter Dana Bash was prompted, live on air, to describe the event as “a shitshow”. Earlier this year, both campaigns chose to circumvent the Commission on Presidential Debates, which had overseen presidential debates since 1988, and on 27 June, Bash and her CNN co-presenter, Jake Tapper, will have a chance to improve on Fox’s effort when they preside over the first debate in Atlanta. A second debate will take place on 10 September, to be hosted by ABC.No props or prewritten notes will be allowed on stage. Candidates will be given a pen, a notepad and a bottle of water.The decisions to switch off a candidate’s microphone when it is the opponent’s turn to speak, and to exclude a partisan audience, have been taken in an effort to reduce the theatrical gladiatorial bloodsport element that has threatened to overwhelm recent debates.Some critics said the lack of oversight from the CPD, as well as the inclusion of two commercial breaks during the 90-minute event, undermined the nature of the debate.“The introduction of commercial breaks will fundamentally change what makes a debate a debate, since the candidates will constantly be able to stop and regroup,” Clea Conner, chief executive of Open to Debate, a research group that has tracked presidential debates over recent decades, told Politico.“Even though there will be only two commercial breaks this time, once we deem them acceptable it’s a classic slippery slope; how many will there be next time, and the time after that?“[Candidates’] arguments will have to be shorter, truncated for the commercial clock, and will result in more outrageous interactions to bump ratings.” Without the presence of an independent broker such as the CPD, she argued, it would lead to “pure political theatre”.Open to Debate’s report into the deterioration of debate quality attested to the need for drastic format changes from 2020, in order to arrest a decline in moderator control and candidate decorum.While there were just three interruptions across three debates in the 2004 election between George W Bush and John Kerry – administered by the CPD – the first 2020 Trump-Biden encounter witnessed 76, the group noted. However, the second debate saw just four interruptions, after non-speakers’ microphones were muted following criticism of the chaos three weeks earlier.Steven Fein, a professor of psychology at Williams College in Massachusetts, who has studied the psychological dimension of presidential debates, said excluding a loudly cheering live audience was “rational” and “good for democracy”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“[It] will reduce significantly the chances that the focus of the debate will be not on what is actually said, but on all this stuff around it – the reaction of the audience and playing to the audience,” he said. “I think that changes what the candidates are likely to do.“It also changes what the audience at home takes away from the debate, what they remember, what plays the news the next day – all based on the audience reaction. Because the audience reaction may or may not be valid.”He warned, however, that the commercial TV networks may jettison the new approach “because it makes for less exciting television”.The candidate with more to lose in the controlled, low-key environment is probably Trump, according to Tammy Vigil, associate professor of communications at Boston University.“He tends to feed off of the energy of a crowd,” she said. “He’ll lose some of his energy by not having a crowd to feed off. The other part that’ll probably change is that the candidates will be more apt to speak to the cameras directly.“I think that will improve the overall feel of the debate for television viewers because it’ll feel like the candidates are speaking more directly to them.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump announces Teamsters union chief to speak at Republican convention

      by

      Sean O’Brien, the president of the Teamsters union, will speak at the Republican national convention in Milwaukee next month, a move that could spell trouble for Joe Biden’s support among blue-collar workers ahead of the November election.Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, announced on Friday on his Truth Social platform that O’Brien had accepted his invitation to speak at the convention and that he was looking forward to seeing him represent the Teamsters.“Our GREAT convention will unify Americans and demonstrate to the nation’s working families they come first,” Trump wrote. “When I am back in the White House, the hard-working Teamsters, and all working Americans, will once again have a country they can afford to live in and be respected around the world.”A Teamsters spokesperson confirmed the news, saying it was “truly unprecedented since it will be the very first time a Teamsters general president has addressed the RNC”. The powerful union represents more than a million members across sectors such as trucking, packaging, manufacturing and logistics.“Our 1.3 million members represent every political background, and their message needs to be heard by as wide an audience as possible, and that includes all political candidates running for elected office,” the spokesperson said. “We appreciate former President Trump’s openness to inviting a labor leader to speak on behalf of working families.”The Republican national convention will kick off on 15 July, where Trump will once again be nominated as the GOP presidential candidate. The Teamsters spokesperson said O’Brien had made an identical request to appear at the Democratic national convention in Chicago the following month.The Teamsters endorsed Biden over Trump in the 2020 presidential election. But O’Brien, who took over in March 2022, has yet to publicly back a candidate in this election cycle.O’Brien has invited Biden, Trump and the independent presidential candidates Robert F Kennedy Jr and Cornel West to speak to his group. O’Brien drew anger from the union’s progressive members after he held a private meeting with Trump earlier this year. O’Brien later met Biden, who he described as having been “great” for workers. But he stressed there was “still a lot of work to be done” to bolster unions.O’Brien’s appearance at the Republican national convention would challenge Biden’s historic alliance with organized labor and threatens to undercut his claim that he is the most pro-union president in US history.Biden kicked off his re-election campaign last June at a union-backed rally, and has since been endorsed by the United Auto Workers (UAW) after he walked the picket line with union president Shawn Fain during its strike against America’s three biggest car manufacturers. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge dismisses fake electors charges against Trump allies in Nevada

      by

      A Nevada state court judge dismissed a criminal indictment on Friday against six Republicans accused of submitting certificates to Congress falsely declaring Donald Trump the winner of the state’s 2020 presidential election, potentially killing the case with a ruling that state prosecutors chose the wrong venue to file the case.Nevada’s attorney general, Aaron Ford, stood in a Las Vegas courtroom a moment after the Clark county district court judge Mary Kay Holthus delivered her ruling, declaring that he would take the case directly to the state supreme court.“The judge got it wrong and we’ll be appealing immediately,” Ford told reporters afterwards. He declined any additional comment.Defense attorneys bluntly declared the case dead, saying that to bring the case now to another grand jury in another venue such as Nevada’s capital, Carson City, would violate a three-year statute of limitations on filing charges that expired in December.“They’re done,” said Margaret McLetchie, attorney for the Clark county Republican party chairman, Jesse Law, one of the defendants in the case.The judge called off the trial, which had been scheduled for next January, for defendants that included the state GOP chairman, Michael McDonald; national party committee member Jim DeGraffenreid; national and Douglas county committee member Shawn Meehan; and Eileen Rice, a party member from the Lake Tahoe area. Each was charged with offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged instrument, felonies that carry penalties of up to four or five years in prison.Defense attorneys contended that Ford improperly brought the case in Las Vegas instead of Carson City or Reno, northern Nevada cities closer to where the alleged crime occurred. They also accused prosecutors of failing to present to the grand jury evidence that would have exonerated their clients, and said their clients had no intent to commit a crime.All but Meehan have been named by the state party as Nevada delegates to the 2024 Republican national convention next month in Milwaukee.Meehan’s defense attorney, Sigal Chattah, said her client “chose not to” seek the position. Chattah ran as a Republican in 2022 for state attorney general and lost to Ford, a Democrat, by just under 8% of the vote.After the court hearing, Hindle’s attorney, Brian Hardy, declined to comment on calls that his client has faced from advocacy groups that say he should resign from his elected position as overseer of elections in northern Nevada’s Story county, a jurisdiction with a few more than 4,100 residents. Those calls included ones at a news conference on Friday outside the courthouse by leaders of three organizations.Nevada is one of seven presidential battleground states where slates of fake electors falsely certified that Trump had won in 2020, not Democrat Joe Biden.Others are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.Criminal charges have been brought in Michigan, Georgia and Arizona.Trump lost Nevada in 2020 by more than 30,000 votes to Biden and the state’s Democratic electors certified the results in the presence of Nevada’s secretary of state, Barbara Cegavske, a Republican. Her defense of the results as reliable and accurate led the state GOP to censure her, but Cegavske later conducted an investigation that found no credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in the state. More

    • 188 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden says supreme court preserved ‘critical protections’ for domestic violence survivors – as it happened

      by

      Joe Biden said the supreme court’s ruling today upholding a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing guns preserves “critical protections” for victims of abuse.“No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun. As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades,” the president said.“Vice President Harris and I remain firmly committed to ending violence against women and keeping Americans safe from gun violence. We will continue to call on Congress to further strengthen support and protections for survivors and to take action to stop the epidemic of gun violence tearing our communities apart.”The supreme court upheld a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing firearms, in a decision cheered by Joe Biden, and supported by all justices on the conservative-dominated court, with the exception of Clarence Thomas. Kamala Harris, however, warned that the law was exactly the type of thing Donald Trump would go after, if elected president. Meanwhile, all signs point to a blockbuster week for the court beginning Wednesday. The justices will release more decisions that day, perhaps including cases on Trump’s immunity petition, whether cities can stop people from sleeping outside, and whether the Biden administration can require states to perform emergency abortions.Here’s what else happened today:
      Steve Bannon, the influential Trump ally, has asked the supreme court to delay the start of his jail sentence after being convicted of contempt of Congress.
      Anti-Trump group the Defend Democracy Project said the supreme court has “very likely guaranteed” that his trial on federal election subversion charges is not resolved before the November election.
      New York prosecutors are asking judge Juan Merchan to preserve parts of the gag order imposed on Trump in his business fraud case.
      Trump’s lawyers are planning a legal offensive against part of his indictment over allegedly possessing and hiding classified documents, the Guardian can reveal.
      A Nevada judge dismissed charges brought against six Republicans for allegedly plotting to submit fake certificates saying Trump won the state’s electoral votes in 2020.
      A judge in Nevada has ordered charges dismissed against six Republicans indicted last year for allegedly plotting to submit fake certificates certifying that Donald Trump won the state’s electoral votes in 2020, the Associated Press reports.The state’s attorney general Aaron Ford vowed to appeal the ruling by judge Mary Kay Holthus, who said the charges were filed in the wrong venue. Here’s more, from the AP:
      A Nevada state court judge dismissed a criminal indictment Friday against six Republicans accused of submitting certificates to Congress falsely declaring Donald Trump the winner of the state’s 2020 presidential election, potentially killing the case with a ruling that state prosecutors chose the wrong venue to file the case.
      Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford stood in a Las Vegas courtroom a moment after Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus delivered her ruling, declaring that he would take the case directly to the state Supreme Court.
      “The judge got it wrong and we’ll be appealing immediately,” Ford told reporters afterward. He declined any additional comment.
      Defense attorneys bluntly declared the case dead, saying that to bring the case now to another grand jury in another venue such as Nevada’s capital city of Carson City would violate a three-year statute of limitations on filing charges that expired in December.
      “They’re done,” said Margaret McLetchie, attorney for Clark County Republican party chairman Jesse Law, one of the defendants in the case.
      The judge called off trial, which had been scheduled for next January, for defendants that included state GOP chairman Michael McDonald; national party committee member Jim DeGraffenreid; national and Douglas County committee member Shawn Meehan; and Eileen Rice, a party member from the Lake Tahoe area. Each was charged with offering a false instrument for filing and uttering a forged instrument, felonies that carry penalties of up to four or five years in prison.
      Supreme court rulings can have long and impactful ripple effects. This week, for instance, Louisiana’s Republican governor signed legislation to require the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms, which the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington reports was a consequence of decisions the court handed down two years ago:Louisiana’s decision to force public schools to display the Ten Commandments is the latest fallout from a spate of controversial rulings from the rightwing supermajority of the US supreme court which has opened up a Pandora’s box that is fueling efforts to turn America into a theocratic state.The new law, signed on Wednesday by the hard-right governor, Jeff Landry, puts Louisiana in the vanguard of a decades-long movement to obliterate the foundational US separation of church and state. It puts wind in the sails of those who want the US to be reinvented as an overtly Christian nation, and comes in the wake of two highly contentious opinions from the highest court.Both rulings, delivered within six days of each other in 2022, were backed by the six ultra-conservative justices who now have a stranglehold on the country’s most powerful court. The supermajority is one of the main legacies of Donald Trump, who placed three of the justices on the bench.The Second Amendment Foundation, a group supporting gun rights, gave a mixed review to the supreme court’s ruling today upholding a federal law that bars domestic abusers from keeping firearms.In a statement, the group said that though the justices did not narrow their 2022 Bruen ruling, which expanded the ability to carry a firearm in public, as much as gun control advocates hoped, they took issue with the reasoning behind their ruling today in United States v Rahimi:
      Rahimi posed a difficult issue for the Court to resolve. And while the Court may have arrived at a conclusion that society believes to be best, it did so in a manner that poses some inconsistencies with what Bruen demands. To be clear, domestic violence is abhorrent and those who commit such acts should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – for which a conviction would result in their disarmament through imprisonment.
      As Justice Thomas wrote “the question before us is not whether Rahimi and others like him can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. Instead, the question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order – even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.” Stripping an individual of their Second Amendment rights, when they have not been accused or convicted of a crime, is not consistent with what the Constitution protects.
      The Court’s justification in upholding the law by cobbling together bits and pieces of historical laws to find a “historical analogue” may allow future courts to uphold various infringements on the Second Amendment by the same sort of manufacture.
      Donald Trump has been criminally indicted four times, with one of his cases leading to a felony conviction on business fraud charges in New York City.The other three cases are stalled, for various reasons. Our case tracker tells you why:While the supreme court issued five decisions today, including one in a closely watched case dealing with gun restrictions, it has yet to rule on Donald Trump’s petition for immunity from the federal charges brought against him for trying to overturn the 2020 election.Trump’s trial on those charges cannot proceed until the court issues its ruling – which the Defend Democracy Project says is the point. In a statement, the anti-Trump group’s chair Mike Podhorzer and Norman Eisen, a legal analyst who assisted Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment, accused the court’s conservative justices of “an act of election interference” by delaying their decision for so long that it is unlikely the case will go to trial prior to the November 5 election:
      Week after week, we all have waited for a ruling on Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim. It’s time to acknowledge that the delay is the ruling. Regardless of the substance of the decision on presidential immunity, the delays engineered by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the three judges Trump named to the Court have very likely guaranteed that he will avoid a jury verdict for his criminal conspiracy to overturn the last election before the American people vote in the next one. Those justices have ensured an irreconcilable showdown in the fall between the ordinary operations of the criminal justice system, which would require Trump’s speedy pre-trial and trial proceedings, and the ordinary functioning of the presidential election system, in which both nominees are free to campaign.No matter what the Supreme Court concludes, the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court have already achieved their goal. The MAGA wing of the court has shielded Trump from facing a jury of his peers for so long that it has become an act of election interference. It’s been over six months since the court was first petitioned on December 11 to address Trump’s ludicrous version of presidential immunity that embraces the right to assassinate his political rivals. These delays blow past the markers for prior cases of comparable importance. They are a lifeline for Trump to escape the final judgment of a jury before the next election, and a reminder that the American people lack the impartial judiciary we all deserve.
      Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, said he is “relieved” that the supreme court upheld the ban on domestic abusers possessing guns, writing on X that there was “absolutely no sane legal argument” for striking down the ban.Blumenthal added that Friday’s ruling was the court’s attempt “to try to clean up its own mess” after the “legal catastrophe” of the landmark ruling of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, in which the six conservative justices allowed handguns to be carried in public in most instances. Blumenthal added:
      While I welcome today’s correct decision, I remain fearful about the fate of future gun violence prevention laws in the hands of this ideologically inconsistent & extreme Court.
      While sifting through his work emails one February afternoon, Clyde Estes saw a message that dismayed him.“I started reading it and was just shocked,” recalled Estes, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. “It’s something you don’t expect to see.”It relayed what Kristi Noem said at the state legislature just a few days prior. In her address at the state capitol, the second-term South Dakota governor blasted US immigration policy, saying that “invasion is coming over the southern border”.Noem alleged that tribal leaders in South Dakota were profiting off drug cartel activity. These remarks, and her controversial comments about Native children, have been met with staunch condemnation from Indigenous leaders, and have dredged up a bitter history between the tribes and the state.As a result, all nine of South Dakota’s federally recognized tribes, which cover more than 12% of the state, have now banned Noem from their reservations.If the governor attempts to enter the reservation, Estes said that tribal law enforcement would notify county sheriffs and ask her to voluntarily leave the reservation.“She would be charged with trespassing,” said Estes, calling the situation “very, very unfortunate”.
      We’re going to stand up to defend our people.
      Read the full story here: Native tribes on banning Kristi Noem from reservations: ‘She’d be charged with trespassing’Kamala Harris has released her own statement responding to the supreme court’s ruling upholding a federal ban preventing anyone placed under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.Harris’ statement echoes the one earlier distributed by the Biden campaign, where she says while she and Joe Biden “stand up to the gun lobby, Donald Trump bows down.”She notes that the Biden administration have passed “the most significant gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years” and have “stopped nearly 30,000 firearms sales to convicted domestic abusers”, adding:
      If Donald Trump returns to power, all that progress would be at risk.
      Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has doubled down on his accusations that the US is holding back weapons and ammunition from Israel in its war in Gaza.The Israeli leader caused a furious reaction in Washington this week after he posted a video on social media saying that it was “inconceivable” that the Biden administration had held up weapons shipments to Israel, and implied that Israel’s ability to prevail in the nine-month war with Hamas was being hampered as a result.The White House responded by cancelling a high-level meeting with Israeli officials on Iran.John Kirby, the White House’s national security adviser, strongly denied the claims and called Netanyahu’s comments “vexing”, “disappointing” and “incorrect”.Netanyahu, in an interview with Punchbowl News published this morning, said he had aired his criticisms because he “felt that airing it was absolutely necessary after months of quiet conversations that did not solve the problem.” He said:
      I raised this issue with Secretary Blinken. And I said that we are being told by our Defense Department officials that barely a trickle is coming in. He said, ‘Well, everything is in process. We’re doing everything to untangle it and to clear up the bottlenecks.’ And I said, ‘Well, that’s what I expect to happen. Let’s make sure that it does happen.’ It must happen.
      The supreme court has upheld a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing firearms, in a decision cheered by Joe Biden, and supported by all justices on the conservative-dominated court, with the exception of Clarence Thomas. Kamala Harris, however, warned that the law was exactly the type of thing Donald Trump would go after, if elected president. Meanwhile, all signs point to a blockbuster week for the court beginning Wednesday. The justices will release more decisions that day, perhaps including cases on Trump’s immunity petition, whether cities can stop people from sleeping outside, and whether the Biden administration can require states to perform emergency abortions.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      Steve Bannon, the influential Trump ally, has asked the supreme court to delay the start of his jail sentence after being convicted of contempt of Congress.
      New York prosecutors are asking judge Juan Merchan to preserve parts of the gag order imposed on Trump in his business fraud trial.
      Trump’s lawyers are planning a legal offensive against part of his indictment over allegedly possessing and hiding classified documents, the Guardian can reveal.
      The supreme court is scheduled to release more opinions on Wednesday of next week, and chances are good that the justices will by then decide at least one of the cases concerning major constitutional questions that are pending before them.University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck has a rundown of the court’s unfinished business:Prominent on that list is Trump v United States, which is the former president’s request for immunity from the federal election meddling charges against him.Also outstanding is Idaho v United States, which concerns whether the Biden administration can require the state’s federally funded hospitals to carry out emergency abortions, despite the state’s strict ban on the procedure. There’s also City of Grant’s Pass v Johnson, which deals with whether municipalities can pass laws against people sleeping outside.In a statement distributed by Joe Biden’s re-election campaign, Kamala Harris warned that Donald Trump would present a threat to gun laws such as the one the supreme court upheld today, which bans domestic abusers from possessing firearms.Harris’ statement was markedly more political than the president’s, who instead focused on the importance of protecting domestic abuse victims. Here’s what she had to say:
      While President Biden and I stand up to the gun lobby, Donald Trump bows down. Trump has made clear he believes Americans should ‘get over’ gun violence, and we cannot allow him to roll back commonsense protections or appoint the next generation of Supreme Court justices. I have worked my entire career to protect women and children from domestic violence—from prosecuting abusers to supporting survivors. President Biden and I will never stop fighting for the rights of every American, including every survivor of domestic violence, to live free from the horror of gun violence. To continue that work, we must defeat Donald Trump in November.
      Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s presumptive opponent in the November presidential election, Donald Trump, remains under a gag order imposed by the judge in his business fraud case that prevents him from attacking witnesses, jurors and other players.The Associated Press reports that prosecutors have asked Juan Merchan, the judge who presided over the case, to maintain parts of the order ahead of Trump’s debate face-off with Biden scheduled for next Thursday.Here’s more:
      Prosecutors on Friday urged the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal hush money case to uphold provisions of a gag order that bar him from criticizing jurors and court staff, while agreeing to lift a restriction on his public statements about trial witnesses.
      In court papers filed Friday, prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office argued that portions of the gag order remained necessary given the Republican former president’s “singular history of inflammatory and threatening public statements,” as well as efforts by his supporters to “identify jurors and threaten violence against him.”
      “Since the verdict in this case, defendant has not exempted the jurors from his alarming rhetoric that he would have ‘every right’ to seek retribution as president against the participants in this trial as a consequence of his conviction because ’sometimes revenge can be justified,” the filing states.
      The gag order, issued in March, prohibited Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses, jurors and others connected to the case. It does not restrict comments about the judge, Juan M. Merchan, or Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office prosecuted the case.
      Attorneys for Trump have called on the judge to lift the order following the culmination of his trial last month, which ended in his conviction on 34 felony counts for falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal. Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, is set to be sentenced on July 11.
      Joe Biden said the supreme court’s ruling today upholding a federal law that bans domestic abusers from possessing guns preserves “critical protections” for victims of abuse.“No one who has been abused should have to worry about their abuser getting a gun. As a result of today’s ruling, survivors of domestic violence and their families will still be able to count on critical protections, just as they have for the past three decades,” the president said.“Vice President Harris and I remain firmly committed to ending violence against women and keeping Americans safe from gun violence. We will continue to call on Congress to further strengthen support and protections for survivors and to take action to stop the epidemic of gun violence tearing our communities apart.”Steve Bannon, a prominent ally to Donald Trump, has appealed to the supreme court to delay the beginning on his four month-prison sentence for contempt of Congress, the Associated Press reports.Bannon was ordered to report to prison by 1 July after being convicted nearly two years ago of charges related to defying a subpoena from the January 6 committee. He is now asking for the intervention of the nation’s highest court, which turned down a similar request from Peter Navarro, another former Trump White House adviser who was convicted of similar charges.Here’s more, from the AP:
      The request came after a federal appeals court panel rejected Bannon’s bid to avoid reporting to prison by July 1 to serve his four-month sentence. It was addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in Washington, D.C.
      The high court swiftly denied a similar request from another Trump aide in March. Bannon’s request comes a week before the court is set to begin its summer recess.
      Bannon was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the Jan. 6 House Committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
      Bannon has cast the case as politically motivated, and his attorney David Schoen has said the case raises “serious constitutional issues” that need to be examined by the Supreme Court.
      If Bannon goes to prison next month, he will likely have to serve his full sentence before the high court has the chance to review those questions, since the court is due to take its summer recess at the end of June, attorney Trent McCotter wrote in his emergency application.
      Attorney general Merrick Garland said the justice department will continue enforcing the federal law that bars domestic abusers from possessing guns, after the supreme court’s ruling today in United States v Rahimi.“The Justice Department will continue to enforce this important statute, which for nearly 30 years has helped to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence from their abusers. And we will continue to deploy all available resources to support law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and victim advocates to address the pervasive problem of domestic violence,” Garland said in a statement.Here’s more:From the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington, here’s more on the significance of the supreme court’s ruling today in United States v Rahimi, in which the justices upheld a law banning domestic abusers from carrying guns, while weighing in on a major 2022 decision that expanded the ability to carry weapons in public nationwide: The US supreme court has upheld a federal ban preventing anyone placed under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.The ruling in US v Rahimi, supported by eight justices to one, with Clarence Thomas dissenting, will leave in place legal protections against a major source of gun violence in America. Writing the opinion, the chief justice, John Roberts, said that individuals can be temporarily disarmed if they pose a “credible threat to the physical safety of another” without violating the second amendment to the constitution that allows the right to bear arms.“Since the founding, the nation’s firearm laws have included regulations to stop individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” he wrote.The judgment will come as a relief to gun control advocates who had feared that the ability to disarm dangerous people might fall prey to the radical interpretation of the second amendment advanced by the court’s conservative supermajority. In the 2022 ruling New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, the six conservative justices allowed handguns to be carried in public in most instances.They said that any restrictions on ownership had to conform to the “history and tradition” of firearms regulations stretching back to the 18th century. Gun control groups feared that the ruling might be used to unravel America’s already lax regulations, with potentially disastrous consequences.The ruling in United States v Rahimi comes two years after the supreme court’s Bruen decision, in which the court’s conservative supermajority dramatically expanded the ability to carry weapons in public.But many of those same justices today found in Rahimi that the government could also take weapons away from domestic abusers. That opinion was supported by five of six conservatives, all of whom supported the ruling in Bruen. The court’s three liberals also signed on to Rahimi, with conservative justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter: More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Steve Bannon asks US supreme court to delay his prison sentence

      by

      Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of Donald Trump, asked the supreme court on Friday to delay his prison sentence while he fights his convictions for defying a subpoena from the House committee that investigated the attack on US Capitol.The emergency application came after a federal appeals court panel rejected Bannon’s bid to avoid reporting to prison by 1 July to serve his four-month sentence. It was addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in Washington DC.The high court asked the justice department to respond to the request by Wednesday, days before the court is set to begin its summer recess. The court denied a similar request from another Trump aide shortly after receiving a response in March.Bannon was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the January 6 House committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.Bannon has cast the case as politically motivated, and his attorney David Schoen has said the case raises “serious constitutional issues” that need to be examined by the supreme court.Bannon is supposed to report to prison by 1 July to begin serving his four-month sentence for contempt of Congress.Carl Nichols, a US district judge who was nominated to the bench by Trump, earlier this month granted prosecutors’ request to send Bannon to prison after a three-judge panel of the US court of appeals for the DC circuit upheld his conviction.Bannon was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the House January 6 committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in efforts by Trump, a Republican, to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Joe Biden, a Democrat.Bannon’s lawyer at trial argued that the former Trump adviser didn’t ignore the subpoena but was still engaged in good-faith negotiations with the congressional committee when he was charged. The defense has said Bannon had been relying on the advice of his attorney, who believed that Bannon couldn’t testify or produce documents because Trump had invoked executive privilege.Lawyers for Bannon say the case raises serious legal questions that will likely need to be resolved by the supreme court, but he will have already finished his prison sentence by the time the case gets there.In court papers, Bannon’s lawyers also argued that there is a “strong public interest” in allowing him to remain free in the run-up to the 2024 election because Bannon is a top adviser to Trump’s campaign.Prosecutors said in court papers that Bannon’s “role in political discourse” is irrelevant.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA second Trump aide, trade adviser Peter Navarro, is already serving his four-month prison sentence for contempt of Congress.The House January 6 committee’s final report asserted that Trump criminally engaged in a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 election and failed to act to stop his supporters from attacking the US Capitol, concluding an extraordinary 18-month investigation into the former president and the violent insurrection. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Manhattan district attorney asks judge to extend gag order against Trump

      by

      Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who prosecuted Donald Trump in his felony trial, has asked a judge to extend a gag order against the ex-president after an onslaught of threats and harassment against him and other officials since the guilty verdict.The gag order was placed on Trump before the start of the felony trial. It prevented the former president from attacking witnesses, court staff, jurors and relatives of Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the trial.Trump’s legal team has unsuccessfully attempted to overturn the gag order, arguing that it prevents voters from being able to hear from a presidential candidate.But Bragg and others have said that part of the order should remain for jurors, prosecutors, their staff and their families, given a high number of threats, the New York Times reported.Bragg specifically has faced an onslaught of death threats and harassment since Trump was found guilty. He has received more than 100 threatening emails via his campaign website, the New York Daily News reported, citing a source who asked to remain anonymous.Several of the abusive messages obtained by the Daily News use racial slurs including the N-word, “gorilla” and “primate”, it reported, adding that Bragg also faced death threats and racial abuse throughout the seven-week trial.In one instance, a package was sent to Bragg from Portland, Oregon, containing a picture of Bragg alongside a noose, with the caption: “I am past the point of just wanting them in prison.”The New York police department has logged 56 “actionable threats” since the start of April against Bragg, his employees, and his family, the Times reported.A representative for Bragg did not respond to a request for comment.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump has aimed his own ire at Bragg even before the hush-money trial began. Last April, he reportedly told a close circle of advisers that he planned to escalate political attacks against the DA after a grand jury voted to indict him.Trump also accused Bragg of being a psychopath, and alleged that the hush-money trial was a political move.But much of the hate towards Bragg came after Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the New York state hush-money trial – making the presumptive Republican nominee in the 2024 presidential election the first former president to be convicted of a criminal offense.Since the trial, supporters of Trump have urged the former president to jail Bragg if he wins back the White House in November. Steve Bannon, a former strategist in Trump’s White House, has led the charge.“Of course [Bragg] should be – and will be – jailed,” Bannon told Axios, arguing that Bragg would be prosecuted under the US constitution’s 14th and fourth amendment.Other Republican-led states have promised to prosecute Bragg for his role in the Trump hush-money trial. The Missouri attorney general, Andrew Bailey, declared on Thursday that he would be filing a lawsuit against the state of New York for its “direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump”. More