US Senate
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
Louisiana candidate burns Confederate flag in his latest controversial ad
Louisiana candidate burns Confederate flag in his latest controversial ad‘It’s time to burn the Confederacy down’, says Senate hopeful Gary Chambers, who smoked marijuana in his previous ad A Louisiana candidate for the US Senate has burned a Confederate flag in a powerful campaign ad about racial injustice in Louisiana and America.Democrat Gary Chambers is also known for a viral ad where he smokes marijuana to “destigmatize” its use and discusses the unfair policing of drug laws.One in five applicants to white supremacist group tied to US militaryRead moreIn his most recent minute-long ad titled Scars and Bars, Chambers douses a Confederate flag in gasoline before setting it alight as it hangs on a clothesline while discussing racial injustices still affecting Black Americans today.“Jim Crow never really left,” said Chambers, adding, “and the remnants of the Confederacy remain.”My new ad, ‘Scars and Bars.’ Here in Louisiana and all around the South, it feels like Jim Crow never left and the remnants of the Confederacy remain.I do believe the South will rise again, but this time, it’ll be on our terms.Join us at https://t.co/EoFc59WVR1 pic.twitter.com/vTlnIy9njq— Gary Chambers (@GaryChambersJr) February 9, 2022
Chambers goes on to discuss challenges facing Black Americans including gerrymandering and recently passed voting laws nationwide that have disadvantaged millions of Black voters.“Our system isn’t broken,” said Chambers while setting the flag on fire. “It’s designed to do exactly what it’s doing, which is producing measurable inequity.”Chambers also quoted statistics on inequalities for Black Americans: one in 13 Black people not having the right to vote, one in nine Black people not having health insurance, and one in three Black children living in poverty.“It’s time to burn what remains of the Confederacy down,” said Chambers. “I do believe the South will rise again, but this time it’ll be on our terms.”Chambers campaign ad, which has already been viewed almost 1m times on Twitter and has been retweeted over 10,000 times, was published while Louisiana legislators are working to redraw the state’s congressional districts.Chambers and others are advocating for majority-Black districts in the state to be expanded and better reflect Louisiana’s Black population, which makes up about one-third of the overall population.Chambers led a rally on Louisiana’s capitol steps about the congressional maps on Wednesday morning.“Our ads are representative of Gary’s passion to raise awareness for the issues that leave the often forgotten communities in this country behind,” said Erick Sanchez, a senior adviser to Chambers who has worked on both ads, to the Washington Post.“While the imagery might be deemed controversial by some, the harsh realities that are highlighted in these ads should be infuriating to all.”Though Chambers’ campaign team did not answer questions from the Post on whether the ads had generated more donations (Chambers’ opponent, Republican incumbent senator John Kennedy has outpaced him in terms of funding), Chambers has shared nothing but enthusiasm about his campaign.“We will continue to build momentum around this nation to make change in Louisiana,” tweeted Chambers on Wednesday.TopicsLouisianaUS SenateDemocratsRaceUS politicsnewsReuse this content More - in Elections
Mitch McConnell rebukes RNC for censuring party members investigating ‘violent insurrection’
Mitch McConnell rebukes RNC for censuring party members investigating ‘violent insurrection’The Republican National Committee chastised Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, irking the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell criticized the Republican National Committee for censuring Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger over their work for the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol, which he characterized as a “violent insurrection”.The Senate minority leader said it was not the party’s place to single out members over their views. Speaking with reporters outside Senate Republicans’ closed-door weekly lunch, McConnell rebuked the RNC for its characterization of the deadly riot at the Capitol as “legitimate political discourse”.“Let me give you my view of what happened on 6 January,” McConnell said. “It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next.”.@LeaderMcConnell on RNC censure of Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger: “The issue is whether or not the RNC should be sort of singling out members of our party who may have different views from the majority. That’s not the job of the RNC.” pic.twitter.com/BMCmRYrjV5— CSPAN (@cspan) February 8, 2022
Asked whether he had confidence in the leadership of the RNC chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, who supported the censure resolution, McConnell said he did.“But the issue is whether or not the RNC should be sort of singling out members of our party who may have different views from the majority,” McConnell said. “That’s not the job of the RNC.”His use of the word “insurrection” – the act of rising up against established authority – is significant. Many in his party have insisted that it was not an insurrection, downplaying the attack or trying to portray it as a peaceful protest.A few prominent Republicans have pushed against the RNC’s decision to censure the two GOP members of the House committee investigating the attack. Mitt Romney, a Republican senator of Utah and McDaniel’s uncle, told reporters that the censure “could not have been a more inappropriate” message from the party.McConnell, who blocked initial efforts to create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 attack, has signaled that he sees the party’s focus on defending Donald Trump and the insurrection his supporters staged following the 2020 elections as a distraction. He and some fellow Republican lawmakers have aimed to shift the focus to the midterm elections this year.Maine senator Susan Collins said rioters who “broke windows and breached the Capitol were not engaged in legitimate political discourse” and characterized time “spent re-litigating a lost election or defending those who have been convicted of criminal behavior” as a wasted opportunity to focus on the midterms when the Republicans have a chance to re-take a majority in congress.But other Republicans have stood by the RNC’s move, with House minority leader Kevin McCarthy telling CNN that the censure was meant to condemn the committee’s questioning of conservatives “who weren’t even here” when the attack occurred.The Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsUS Capitol attackUS SenateRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More - in Elections
Romney won’t criticise niece for calling Trump lies and Capitol riot ‘legitimate political discourse’
Romney won’t criticise niece for calling Trump lies and Capitol riot ‘legitimate political discourse’Senator says he has texted with ‘terrific’ Ronna McDaniel, RNC chair who oversaw censure of Cheney and Kinzinger Mitt Romney and his niece, Ronna McDaniel, exchanged texts after the Republican National Committee she chairs called Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn his election defeat and the Capitol riot “legitimate political discourse”.Trump’s incendiary Texas speech may have deepened his legal troubles, experts sayRead moreRomney, the Utah senator, 2012 presidential nominee and only Republican to twice vote to convict Trump at his impeachment trials, told reporters on Monday he “expressed his point of view”.The RNC used the controversial language in censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the only Republicans on the House committee investigating January 6.Romney was one of few Republicans to scorn the move, saying: “Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol. Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost.”But he did not mention his personal connection to McDaniel, who stopped using “Romney” in her name after Trump took over her party – according to the Washington Post, at Trump’s request.Romney also said the censure “could not have been a more inappropriate message … so far from accurate as to shock and to make people wonder what we’re thinking”.On Monday, he told reporters he and his niece had since “exchanged some texts”.“I expressed my point of view,” he said. “I think she’s a wonderful person and doing her very best.”He also said McDaniel was “terrific”.Amid criticism, McDaniel claimed “legitimate political discourse” pursued by Trump supporters in service of his lie that his defeat was the result of electoral fraud “had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol” – language not in the formal censure.She also said she had “repeatedly condemned violence on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, this committee has gone well beyond the scope of the events of that day.”That day, 6 January 2021, Trump supporters who attacked the Capitol – after Trump told them to “fight like hell” – did so in an attempt to stop the vice-president, Mike Pence, certifying electoral college results.Seven people died, more than 100 police officers were hurt and more than 700 people face charges. Eleven members of a far-right militia are charged with seditious conspiracy.Trump has promised pardons for rioters if he is elected again and admitted his aim was to overturn the election.On Friday, Pence reflected prevailing opinion among constitutional scholars when he said Trump was “wrong. I had no right to overturn the election.”Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who led Trump’s impeachment for inciting the insurrection and who sits on the 6 January committee, said: “It’s official. Lincoln’s party of ‘liberty and union’ is now Trump’s party of violence and disunion.“His cultists just called sedition, beating up cops and a coup ‘legitimate political discourse’. They censured Cheney and Kinzinger for not bowing to the orange autocrat. Disgrace.”TopicsMitt RomneyRepublicansUS politicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
Kyrsten Sinema courted Republican fossil fuel donors with filibuster stance
Kyrsten Sinema courted Republican fossil fuel donors with filibuster stance Houston fundraiser reveals Democrat’s aggressive efforts to capitalize on her Senate power on matters ranging from climate to taxes With a crucial vote pending over filibuster rules that would have made strong voting rights legislation feasible, Democratic senator Kyrsten Sinema flew into Houston, Texas, for a fundraiser that drew dozens of fossil fuel chieftains, including Continental Resources chairman Harold Hamm and ConocoPhillips chief executive Ryan Lance.The event was held on 18 January at the upmarket River Oaks Country Club. One executive told the Guardian that Sinema spoke for about half an hour and informed a mostly Republican crowd that they could “rest assured” she would not back any changes with filibuster rules, reiterating a stance she took several days before during a Senate speech.The Arizona senator also addressed some energy industry issues according to the executive, who added that overall he was “tremendously impressed”.The day after the Houston bash, Sinema voted against changing filibuster rules, thereby helping to thwart the voting rights bill.The Houston gusher of fossil fuel donations for Sinema from many stalwart Republican donors underscores how pivotal she has become, along with West Virginia Democratic senator Joe Manchin, in an evenly divided Senate involving high-stakes battles for Republican and fossil fuel interests.Campaign finance watchdogs say that the Houston fundraiser reveals much about Sinema’s aggressive efforts to capitalize on her Senate power on matters ranging from climate change to taxes to the filibuster rule.“Sinema isn’t up for re-election this year, but she’s fundraising full-tilt,” Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of OpenSecrets, told the Guardian. “By her comment to oil-industry attendees last week, she clearly knew her vote to protect the filibuster would please them.”The Houston fundraiser, which was expected to raise tens of thousands of dollars for the senator’s campaign coffers, offers a stark example of how Sinema has been courting major Republican donors and special interests who, in turn, seem to be increasingly eager to help her.Sinema’s drive to rope in more big Republican donors was also apparent at a September fundraiser in Dallas at the $18m home of G Brint Ryan, a prominent Republican donor and CEO of a global consulting company, who hosted another money bash last year for Manchin.Sinema’s stance against changing filibuster rules has also won her support from other top Republican donors such as Stan Hubbard, a Minnesota billionaire broadcaster who gave her $2,900 last September, which reportedly was the first donation he made to a Democrat since 2019.Hubbard told the Guardian that her opposition to the filibuster was a crucial reason he donated, adding that it would “be terrible to get rid of the filibuster”, and that he thought voting rights were “just fine”, without passing a Democrat-backed bill to protect them.Little wonder that voting rights advocates were dismayed by Sinema’s staunch opposition to any changes with the filibuster.“We are very disappointed that Senator Sinema has put formalistic rules over protecting our democracy,” said Danielle Lang, the senior director of voting rights at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.Sinema’s position on the filibuster rule has sparked anger among liberal backers such as the powerful group Emily’s List, which endorses Democratic women who support abortion rights. One week after Sinema gave a floor speech indicating that she wouldn’t support altering filibuster rules, Emily’s List publicly stated that the group would no longer endorse her.In her floor speech backing the filibuster rule, Sinema touted the need for more bipartisanship, stressing that she would not “support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country”.But Sinema’s vote and speech only spurred more criticism in Arizona where the state Democratic party issued a rare censure in the wake of her continued support for the filibuster.Arizona’s Democratic party chair Raquel Teran has stated that the vote was a “result of her failure to do whatever it takes to ensure the health of our democracy”.More broadly, Democratic angst about Sinema was highlighted by a January tracking poll before her filibuster vote that showed just 8% of registered Arizona Democrats had a favorable view of the Senator.The recent poll reflects a steep drop from the 70% positive rating the Senator had in 2020. Her declining popularity also has been spurred by the senator’s voting against raising the federal minimum wage, and skipping a Senate vote to create a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 mob attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters.Sinema has also drawn brickbats from Democrats for her unwillingness last month to endorse the House passed Build Back Better legislation that she and Manchin were instrumental in whittling down from the measure’s original size, while accelerating their fundraising outreach to rightwing donors and lobbyists.Sinema told Democratic senators according to the New York Times that she was opposed to any tax increases in personal rates or corporate rates to pay for the bill, which included approximately $550bn for clean energy and climate change measures, a crucial part of President Joe Biden’s agenda.Leftwing Vermont senator Bernie Sanders was especially irked when both Sinema and Manchin joined all the Senate Republicans in blocking the filibuster rule change, saying that they “forced us to go through five months of discussions which have gotten absolutely nowhere”, and indicating he might support primary challengers to both senators.Veteran Arizona Republican consultant Chuck Coughlin noted that Sinema “clearly understands the electoral position she is in, and is using this opportunity to raise as much as she can in order to make challenging her a herculean task – whether she runs as a Democrat or an independent.”Coughlin’s analysis seems on target based on the very robust $4.4m that Sinema’s campaign had in the bank at the end of September.Charlie Black, a longtime Republican operative and lobbyist, added that “Sinema’s gotten a lot of support from the business community, including both Republicans and Democrats.”Still, with Democratic attacks on Sinema increasing, the odds are good that if she opts to run again in 2024 she will have a primary opponent, perhaps Congressman Ruben Gallego, who has publicly suggested he might challenge her, and knocked the senator over her filibuster vote.A group called the Primary Sinema Project that began last summer has raised at least $330,000, including $100,000 during the week after her filibuster speech.Sinema’s drive to raise big bucks early seems to be underscored by the jump last year in donations from fossil fuel interests, according to campaign finance data.Last year, Sinema hauled in $24,310 from fossil fuel donors compared with just $7,522 the year before, according to OpenSecrets.Although there’s no data yet on how much Sinema raised in Houston, a veteran fossil fuel lobbyist told the Guardian that donors at such fundraisers are often asked to pony up the maximum of $5,800 to the senator’s campaign committee, and write another check for as much as $5,000 to the senator’s leadership Pac.For Krumholz of OpenSecrets, the Houston fundraiser offers a broader message.“The timing of the fundraiser and Sinema’s filibuster-protecting vote really puts a fine point on the return on investment for her donors.”Krumholz added that the fossil fuel fundraiser “seems well timed as Congress revisits the $550bn BBB measure focused on climate change provisions, where her vote could help industry minimize new regulatory and tax burdens.”TopicsOil and gas companiesUS SenateDemocratsUS politicsOilnewsReuse this content More
- in Elections
Quiet part loud: Trump says Pence ‘could have overturned the election’
Quiet part loud: Trump says Pence ‘could have overturned the election’In statement protesting against reform of Electoral Count Act, ex-president appears to admit Joe Biden won Donald Trump was accused of “saying the quiet part loud” on Sunday night, when he protested that Mike Pence, his former vice-president, could have overturned his election defeat by Joe Biden.Trump tours the country in support of candidates pushing the ‘big lie’Read moreThough he has appeared to admit Biden won before, Trump usually insists he won and his opponent stole the election through voter fraud – the “big lie” which animates rallies like one in Conroe, Texas, on Saturday.On Sunday Trump attempted to seize on moves by a bipartisan group of senators to reform the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which Trump tried to use to have Pence refuse to certify Biden’s victory.Pence concluded he did not have the authority to do so. On the same day, 6 January 2021, supporters Trump told to “fight like hell” attacked the US Capitol.Seven people died and more than 100 police officers were hurt. More than 700 people have been charged, 11 with seditious conspiracy. Trump and his aides are the target of congressional investigation.But Trump survived impeachment when enough Senate Republicans stayed loyal and is free to run for office.On Saturday, he promised pardons for 6 January rioters if re-elected and exhorted followers to protest against investigations of his business and political affairs in New York and Georgia.In a statement on Sunday, Trump claimed “fraud and many other irregularities” in the 2020 election – no large-scale fraud has been found – and asked: “How come the Democrats and … Republicans, like Wacky Susan Collins, are desperately trying to pass legislation that will not allow the vice-president to change the results of the election?“Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power. He could have overturned the election!”Collins, of Maine, was one of seven Republicans to vote to convict Trump over the Capitol attack. Such is his grip on her party, on Sunday she would not say she would not support him if he ran again. But she did tell ABC why she wanted to reform the Electoral Count Act.“We saw, on 6 January 2021, how ambiguities, simple law, were exploited. We need to prevent that from happening again. I’m hopeful that we can come up with a bipartisan bill that will make very clear that the vice-president’s role is simply ministerial, that he has no ability to halt the count.”Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of Democratic Senate leadership, said reform to the electoral college process was merited because Trump gambits including false slates of electors “really raise a question about the integrity of that process. It hasn’t been looked at for 150 years. Now’s the time.”Pundits seized on Trump’s latest apparent blunder into the truth.Trump pardon promise for Capitol rioters ‘stuff of dictators’ – Nixon aideRead moreBill Kristol, a conservative writer, said: “Talk about saying the quiet part loud. Trump here admits or rather boasts [about] what he wanted Mike Pence to do.”Chris Krebs, fired as head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency under Trump but who pronounced the 2020 election “the most secure in US history”, said: “In the last 24 hours the former president: (1) floated pardons for [January 6] defendants, (2) encouraged civil unrest if he’s indicted in [Georgia or New York], (3) once again confirmed he pressured Pence to overturn a lawful election.“He’s radicalizing his base to be his personal Brown Shirts.”Olivia Troye, a former Pence aide, wrote: “Every Republican candidate and official should go on record with their answer: Do you support sedition and pardoning domestic terrorists?”TopicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020US elections 2024US politicsRepublicansUS CongressUS SenatenewsReuse this content More
- in US Politics
US Senate panel close to approving ‘mother of all sanctions’ against Russia
US Senate panel close to approving ‘mother of all sanctions’ against RussiaNegotiations for package of sanctions against Putin ‘on the one-yard line’, says Bob Menendez of foreign relations committee
Opinion: Russia’s phony war is playing out as surreal theatre
The leaders of the Senate foreign relations committee said on Sunday they were on the verge of approving “the mother of all sanctions” against Vladimir Putin, warning there would be no appeasement as the Russian president contemplates an invasion of Ukraine.UK to bring in measures to allow for tougher sanctions on Russia, says TrussRead more“We cannot have a Munich moment again,” the panel’s Democratic chair, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, told CNN’s State of the Union, referring to the 1938 agreement by which allies ceded parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, believing it would stave off war.“Putin will not stop if he believes the west will not respond,” Menendez said. “We saw what he did in 2008 in Georgia, we saw what he did in 2014 in pursuit of Crimea. He will not stop.”Menendez said he believed bipartisan negotiations for severe sanctions were “on the one-yard line”, despite disagreements with Republicans over whether measures should be imposed before or after any Russian invasion. The UK government promised to ramp up sanctions against Putin and his associates.Tensions on the Ukraine border continued to escalate with Reuters reporting the Russian military build-up included supplies of blood in anticipation of casualties. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, told Fox News Sunday: “Putin has a lot of options available to him if he wants to further invade Ukraine, and he can execute some of those options imminently. It could happen really, honestly, at any time.”Seeking to show bipartisan resolve, Menendez gave CNN a joint interview with his committee’s ranking Republican, James Risch of Wisconsin.Menendez said: “There is an incredible bipartisan resolve for support of Ukraine, and an incredibly strong bipartisan resolve to have severe consequences for Russia if it invades, and in some cases for what it has already done.“We are building on the legislation that both Senator Risch wrote independently, and I wrote, which I called the mother of all sanctions. It’s to include a variety of elements, massive sanctions against the most significant Russian banks, crippling to their economy, Russia sovereign debt. These are sanctions beyond any that we have ever levied before.”Risch said talks had been a “24 hour-a-day effort for the last several days” in an attempt to reach agreement over sanctions timing and content, and that he was optimistic.“That’s a work in progress,” Risch said, when pressed over discussions about pre-emptive sanctions or measures to be taken in the event of an invasion. “[But] I’m more than cautiously optimistic that when we get back to DC tomorrow that we’re going to be moving forward.”Menendez said he believed western allies did not have to wait to start penalising Putin.“There are some sanctions that could take place up front because of what Russia has already done, cyber attacks on Ukraine, false flag operations, the efforts to undermine the Ukrainian government internally,” he said.“But then the devastating sanctions that ultimately would crush Russia’s economy, and the continuing lethal aid that we are going to send, means Putin has to decide how many body bags of Russian sons are going to return to Russia.“The sanctions we’re talking about would come later on if he invades, some sanctions would come up front for what has been done already, but the lethal aid will travel no matter what.”Risch criticized the stance of several far-right figures, including the Fox News host Tucker Carlson and the Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie, who have questioned why the US is backing Ukraine and opposing Russia. Carlson said “it makes sense” that Putin “just wants to keep his western border secure” by opposing moves by Ukraine to join Nato.“We side always with countries that are democracies, and certainly there isn’t going to be a truce committed in that regard,” Risch said.“But the people who were saying that we shouldn’t be engaged in this at all are going to be singing a very different tune when they go to fill up their car with gas, if indeed there is an invasion. There are going to be sanctions that are going to be crippling to Russia, it is going to cripple their oil production. And as we all know, Russia is simply a gas station that is thinly disguised masquerading as a country. It is going to have a devastating effect on the economy around the world.”UK ready to commit extra forces to Nato allies as Russia tension mountsRead moreOn NBC’s Meet the Press, Dick Durbin, co-chair of the Senate Ukraine caucus, addressed concerns aired by President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday that growing rhetoric over the crisis was causing panic and destabilising his country’s economy.His comments followed a call with Joe Biden that Ukraine officials said “did not go well”.“Any decision about the future of Ukraine will be made by Ukraine,” said Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. “It won’t be made in Moscow or in Washington, in the European Union or in Belarus. It’s their future and their fate and their decision as far as that is concerned.”The caucus co-chair, Republican Rob Portman of Ohio, who is also on the foreign relations committee, told NBC he believed Putin had underestimated the unity of Nato and others.“One thing Vladimir Putin has done successfully is he has strengthened the transatlantic alliance and countries around the world who are looking at this and saying, ‘We cannot let this stand, we cannot let this happen’,” Portman said.“For the first time in nearly 80 years we could have a major and very bloody conflict in Europe unless we stand up together and push back, and so far so good.”TopicsUkraineRussiaUS foreign policyUS national securityUS militaryBiden administrationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More - in US Politics
Supreme court: Stephen Breyer ‘did not want to die on bench’, says brother
Supreme court: Stephen Breyer ‘did not want to die on bench’, says brotherPressure campaign was fired by fear of repeat of disaster when Republicans replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Biden poised to appoint first Black female justice
01:03Stephen Breyer, the supreme court justice who announced his retirement this week, “did not want to die on the bench”.White House burns Wicker for criticising Biden supreme court pickRead moreSo his brother, the federal judge Charles Breyer, told the Washington Post at the end of a momentous week in US politics.Democrats, meanwhile, rejected Republican complaints that Joe Biden’s pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the court meant he was prioritising politics over qualifications, or endorsing racially based affirmative action, or that the new justice would be too liberal.The Democratic chair of the Senate judiciary committee hinted at claims some criticism may be racially motivated, saying he hoped Republicans were not “doing it for personal reasons”.Breyer’s decision to step down, at 83, gives Biden the chance to nominate a liberal replacement. The pick will not alter the balance of the court, which conservatives dominate 6-3 after Donald Trump capitalised on ruthless Republican tactics to install three justices in four years.But progressives campaigned to convince Breyer to quit, many citing what happened when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on the court in September 2020. Republicans who held the Senate confirmed her replacement – the hardline Catholic Amy Coney Barrett, nominated after Trump promised to pick a woman – before the November election.Democrats should be able to confirm Biden’s pick without Republican votes but they face losing the Senate in November. With that in mind, the campaign to convince Breyer picked up speed. Breyer spoke about how the court should not be politicised but one activist, Brian Fallon of Demand Justice, told the Post: “You have to view this as a political fight. It’s not a legal fight.”Charles Breyer told the Post his brother “was aware of this campaign. I think what impressed him was not the campaign but the logic of the campaign.“And he thought he should take into account the fact that this was an opportunity for a Democratic president – and he was appointed by a Democratic president [Bill Clinton] – to fill his position with someone who is like-minded. He did not want to die on the bench.”On Sunday, Dick Durbin of Illinois, chair of the Senate judiciary committee, told NBC’s Meet the Press: “I didn’t feel that external pressure was really helpful at all. [Breyer] had to make this decision. It is an important and timely decision in his life as to the right moment. And I didn’t want to push him, and I didn’t.”But a congressman who campaigned for Breyer to retire, Mondaire Jones of New York, told the Post that though “people adore Ruth Bader Ginsburg … the fact is, due to decisions or non-decisions around retirement, made by her, we got Amy Coney Barrett.”The Post said the White House did not pressure Breyer.“None of the justices want to be told when to leave,” Charles Breyer said. “They want to decide themselves. And that, I think, the president and others recognised. It actually worked out.”Republicans have signaled a willingness to make life uncomfortable for Biden’s nominee – as revenge for what happened to Brett Kavanaugh.Trump’s second pick, replacing the retiring Anthony Kennedy, faced accusations of sexual assault. He vehemently denied them. Democrats prominently including Kamala Harris, then a California senator, vehemently attacked him. Harris is now vice-president, presiding over the 50-50 Senate with a vote to confirm Biden’s pick.On Friday, the Republican senator Roger Wicker told Mississippi radio the Kavanaugh confirmation was “one of the most disgraceful, shameful things and completely untruthful things that [Democrats have] ever, ever done”.Wicker also predicted that Biden’s nominee would get no Republican votes. He said so in part because the GOP expects a more progressive choice than Breyer, who Wicker called a “nice, stately liberal”. But Wicker also complained about “affirmative racial discrimination [for] someone who is the beneficiary of this sort of quota”, at a time when the court seems poised to rule such practices unconstitutional.The White House reminded Wicker of his unquestioning support for Barrett.Speaking to ABC’s This Week, Durbin said Republicans should “recall that it was Ronald Reagan who announced that he was going to appoint a woman to the supreme court, and he did, Sandra Day O’Connor, and it was Donald Trump who announced that he was going to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a woman nominee as well.“African American women, if they have achieved the level of success in the practice of law and jurisprudence, they’ve done it against great odds. They’re extraordinary people … they’re all going to face the same close scrutiny.US supreme court will hear challenge to affirmative action in college admissionRead more“… I just hope that those who are critical of the president’s selection aren’t doing it for personal reasons.”Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican senator, told Fox News Sunday Republicans would probably not support Biden’s pick “because I’ve seen dozens of his nominees to the lower courts and they’ve almost to person been leftwing ideologues”.Cotton also complained about Democrats’ treatment of Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment in a stormy confirmation process, Biden playing a leading role as a senator from Delaware, in 1991.Most expect Democrats to move quickly. Durbin told NBC: “A great deal depends on the nominee. If the person has been before the committee seeking approval for a circuit court, then the committee knows quite a bit about that person.“If there are no new developments for someone who’s been before the committee in the previous year or two, it makes a real difference.”A leading contender, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was confirmed to the DC appeals court last June with Republican support. She replaced Merrick Garland, Biden’s attorney general who was nominated to the supreme court by Barack Obama in 2016 but blocked by Republicans.“I can just say this,” Durbin said. “It’s going to be fair, it’s going to be deliberate and we’re going to be timely about it too. This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. We should take it seriously.”TopicsUS supreme courtUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)US politicsBiden administrationJoe BidenDemocratsnewsReuse this content More
