US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      White House condemns McCarthy for impeachment threats against Merrick Garland – as it happened

      by

      From 5h agoAs he looks to promote his economic record and turn around negative public approval ratings, Joe Biden announced his administration would work to get all Americans access to low-cost high-speed internet by 2030.“We’re announcing over $40bn to be distributed to 50 states, Washington DC and territories to deliver high speed in places where there’s neither service or it’s too slow,” the president said.“Along with other federal investments, we’re going to be able to connect every person in America to reliable high-speed internet by 2030.”He compared his administration’s push to the rural electrification campaign of Democratic icon Franklin Delano Rosevelt in the 1930s.“Today, Kamala and I are making an equally historic investment to connect everyone in America, everyone in America to … affordable high speed internet by 2030. It’s the biggest investment in high-speed internet ever, because for today’s economy to work for everyone, internet access is just as important as electricity or water, or other basic services.”Joe Biden eased into his re-election campaign with the announcement of a nationwide push to expand high-speed internet, and plans for a speech on “Bidenomics” set for Wednesday. The president’s idea is to campaign for another four years in the White House not with promises of new policies, but rather with a reiteration of the proposals that got him elected in the first place. Meanwhile, Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy signaled an openness to impeaching the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, if the US attorney involved in prosecuting Hunter Biden doesn’t speak to the judiciary committee. The House is on recess for the next two weeks or so, but we’ll keep an eye on if that goes anywhere.Here’s what else happened today:
      A White House spokesman condemned McCarthy for threatening to impeach Garland.
      The supreme court ordered Louisiana to draw a new majority-Black congressional district as the fallout from a recent decision concerning the Voting Rights Act continues.
      A top Democratic senator thinks the supreme court’s conservatives know they’ve gone too far.
      The Biden administration plans yet another aid package for Ukraine, while the president said the US had “nothing to do” with the attempted mutiny in Russia over the past weekend.
      There is yet another balloon over Montana, but it’s not suspicious, Norad says.
      The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports that Aileen Cannon, the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s trial in Florida on charges of conspiring to store classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, denied a request from the justice department to keep its witness list secret:The justice department can appeal the decision. The decision is one of several expected in the pretrial motions before the start of the proceedings, which are currently scheduled for the middle of August but likely to change.Appointed to the federal bench by Trump, Cannon faced criticism for decisions made in the case prior to his indictment that some analysts saw as partial to the former president.White House spokesman Ian Sams has released a statement criticizing Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy for threatening to impeach the US attorney general, Merrick Garland.Here’s what Sams had to say:
      Speaker McCarthy and the extreme House Republicans are proving they have no positive agenda to actually help the American people on the issues most important to them and their families. The President and his entire Administration are spending this whole week traveling the country to talk about the important economic progress we have made over the last two years – creating more than 13 million jobs as we’ve sparked the strongest recovery of any country in the world – and laying out the Biden plan to put the middle class ahead of those at the very top. Perhaps Congressional Republicans are desperate to distract from their own plan to give even more tax cuts to the wealthy and big corporations and add more than $3 trillion to the deficit, but instead of pushing more partisan stunts intended only to get themselves attention on the far right, they should work with the President to actually put the middle class and working Americans first and expand the historic progress to lower costs, create jobs, boost U.S. manufacturing and small businesses, and make prescription drugs more affordable.
      There is, once again, a balloon flying over Montana – but it’s not a spy balloon, Norad assures us.The US-Canadian air defense force, whose name is an acronym for North American Aerospace Defense Command, says it is aware of the balloon, but does not regard it as suspicious:There is, of course, a political angle to this. Matt Rosendale, a Republican senator from Montana, earlier today attempted to use the balloon’s presence to attack the Biden administration:Joe Biden’s approval rating has seen a slight uptick in recent weeks, but is still pretty bad, Gallup reports.In a survey conducted on 1-22 June, Gallup reports the president’s approval is at 43%, up from the 37% low that his presidency hit in April. That’s not a particularly high rating at all, and the survey also found 54% of American adult respondents disapproved of his job performance.The last time Biden’s approval was above 50% was in July 2021 – before the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Delta wave of Covid-19 that led many Americans to again don masks and avoid large gatherings. Another factor that pushed Biden’s approval lower and kept it there was the wave of inflation that intensified throughout 2021 and 2022, forcing Americans to pay higher prices for essentials like gasoline and food.According to NBC News, “five or six” US Secret Service agents have now testified before the January 6 grand jury.NBC cited two unnamed sources “familiar with testimony”.The special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 is a source of further legal jeopardy for Donald Trump.Twice indicted already, the former president and current Republican frontrunner is widely believed likely to face further indictment by Smith, who has already handed down charges over Trump’s handling of classified information.NBC said: “While the exact content of their subpoenas and appearances is not known, Secret Service agents who were close to Trump on January 6 may be able to confirm, deny or provide more details on a story first told by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson to the … January 6 committee in Congress.“One year ago, Hutchinson told the committee she heard secondhand that Trump wanted Secret Service agents to drive him to the Capitol to join the rioters, tried to grab the car’s steering wheel and then reached for the ‘clavicles’ of the driver, Secret Service agent Bobby Engel. Trump later denied this account.”NBC also notes that agents may have been asked about what the agency knew and discussed leading up to and during the January 6 attack, in which Trump supporters sought to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election win.NBC said the agents who have testified could “inform the grand jury about the extent to which Trump knew about the potential for violence on January 6 and how he responded to threats made against then-Vice President Mike Pence”.Pence is now a competitor for the Republican presidential nomination.Joe Biden was asked earlier, by the Fox News White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, if he had ever lied about ever speaking to his son, Hunter Biden, about his business dealings (the subject of Republican attacks passim, and current musings about impeaching the attorney general, Merrick Garland).The president said: “No.”Video is here.Joe Biden has marked the concurrent anniversaries of three supreme court rulings which affirmed the right to same-sex marriage – a right some observers think will soon come under threat from a conservative-dominated court which removed the right to abortion.The president said: “Ten years ago today, the supreme court rulings in United States v Windsor and Hollingsworth v Perry made significant strides laying the groundwork for marriage equality in our country. They were followed two years later, to the day, by the ruling in Obergefell v Hodges, finally allowing millions of LGBTQ+ Americans to marry who they love.“These monumental cases moved our country forward, and they were made possible because of the courageous couples and unrelenting advocates in the LGBTQ+ community who, for decades, fought for these hard-won rights.“Last year, I was proud to build on their legacy by signing into law the Respect for Marriage Act … surrounded by many of the plaintiffs from these cases. But more work lies ahead, and I continue to call on Congress to pass the Equality Act, to codify additional protections to combat the increased attacks on the rights and safety of those in the LGBTQ+ community.”Further reading:Fox News announced earlier that Jesse Watters will move into the 8pm prime-time weeknight slot formerly filled by Tucker Carlson.Announcing the full shake-up, Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News, said: “The unique perspectives of Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, Sean Hannity and Greg Gutfeld will ensure our viewers have access to unrivaled coverage from our best-in-class team for years to come.”Here’s some (possibly) unrivaled coverage of Watters’ many unique perspectives over the years, from the progressive watchdog Media Matters for America.It’s a long list, so I’ll just link to it here while listing the subheadings provided:In his own statement, the Media Matters president, Angelo Carusone, explained his group’s view of Watters:“After Fox News fired Tucker Carlson, [Fox Corp co-chair] Lachlan Murdoch said there would be ‘no change’ in the network’s programming strategy. Today, Fox is making good on that promise.“Crowning odious Jesse Watters as the new face of Fox News is a reflection of Fox’s dogged commitment to bigotry and deceit as well as an indication of their desperation to regain audience share. It won’t work, though. Fox’s audience abandoned the network post-Tucker, and those viewers never returned. Jesse Watters’ buffoonish segments of bigotry and culture war vitriol won’t fix that problem for Fox; he’s a liability and a ticking time bomb.“Dominion exposed Fox News for the partisan propaganda operation that it is. Instead of trying to adjust and attempt to establish a beachhead of credibility, the network is going back out to sea by leaning in on their most toxic personalities – like Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters. The network is transparently appealing to the fringes here.“Advertisers and cable providers beware: things at Fox News are about to get a whole lot worse.”Here’s some more reading on Fox News post-Tucker, with contributions from Brian Stelter, a seasoned Fox-watcher formerly of CNN:Joe Biden is easing into his re-election campaign with the announcement of a nationwide push to expand high-speed internet, and plans for a speech on “Bidenomics” set for Wednesday. The idea is to campaign for another four years in the White House not with new promises, but rather with a reiteration of the proposals that got him elected in the first place. Meanwhile, Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy signaled an openness to impeaching attorney general Merrick Garland if the US attorney involved in prosecuting Hunter Biden doesn’t speak to the judiciary committee. The House is on recess for the next two weeks or so, but we’ll keep an eye on if that goes anywhere.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      The supreme court ordered Louisiana to draw a new majority-Black congressional district as the fallout from a recent decision concerning the Voting Rights Act continues.
      A top Democratic senator thinks the supreme court’s conservatives know they’ve gone too far.
      The Biden administration plans yet another aid package for Ukraine.
      Joe Biden’s push for more affordable high-speed internet access comes as he plans to announce a major theme for his re-election campaign on Wednesday.The president is scheduled to travel to Chicago and speak about the employment and wage gains Americans have seen since he took office, which the White House is calling “Bidenomics”.According to Axios, Biden plans to focus his re-election campaign on the same promises he made when running for his first term in office, rather than announcing a new slate of policies. But the approach is risky, particularly since surveys indicate two-thirds of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.As he looks to promote his economic record and turn around negative public approval ratings, Joe Biden announced his administration would work to get all Americans access to low-cost high-speed internet by 2030.“We’re announcing over $40bn to be distributed to 50 states, Washington DC and territories to deliver high speed in places where there’s neither service or it’s too slow,” the president said.“Along with other federal investments, we’re going to be able to connect every person in America to reliable high-speed internet by 2030.”He compared his administration’s push to the rural electrification campaign of Democratic icon Franklin Delano Rosevelt in the 1930s.“Today, Kamala and I are making an equally historic investment to connect everyone in America, everyone in America to … affordable high speed internet by 2030. It’s the biggest investment in high-speed internet ever, because for today’s economy to work for everyone, internet access is just as important as electricity or water, or other basic services.”The United States was not involved in the weekend mutiny by Wagner mercenary group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin against Russian president Vladimir Putin.“We made clear that we were not involved. We had nothing to do with it,” Biden said at the White House event on high-speed internet. “This was part of a struggle within the Russian system.”“We’re going to keep assessing the fallout of this weekend’s events and the implications for Russia and Ukraine. But it’s still too early to reach a definitive conclusion about where this is going.”The president added that, “We’re going to keep assessing the fallout of this weekend’s events and the implications for Russia and Ukraine. But it’s still too early to reach a definitive conclusion about where this is going.”Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are kicking off a speech where they’ll unveil tens of billions of dollars in investments to improve high-speed internet access across the United States.The Washington Post reports that the Biden administration will spend $42 bn to expand access to the internet, using funds made available by the infrastructure overhaul Congress approved two years ago:Follow along here for the latest on the speech. More

    • 213 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Conservative justices? Yeah, in what way?’ Key senator on a supreme court in thrall to special interests

      by

      The conservative-dominated US supreme court may be undergoing a “course correction” after witnessing a public backlash to its extremist rulings and ethics scandals, Sheldon Whitehouse, chairman of the Senate judiciary subcommittee on the federal courts, has told the Guardian.America’s highest court has made a series of radical decisions, including in the Dobbs case that overturned the constitutional right to abortion one year ago on Saturday, while two rightwing justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have been exposed for failing disclose luxury gifts from billionaires.But with trust in the court collapsing, it has this month defended the Voting Rights Act by ruling in favor of Black voters in Alabama and preserved a law that aims to keep Native American children with tribal families. Both were unexpected victories for Democrats – and a sign that they might finally be awakening to public opinion.“Frankly, I think the recent Alabama decision would have gone the other way had it not been for the blowback on Dobbs,” Senator Whitehouse said in an interview. “The challenge that they’re not ‘conservative’ – they’re captured – and the preposterous behavior of Thomas. That was a pretty heavy course correction. Some of them said, ‘Oh, damn, looks like we’re going have to act like judges for a while. Till this blows over!’”Whitehouse found it strange that the Alabama voters decision rested so heavily on precedent – something that the current justices, three of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump, have often been content to ignore.He says: “Where was all that when you were throwing out Dobbs? They have not let precedent get in their way when they’ve wanted the result for quite a while and to have it pop up so flagrantly in the middle of the Alabama case? You guys, that’s funny.”The senator believes that the court’s new sensitivity to public opinion could extend to the upcoming case Moore v Harper, another gerrymandering case in which Republican legislators in North Carolina are asking the court to grant them unfettered power to set rules for voting and elections – a dangerous notion in the era of Trump’s “big lie” of a stolen election.“I’ve always thought that was probably a throwaway case for them. If you look at the people who are pitching the case to them, so many of them are under investigation, under indictment, in disbarment proceedings. It’s the whole creepy ‘big lie’ apparatus that came in with that and I’m not sure the court wants to take a look at that crowd and say, yeah, we’re going with them to develop a completely wacky new argument that nobody’s ever accepted as being anything but a fever dream before. That’s just a bad combo.”Whitehouse, 67, has been a senator for Rhode Island, America’s smallest state, since 2007 and is currently chairman of the Senate budget committee. He has spent years delivering speeches on the Senate floor in two series: “Time to Wake Up”, about the climate crisis, and “The Scheme”, about a decades-long plot to remake the supreme court in service to shadowy billionaires and big special interests.One of his “The Scheme” speeches came to the attention of Lawrence O’Donnell, an MSNBC host and former congressional aide, who suggested that the subject would make good podcast material. Whitehouse discovered that the Senate’s own studio could produce it. The first episode of Making the Case offers an accessible history lesson with Congressman Hank Johnson, Slate senior editor Dahlia Lithwick and Lisa Graves of True North Research.Whitehouse reflects on the new venture while sitting in an airy Capitol Hill office surrounded by photographs of himself with Democratic presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. There are also pictures of Bruce Sundlun, a former governor of Rhode Island and mentor, and President Franklin Roosevelt – with a hand-signed note to Whitehouse’s grandfather, also named Sheldon Whitehouse, who served as a foreign service officer.The senator is speaking just hours before the ProPublica website published an article raising questions about Alito’s failure to report taking a private jet to Alaska for a luxury fishing trip in 2008, provided by a billionaire hedge fund manager whose business interests have come before the court. Whitehouse will tweet in response: “This just keeps getting worse.”ProPublica previously reported that Thomas accepted decades of undisclosed trips from a longtime friend, the Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow, that included stays at Crow’s private resort, flights on his jet, and a vacation onboard Crow’s yacht in Indonesia. Crow also purchased property from Thomas and paid private school tuition for a Thomas great-nephew.Opinion polls show that such revelations have shaken public faith in the court as never before. A Quinnipiac poll published this week found that it has a 30% approval rating among registered voters – the lowest since Quinnipiac first asked the question in 2004. This mood has created an appetite for speeches, podcasts and journalistic investigations to lift the curtain on an institution that once seemed above the political fray and beyond reproach.Whitehouse, who wrote about Thomas’s relationship with Crow in a book about dark money and the supreme court, tells the Guardian: “A couple of things are happening and they interact with each other. One is that people are just grossed out by the Harlan Crow/Clarence Thomas revelations.“I checked: in Rhode Island, if you’re a municipal employee, you can have three lunches not exceeding $25 and they have to be reported, and here’s this guy who’s supposedly a judge going on quarter-million-dollar free vacations and not reporting it.”He added: “Then people are beginning to realise that this is not a conservative court. This is a special interests-captured court. But we don’t have a very ready narrative in American society for explaining the difference and we still get people who cover the court and know a fair amount about it saying the ‘conservative’ justices. Yeah, in what way?”In 2022 the court upended precedents at an astonishing clip, curtailing or revoking rights such as abortion and due process while expanding religious rights and rights to carry guns. It twice delivered blows to the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to combat pollution.Whitehouse believes that the term conservative has been “obsolete” since dark money began funding groups such as Leonard Leo’s Federalist Society to handpick justices for the court. “There’s nothing about the way they’re behaving as judges that meets any definition of small ‘c’ conservative.”He continues: “Little by little, the facts of the decisions they’ve been up to are beginning to break through with something more than just them being ‘conservative’. There’s this overlay of who’s in charge behind the scenes. Of course that pops up everywhere, in the amicus briefs, in the dark money behind their confirmations. You can’t make it stop. Harlan Crow intersects with it. And then Dobbs was a clang the gong moment where everybody realised, oh, this is a little not normal.”One fix might lie with Congress. Dick Durbin, chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, has announced plans to take up supreme court ethics legislation. But in April the chief justice, John Roberts, turned down an invitation from Durbin to testify, citing the “exceedingly rare” nature of such an appearance.Whitehouse comments: “I can understand that he had horrible questions he’d have to answer and, for that reason, he didn’t want to. I very much disagree that his separation of powers argument holds any water at all. That’s pure window dressing for, ‘I just don’t want to come over and have to explain what he did’ – thinking of Thomas. I have some human sympathy for him not wanting to come over and answer questions for his wayward colleague but he was very slippery about the way he did it,” he said.Whitehouse wants Roberts to demonstrate that he is taking the ethics issue seriously and believes he might be pushed to do so by the judicial conference, the policymaking body of the federal courts that has a code of conduct followed by lower court judges. At an awards ceremony last month, Roberts acknowledged that “we are continuing to look at things we can do” to adhere to the highest standards of conduct.But no action by the current court has been as tangible or devastating for millions of people as Dobbs, which resulted in the decision to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that had in effect legalised abortion nationwide. Alito’s majority opinion stated that “a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions”. The procedure is now almost completely banned in 14 states.Whitehouse naturally has a podcast episode marking the first anniversary. He reflects: “If you really are going to throw out a decision that stood for so long and matters so much to so many people, you expect that they try to keep within existing law. Instead, they make up a whole new analysis that allows them to get where they want to get – the whole ‘history and tradition’ shtick that they pulled together,” he said.The ruling was a prime example of the court being out of step with public opinion. Republicans paid the price in last year’s midterm elections. Now candidates for president in 2024 are tiptoeing around the issue, with Trump refusing to commit to a national abortion limit and rival Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, facing scrutiny over a six-week ban in his home state.Whitehouse comments: “There’s a huge liability that they’ve opened up for themselves in a party that has hung with the extremists.”The Dobbs decision galvanised activists to demand Thomas’s resignation, push for reforms such as expanding the number of justices and make the case to voters that the supreme court is a defining issue at the ballot box, not merely a nice-to-have.“A lot of the advocacy groups that work in this space – whether it’s environmental groups, civil rights groups, labour groups – have awakened to the nature of the problem at the supreme court and are now taking it on in a whole different way, looking at the dark money, looking at the capture, looking at the mischievous and mysterious briefing just prepared.“Looking at that whole scenario and realising, wow, we got outplayed for about 20 years now and we’re going to have to figure out how to fight back. This can’t be issue 15 for us any longer. This has to be right at the top across a whole array of advocacy areas.” More

    • 250 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      White House restates call for abortion to be enshrined in law as Biden signs contraception protection – as it happened

      by

      From 5h agoSpecial counsel Jack Smith has offered limited immunity to at least two Republican fake electors in return for their testimonies to a grand jury over Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new CNN report.Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that in instances where prosecutors granted immunity to witnesses, “The special counsel’s office arrived at the courthouse in Washington ready to compel their testimony after the witnesses indicated they would decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment.”Within the last two weeks, at least one other witness spoke with federal investigators outside of the federal grand jury with an agreement that the witness be granted limited immunity from prosecution, CNN reports.The testimonies in recent days have largely surrounded fake electors’ schemes that were designed by attorneys affiliated with the Trump campaign three years ago.According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, “The numbers, profile of the witnesses and prosecutor tactics suggest a probe picking up its pace.”It is slightly past 4pm in Washington DC. Here is a wrap up of the day’s key events:
      The supreme court has rejected Texas and Louisiana’s challenge to Biden deportation policy prioritizing groups of unauthorized immigrants, including suspected terrorists, convicts and those caught at the border for deportation. The states wanted the authority to fight the policy in court. The court holds that the states do not have legal standing to challenge the policy, another win for the Biden administration, especially since conservative justice Samuel Alito was the only dissent.
      Joe Biden signed an executive order Friday to protect access to contraception, one day before the anniversary of the supreme court decision that struck down the federal right to an abortion. In a statement, the president highlighted reproductive health as a top priority of his administration in the wake of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling from the conservative-led court that reversed the Roe v Wade abortion protections in place for half a century.
      Two Russian intelligence officers who attempted to interfere in a local election as part of Moscow’s “global malign influence operations” were sanctioned Friday by the US government. Yegor Sergeyevich Popov and Aleksei Borisovich Sukhodolov, both members of Russia’s federal security service, worked to undermine democratic processes in the US and other countries through a network of co-conspirators, the treasury department said in a statement, reported by Reuters.
      Special counsel Jack Smith has offered limited immunity to at least two Republican fake electors in return for their testimonies to a grand jury over Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new CNN report. Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that in instances where prosecutors granted immunity to witnesses, “the special counsel’s office arrived at the courthouse in Washington ready to compel their testimony after the witnesses indicated they would decline to answer questions under the fifth amendment.”
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reaffirmed the Biden-Harris administration’s support for reproductive healthcare rights. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Jean-Pierre said: “President Biden and Vice-President Harris stand with the majority of Americans who believe the right to choose is fundamental. As the president has made clear, the only way to ensure women in every state have access to abortion is for Congress to pass a law, restoring the protections of Roe.”
      Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has rolled out a list of 15 endorsements from South Carolina lawmakers on Thursday. According to the Associated Press which reviewed the list, the endorsement includes 11 state House members and four state senators.
      Several reproductive rights organizations have announced their endorsement of the Biden-Harris administration in the upcoming 2024 presidential election. The organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice America , and EMILYs List, a political action committee dedicated to electing Democratic pro-choice women into office.
      That’s it from me, Maya Yang, as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has rolled out a list of 15 endorsements from South Carolina lawmakers on Thursday.According to the Associated Press which reviewed the list, the endorsement includes 11 state House members and four state senators.
      “Governor DeSantis’ leadership has made Florida a refuge for those seeking freedom in a nation where it is under attack,” said state senator Josh Kimbrell, one of DeSantis’s endorsers, the Hill reports.
      “No Republican in the country has beaten the radical left more than governor DeSantis, and he is the only candidate in this race who can defeat Joe Biden, put energy back in the executive, and deliver on a bold conservative agenda that Republicans across South Carolina are looking for,” he added.
      On Thursday, DeSantis campaigned in North Augusta, South Carolina, drawing a crowd of supporters whom he told, “You run this process, you compete and you respect the outcome of the process… I think I’m going to be the nominee no matter what happens I’m going to work to beat Joe Biden, that’s what you have to do.”GOP presidential hopeful Chris Christie got booed on stage as he delivered his address at the Freedom and Faith Coalition in Washington DC.In his address, the former New Jersey governor criticized Donald Trump, saying:
      “I’m running because he has let us down. He has let us down because he’s unwilling to take any responsibility of the mistakes that were made, any of the faults that he has and any of the things he has done. And that is not leadership, everybody. That is a failure of leadership.”
      In response, the crowd quickly booed Christie.
      “You can boo all you want. But here’s the thing: Our faith teaches us that people have to take responsibility for what they do,” Christie continued.
      He addressed the boos in a later interview with CNN, saying:“I knew that’s what was going to happen when I accepted the invitation but I’m not changing my message and pandering to anybody. The truth matters and I’m telling the truth about Donald Trump…” Christie told host Dana Bash.This is the third executive order that Biden has passed to protect abortion access since the rollback of Roe v Wade last June.Read more on his first and second executive order here:Several reproductive rights organizations have announced their endorsement of the Biden-Harris administration in the upcoming 2024 presidential election.The organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro-Choice America , and EMILYs List, a political action committee dedicated to electing Democratic pro-choice women into office.
      “President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have been committed to fighting back against the onslaught of attacks against our reproductive freedom. And we need them to continue this critical work.
      Abortion is health care… We need leaders who are committed to protecting our freedoms, not taking them away. That is why we must re-elect President Biden and Vice President Harris: people we can trust to keep rebuilding a path forward, because we know the journey to rebuilding our rights will be met with challenges,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
      NARAL-Pro Choice America echoed similar sentiments, with its president Mini Timmaraju saying:
      “President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are the strongest advocates for reproductive freedom ever to occupy the White House, and NARAL Pro-Choice America proudly endorses their reelection. It’s as simple as this: Abortion matters to Americans. In elections since the Supreme Court took away our right to abortion, voters have mobilized in massive numbers to elect Democrats who will fight to restore it…”
      EMILYs List president Laphonza Butler released the following statement:
      “When the Dobbs decision ended a constitutional right for the first time in this country’s history, we were grateful to have leaders in the White House like President Biden and Vice President Harris, who have been vocal advocates for abortion rights across the government and across the country… For her work as a groundbreaker, tireless advocate for reproductive freedom, and inspiring change-maker, EMILYs List is thrilled to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for reelection.”
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre pushed back against claims that president Joe Biden’s latest executive action on expanding contraception access is “largely symbolic”, saying:
      “It builds on the progress that we believe that we have made already and expanding contraception access for women. If you think about the Affordable Care Act, it helped millions of women save billions of dollars on birth control that they need and want. And so we understand that there are gaps still as it relates to that snd so that’s what this executive order does today.
      It does a couple of things. It’s strengthening access to affordable high quality contraception and family planning services, and increased contraception options. It lowers out-of-pocket costs. It maximizes contraception access through the following ways: insurance coverage for those covered under the Affordable Care Act … Medicaid, Medicare, federal funded healthcare programs, including community health centers …
      So we don’t believe this is symbolic. We believe that this is another step to really deal with this gap that we’re seeing across the country and to do everything that we can to continue to fight for fundamental rights.”
      In response to a question from a reporter on whether president Joe Biden calling China’s president Xi Jinping a “dictator” is the “official position” of the White House, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said:
      “The president spoke for himself. I’m just not going to go beyond what he said… The president is going to speak candidly. That will never change.”
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reaffirmed the Biden-Harris administration’s support for reproductive healthcare rights.Speaking to reporters on Friday, Jean-Pierre said:
      “President Biden and vice president Harris stand with the majority of Americans who believe the right to choose is fundamental. As the president has made clear, the only way to ensure women in every state have access to abortion is for Congress to pass a law, restoring the protections of Roe.”
      Jean-Pierre also spoke of Biden’s new executive order on furthering contraception access, saying:“Access to contraception has become more important than ever following the Supreme court’s decision and ensuing crisis for women’s health. And today’s action helps ensure that women can make decisions about their own health lives and also their families.”Attorney general Merrick Garland has responded to concerns from Republicans over the justice department’s integrity, saying, “Nothing could be further from the truth.” In a press briefing on Friday, a reporter asked Garland:
      “Republicans in Congress have flirted with the idea with holding the FBI director in contempt, it’s become a talking point on the campaign trail, the alleged corruption in the FBI and federal law enforcement agencies. Do the American people have cause to be concerned about the integrity of components of this justice department and…how they’re acting?”
      In response, Garland said:
      “I certainly understand that some have chose to attack the integrity of the justice department as components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike. This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy… Nothing could be further from the truth…
      We make our cases based on the facts and the law. These are not just words. These are what we live by…”
      Mike Pence pledged to end gender-affirming services amongst minors during his Faith and Freedom Coalition address today in Washington DC.
      “When I am President, American families will have a champion in the White House!
      We will give every parent the right to choose where their child goes to school, we will end the gender ideology that is running rampant in our schools and we will ban chemical and surgical gender transition treatment for kids under the age of 18!” he said.
      Pence’s comments come amid multiple Republicans’ pledges to end ‘wokeism,’ should they become president, including presidential candidate and Florida governor Ron DeSantis.Special counsel Jack Smith has offered limited immunity to at least two Republican fake electors in return for their testimonies to a grand jury over Donald Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a new CNN report.Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that in instances where prosecutors granted immunity to witnesses, “The special counsel’s office arrived at the courthouse in Washington ready to compel their testimony after the witnesses indicated they would decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment.”Within the last two weeks, at least one other witness spoke with federal investigators outside of the federal grand jury with an agreement that the witness be granted limited immunity from prosecution, CNN reports.The testimonies in recent days have largely surrounded fake electors’ schemes that were designed by attorneys affiliated with the Trump campaign three years ago.According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, “The numbers, profile of the witnesses and prosecutor tactics suggest a probe picking up its pace.”An Arizona Republican election official has filed a lawsuit against unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate and staunch Donald Trump supporter Kari Lake who claims that she lost the 2022 race due to fraud.In an op-ed published in the Arizona Republic, Maricopa county recorder Stephen Richer said that as a result of Lake’s false claims, he has faced “violent vitriol and other dire consequences.”
      “Rather than accept political defeat, rather than get a new job, she has sought to undermine confidence in our elections and has mobilized millions of her followers against me,” Richer wrote.
      “She has gone far outside of the bounds of protected free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution.
      That’s why I’m suing Kari Lake, her campaign and her political action committee for engaging in a concerted campaign to defame, threaten and isolate me,” he added.
      The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa county, Arizona on Thursday, names Lake, her political campaign, as well as her fundraising roup as defendants.According to the lawsuit, Richer is seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as the removal of all false claims from Lake’s social media.The American Civil Liberties Union has issued a statement in response to the supreme court’s rejection of Texas and Louisiana’s challenge to the Biden administration’s deportation policy.
      “This decision soundly rejects the misguided attempt by Texas and Louisiana to force the government to implement the most draconian immigration enforcement policy,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
      In the case which ACLU filed an amicus brief, the supreme court ruled that the states lacked the standing to “order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests.”Republican presidential candidate Mike Pence appeared undeterred from his staunch anti-abortion stance, according to a new interview with Politico.The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports from Washington:Speaking one year since the US supreme court removed the federal right to abortion, Mike Pence said candidates for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination should stand firm on the electorally unpopular issue and take a hard line on bringing in national limits.
      “For me, for our campaign, we’re going to stand where we’ve always stood, and that is without apology for the right to life,” the former congressman, Indiana governor and vice-president to Donald Trump told Politico.
      Later, addressing the Faith & Freedom conference in Washington, Pence said every Republican candidate “should support a ban on abortions before 15 weeks, as a minimum nationwide standard”.Claiming this was a “reasonable and mainstream standard”, Pence said:
      “American abortion policy has more in common with China and North Korea than it does with the nations of Europe – and it is time for that to change.”
      For the full story, click here: More

    • 250 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Modi White House visit: Joe Biden says both US and India ‘cherish freedom’ and human rights – as it happened

      by

      From 3h agoBiden also mentioned press freedom in his opening statement, saying that both countries “cherish freedom and celebrate the democratic values of universal human rights which face challenges around the world and in each of our countries.” “Press freedom, religious freedom, tolerance, diversity…India now is the most populous country in the world… The backbone of our people…and talents and traditions make us strong as nations,” said Biden.“The friendship between our nations is only going to grow as we face a future together,” he added.It is 4pm in Washington DC. Here is a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
      India’s prime minister Narendra Modi was at the White House for his bilateral meeting today with Joe Biden. Modi was met with a series of performances and ceremonies on the White House lawn and the two leaders proceeded to discuss press freedom, trade, technological advancements, as well as the Russia-Ukraine war.
      Former US president Barack Obama has addressed Modi’s visit to the United States in a new interview with CNN, saying, “The protection of Muslim minorities in a majority Hindu India, that’s something worth mentioning.” “I do think it is appropriate for the president of the United States…to challenge, whether behind closed doors or in public, trends that are troubling…” he said.
      New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced in a statement late Wednesday that she will “boycott” a joint address to Congress from Modi. “I will be boycotting Prime Minister Modi’s address to Congress tomorrow, and encourage my colleagues who stand for pluralism, tolerance, and freedom of the press to join me in doing the same,” said Ocasio-Cortez’s statement, shared to Twitter.
      Bernie Sanders has also joined several Democratic lawmakers in their condemnation of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi over his human rights abuse allegations. “Prime Minister Modi’s government has cracked down on the press and civil society, jailed political opponents, and pushed an aggressive Hindu nationalism that leaves little space for India’s religious minorities,” Sanders wrote in a tweet.
      During a press conference with Modi, a reporter asked Biden about comments he made calling China president Xi Jinping a “dictator” and if such remarks complicate progress that the Biden administration has made on maintaining a relationship with China. “The answer to your first question is no,” said Biden.
      Human rights group Amnesty International has publicly criticized Modi’s visit to the White House, calling on the Biden administration to address “grave human rights issues” in the US and India. Amnesty International called out increasing violence against religion minorities in India during Modi’s tenure, as well as “criminalization of dissent”.
      The two individuals who guaranteed bail for New York’s Republican congressman George Santos has ben identified as his father and aunt. The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports: “The revelation that Gercino dos Santos Jr and Elma Preven were the people behind Santos’ bail solves a running mystery that had fascinated Washington-watchers and also a wider American public obsessed with the travails of a politician famous for playing fast and loose with the truth.”
      Georgia’s far-right representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has explained why she called Colorado’s equally far-right representative Lauren Boebert “a little b****” yesterday in Congress. “It’s purely for fundraising… It’s throwing out red meat so that people will donate to her campaign because she’s coming up on the end of the month, and she’s trying to produce good fundraising numbers,” Greene told Semafor.
      That’s it from me, Maya Yang, as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.You can read our latest full report here:For a quick refresher on all the 16 candidates currently vying for the presidential office, here is our latest guide to all contenders, ranging from Ron DeSantis to Cornel West:Currently, 12 candidates are running for the GOP nomination while 2 Democrats – Robert F Kennedy Jr and Marianne Williamson, are looking to unseat Joe Biden.Meanwhile, progressive activist Cornel West has announced that he is running for office as a member of the People’s party, a third party.Georgia’s far-right representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has explained why she called Colorado’s equally far-right representative Lauren Boebert “a little b****” yesterday in Congress.Speaking to Semafor, Greene explained the verbal altercation between the two lawmakers yesterday which erupted over both their efforts to impeach the president.“I was sitting down, and so I stood up and I said, ‘I’m happy to clarify my public statements to your face… I told her exactly what I think about her,” Greene said, referring to public comments she made yesterday about Boebert whom she said “basically copied my articles” in her own separate privileged resolution (which would bypass House Republican leadership and instead head straight to the floor for voting).
      “It’s purely for fundraising… It’s throwing out red meat so that people will donate to her campaign because she’s coming up on the end of the month, and she’s trying to produce good fundraising numbers,” Greene added.
      Donald Trump’s efforts at obtaining a new trial in the civil case involving writer E. Jean Carroll is “magical thinking,” Carroll’s lawyers said on Thursday.Reuters reports:Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presential nomination, on June 8 asked for a new trial after the jury awarded Carroll $5 million, saying the damages were excessive because the jury did not find she was raped and because the alleged conduct did not cause her a diagnosed mental injury.In court papers filed Thursday in opposition to Trump’s request, Carroll’s lawyers maintained that the attack has harmed her ability to have romantic and sexual relationships, and she has suffered intrusive memories.They pointed to a psychologist’s testimony at trial that Carroll had some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.“Trump’s motion is nothing more than his latest effort to obfuscate the import of the jury’s verdict by engaging in his own particular Trump-branded form of magical thinking,” her lawyers wrote.Trump’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.For the full story, click here:Several progressive lawmakers have released a joint statement to announce they will boycott Modi’s joint address to Congress.Missouri representative Cori Bush; Michigan representative Rashida Tlaib; Minnesota represetatiev Ilhan Omar; and New York representative Jamaal Bowman shared the statement on Thursday.They will be joining other legislators, including New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are not attending Modi’s address in light of human right abuses in India.Read the joint statement below:
      When it comes to standing up for human rights, actions speak louder than words. By bestowing Prime Minister Modi with the rare honor of a joint address, Congress undermines its ability to be a credible advocate for the rights of religious minorities and journalists around the world.
      Modi has a notorious and extensive record of human rights abuses. He was complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots that killed over 1,000 people, leading to the revocation of his U.S. visa. His government has openly targeted Muslims and other religious minorities, enabled Hindu nationalist violence, undermined democracy, targeted journalists and dissidents, and suppressed criticism using authoritarian tactics like Internet shutdowns and censorship.
      It is shameful to honor these abuses by allowing Modi to address a joint session of Congress. We refuse to participate in it and will be boycotting the joint address. We stand in solidarity with the communities that have been harmed by Modi and his policies. We must never sacrifice human rights at the altar of political expediency and we urge all Members of Congress who profess to stand for freedom and democracy to join us in boycotting this embarrassing spectacle.
      The two individuals who guaranteed bail for New York’s Republican congressman George Santos has ben identified as his father and aunt.The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports:The revelation that Gercino dos Santos Jr and Elma Preven were the people behind Santos’ bail solves a running mystery that had fascinated Washington-watchers and also a wider American public obsessed with the travails of a politician famous for playing fast and loose with the truth.Santos had tried to stop the legal process of them being named, arguing disclosure could threaten the guarantors’ safety amid a “media frenzy” and “hateful attacks”.Santos’s lawyer had also said that his client would rather go to jail himself than have his guarantors unmasked. But Santos seemed to have backed off that wish by not asking to change the conditions of his bail after a federal judge in New York dismissed his appeal to keep the names sealed.Media organisations and the House ethics committee had asked that the names be revealed.Santos, 34, won election in New York last year, in a district covering parts of Long Island and Queens. He has been dogged by controversy and calls to resign. His résumé has been shown to be largely made-up and past behavior – sometimes allegedly criminal, other times bizarrely picaresque – widely reported.Santos has admitted to embellishing his résumé but denies wrongdoing. In court in May, he pleaded not guilty to all charges.For the full story, click here:Biden and Modi have wrapped up their joint press conference, where they discussed a range of issues including climate change and democracy.Here is an update from Mary Yang for the Guardian with updates on what the two world leaders discussed.Another reporter asked Biden about criticisms that the US is not implementing solutions to climate change or transferring technologies to developing nations that would address warming.Both countries have agreed to work on tackling climate change as apart of the G20 forum.Here is an explainer on progress made during the last summit in November 2022.A reporter asked Biden about comments he made calling China president Xi Jinping a “dictator” and if such remarks complicate progress that the Biden administration has made on maintaining a relationship with China.“The answer to your first question is no,” said Biden, adding that he expects to be meeting with Jinping soon and that State Secretary Antony Blinken had a productive trip to the country recently.Biden was also asked about criticisms he faces about overlooking human rights violations in India, including the targeting of religious minorities and dissent.Biden added: “The prime minister and I had a good discussion about democratic values. That’s the nature of our relationship, we’re straight forward with each other and we respect each other.”Biden noted that both India and US are democracies, compared to China.Biden also mentioned press freedom in his opening statement, saying that both countries “cherish freedom and celebrate the democratic values of universal human rights which face challenges around the world and in each of our countries.” “Press freedom, religious freedom, tolerance, diversity…India now is the most populous country in the world… The backbone of our people…and talents and traditions make us strong as nations,” said Biden.“The friendship between our nations is only going to grow as we face a future together,” he added.In Joe Biden’s opening statement, the president talked about a series of topics discussed with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi, including technological advancements such as semi-conductor supply chains, telecommunication networks, and growing major defense partnerships with further joint exercises.Biden also talked about the expansion of educational opportunities for Indian students and to build “on the record of 125,000 student visas for Indians to study in the United States.”The Ukraine-Russia was was also discussed, with Biden saying, “We talked about our shared efforts to mitigate humanitarian tragedies unleashed by Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine and to defend core principles of the UN charter.”Joe Biden and Narendra Modi have started their press conference.Former US president Barack Obama has addressed Modi’s visit to the United States in a new interview with CNN, saying, “The protection of Muslim minorities in a majority Hindu India, that’s something worth mentioning.”Speaking to CNN host Christiane Amanpour, Obama said:“I do think it is appropriate for the president of the United States…to challenge, whether behind closed doors or in public, trends that are troubling…If the president meets with prime minister Modi, then the protection of Muslim minorities in a majority Hindu India, that’s something worth mentioning… If I had a conversation with prime minister Modi…part of my argument would be if you don’t protect the rights of ethnic minorities in India, there’s a strong possibility India starts pulling apart.”As we wait for the press conference with Biden and Modi, here is the Committee to Protect Journalists’ statement urging India to stop its media crackdowns and to release detained journalists.
      “Press freedom is under attack in India,” said CPJ, adding, “India is the world’s largest democracy, yet it is one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the media…
      Leaders around the world who value democracy must urger those in power in India to stop the threats against journalists there. Democracy depends on a free press.”
      CPJ’s president Jodie Ginsberg also issued a statement, saying, “Since Modi assumed power in 2014, there has been an increasing crackdown on India’s media…
      India is the world’s largest democracy and it needs to live up to that by ensuring a free and independent media – and we expect the United States to make this a core element of discussions.”
      US president Joe Biden and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi are scheduled to host a press conference soon.We will be bringing you the latest updates. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Alito’s wrongdoing makes a supreme court ethics overhaul an imperative | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      The US supreme court is an extraordinarily exclusive club. The nine members are unelected and employed for life, or until they step down voluntarily. And, as in many exclusive clubs, the membership likes to keep things just as they have always been.Tradition has its merits, of course, but recent events clearly show that change is urgently needed.The court, shockingly, is not bound by a code of ethics as lower courts are. Federal laws about financial disclosures, for example, do apply to them, but there is no clear method of enforcement.The remedy, a bad one, apparently is that these justices are so wise that they will police themselves. Clearly, that doesn’t happen, or not effectively enough.More proof came this week when the excellent investigative news outlet ProPublica revealed that, in 2008, Justice Samuel Alito took a trip to Alaska on the private jet of hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer – a trip that likely would have cost more than $100,000 if arranged independently.But Alito never disclosed the trip. What’s worse – and perhaps entirely predictable – Singer’s businesses were involved in several supreme court cases over the next few years, and Alito didn’t recuse himself.He’s being blasted for it in some corners, and so is the court. Rightly so.“The billionaire who paid for private jet rides and luxury fishing trips for Samuel Alito also bankrolled the groups funding the plaintiffs in the student loan relief case,” complained Sawyer Hackett, a senior adviser to Julián Castro, the former San Antonio mayor and Obama cabinet member. (Two lawsuits have challenged the legality of President Biden’s $400bn student loan forgiveness plan; the supreme court is expected to rule on it within weeks.)And Hackett asked the obvious question, given that reality: “How can this court be considered legitimate?”The answer is that it can’t be, until the court gets its house in order. The Alito revelations come on top of recent ProPublica reporting about Justice Clarence Thomas’s ethical lapses – specifically his acceptance of financial favors from Texas billionaire Harlan Crow, another Republican donor. Crow made tuition payments for a member of Thomas’s family, paid for lavish trips and participated in a dubious real estate deal involving the home that the justice’s mother lived in.Sadly, these justices aren’t the only ones behaving badly: the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page agreed to publish Alito’s defensive statement, in an op-ed, about the ProPublica revelations before the investigative article had even run. (Alito wouldn’t comment on ProPublica’s reporting when he was given the opportunity before publication.) Call it a “pre-buttal”, and one that lacked even a basic level of journalistic solidarity on the part of the Journal’s opinion side. Thought experiment: what if, say, the Washington Post’s editorial board had allowed Elizabeth Holmes to pre-empt John Carreyrou’s investigation for the Wall Street Journal that exposed the fraudulent practices of her blood-testing company, Theranos (her crimes sent her to federal prison last month).What’s to be done about these persistent judicial ethics lapses?“When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself,” ProPublica noted.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThat’s not nearly good enough.For years, good-government groups and thinktanks have been advocating for change.In 2019, the well-respected Brennan Center for Justice, in an extensive report, urged the court to voluntarily adopt a formal ethics code, rather than wait for Congress to impose one. It also called for the court to explain justices’ reasons for recusal, in order to provide more transparency, and to strengthen its informal – and all-too-weak – practices governing gifts and financial disclosures.All good and necessary ideas. And it would be ideal for the court to get to work on all of that.But since there seems little appetite to do so, it’s left up to Congress to do it for them. Checks, balances and all of that.Today’s supreme court is extremely powerful, increasingly political and decreasingly trusted. It’s never been more obvious that ethics reform needs to happen now.
      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      What is affirmative action designed to do – and what has it achieved?

      by

      The US supreme court could be poised to ban the use of affirmative action policies in college admissions as soon as Thursday. The court, which is expected to deliver its ruling either this week or next, will determine whether race-conscious admissions violate the equal-protection clause under the US constitution.Envisioned as a tool to help remedy historical discrimination and create more diverse student bodies, affirmative action policies have permitted hundreds of colleges and universities to factor in students’ racial backgrounds during the admissions process. That consideration is supplementary, and taken in tandem with other factors such as applicants’ test scores, grades and extracurricular activities.Even with race-conscious admissions, however, many selective public and private colleges and universities struggle to enroll diverse student populations that accurately reflect society. At the University of North Carolina, for example, in a state where 21% of people are Black, just 8% of the school’s undergraduates are Black.Opponents of affirmative action, such as the advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions, argue that considering race as a factor in the admissions process amounts to racial discrimination – particularly against Asian Americans. SFA has brought cases against Harvard University, the nation’s oldest private university, and UNC, the nation’s first public university, to challenge their affirmative action policies, which the group contends favors Black and Latino students. Ultimately, it hopes that race considerations will be nixed from the admissions process entirely, and replaced by race-neutral or “color-blind” policies.What is affirmative action designed to do?The concept of affirmative action originated in 1961 when President John F Kennedy issued an executive order directing government agencies to ensure that all Americans get an equal opportunity in employment. President Lyndon Johnson took it one step further in 1965, barring public and private organizations that had a federal contract from discriminating based on race, color, religion and national origin. The prohibition was added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.In 1969, President Richard Nixon’s assistant labor secretary, Arthur Fletcher, who would eventually be known as the “father of affirmative action”, pushed for requiring employers to set “goals and timetables” to hire more Black workers. That effort, known as the Revised Philadelphia Plan, would later influence how many schools approached their own race-conscious admissions programs.The practice was challenged when Allan Bakke, a white man who was twice denied entry to the medical school at the University of California at Davis, sued the university, arguing that its policies, which included allocating seats for “qualified” students of color, discriminated against him. In 1978, the supreme court narrowly rejected the use of “racial quotas”, but noted that colleges and universities could use race as a factor in the admissions process. Justice Lewis Powell noted that achieving diversity represented a “compelling government interest”.What has affirmative action in college admissions actually achieved?After generations of near total exclusion of Black students and other students of color, colleges and universities began admitting more diverse groups in the 1960s and 70s, and soon thereafter incorporated race-consciousness into their admissions policies.Data shows that the rise of affirmative action policies in higher education has bolstered diversity on college campuses. In 1965, Black students accounted for roughly 5% of all undergraduates. And between 1965 and 2001, the percentage of Black undergraduates doubled. The number of Latino undergraduates also rose during that time. Still, the practice of factoring race into the admissions process faced repeated attacks. In 1998, during an era of conservatism, California voters approved Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action in any state or government agency, including its university system. Since then, eight more states have eliminated such race-conscious policies.What could happen next?The end of affirmative action at those state levels shows just how impactful the consideration of race in admissions has been: a UC Berkeley study found that after the ban in California, the number of applicants of color in the UC system “sharply shifted away from UC’s most selective Berkeley and UCLA campuses, causing a cascade of students to enroll at lower-quality public institutions and some private universities”. Specifically, the number of Black freshmen admitted to UC Berkeley dropped to 3.6% between 2006 and 2010 – almost half of its population before the ban.In an amicus brief in the Harvard case, attorneys for the University of Michigan, which had to stop considering race in admissions in 2006, argued that despite “persistent, vigorous and varied efforts” to achieve diversity, it has struggled to do so without race-consciousness. The number of Black and Native American students has “dramatically” dropped since the end of affirmative action in the state.Though students of color remain underrepresented at selective colleges and universities today, institutions argue that their presence helps shape students’ on-campus experiences. The possible removal of race consideration from college admissions would set a precedent for a less diverse school system, which stands in stark contrast to an increasingly diverse world. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court made a surprising ruling for Native American rights | Nick Estes

      by

      A white couple in Texas felt racially discriminated against when facing barriers to adopting a Navajo child. Backed by powerful corporate interests and other non-Native families, the Brackeens brought their grievance to the US supreme court and attempted to overturn the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA. The “rights” of individuals thereby stood against the collective rights of entire nations of people who were here first in a legal system not of their own making. The Brackeens argued that the law privileges Indians as a race over others, including white families, and is, therefore, unconstitutional. The argument reeked of “reverse racism”, a bogus notion that measures taken to protect marginalized people end up harming white people.The ICWA, however, was designed to reverse a sordid history of Native family separation that benefited white families seeking to adopt Native children. More importantly, the law guarantees that federally recognized tribes have a say in their children’s futures by keeping them with Native families. Those determinations are not based on race but on the political status of tribes and the rights of their members.Indian country blew a huge sigh of relief on Thursday when the rightwing-majority court ruled against the Brackeens and upheld the ICWA. A decision otherwise would have had dire consequences for tribes. Beyond removing protections for their children, it could have changed tribes’ status, which precedes the existence of the United States and its constitution, to that of racial minorities whose remaining lands, histories and identities would, without thought, be absorbed into the American melting pot.The 7-2 decision should be celebrated as a clear sign that not only is tribal sovereignty a constitutional reality, but it is also here to stay. Sadly, the supreme court, throughout its history, has more often done harm to Native sovereignty than protected it. “Often, Native American tribes have come to his court seeking justice only to leave with bowed heads and empty hands,” admitted Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, in his concurring majority opinion. His opinion offers a rich history of Indian child removal, examining the transition from federal Indian boarding schools to state welfare systems and adoption agencies that engaged in Native family separation.Gorsuch also writes of a 19th-century court that created the foundations of federal Indian law, upon which today’s justices draw. The court made those decisions during a time of great horror for Native people – often providing legal justification for Indigenous genocide and land seizures. In the 1823 case Johnson v M’Intosh, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that the United States inherited its right to Native lands from previous European powers. “Conquest gives a title which the courts of the conqueror cannot deny,” he wrote. The right to take lands from non-Christians and non-Europeans derived from 15th-century papal bulls known as the “doctrine of discovery”.That principle of racial and civilizational superiority hasn’t gone away and today infects the minds of jurists of all stripes. As recently as 2005, the supreme court invoked the doctrine in a ruling against a land claim by the Oneida Indian Nation. Writing against tribal sovereignty, the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned against “rekindling embers of (tribal) sovereignty that long ago grew cold”.Last March, after the tireless advocacy of Indigenous peoples, the Vatican “repudiat(ed) those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political ‘doctrine of discovery’”. That rejection, however, didn’t undo the centuries of terror against Indigenous peoples and their children taken from them to be “civilized” according to Christian principles. It didn’t return the land or property the Catholic church stole from Indigenous peoples. And it didn’t overturn the fundamental premise upon which federal Indian law still rests – European conquest.In his concurring opinion in Haaland v Brackeen, Gorsuch makes a strong case defending tribal sovereignty against the overbroad powers of Congress to curtail tribal sovereignty and the overreach of states in his concurring opinion. Liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor joined Gorsuch in his opinion. But they didn’t concur with his assertion that the principle that Congress has “plenary power” to divest tribes of their sovereignty conflicts with the original understanding of the constitution. Gorsuch argues that the constitution doesn’t grant the authority to limit tribal sovereignty. Yet Congress has used its powers to terminate federally recognized tribes and divest tribes of criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.Gorsuch’s concurring opinion shows he is the most serious about engaging federal Indian law and history. How far his call for aligning Indian law with original understandings of the constitution will go is anyone’s guess. His sympathies with tribal sovereignty also show that getting good legal outcomes for tribal nations is like rolling the dice with unelected judges who hold so much sway over the survival and existence of tribal nations.But the victory in keeping ICWA and upholding tribal sovereignty doesn’t lie with Gorsuch. Leading up to this decision, tribes and activists led an effective political campaign to teach the public. Since ICWA’s passage in 1978, 14 states passed their own state versions of the law. In anticipation of ICWA being overturned, several states (including several Republican-majority state governments) recently passed protections to uphold it.The popular sentiment is on the side of tribal sovereignty. It’s now a question of what actions must be taken to ensure the collective rights of tribes are guarded against the individual and corporate desires to lay claim to Native lands, identities and children.
      Nick Estes is a member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and an assistant professer of American Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota. He is a journalist, historian and the host of the Red Nation Podcast. He is the author of Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Missouri student loan provider baffled by inclusion in supreme court debt relief challenge

      by

      Newly released emails obtained by the Student Borrower Protection Center reveal employees at a student loan service provider in Missouri expressed confusion over the state’s attorney general placing the provider at the center of a lawsuit filed to block the Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.The United States supreme court is expected to issue a ruling on a legal challenge to the president’s student debt forgiveness of up to $20,000 in the coming weeks. That challenge – filed by the Missouri attorney general and five other Republican-led states – and another challenge filed by the conservative advocacy organization, Job Creators Network, made it to the supreme court.The Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority – or Mohela – is at the center of the challenge by the GOP-led states, claiming the loan service provider would lose revenue and face negative impacts over its financial obligations to Missouri. Consumer advocates, meanwhile, have pointed out that Mohela stands to gain revenue from Biden’s cancellation plan.In court hearings on the challenges earlier this year, US supreme court justices questioned why Mohela did not bring its own legal challenges to Biden’s debt cancellation plan and how the Republican-led states could claim harm on their behalf.Emails released since establish that Mohela employees expressed similar confusion.“The [Missouri] state AG needed to claim that our borrowers were harmed for standing, so they’re making us look bad by filing this not only with [Missouri] on it, but especially bad because they filed it in [Missouri],” wrote a Mohela employee in September 2022.Another Mohela employee asked in an October 2022 email: “just out of curiosity, is MOHELA apart of the lawsuit going on to prevent the loan forgiveness? Are we the bad guys?”A fellow employee responded, “Mohela isn’t technically a part of that lawsuit, the Missouri AG is suing on their behalf. However, it’s all about the [Family Federal Education Loans] stuff, and since they changed the rules, that lawsuit should be ruled as lacking standing.”Ella Azoulay, a Student Borrower Protection Center research and policy analyst, argued the emails confirmed the “partisan hack job” of Missouri’s lawsuit to block student debt relief.The legal challenges have paused Biden’s student debt relief plan announced in August 2022. The relief plan would grant up to $20,000 in student debt relief for Pell grant recipients and up to $10,000 in student debt forgiveness for all other borrowers with annual incomes under $125,000. Nearly 26 million Americans had applied for relief under the plan by November 2022. More