US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican Ted Cruz introduces bill to block US supreme court expansion

      by

      The Republican senator Ted Cruz, whose party defied convention to delay then rush conservatives on to the supreme court, has introduced a constitutional amendment to stop Democrats expanding the court in response.“The Democrats’ answer to a supreme court that is dedicated to upholding the rule of law and the constitution is to pack it with liberals who will rule the way they want,” Cruz said.“The supreme court should be independent, not inflated by every new administration. That’s why I’ve introduced a constitutional amendment to permanently keep the number of justices at nine.”There is no constitutional provision for how many justices sit on the court.Democrats say the current court is not independent of the Republican party.In 2016, when the conservative Antonin Scalia died Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, held the seat open until a Republican president, Donald Trump, could replace a Democrat, Barack Obama, and nominate Scalia’s replacement. Neil Gorsuch filled that seat.In 2020, Democrats were helpless again when Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal lion, died shortly before the presidential election and McConnell changed course, rushing Amy Coney Barrett on to the court before Trump lost to Joe Biden.Those changes and the replacement of the retiring Anthony Kennedy with Brett Kavanaugh produced a court dominated, 6-3, by conservatives.Conservative justices including Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas have claimed not to be influenced by political considerations.Coney Barrett notably did so, saying the court “is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”, while standing next to McConnell at a political studies centre named for the Republican leader.Among conservative rulings passed down by the new super-majority, a May 2022 decision saw the court side with Cruz in a case concerning personal loans to campaigns. The three liberal justices said the ruling paved the way for corruption.But the Dobbs decision of last year, removing the right to abortion, most enraged Democrats and progressives.On the left, plans have been floated to increase the size of the court and thereby redress its ideological balance.Writing for the Guardian last year, David Daley, author of Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count, said: “The court’s hard-right majority has neither popular support for its agenda nor institutional legitimacy.“It is the product of a hostile takeover of the courts 50 years in the planning by conservatives who have long understood that unpopular policies … can be thrust upon Americans by an unaccountable and unelected judiciary.“The court must be expanded and reformed to counter a rightwing power play that threatens to remake American democracy and life itself.”Biden ordered a commission to study options for reform. It found bipartisan support for term limits for justices but reported “profound disagreement” on whether the court should be expanded. Biden has said he is “not a fan” of expanding the court.Cruz’s amendment has little chance of passing a Democratic-held Senate but 10 Republican senators supported it nonetheless.Josh Hawley of Missouri said: “For years the left has been desperate to pack the court to promote their radical agenda. We must ensure that we stay true to the court’s founding principles, maintain the precedent of nine justices, and keep the Democrats from their brazen attempts to rig our democracy.” More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Ron DeSantis has his next target in his sights: freedom of the press | Trevor Timm

      by

      Ron DeSantis has his next target in his sights: freedom of the pressTrevor TimmFlorida’s rightwing governor and legislature want to gut one of the United States’ most important first amendment rulingsRon DeSantis, the Florida governor, and his cronies, not content with destroying free speech in public schools, have set for themselves a new target: destroying press freedom and every Floridian’s right to criticize public officials. Along the way, they aim to overturn the most important first amendment US supreme court decision of the 20th century.The latest bill to raise eyebrows sounds like it’s made up by the opponents of Florida Republicans to make them sound ridiculous. Unfortunately, it’s real. The proposed law, authored by state legislator Jason Brodeur, would – I kid you not – compel “bloggers” who criticize the governor, other officers of the executive branch, or members of the legislature to register with the state of Florida. Under the bill, anyone paid to write on the internet would have to file monthly reports every time they utter a government official’s name in a critical manner. If not, they’d face potentially thousands of dollars in fines.Banning ideas and authors is not a ‘culture war’ – it’s fascism | Jason StanleyRead moreIt’s a policy so chilling that it would make Vladimir Putin proud, and I wish that was hyperbole. In 2014, Russia’s autocratic leader signed a very similar provision, then known as the “blogger’s law”. As the Verge explained at the time, “under it, any blogger with more than 3,000 readers is required to register with the Roskomnadzor, Russia’s media oversight agency”.As despotic as this proposed Florida blogger law may be, it’s also so laughably absurd, and so unconstitutional on its face, that it’s hard to imagine even DeSantis’s rubber-stamp legislature would pass it. As Charles C Cooke recently wrote, “Senator Jason Brodeur is a moron, but he’s a solo moron” with no apparent further support here. One would hope. But the blogger blacklist bill may be useful for another reason: as an attention-grabbing sideshow, to take heat off another free speech-destroying proposal that has DeSantis’s explicit backing – this one aimed at a bedrock principle of press freedom in the United States.For the past few weeks, while his new Orwellian higher education rules have been getting the lion’s share of attention, DeSantis has also been on the warpath against New York Times v Sullivan, the landmark supreme court decision from the early 1960s that set the bar for defamation law in this country – and gave newspapers and citizens alike wide latitude to investigate and criticize government officials.Many legal scholars consider it the most important first amendment decision of the last century. It is one of the primary reasons newspapers in the US can aggressively report on public officials and powerful wealthy individuals without the constant fear that they are going to be sued out of existence. And up until a few years ago, when Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch started criticizing it, everyone assumed it was settled law.Recently, DeSantis staged a dramatic “roundtable” discussion to present to the public that he was now invested in changing Florida defamation law for “the little guys”, “the run-of-the-mill citizens”, the ordinary folk who don’t have “thick skin” like his. He then proceeded to use the majority of the presentation to rail against New York Times v Sullivan, which of course doesn’t apply to “the little guys” at all – only to powerful public figures like him.A few days later, DeSantis’s allies in Florida’s legislature introduced bills that would fulfill his wish and directly violate the Sullivan supreme court ruling. In their original draft, the law’s authors made no attempt to hide their disdain for the bedrock first amendment decision either. They called it out directly in the bill’s preamble, bizarrely stating that the unanimous decision from almost 60 years ago “bears no relation to the text, structure, or history of the first amendment to the United States constitution”. (That sentence was later deleted in the next version.)While the Florida house and senate version vary slightly in specifics, even the “tamer” senate version – introduced by the very same state senator Brodeur – guts almost every aspect of journalists’ rights. Here’s just a partial list of what the bills aim to do:
      Kill off a large part of Florida’s journalist “shield bill”, which protects reporters from being forced to testify in court.
      Presume any news report written with anonymous sources is defamation.
      Roll back Florida’s anti-Slapp law, which ironically protects “little guys” like independent newspapers when they are sued by wealthy individuals for the primary purpose of bankrupting them.
      Weaken the “actual malice” standard from Sullivan, to make it easier for public officials to sue newspapers or critics.
      Now, can states just pass laws that blatantly ignore supreme court precedent? Of course not. Any responsible judge would strike this down as unconstitutional right away. But DeSantis may be hoping for a friendly appeals court ruling from a Trump-appointed judge or supreme court showdown to revisit the Sullivan ruling – following the same decades-long Republican strategy that finally overturned Roe v Wade. And in the meantime, DeSantis can burnish his anti-media bona fides for his presidential run, and Republican legislatures around the country can use the opportunity to copy the bill or one-up him.Whether the bill survives in the long term doesn’t change the fact that it would destroy all media in Florida – the traditional and mainstream, but also the independent and alternative, including all the conservative publications that have sprouted up all over the state in recent years.DeSantis has turned Florida into a national laboratory for speech suppression. And every American – Republican or Democrat – should be horrified.TopicsUS politicsOpinionRon DeSantisFreedom of speechJournalism booksFloridaUS supreme courtcommentReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Walgreens limits abortion pills sales after pressure from conservative states

      by

      Walgreens limits abortion pills sales after pressure from conservative statesRepublican attorneys general threatened the company with legal consequences for sending pills by mailWalgreens will not distribute the abortion pill mifepristone in nearly two dozen conservative states after Republican attorneys general threatened the largest US pharmacy companies with legal consequences for sending abortion pills by mail.South Carolina woman arrested for allegedly using pills to end pregnancyRead moreThe decision, first reported by Politico, came weeks after the attorneys general sent a letter to Walgreens and CVS arguing that sending abortion pills by mail would violate federal law and abortion laws in those states. A spokesperson for Walgreens said the move was in response to that letter.Walgreens had previously announced plans to become a certified pharmacy to dispense the pill in jurisdictions where it was legal to do so after the US Food and Drug Administration opted to allow retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone pills, including by mail.But on Thursday the company confirmed to Politico that it would not dispense abortion pills by mail or within their stores in 20 states, including some states where abortion and medication abortion are legal.“There is currently complexity around this issue in Kansas and elsewhere,” Fraser Engerman, Walgreens’ senior director of external relations, told the outlet.Top Democrats were critical of the move. Adam Schiff described Walgreens as caving. “So much for putting a priority on the health of their customers,” he said on Twitter.Senator Amy Schumer said, “This is exactly why we need to codify the protections of Roe v Wade and guarantee the right to access care.”Abortion pills are a critical part of reproductive care nationwide. Of all US abortions, more than half are now with pills rather than with a procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. But medication abortion has drawn increasing attention since the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade last June.The FDA has limited dispensing of mifepristone to a subset of specialty offices and clinics due to safety concerns for more than 20 years. The agency has repeatedly eased restrictions and expanded access, increasing demand even as state laws make the pills harder to get for many women.But the announcement from Walgreens suggests that mifepristone access may not expand as broadly as federal regulators intended in January. Typically, the FDA’s authority to regulate prescription drug access has gone unchallenged. But more than a dozen states now have laws restricting abortion broadly – and the pills specifically – following last year’s supreme court decision overturning the federal right to abortion.Attorneys general from conservative states have also argued that shipments of mifepristone violate a 19th century law that prohibited sending items used in abortion through the mail.An anti-abortion group filed a federal lawsuit in Texas in November seeking to revoke mifepristone’s approval, claiming the FDA approved the drug 23 years ago without adequate evidence of safety.A federal judge could rule soon. If he sides with abortion opponents, mifepristone could potentially be removed from the US market. Legal experts foresee years of court battles over access to the pills.TopicsAbortionUS politicsRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court justices appear skeptical about Biden’s student debt relief plan – as it happened

      by

      The supreme court’s conservative majority seemed sympathetic today to arguments that Joe Biden’s attempt to cancel some student debt under a two-decade old federal law was an unconstitutional expansion of power, Bloomberg News reports.The court today heard two cases challenging the program Biden announced last year, one filed by a group of Republican-led states, and the other by two people who sued because they were left out of the program. According to Bloomberg, several of the court’s six conservatives judges expressed skepticism to the government’s argument that the Covid-19 pandemic constituted the sort of emergency that would allow debt cancellation under a 2003 law.Here’s more from the report:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}As the court heard two cases Tuesday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested he is wary of expanding presidential powers during national emergencies. The Biden administration argues that the student loan forgiveness program is a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
      “Some of the biggest mistakes in the court’s history were deferring to assertions of executive or emergency power,” Kavanaugh said. “Some of the finest moments in the court’s history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency powers.”
      Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Congress didn’t authorize the president to unilaterally take a step with such enormous financial implications for millions of Americans.
      “We’re talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans. How does that fit under the normal understanding of modifying?” Roberts said, referring to a key word in the 2003 law at the center of the case.
      The law, known as the Heroes Act, says the secretary can “waive or modify” provisions to ensure that debtors “are not placed in a worse position financially” because of a national emergency.
      Roberts likened the case to the court’s 5-4 decision that blocked the Trump administration from ending a program shielding hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation. Roberts joined the court’s liberal wing in the majority in that 2020 case.Joe Biden’s plan to relieve some student loan debt may soon be struck down by conservative supreme court justices, who sounded skeptical of the government’s argument that the program was permitted under federal law. Elsewhere, Florida governor Ron DeSantis still has not said if he will run for president, but plans to travel to the states that vote first in the Republican nomination process. It seems a formal announcement is just a matter of time.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      The House foreign affairs committee is holding a hearing about China’s global influence, ahead of this evening’s primetime session of a special panel to examine Beijing’s competition with the United States.
      GOP House speaker Kevin McCarthy will make about 40,000 hours of surveillance footage from January 6 available to the public, after sparking furor by releasing the video to Tucker Carlson.
      The House Republican “weaponization” committee plans to scrutinize the Twitter files.
      A Florida Republican lawmaker wants to formally terminate the state’s Democratic party.
      The Biden White House may soon get its first Asian-American cabinet secretary.
      In a House armed services committee hearing today on America’s military aid to Ukraine, Matt Gaetz, a rightwing lawmaker who is opposed to arming Kyiv, thought he had backed a top defense department official into a corner.In questioning Colin Kahl, the defense department’s undersecretary for policy, Gaetz cited a report that indicated the Azov battalion had received American weapons for years. Founded in 2014, the unit is controversial because some of its early members held far-right views, though commanders say it has since moved away from that ideology.The problem? The report Gaetz cited was published in the Global Times, an English-language publication of the Chinese Communist party.In the polite fashion of a congressional witness, Kahl called out Gaetz for falling for what he said was “Beijing’s propaganda”. You can watch the exchange in the clip below, around the three-minute mark:Rep. Matt Gaetz asks about Global Times Investigative report.@DOD_Policy Kahl: “Is this the Global Times from China?”@RepMattGaetz: “No, this is well…yeah, it might be. Yeah…”Kahl: “I don’t take Beijing’s propaganda at face value.”Gaetz: “Fair enough.” pic.twitter.com/9XQewKdZeA— CSPAN (@cspan) February 28, 2023
      Tucker Carlson’s staff was allowed to view the 40,000-plus hours of surveillance footage Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy handed over, but needed permission to copy any video, CBS News reports.Carlson’s employees “may request any particular [video] clips they may need, then we’ll make sure there’s nothing sensitive, nothing classified, including escape routes,” according to Barry Loudermilk, the Republican chair of a subcommittee under the House committee on administration. “We don’t want al Qaeda to know certain things.”McCarthy’s decision to provide the footage to Carlson – a popular Fox News commentator who has downplayed the attack by Donald Trump’s supporters on the Capitol – sparked fury among Democrats, who argued the footage could compromise Congress’s security arrangements.McCarthy has said he will soon make the footage public, but today told reporters he wanted to first give Carlson exclusive access:.@GarrettHaake asked @SpeakerMcCarthy why he gave Jan 6 security footage to Tucker Carlson.MCCARTHY: “Have you ever had an exclusive? Because I see it on your networks all the time. So he’ll have an exclusive, then I’ll give it out to the entire country.” pic.twitter.com/2zsnKmUb4V— Kyle Stewart (@KyleAlexStewart) February 28, 2023
      The Senate’s Democratic leader Chuck Schumer is calling for the testimony of Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw, after one of the freight rail company’s trains derailed in East Palestine, Ohio earlier this month and spilled toxic chemicals:Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calls on Alan Shaw, the CEO of Norfolk Southern, to testify following the train derailment disaster in East Palestine, Ohio:“Mr. Shaw, you have an obligation — obligation — after what happened to testify before the Senate.” pic.twitter.com/h6acw8EDYL— The Recount (@therecount) February 28, 2023
      The supreme court’s conservative majority seemed sympathetic today to arguments that Joe Biden’s attempt to cancel some student debt under a two-decade old federal law was an unconstitutional expansion of power, Bloomberg News reports.The court today heard two cases challenging the program Biden announced last year, one filed by a group of Republican-led states, and the other by two people who sued because they were left out of the program. According to Bloomberg, several of the court’s six conservatives judges expressed skepticism to the government’s argument that the Covid-19 pandemic constituted the sort of emergency that would allow debt cancellation under a 2003 law.Here’s more from the report:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}As the court heard two cases Tuesday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested he is wary of expanding presidential powers during national emergencies. The Biden administration argues that the student loan forgiveness program is a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
      “Some of the biggest mistakes in the court’s history were deferring to assertions of executive or emergency power,” Kavanaugh said. “Some of the finest moments in the court’s history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency powers.”
      Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Congress didn’t authorize the president to unilaterally take a step with such enormous financial implications for millions of Americans.
      “We’re talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans. How does that fit under the normal understanding of modifying?” Roberts said, referring to a key word in the 2003 law at the center of the case.
      The law, known as the Heroes Act, says the secretary can “waive or modify” provisions to ensure that debtors “are not placed in a worse position financially” because of a national emergency.
      Roberts likened the case to the court’s 5-4 decision that blocked the Trump administration from ending a program shielding hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation. Roberts joined the court’s liberal wing in the majority in that 2020 case.Biden administration officials faced tough questioning from both Republicans and Democrats on the House foreign affairs committee during today’s hearing on US-Chinese relations.Congressman Brad Sherman, a Democrat of California, criticized China for failing to cooperate with investigators seeking to determine the origins of Covid-19, and he pressed Daniel Kritenbrink, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, on why the state department had not done more to condemn China’s “obfuscation”.“They failed to cooperate. They failed to come clean,” Sherman said. “The state department has done almost nothing to tell the world how China is responsible, not maybe for the virus, but certainly for their obfuscation and failure to cooperate afterwards.”Kritenbrink replied, “We have long stated that China needs to do a better job of being transparent.”Shortly after that tense exchange, congresswoman Sara Jacobs, a Democrat of California, asked Kritenbrink how the state department defines competition with China and how US officials can ensure that such competition does not devolve into conflict.“We’re competing for and fighting for the kind of region that we want to live in,” Kritenbrink said. “We talk about a free and open region where countries can freely pursue their interests and where people in those countries can enjoy freedom.”Jacobs replied, “I just think it’s really important that we stay focused on those end goals because China’s not going anywhere. We don’t want to feed into the [Chinese Communist Party’s] talking points around us just being out to weaken China for the sake of weakening them indefinitely.”Julie Su has received Joe Biden’s nomination to become the next labor secretary, the White House announced.If Su wins the Senate’s required approval, she would be the Biden administration’s first cabinet-level secretary of Asian-American descent. She would succeed labor secretary Marty Walsh, who is now leading the National Hockey League players’ union after becoming the first cabinet secretary to depart Biden’s White House.The White House’s announcement Tuesday contained a statement from Biden, which referred to Su, who once served as California’s labor secretary, as a longtime “champion for workers” and “a critical partner” to Walsh.“She helped avert a national rail shutdown, improved access to good jobs free from discrimination through my Good Jobs Initiative, and is ensuring that the jobs we create in critical sectors like semiconductor manufacturing, broadband and healthcare are good-paying, stable and accessible jobs for all,” Biden said.In 2021, the Senate appointed Su as Biden’s deputy labor secretary in a vote along party lines. After last fall’s midterms, Biden’s Democratic party controls the Senate by a 51-49 margin.The Democratic Pennsylvania senator John Fetterman is out of work for a few weeks at least while the staff of Walter Reed medical center in Washington DC treats him for depression. But Biden’s vice-president Kamala Harris can serve as a tie breaker for any votes that require it.Biden’s cabinet was the first in 20 years without a secretary with Asian American or Pacific Island heritage. Asian-American legislators and advocate had pushed for Biden to nominate Su to the labor secretary’s role after he defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 election, and again pushed for her to be put up for the position after Walsh’s departure.Testifying before the House foreign affairs committee this morning, Daniel Kritenbrink, US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said that China represents “our most consequential geopolitical challenge”.“It is the only competitor with both the intent and increasingly the economic, diplomatic, military and technological capability to reshape the international order,” Kritenbrink said.“The scale and the scope of the challenge posed by the [People’s Republic of China] as it becomes more repressive at home and more aggressive abroad will test American diplomacy like few issues we have seen.”Kritenbrink noted that the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, met with his Chinese counterpart on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference earlier this month. In that discussion, Blinken condemned China’s “unacceptable and irresponsible violation of US sovereignty” with its use of a surveillance balloon shot down by American fighter jets on 4 February off the coast of South Carolina, Kritenbrink said. Blinken also warned China about the potential consequences of providing material support to Russia in its war against Ukraine.“At the same time, the secretary reiterated our commitment to maintaining open lines of communication at all times, so as to reduce the risk of miscalculation that could lead to conflict,” Kritenbrink said.“In coordination with US government departments and agencies, this committee and colleagues across Capitol Hill, we’re confident we can sustain the resources and policies needed to prevail in our competition with the PRC.”It seems the figurative wipeout of the Florida Democratic party in the midterm elections was not enough for the state’s Republicans, who on Tuesday introduced legislation to have it formally terminated.Unashamedly billed “The Ultimate Cancel Act” by its sponsor, vociferous conservative state senator Blaise Ingoglia, the bill requires Florida’s division of elections to decertify any political party that has “previously advocated for, or been in support of, slavery or involuntary servitude.”In a press release accompanying Senate Bill 1248, Ingoglia, who tweets using the handle GovGoneWild and is a devotee of Florida’s far-right governor Ron DeSantis, insists that because the Democratic party adopted “pro-slavery positions” in at least five conventions during the 19th century, it has no place in politics in 2023 or beyond.Additionally, the bill would automatically transfer the registrations of Florida’s 4.9m registered Democratic voters to no-party affiliates.Democrats in Florida lost by huge margins in 2022, now Republicans here want to eliminate the party pic.twitter.com/zQ80TmnrkG— Matt Dixon (@Mdixon55) February 28, 2023
      “For years now, leftist activists have been trying to ‘cancel’ people and companies for things they have said and done in the past,” Ingoglia claims in the release, which also cites the removal of controversial Civil War-era statues and memorials.The release, tweeted by Politico’s Florida bureau chief Matt Dixon, goes on to say: “Using this standard, it would be hypocritical not to cancel the Democratic party itself for the same reason.”It remains to be seen if Ingoglia’s bill gains any traction. But with a supermajority in both houses of Florida’s legislature, Republicans certainly have the numbers to pass it.Joe Biden’s plan to relieve some student loan debt is having its day at the supreme court, where conservative groups are arguing to do away with the proposal. However, there are signs at least one conservative justice may believe the individuals and states trying to undo the Biden administration’s signature program for debt-burdened Americans don’t have standing to sue. Elsewhere, Florida governor Ron DeSantis still hasn’t said if he will run for president, but plans to travel to the states that vote first in the Republican nomination process. It seems a formal announcement is just a matter of time.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      The House foreign affairs committee is holding a hearing about China’s global influence, ahead of this evening’s primetime session of a special panel to examine Beijing’s competition with the United States.
      GOP House speaker Kevin McCarthy will make about 40,000 hours of surveillance footage from January 6 available to the public, after sparking furor by releasing the video to Tucker Carlson.
      The House Republican “weaponization” committee will scrutinize the Twitter files.
      As they heard two cases intended to stop Joe Biden’s student debt cancelation program this morning, some of the supreme court’s nine justices questioned whether conservatives suing over the program had the ability to do so.The court is currently dominated by conservatives, who hold a six-member majority that could upend the Biden administration’s plan to help Americans saddled with student loans. The questions justices pose to attorneys appearing before them in their hearings are no guarantees of how they will ultimately vote, but there are indications at least some conservatives are skeptical of the challengers, particularly Amy Coney Barrett.Here are what a few supreme court watchers saw in this morning’s arguments:I think this Supreme Court will likely do whatever’s necessary to abolish Biden’s student debt relief plan, but arguments aren’t going as well for the challengers as a LOT of people expected. Barrett sounds extremely skeptical on standing. The liberals are roasting Nebraska’s SG.— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) February 28, 2023
      Argument in the first student-debt case just wrapped up. There’s a clear majority of conservative justices to strike down Biden’s order on the merits. But it’s less clear if there’s one to overcome standing hurdles to get there. Barrett was pretty pointed in Qs for MO’s SG.— Matt Ford (@fordm) February 28, 2023
      Three liberals clearly against state standing and for Biden Admin on the merits.Barrett unsympathetic to state standing, ambiguous on merits.Alito clearly for state standing, against Biden on merits.Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kav against Biden on merits, quiet on standing.— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) February 28, 2023 More

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      In a more just world, this would be the 50th anniversary of Roe v Wade | Moira Donegan

      by

      In a more just world, this would be the 50th anniversary of Roe v WadeMoira DoneganUntil last year, Roe made it more possible for women’s lives to be determined by their choices, not merely by their bodies If the supreme court hadn’t overturned it last June, undoing a longstanding precedent and inflicting untold harm to women’s well-being and dignity, Sunday 22 January would have been the fiftieth anniversary of Roe v Wade.Over those 50 years, Roe changed American life dramatically. Abortion became a routine part of life, a resource people planned their lives around having. In contrast to its political controversy, abortion in the Roe era was – as it is now – aggressively common. Approximately one in four American women will have an abortion at some point in the course of their reproductive lives.The figure lends credence to the pro-choice assertion that everyone loves someone who had an abortion – and the accompanying quip that if you think you don’t know a woman who has had an abortion, you really just don’t know any women who trust you enough to tell you. But part of the legacy of Roe is not just that these women you know and love have been able to have freer, healthier, more volitional lives, but also that their abortions, for many of them, are not worth confessing. For most, abortions were not tragedies to be whispered about, or life-altering moments of shame, but banalities, choices to which they were unquestionably entitled, and from which they could move unconflictedly on. But Roe is gone. Now, for many women, these choices are crimes.It’s worth reflecting on what we had during those 49 years. While it stood, Roe offered a promise: that women’s lives need not be circumscribed by so-called “biological destiny”; that gender – its relations, performances, and obligations – might not be something that is imposed on women, but something that they take up and discard on their own terms. In the Roe era, this frank entitlement by women to determine the courses of their own lives was the decision’s greatest legacy. Individual women’s distinction and determination, or their conflictedness and confusion, or their ambivalence and exploration: once, before Roe, these parts of a woman’s personality almost didn’t matter; they were incidental eccentricities along the inevitable road to motherhood. Roe made it more possible for women’s lives to be determined by their characters, not merely by their bodies.It is easy to speak of Roe’s impact in material terms – the way it enabled women’s long march into paid work and into better paid work, how it was a precondition for their soaring achievements in education and the professions, their ascents into positions of power and influence. So little of the vast and varied lives of twentieth-century American women could have been achieved in the absence of abortion or birth control – these women, their minds and careers, are gifts the nation could never have received if they’d been made to be pregnant against their wills, or made to care for unplanned, unlonged-for babies.But it is less easy to discuss the sense of dignity that Roe gave to American women, the way that the freedom to control when and whether they would have children endowed American women, for the first time, with something like the gravitas of adults. Roe opened a door for women into dignity, into self-determination, into the still wild and incendiary idea that they, like men, might be endowed with the prerogatives of citizenship, and entitled to chart the course of their own lives.This, at least, was the aspiration that Roe came to stand for: women’s freedom, their independence, their acceptance as equals in the American project. Of course, it never quite did work out that way: the Hyde amendment, which banned Medicaid funding for abortions, was passed just three years after Roe, in 1976, and effectively excluded poor women from Roe’s promise. Black women faced the dual barriers of moral judgement and eugenicist legacy – for them, often neither the choice to abort nor the choice to parent were fully free. Members of the anti-choice movement, assisted by a judiciary that became increasingly willing to do their bidding, were inventive and sadistically persistent in chipping away at abortion access, making it more expensive, more onerous, and more stigmatized than other kinds of medical care.Even in robustly liberal states, where support for abortion was high and restrictions were few, walking into a clinic still felt like doing something illegal – there was the gauntlet of protestors outside, the receptionists seated behind bulletproof glass. If Roe was supposed to make women equals, why were they made so unequal when they tried to access its protections?Maybe part of the answer is that Roe’s authors never intended the decision to take on the symbolic value that it did. Justice Harry Blackmun’s 1973 opinion famously treats abortion legality as a matter of the rights of doctors, a reasoning that derived from his own respect for medical professionalization, and a legal theory, en vogue at the time, that found privacy protections in the 14th amendment. Like many of his successors on the bench, Blackmun adopted pretensions to medical and moral expertise when confronted with abortion cases that he did not in fact possess. Largely absent from his reasoning were women’s claims to liberty and equality. For the court, for decades, women’s self-determination was largely an afterthought.It was the women’s movement – feminists and pro-choice activists – that transformed Roe into a symbol of women’s aspiration to equality; it was the abortion patients, hundreds of thousands of them, who embodied Roe’s promise when they lived lives they chose for themselves.It was this symbol that the anti-choice movement attacked, and this aspiration that the supreme court, in its ruling overruling Roe, cut down. For 49 years, Roe dignified American women; it outlawed the abortion ban, one of the most egregious attempts to dominate us by force, and it endowed us with the trust and respect of physical freedom. While it lasted, the abortion right was a promise: that the state would not commandeer our insides, could not turn our own bodies against us in order to thwart our desires. This was what the court imposed when it struck down Roe. One day, self-determination, liberty, and autonomy were women’s constitutional right. The next day, women were reduced – in their status, in their citizenship, and in their safety.We still haven’t seen the full extent of what the overturning of Roe will take from us. We haven’t yet seen women’s numbers diminish in public life; we still haven’t grasped the human cost of the lost dreams, the damaged health, the foregone curiosity. Maybe part of the inability to mourn is related to how much we took for granted in the Roe era. As a nation, we became so accustomed to women’s reproductive freedom that we didn’t realize the extent of what it gave to us. We will miss it now that it is gone.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS supreme courtAbortioncommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Roe v Wade: US women win abortion rights – archive, January 1973

      by

      Roe v Wade: US women win abortion rights – archive, 197323 January 1973: The supreme court rules that a woman has a near-absolute right to an abortion, but only in the first three months of her pregnancy Washington, 22 JanuaryIn a long awaited decision the United States supreme court ruled today that a woman has a near-absolute right to an abortion, but only in the first three months of her pregnancy. During the later stages the State has an increasing power of intervention, the court ruled by a seven to two majority; and during the last trimester can refuse to allow the operation.The decision, which came today as part of a lengthy ruling which declared the Texas and Georgia anti-abortion laws unconstitutional, has been generally welcomed by liberal groups here. Mrs Lee Giddings, of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, said today she was “absolutely thrilled.”US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe v WadeRead moreBut one of the two dissenting supreme court justices, the Nixon appointee Justice Byron White (the other dissenting justice was also a Nixon appointee, Mr William Rehnquist), later criticised the verdict as “improvident, extravagant, and an exercise of raw judicial power.”In his ruling, Justice Harry Blackmun said that during the first three months of a pregnancy “the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the woman’s doctor.” After that, the State “In promoting its interest in the mother’s health” may regulate the abortion procedure by among other things, making laws, regulating the doctor’s terms of reference.Only in the third three-month period, when a foetus could presumably live, if there was a premature birth, can the State “regulate or even forbid abortion.” The justices ruled the State could intervene thus “where it was necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of life or the health of the mother.”The one dissenting voice raised today at the supreme court ruling came from the Women’s National Abortion Action Committee, which condemned the “artificial and arbitrary” time limits imposed by judges. A spokesperson, as they say here, says that “a woman should always have an absolute right to determine what happens to her own body.” Harsh reaction is also expected, of course, from the Roman Catholic church and other anti-abortion lobby groups.This is an edited extract. Read the article in full.TopicsAbortionFrom the Guardian archiveRoe v WadeUS supreme courtReproductive rightsLaw (US)WomenUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Democratic chair of Senate intelligence panel seeks briefing on Biden documents – as it happened

      by

      Mark Warner, the Democratic chair of the Senate intelligence committee, has requested a briefing on the classified documents found at Joe Biden’s former office, as well as the government secrets the FBI discovered last year at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.“Our system of classification exists in order to protect our most important national security secrets, and we expect to be briefed on what happened both at Mar-a-Lago and at the Biden office as part of our constitutional oversight obligations,” Warner said in a statement. “From what we know so far, the latter is about finding documents with markings, and turning them over, which is certainly different from a months-long effort to retain material actively being sought by the government. But again, that’s why we need to be briefed.”House Republicans geared up to launch investigations and tried to make the most of reports that classified documents dating to his time as vice-president were found in an office used by Joe Biden. But unlike with the government secrets the FBI found at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, it didn’t take a search warrant for Biden to turn over the material – he had it done so immediately, which Democrats are citing to defend the president.Here’s what else went on today:
      The Democratic Senate intelligence chair requested a briefing on both Biden’s classified documents, and the government secrets found at Mar-a-Lago.
      House Democrat Katie Porter announced a run for the California Senate seat up for election in 2024, but its current occupant, Dianne Feinstein, gave no indication she’d be stepping down. Meanwhile, Porter’s recently defeated Republican opponent announced plans to run for her seat again.
      The House GOP made clear it wants spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, which will be necessary later this year.
      George Santos may be an admitted fabulist, but a top House Republican had little to say about whether the party would discipline him for his lies. Also today, two Democrats hand-delivered an ethics complaint to his office.
      A Texas House Republican filed impeachment articles against homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. It remains to be seen if the chamber’s leadership will go through with trying to remove him over his handling of the southern border.
      Katie Porter only narrowly won re-election to her southern California House district last year, and after she today announced plans to run for Senate in 2024, her former opponent declared a new campaign to take her seat.Republican Scott Baugh, who lost with 48.4% of the vote to Democrat Porter’s 51.6% in the 2022 election, said he would run again next year:Voters are rightfully upset with the dysfunction in Washington and deserve better. I am ready to go to work to restore thoughtful, conservative representation to our part of Orange County. That’s why I’m running for #CA47 in 2024.— Scott Baugh (@ScottBaughCA47) January 10, 2023
      Porter represents California’s 47th district centered on Orange county, a former Republican stronghold that has become more liberal in recent elections. The Cook Political Report’s partisan voting index rates it D+3, indicating a slight tilt towards the Democrats.The Trump Organization’s former finance chief has been sentenced to five months in prison after pleading guilty to tax crimes and cooperating with prosecutors in their successful case against Donald Trump’s business:After testimony that helped convict Donald Trump’s company of tax fraud, its longtime senior executive Allen Weisselberg has been given five months in jail for accepting $1.7m in job perks without paying tax.Weisselberg, 75, was promised that sentence in August when he agreed to plead guilty to 15 tax crimes and testify against the Trump Organization, where he has worked since the mid-1980s and, until his arrest, had served as chief financial officer.He was handcuffed and taken into custody moments after the sentence was announced.Weisselberg will likely be locked up at Rikers Island in New York and eligible for release after slightly more than three months.As part of the plea agreement, Judge Juan Manuel Merchan also ordered Weisselberg to pay nearly $2m in taxes, penalties and interest, which he has paid as of 3 January. The judge also sentenced Weisselberg to five years of probation after his release.Allen Weisselberg: ex-Trump finance chief given five months for tax fraudRead morePart of the reason last week’s speakership fight was so high-profile was because it was exceptionally well covered, and much of that was thanks to C-Span.The non-profit organization funded by cable companies is dedicated to broadcasting government affairs, including Congress’s activities. Usually, what it’s allowed to put onscreen is restricted, but as the Washington Post reported last week, it had special permission to roam across the chamber during the standoff for speaker, allowing the public to see the haggling, boredom and emotion that took place on the House floor as Kevin McCarthy lost vote after vote, until finally triumphing on the 15th ballot.Matt Gaetz, a conservative Republican who was one of the ringleaders of the group that delayed McCarthy’s election, was apparently a fan of C-Span’s work. CNN reports that he has filed an amendment to the House rules package to allow C-Span to continue broadcasting freely in the chamber:.⁦@RepMattGaetz⁩ amendment to the House Rules package would allow CSPAN cameras to film the House floor at all times — as we saw last week pic.twitter.com/EVC7tmdP2o— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 10, 2023
      Now that the dust has settled, it’s worth asking whether last week’s protracted House speaker election a good or bad thing for Republicans.The days-long, 15-ballot process that resulted in Kevin McCarthy’s victory early Saturday morning was indeed unprecedented – the last time a speakership election took so long was before the Civil War. And many in the GOP felt like the conservative holdouts who delayed McCarthy’s election for days did more harm to the party’s standing than good. Politico reports that Republican donor Thomas Peterffy sent text messages to some of the holdouts, threatening to cut them off if they didn’t make a deal:At least two Republicans among McCarthy’s 20 holdouts got direct threats from GOP donor Thomas Peterffy last week, per GOP sources I spoke with.Here is a screenshot shared with me… pic.twitter.com/H3pOPT888W— Olivia Beavers (@Olivia_Beavers) January 10, 2023
      That said, a CBS News/YouGov poll released before McCarthy’s election indicates many Republicans may have felt the battle was worth fighting. The data found 64% approved of the way the speakership election was handled, while 36% disapproved.The hallway outside George Santos’s office is the scene of an entrenched stakeout by reporters, as Insider found out when they went down there:made a pilgrimage to the Santos Stakeout pic.twitter.com/HYfF6kzmf3— bryan metzger (@metzgov) January 10, 2023
      Needless to say, most lawmakers do not get this kind of attention.George Santos just can’t catch a break. But perhaps that’s to be expected for someone who brazenly lied in their campaign for Congress.The New York Republican has been hounded by reporters in the halls of Congress ever since he first arrived in the Capitol last Tuesday, and has had a complaint filed against him at the Federal Election Commission. Today, two Democratic congressman made a big show of giving him another complaint, this one being filed with the House ethic committee:.@RepDanGoldman and @RepRitchie filed a complaint with the House Ethics Committee about @Santos4Congress, and then hand delivered it to his office. Santos was in his office when this happened, in the back by the windows. pic.twitter.com/r3264Ht0XS— Kyle Stewart (@KyleAlexStewart) January 10, 2023
      Meanwhile Pete Aguilar, the Democratic caucus chair in the House, said Republican speaker Kevin McCarthy is only allowing Santos to stick around because he’s worried about losing his majority:”Kevin McCarthy owns George Santos.”— House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar says “the only reason” Rep. George Santos (R-NY) was sworn into Congress was because McCarthy needs his vote pic.twitter.com/Y9T0uTkg7l— The Recount (@therecount) January 10, 2023
      Mark Warner, the Democratic chair of the Senate intelligence committee, has requested a briefing on the classified documents found at Joe Biden’s former office, as well as the government secrets the FBI discovered last year at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.“Our system of classification exists in order to protect our most important national security secrets, and we expect to be briefed on what happened both at Mar-a-Lago and at the Biden office as part of our constitutional oversight obligations,” Warner said in a statement. “From what we know so far, the latter is about finding documents with markings, and turning them over, which is certainly different from a months-long effort to retain material actively being sought by the government. But again, that’s why we need to be briefed.”In a new interview, Mike Pence commented on classified files being found in a private office used by Biden.Speaking with radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Pence called the discovery of classified files from Biden’s tenure as vice president versus the search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property a “double standard”.“It’s just incredibly frustrating to me,” said Pence during his interview today.“But the original sin here was the massive overreach.”Read the full article from the Hill here.Republican representative Pat Fallon of Texas has filed articles of impeachment against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.Fallon announced the filing in a Twitter post, linking to a Fox News article.I have officially filed Articles of Impeachment on Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.👇👇👇https://t.co/I4EBmCB5pI— Rep. Pat Fallon (@RepPatFallon) January 10, 2023
      Here is more context behind Fallon’s filing, from the Hill:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) filed the paperwork for the resolution on Jan. 3, the first day of the 118th Congress, though with delays in securing a House Speaker, the document was officially filed late Monday.
      The resolution claims Mayorkas “engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with his duties,” complaining that he has failed to maintain operational control over the border.
      The resolution comes amid a busy week in the Biden administration. President Biden visited the border over the weekend for the first time since taking office, pledging to deliver more resources to the officers who patrol the region.
      And Mayorkas is in Mexico this week, meeting with officials there on a variety of issues, including the shared migration agreement rolled out by the Biden administration last week.Read the full article here.Senate tunnels were briefly closed following a mix-up where a small group breached a locked door on the Senate side of US Capitol complex.According to the United States Capitol police, the group was accompanied by a staffer and were screened following the confusion.Police also noted that the incident was not a threat, but the group using the wrong doors.From Politico reporter K Tully-McManus:Senate tunnels were briefly closed this afternoon after a small group breached a door on the Senate side of the Capitol complex.Tunnels are back open. They were closed for a VERY short time (*just* long enough to disrupt some folks lunch plans.)— K Tully-McManus (@ktullymcmanus) January 10, 2023
      The White House provided more details into a meeting that Biden had with Canada prime minister Justin Trudeau.According to a read out, the two world leaders discussed several global issues including the war in Ukraine, Haiti, and Brazil.Biden also told Trudeau that he looks forward to an upcoming visit to Canada in March.From CBS News corespondent Ed O’Keefe:INBOX: The White House readout of @POTUS Biden’s meeting with @JustinTrudeau says they discussed the situations in Ukraine, Haiti and Brazil and among other things the president, “also stated he looks forward to traveling to Canada in March of this year.”— Ed O’Keefe (@edokeefe) January 10, 2023
      House Republicans are gearing up to launch investigations and trying to make the most of reports that classified documents dating to his time as vice-president were found in an office used by Joe Biden. But unlike with the government secrets the FBI found at Mar-a-Lago, it didn’t take a search warrant for Biden to turn over the material – he ordered it done so immediately, which Democrats are citing to defend the president.Here’s what else is going on today:
      Democratic House lawmaker Katie Porter announced a run for California’s Senate seat up for election in 2024, but its current occupant, Dianne Feinstein, gave no indication she’d be stepping down.
      The House GOP made clear it wants spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, which will be necessary later this year.
      George Santos may be an admitted fabulist, but a top House Republican had little to say about whether the party would discipline him for his lies.
      Joe Biden is traveling in Mexico, where he just concluded a meeting with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau.He did not answer questions shouted by members of the White House press corps in attendance, including one about the classified documents.CNN reports that an attorney for Joe Biden found 10 documents related to Iran, Ukraine and the United Kingdom in a personal office, dating from his time as vice-president.The attorney clearing out an office Biden once used in Washington DC found briefing materials and intelligence memos from 2013 through 2016, when Biden served under Barack Obama, according to CNN, which cited a source familiar with the matter. The documents were mixed in with family materials, some of which related to the funeral of his son Beau Biden, who died in 2015.Upon realizing the papers were classified, the attorney immediately contacted the National Archives and Records Administration. Biden’s team eventually turned over several boxes “in an abundance of caution, even though many of the boxes contained personal materials, the source said,” according to CNN’s report.California senator Dianne Feinstein is unfazed by Katie Porter’s announcement that she’d run for her Senate seat in 2024.The 89-year-old is the oldest sitting senator, and has in recent months been the subject of reports questioning her fitness to serve. Feinstein was blase when the San Francisco Chronicle asked for her thoughts on the challenge from the 49-year-old Porter:NEW: Feinstein tells @sfchronicle “Everyone is of course welcome to throw their hat in the ring … Right now I’m focused on ensuring California has all the resources it needs to cope with the devastating storms slamming the state.” https://t.co/tgTkfLPFxo— Sara Libby (@SaraLibby) January 10, 2023 More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Ginni Thomas ‘never spoke’ about 2020 vote to supreme court justice husband

      by

      Ginni Thomas ‘never spoke’ about 2020 vote to supreme court justice husbandClarence Thomas’s wife says couple did not discuss challenges to Biden’s election victory, in testimony released by January 6 panel The conservative activist Ginni Thomas has “no memory” of what she discussed with her husband, the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, during the heat of the battle to overturn the 2020 presidential election, according to congressional testimony released on Friday.Kayleigh McEnany a ‘liar and opportunist’, says former Trump aide Read moreThomas, 65, recalled “an emotional time” in which her mood was lifted by her husband and Mark Meadows, then Donald Trump’s chief of staff, a transcript of her deposition with the congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol showed.Thomas has been a prominent backer of Trump’s lies that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.At 74, her husband is the oldest and most conservative member of America’s highest court, which has played a crucial part in settling disputed elections.The January 6 committee spent months seeking an interview with Ginni Thomas, who was known to have texted Meadows and contacted officials in Arizona and Wisconsin in the aftermath of Trump’s election defeat by Joe Biden. She was eventually interviewed behind closed doors on 29 September.In opening remarks, Thomas said she entered Republican politics long before meeting Clarence Thomas in 1986. She said her husband had never spoken to her about court cases – “it’s an ironclad rule in our house” – and was “uninterested in politics”.She added: “I am certain I never spoke with him about any of the challenges to the 2020 election, as I was not involved in those challenges in any way.”Thomas also claimed the justice was unaware of texts she exchanged with Meadows and took a swipe at the committee for having “leaked them to the press while my husband was in a hospital bed fighting an infection”.She scorned the idea that she could influence the legal decisions of her “independent and stubborn” spouse.But during cross-examination by committee members, Thomas was confronted with the texts she sent to Meadows as Trump baselessly challenged his election defeat.On 24 November 2020, Thomas wrote: “I can’t see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin’ consequences, the whole coup, and now this.”Meadows responded: “This is a fight of good versus evil. Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”Thomas wrote back a few minutes later: “Thank you. Needed that, this plus a conversation with my best friend just now. I will try to keep holding on.”The committee probed whom she meant by “best friend”.Thomas admitted: “It looks like my husband.”Asked if she remembered what she and Clarence Thomas talked about that made her feel better, Thomas replied: “I wish I could remember but I have no memory of the specifics. My husband often administers spousal support to the wife that’s upset. So I assume that’s what it was. I don’t have a specific memory of it.”Thomas denied having any conversations with Clarence Thomas about the fact she was in contact with Meadows in the post-election period.“He found out in March of this year when it hit the newspapers,” she said, reiterating that her husband “is not interested in politics”.Thomas refused to back down from her view that widespread election fraud took place but declined to offer specific evidence. She admitted she had been “frustrated” that Trump’s vice-president, Mike Pence, did not talk more about “irregularities” in certain states.But having initially expressed hope that lawyer Sidney Powell could overturn the election – “Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down,” she wrote – Thomas said Meadows “corrected” her view of the discredited attorney.January 6 report review: 845 pages, countless crimes, one simple truth – Trump did itRead moreThomas told the committee: “I worried that there was fraud and irregularities that distorted the election but it wasn’t uncovered in a timely manner, so we have President Biden.”Regarding her texts with Meadows, she explained that “it was an emotional time” and she is “sorry these texts exist”.She added: “I regret all of these texts.”Critics have argued that given Thomas’s political activities and contacts with Meadows and other key Trump allies, Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from any case linked to the insurrection.The January 6 committee report, published last week, ran to 845 pages but made no reference to Ginni Thomas.TopicsClarence ThomasUS politicsUS supreme courtRepublicansUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More