US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The most terrifying case of all is about to be heard by the US supreme court | Steven Donziger

      by

      The most terrifying case of all is about to be heard by the US supreme courtSteven DonzigerIf the court upholds the rogue ‘Independent State Legislature’ theory, it would put the US squarely on the path to authoritarianism It is well-known that intense competition between democracy, authoritarianism and fascism is playing out across the globe in a variety of ways – including in the United States. This year’s US supreme court term, which started this week, is a vivid illustration of how the situation is actually worse than most people understand.A supermajority of six, unelected ultraconservatives justices – five of which were put on the bench by presidents who did not win the popular vote – have aggressively grabbed yet another batch of cases that will allow them to move American law to the extreme right and threaten US democracy in the process. The leading example of this disturbing shift is a little-known case called Moore v Harper, which could lock in rightwing control of the United States for generations.The heart of the Moore case is a formerly fringe legal notion called the Independent State Legislature (ISL) theory. This theory posits that an obscure provision in the US constitution allowing state legislatures to set “time, place, and manner” rules for federal elections should not be subject to judicial oversight. In other words, state legislatures should have the absolute power to determine how federal elections are run without court interference.Think about this theory in the context of the last US election. After Joseph Biden defeated Donald Trump resoundingly in both the popular vote and in the electoral college, Trump tried to organize a massive intimidation campaign to steal the election which played out in the storming of the Capitol building on 6 January. But behind the scenes, the legal core of this attempt was to convince the many Republican-controlled state legislatures (30 out of 50 states) to send slates of fake Trump electors from states like Arizona, Georgia and Michigan where Trump actually lost the popular vote.If Trump had succeeded, he would have “won” the election via the electoral college (itself an anti-democratic relic) and been able to stay in office another term. If the supreme court buys the theory in the Moore case, this could easily happen in 2024 and beyond. In fact, it is possible Republicans will never lose another election again if this theory is adopted as law. Or put another way, whether Republicans win or lose elections via the popular vote will not matter because they will be able to maintain power regardless.That’s not democracy. And it would put the United States squarely in the same category as authoritarian countries with illiberal leaders like Hungary, Poland, Turkey and Russia. Each of the leaders of those countries ostensibly “won” elections that were structurally rigged to virtually guarantee they could not lose.It is disturbing that the supreme court used its increasingly diminished credibility with the public to take on a case that has no real purpose other than what I am describing in this column. In the United States, our highest court only rules on approximately 70 cases a year out of the 7,000 petitions for review that are presented. It is a relatively lazy court. In contrast, the supreme court of Brazil rules on approximately 100,000 cases a year. If the US court agreed to accept the Moore case for review, it almost certainly plans to endorse this rogue ISL theory, that could blow up elections and democracy in the United States as we know it.Context is important. This situation did not just come out of nowhere, but really is the product of a multi-decade strategy by a coalition of corporations and rightwing religious fundamentalists dating back decades to take control of the US government.Recent US history shows how spectacularly effective rightwing funders, representing wealthy Americans and corporations, have been in essentially buying control over our political system. These forces correctly perceive that if democracy is allowed to exist in an unfettered and neutral way, then corporate profits will be diminished and the powerful fossil fuel industry will be phased out over time. So they are organizing to prevent that from happening.This rightwing funding network simply could not exist with the enormous power that it has accumulated without the US supreme court’s Citizens United case, which laid the groundwork for the current takeover of the supreme court. One industrialist just turned over his entire $1.6bn fortune to an organization controlled by Leonard Leo, the brilliant mastermind behind the pro-corporate Federalist Society, which essentially put all six of the ultraconservatives on the court.Should the court endorse the ISL theory, Republican-controlled legislatures also will be able to gerrymander political districts to lock in permanent control of federal elections without judicial oversight. Gerrymandering is a fancy term to describe another method of voter suppression in the United States: setting district maps to guarantee that progressive or minority candidates simply cannot get elected except in pre-approved districts. It explains, for example, why in the state of North Carolina Republicans control eight of 13 seats in the US House of Representatives despite the Democratic party winning well over 50% of the statewide vote in the last several elections.The Moore case would in practice strip people of the right to fair elections by placing electoral power in the hands of a small group of officials at the state level who set district maps. In a presidential election, these officials could determine what slate of electors gets put forth to the electoral college, regardless of the outcome of the state’s popular vote.In the gerrymandered map at the heart of the Moore case, an evenly divided popular vote in North Carolina would have awarded 10 of the state’s 14 seats in the House of Representatives to Republicans.While many are focused on the January 6 proceedings, the real coup has been going on quietly in the supreme court without a single shot being fired. As the judicial branch is set to deliberate a case that could drastically weaken the other branches of government, never has it been more clear that it is time to rein in the power of our least democratic institution.
      Steven Donziger is a human rights lawyer and environmental justice advocate. He is also a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS supreme courtOpinionUS politicsLaw (US)US voting rightscommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump asks supreme court to intervene in Mar-a-Lago special master dispute

      by

      Trump asks supreme court to intervene in Mar-a-Lago special master disputeAppellate court ruling prevented special master also examining 100 files seized from Mar-a-Lago with classification markings Donald Trump on Tuesday asked the US supreme court to partially reverse an appellate court decision that prevented the special master, reviewing for privilege protections materials seized by the FBI from his Mar-a-Lago resort in August, also examining 100 documents with classification markings.US supreme court hears case that could gut voting rights for minority groupsRead moreThe motion to vacate the ruling by the US appeals court for the 11th circuit represents the former president’s final chance to temporarily bar federal prosecutors from using the materials in their inquiry into whether he illegally retained national defense information.In the emergency request, lawyers for Trump argued that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the lower district court decision that appointed a special master to review all seized documents – including those marked classified – for privilege protections.The technical motion argued among other things that because the appointment of a special master was a procedural order and not an injunction, the decision by the trial judge in Florida was supposedly not subject to “interlocutory review” by the appellate court at that time.“That appointment order is simply not appealable on an interlocutory basis,” the filing said. “Nevertheless, the 11th circuit granted a stay of the special master order, effectively compromising the integrity of the well-established policy against piecemeal appellate review.”In the petition submitted to the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, who receives 11th circuit appeals, Trump asked that the special master be allowed to review 100 documents marked classified in addition to 11,000 other documents about to be subject to the independent filter process.The former president does not appear to be seeking to stop the DoJ using the 100 documents in its criminal investigation, since Trump’s argument hinges on the Presidential Records Act, which does not account for whether documents are classified or declassified.The former president will face significant challenges even if the supreme court hears the case, and even though the bench is dominated by six conservative justices – three of whom he appointed – who have previously shown deference to executive-branch powers.The argument appears flawed, legal experts said, since it would suggest that higher courts would have no ability to review an order from any federal judge to stop criminal and national security investigations.Lawyers for Trump also contended that the seized materials could be marked classified for national security purposes and simultaneously be personal documents – a position the DoJ has previously said is impossible, with which the 11th circuit indicated it agreed.The Trump motion was silent on whether Trump actually declassified any of the documents, as he has claimed publicly. It instead suggested the supreme court consider the case on the basis that he had the power to do so, and might have done so, without providing evidence.TopicsDonald TrumpUS supreme courtUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court hears case that could gut voting rights for minority groups

      by

      US supreme court hears case that could gut voting rights for minority groupsIn Merrill v Milligan, the court will decide whether Alabama’s new congressional map violates the Voting Rights Act The supreme court’s conservative majority appeared unsettled on Tuesday on whether it would gut one of the most powerful remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act in a case that has profound implications for the representation of Black Americans and other minority groups.The case, Merrill v Milligan, centers on how much those who draw electoral districts should be required to consider race. It involves a dispute over the seven congressional districts Alabama drew last year. Only one of those districts has a majority-Black population, even though Black people make up a quarter of Alabama’s population. Earlier this year, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the configuration was illegal under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees minority groups equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process. It ordered Alabama to draw a second district with a minority population. The supreme court stepped in earlier this year and halted that order while the case proceeded.A court caught Republicans discriminating against Black voters – here’s howRead moreThe state’s solicitor general, Edmund LaCour, argued on Tuesday that the lower court’s ruling was incorrect because it required Alabama to consider race above traditional, race-neutral criteria. In order to require Alabama draw a second majority-minority district, he said, the plaintiffs should have first had to prove that such a map could exist without taking race into account at all. He argued that computer simulations programmed with race-neutral criteria never produced a map with a second majority-Black district.Justice Samuel Alito, one of the court’s most conservative jurists, seized on that point repeatedly in support of Alabama’s argument. “How can it be reasonably configured if you can’t get that map with a computer simulation that takes into account all of the traditional race-neutral factors?” he said.But even Alito acknowledged that some of the arguments Alabama made were “far-reaching”. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative justice, said at one point she would be “struggling in the same way others have about narrowing down exactly what your argument is”.Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson all seemed deeply skeptical about all of Alabama’s arguments. Embracing the state’s approach would upend how the court has long approached section 2 redistricting cases. Kagan said the case was a “slam dunk” case under the court’s existing precedent before laying out how she believed the lower court had correctly evaluated the facts. “It seems to me you’re coming here … and saying change the way we look at section 2 and its application,” she said.The supreme court has long allowed for the use of race and required those who challenge maps to meet a difficult three-part test to challenge the map. The first part of that test requires plaintiffs to show that the minority population is sufficiently large and compact enough to comprise a majority in a reasonably configured single-member district.Democracy, poisoned: America’s elections are being attacked at every levelRead moreAlabama’s congressional map easily meets the conditions needed to bring a section 2 challenge, experts have said. There is clear evidence Black and white voters prefer different candidates and mapmakers were easily able to draw a second majority-Black congressional district that comported with the traditional criteria Alabama uses.“There is nothing race-neutral about Alabama’s map,” Deuel Ross, a lawyer who represented some of the plaintiffs, told the justices. “Section 2 is not an intent test or about putting on racial blinders.”Requiring plaintiffs to draw that map without considering race at all would have profound consequences for Black representation across the US. It would make it much harder for plaintiffs to bring challenges to maps, essentially requiring them to show that discrimination is occurring without looking at race.“Alabama isn’t asking the court to apply section 2 as it’s been applied for the last 40 years,” said Elizabeth Prelogar, the United States solicitor general, which backed the plaintiffs in the case. “Instead, Alabama is asking the court to radically change the law by inserting this concept of race neutrality and effectively limiting section 2 to intentional discrimination.”A ruling in favor of Alabama could also produce a “broad upheaval” in the law and clear a pathway for Alabama and other states to get rid of existing majority-minority districts. “Make no mistake, every majority-minority district would become a litigation target,” said Abha Khanna, a lawyer for one of the groups of plaintiffs.The case marks the latest occasion in which the court has considered the Voting Rights Act, a crowning achievement of the civil rights era. In 2013, the court gutted a provision in the law that required states and other jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before enacting changes. In 2020, the justices made it harder to use section 2 to bring challenges to voting laws outside of redistricting.Kagan acknowledged that history of chipping away at the law on Tuesday. After calling the Voting Rights Act “one of the great achievements of American democracy”, she said: “In recent years, this statute has fared not well in this court.”“You’re asking us, essentially, to cut back substantially on our 40 years of precedent and to make this too extremely difficult to prevail on. So what’s left?” she said in a comment that appeared to be directed more at her colleagues on the bench than any of the lawyers.US supreme court to decide cases with ‘monumental’ impact on democracyRead moreSome of the most pointed and extensive questioning on Tuesday came from Jackson, the newest member of the court, who was participating in just her second day of oral arguments. She directly challenged LaCour’s argument that the prohibition against racial discrimination in the constitution’s 14th amendment does not allow mapmakers to consider race in redistricting.But Jackson questioned how that could be the case when history shows that the 14th amendment was adopted as part of a race-conscious effort to guarantee equal rights for Black Americans in the 19th century. “I don’t think that the historical record establishes that the founders believed race neutrality or race blindness was required,” she said, in what seemed to be an appeal to conservative originalists on the court. “It was drafted to give a foundational, a constitutional foundation for a piece of legislation that was designed to make people who had less opportunity and less rights equal to white citizens.“I’m trying to understand why that violates the 14th amendment given the history and background of the 14th amendment.”TopicsAlabamaThe fight for democracyUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)US voting rightsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court rejects MyPillow chief’s bid to dodge $1.3bn lawsuit

      by

      US supreme court rejects MyPillow chief’s bid to dodge $1.3bn lawsuitDominion Voting Systems accuses Mike Lindell, a prominent Trump supporter, of promoting baseless voter fraud claims The defamation lawsuit that voting machine company Dominion is pursuing against the MyPillow chief executive, Mike Lindell, can proceed after the US supreme court rejected the prominent Donald Trump supporter’s appeal aiming to block the case.Dominion Voting Systems in February 2021 filed a $1.3bn lawsuit accusing Lindell of promoting the debunked conspiracy theory that the company’s machines manipulated vote counts in favor of Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election that ousted Trump from the Oval Office.Ex-US army medic allegedly lured migrants on to flights to Martha’s VineyardRead moreLindell had been appealing an August 2021 ruling by federal court judge Carl Nichols, who refused to dismiss the lawsuit at the MyPillow leader’s request. An appellate court in Washington DC later decided the case was not ready for review. And in its first day back from its summer break, the US supreme court decided it would not take up Lindell’s appeal for consideration, clearing the way for the lawsuit against Lindell to progress.Nichols wrote in the ruling that Dominion “has adequately alleged that Lindell made his claims knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth” and therefore had grounds to file a defamation lawsuit.Dominion also alleges that Lindell participated in a defamatory marketing campaign against the company in efforts to sell more pillows by telling audiences to purchase MyPillow products after making his claims of election fraud and providing promotional codes related to those theories.Dominion and Smartmatic, which has also sued Lindell, have demanded damages from several Trump allies and rightwing news networks that spread conspiracy theories about the companies’ vote tallying machines being compromised to Biden’s benefit.In September, Lindell said that FBI investigators seized his cellphone in connection with an alleged election security breach in Colorado.Lindell said he was in the drive-through lane of a Hardee’s fast-food restaurant when agents surrounded him and took his phone.TopicsUS politicsUS supreme courtDonald TrumpUS elections 2020Law (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Ginni Thomas still believes Trump’s false claim the 2020 election was stolen

      by

      Ginni Thomas still believes Trump’s false claim the 2020 election was stolenWife of US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas holds tight to stolen election conspiracy in interview with January 6 committee Ginni Thomas, the hard-right conservative whose activities have raised conflict of interest concerns involving her husband, the US supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas, has told the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection that she still believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chair of the committee, told reporters following the almost five-hour private interview with Thomas that she held fast to her claim that massive fraud in the 2020 election had put Joe Biden in the White House. When asked by reporters if Thomas still believed that to be true, Thompson replied: “Yes.”The stolen election conspiracy theory – widely propagated by Trump – has never been substantiated with evidence and has been thoroughly debunked over the past two years.In an opening statement to the committee, obtained by the New York Times, Thomas also insisted that she and her husband, the longest-serving member of America’s highest court, abided by an “ironclad rule” never to discuss cases coming before him.“It is laughable for anyone who knows my husband to think I could influence his jurisprudence – the man is independent and stubborn, with strong character traits of independence and integrity,” she said.But her dogged attachment to Trump’s lie that he was the true winner in 2020, repeated in front of the January 6 committee on Thursday, is certain to further heighten alarm about the impact of Thomas’s unrestrained hard-right activism on the credibility of the supreme court. Clarence Thomas has consistently refused to recuse himself from cases arising from the insurrection at the US Capitol despite his wife’s avid support for attempts to subvert the election result.Clarence Thomas was the sole justice among the nine members of the panel to oppose an order in January forcing hundreds of White House documents to be disclosed to the January 6 committee. Among those documents were texts sent by Ginni Thomas to Mark Meadows, then White House chief of staff, in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election urging him to do all he could to overturn Biden’s victory.Ginni Thomas has also been exposed as having pressurized lawmakers in Arizona and Wisconsin, demanding that they block certification of Biden’s win in those states in an effort to swing the outcome to Trump.After the encounter with the committee, her lawyer said she had happily communicated with them “to clear up the misconceptions about her activities surrounding the 2020 elections”. He characterized her efforts after the election as “minimal and mainstream activity focused on ensuring that reports of fraud and irregularities were investigated”.TopicsClarence ThomasUS supreme courtDonald TrumpUS politicsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate passes short-term deal to avoid government shutdown – as it happened

      by

      The Senate has approved a measure to keep the government funded through December 16, averting a shutdown that would have begun Saturday:Passed, 72-25: Passage of Cal. #389, H.R.6833, the legislative vehicle for the Continuing Resolution, as amended. (60-vote affirmative threshold)— Senate Cloakroom (@SenateCloakroom) September 29, 2022
      The bill now goes to the House for approval. Top Republicans have encouraged their lawmakers to vote against it, but Democrats control the chamber, making its passage likely. Beyond just funding the government, the bill contains about $12 billion in new aid for Ukraine, as well as relief money for disasters in Kentucky, New Mexico, Puerto Rico and other states.The Senate passed a short-term spending bill to keep the government open till mid-December and avert a shutdown, potentially giving lawmakers space to spend the next few weeks campaigning ahead of the 8 November midterms. Meanwhile, Ginni Thomas, wife of conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas and a promoter of conspiracy theories around the 2020 election, testified before the January 6 committee.Here’s what else happened today:
      Six Republican-governed states are suing the Biden administration over its student debt relief plan.
      Some Republicans fear a potentially damaging standoff over the US debt limit if Kevin McCarthy becomes speaker of the House in a GOP-led chamber next year.
      President Joe Biden spoke with Florida’s governor and potential 2024 opponent Ron DeSantis as the state reels from Hurricane Ian.
      Washington’s rivalry with Iran is long running and well known, but independent security researchers and Reuters today found concerning trends in how the CIA handles informants in the country, Stephanie Kirchgaessner reports:The CIA used hundreds of websites for covert communications that were severely flawed and could have been identified by even an “amateur sleuth”, according to security researchers.The flaws reportedly led to the death of more than two dozen US sources in China in 2011 and 2012 and also reportedly led Iran to execute or imprison other CIA assets.The new research was conducted by security experts at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, which started investigating the matter after it received a tip from reporter Joel Schectmann at Reuters.The group said it was not publishing a full detailed technical report of its findings to avoid putting CIA assets or employees at risk. But its limited findings raise serious doubts about the intelligence agency’s handling of safety measures.Covert CIA websites could have been found by an ‘amateur’, research findsRead moreAn attorney for Ginni Thomas has released a statement detailing her testimony to the January 6 committee today.The statement, obtained by the New York Times, acknowledges that she continues to have questions about the 2020 election but downplays her involvement in attempts to overturn the result:Ginni Thomas has finished being interviewed by the J6 committee, per her lawyer Mark Paoletta: pic.twitter.com/1lKGfVKoYa— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 29, 2022
      It appears Ginni Thomas’s testimony today to the January 6 committee is already bearing fruit.Politico reports that the congressional panel’s chair Bennie Thompson said the promoter of 2020 election conspiracy theories and wife of conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas was of some help to the investigation:1/6 committee chair Bennie Thompson tells reporters Ginni Thomas is answering “some questions” and reiterated her belief to the committee the 2020 election was stolen— Nicholas Wu (@nicholaswu12) September 29, 2022
      They might be able to use some of her testimony in the hearing (when it’s rescheduled) “if theres something of merit”— Nicholas Wu (@nicholaswu12) September 29, 2022
      The January 6 committee was supposed to hold its first public hearing in more than two months on Wednesday, but postponed it due to Hurricane Ian’s arrival in Florida. They have not yet rescheduled the session.The Senate has approved a measure to keep the government funded through December 16, averting a shutdown that would have begun Saturday:Passed, 72-25: Passage of Cal. #389, H.R.6833, the legislative vehicle for the Continuing Resolution, as amended. (60-vote affirmative threshold)— Senate Cloakroom (@SenateCloakroom) September 29, 2022
      The bill now goes to the House for approval. Top Republicans have encouraged their lawmakers to vote against it, but Democrats control the chamber, making its passage likely. Beyond just funding the government, the bill contains about $12 billion in new aid for Ukraine, as well as relief money for disasters in Kentucky, New Mexico, Puerto Rico and other states.The Senate appears poised to pass a short-term spending bill to keep the government open and avert a shutdown, potentially giving lawmakers space to spend the next few weeks campaigning ahead of the 8 November midterms. Meanwhile, Ginni Thomas, wife of conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas and a promoter of conspiracy theories around the 2020 election, testified before the January 6 committee.Here’s what else happened today:
      Six Republican-governed states are suing the Biden administration over its student debt relief plan.
      Some Republicans fear a potentially damaging standoff over the US debt limit if Kevin McCarthy becomes speaker of the House in a GOP-led chamber next year.
      President Joe Biden spoke with Florida’s governor and potential 2024 opponent Ron DeSantis as the state reels from Hurricane Ian.
      An American citizen was killed in Iraqi Kurdistan, which Iran has targeted with drone and missile attacks as its government struggles with nationwide protests, Reuters reports.Iran’s Kurdish minority has been particularly involved in the protests, which were sparked by the death of a woman from the ethnic group in the custody of its morality police. Yesterday, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan condemned Iran’s attacks on its neighbor, saying: “Iran cannot deflect blame from its internal problems and the legitimate grievances of its population with attacks across its borders.”Iran launches airstrike against Kurdish group in northern Iraq Read moreAn unusual pairing of senators has introduced legislation to further raise Taiwan’s standing within global organizations, as part of the Biden administration’s efforts to counter China’s attempts to isolate the island it views as a breakaway province.Axios reports that the Senate proposal from conservative Republican Ted Cruz of Texas and liberal Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon would push for Taiwan to be included in the United Nation’s International Civil Aviation Organization (Icao). It would also tell the White House to seek a vote admitting Taiwan to the body at its next meeting.China has kept Taiwan out of Icao assemblies since 2013, but earlier this week, transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg called for its return. Taiwan is home to Asia’s fifth-largest airport, and Axios reports concerns about its exclusion from the Icao were raised in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic as travel was snarled globally by border closures and flight restrictions.The fallout from the water crisis in Mississippi’s capital continues, with a complaint accusing the state of divesting from the city in favor of its suburbs, Edwin Rios reports:The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has filed a federal complaint accusing Mississippi officials of violating civil rights law by repeatedly diverting federal funds meant for ensuring safe drinking water away from the state’s predominantly Black capital, Jackson, to smaller, white communities.The suit says such actions amounted to racial discrimination and a devastating loss of access to drinking water for more than a month for residents in Jackson, where more than 80% of residents are Black and a quarter are in poverty.“The result is persistently unsafe and unreliable drinking water and massive gaps in the access to safe drinking water that are intolerable in any modern society,” Jackson residents allege.“Nearly all of the residents of Jackson have watched brackish, dirty, impure, and undrinkable water trickle from their taps. At times, some have had no water at all.”The complaint, filed to the Environmental Protection Agency, amplifies pressure on officials in Mississippi and Jackson to address longstanding water infrastructure woes that recently forced Jackson to shut down its water supply in late August and maintain a boil water notice for weeks.NAACP files racial discrimination complaint over Jackson water crisisRead moreSix Republican states are suing the Biden administration over its plan to forgive student loan debt for millions of Americans.The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Missouri by that state, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina and Arkansas. Iowa has a Democratic attorney general – the Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, signed on the state’s behalfLeslie Rutledge, the Arkansas attorney general leading the case, told the Associated Press: “It’s patently unfair to saddle hard-working Americans with the loan debt of those who chose to go to college. The Department of Education is required, under the law, to collect the balance due on loans. And President Biden does not have the authority to override that.”In the suit, the states say Biden has declared the Covid-19 pandemic over – but is still using the ongoing health emergency to justify the wide-scale debt relief.The forgiveness plan is not universally popular among those with student debt but the Biden administration and Democrats have touted it, in the quickening run-in to the midterm elections. Further reading, part I:The lesson from Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness? Go big or go home | Hamilton NolanRead moreElsewhere this week, the Congressional Budget Office said the program will cost about $400bn over three decades. The White House pointed out that the CBO estimate of how much the plan will cost in its first year, $21bn, is lower than initially forecast.The education department is due to unveil the application for forgiveness in October.Further reading, part II:Rightwingers threaten legal action on Biden’s student loan debt reliefRead moreFor Senate scheduling fans out there, and we know there are many, the government funding vote seems imminent …Sounds like a potential 145 pm Senate vote on government funding ✈️— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) September 29, 2022
      While Congress may be the site of financial brinksmanship in 2023, there appears to be no appetite for it now. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader of the Senate, has indicated in a floor speech that the votes are there to pass a short-term funding bill to keep the government open through December 16.The legislation heads off a shutdown that would have started on Saturday, but must still be approved by the House, where the Democrats also have a majority.“With a little more good faith negotiation between Democrats and Republicans, I am hopeful that today is the day we’ll finish passing a continuing resolution to fund the government until mid-December. Government funding is set to run out Friday at midnight, roughly 40 hours from now, and there is no reason at all for us to get anywhere near that deadline,” Schumer said. “In short, there is every reason in the world for both sides to get to ‘yes’ on finalizing a CR before the end of today. Democrats will continue working with our Republican colleagues in good faith to find a path to the finish line.”The latest agreement was reached when Democratic senator Joe Manchin agreed to withdraw a controversial proposal to change the permitting process for energy projects, which did not look like it had the support to pass as part of the wider spending measure. But it’s not always this easy. The government has shut down repeatedly in recent decades when Congress was so consumed with squabbles and demands that it couldn’t agree on a way to keep it open before funding ran out. And this latest agreement means lawmakers can spend more time back in their districts, stumping for re-election ahead of the 8 November midterms.Senate advances funding bill to avert shutdown after Manchin measure scrappedRead moreIf Kevin McCarthy does become the next House speaker, Axios reports that Americans could expect a congressional standoff in the latter part of next year with uniquely high stakes for the country.At issue would be the debt limit, which governs how much borrowing the United States can do to fund its budget and is on track to need to be raised by the fall of 2023. Failure to do so could result in Washington defaulting on its debt – an unheard of economic calamity that could have repercussions for financial systems worldwide.The two parties have haggled over the debt limit in the past and came close to default in 2011, when a newly ascendant Republican majority in the House used it as a cudgel against Democrat Barack Obama’s administration. According to Axios, the concern is that McCarthy would be willing to entertain such brinksmanship if he takes over the House, a tactic top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell is far less interested in. The subtext to this is that some Republicans don’t trust McCarthy to negotiate responsibly when it comes to the debt limit, Axios reports, with one source contrasting him with John Boehner, the Republican House speaker in 2011. “‘Speaker [John] Boehner and a hypothetical Speaker McCarthy are different animals,’ a former House Republican who served during the 2011 crisis told Axios. ‘Boehner was convinced of the necessity [of raising the debt limit] and was willing to twist arms. I just don’t know about a Speaker McCarthy.’” More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      US supreme court’s approval rating falls to historical low ahead of new term – live

      by

      When its most recent term concluded in June, the supreme court’s conservative majority had flexed its muscles in a big way.They overturned a nearly half-century old precedent to allow states to ban abortion nationwide, expanded the ability to carry a concealed weapon, limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate power plants and expanded prayer in public schools. Thus, much of the drop in the court’s public trust Gallup found in a poll released today comes from Democrats, for which confidence halved in the past year. Overall, only 47% of respondents have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the court, which isn’t bad compared to, say, Congress, but nonetheless represents a 20-percentage-point drop from two years ago and a sharp decline from its usual two-thirds level in Gallup’s surveys.But it’s not just the public itself that has issues with how the court is behaving. The justices, or at least one justice, appear to think it’s gone too far. The White House-appointed jurors usually go to great lengths to appear impartial and stay out of Washington’s daily fray, but something appears to be going on behind the scenes. “If, over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy,” warned Elena Kagan in a July speech, one of the justices comprising the court’s three-member liberal minority. More unusual was the fact that Samuel Alito, the conservative who wrote the opinion overturning abortion rights established by Roe v Wade, appeared to respond to her comments with a remark delivered not in a speech – the typical venue when justices feel like opening up on a topic – but directly to the Wall Street Journal, as many other players in Washington often do.“It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit. But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line,” Alito said.“While it is not a crime to lie to Fox News viewers or on social media, there are consequences to lying to a court.” That’s a line from a New York Times piece published today analyzing the decision by Donald Trump’s lawyers to seek the appointment of a special master in the Mar-a-Lago case – and concluding the strategy hasn’t quite paid off the way the ex-president may have hoped.First of all, a reminder of what a special master is: it’s a neutral party that a federal judge assigned to the lawsuit that followed the FBI’s seizure of documents from Trump’s Florida resort. Senior federal judge Raymond J. Dearie was appointed to sift through the documents for those covered by attorney-client and executive privilege. While the ruling temporarily halted the justice department’s investigation into whether Trump unlawfully retained government secrets, an appeals court reversed part of the lower court’s decision earlier this month, allowing the government to continue reviewing the seized documents.Nonetheless, the special master will continue his work, but the article notes that it will be expensive for Trump, who will have to foot the cost for a firm to scan all the documents, the judge to hire an assistant that bills at $500 an hour, plus all the legal fees the former president will incur.Then there’s Dearie’s demands for how the review will be conducted, which the Times reports don’t seem to favor Trump:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}And far from indulging Mr. Trump, as his lawyers likely hoped in suggesting his appointment, Judge Dearie appears to be organizing the document review in ways that threaten to swiftly puncture the former president’s defenses.
      For example, the judge has ordered Mr. Trump to submit by Friday a declaration or affidavit verifying the inventory or listing any items on it “that plaintiff asserts were not seized” in the search.
      But if Mr. Trump acknowledges that the F.B.I. took any documents marked as classified from his personal office and a storage room at Mar-a-Lago, as the inventory says, that would become evidence that could be used against him if he were later charged with defying a subpoena.
      Requiring Mr. Trump’s lawyers to verify or object to the inventory also effectively means making them either affirm in court or disavow a claim Mr. Trump has made in public: his accusation that the F.B.I. planted fake evidence. While it is not a crime to lie to Fox News viewers or on social media, there are consequences to lying to a court.There’s even a Britain angle to the Trump book, Martin Pengelly reports. Meanwhile, the country’s mini-economic crisis continues:In his first White House meeting with a major foreign leader, Donald Trump asked Theresa May: “Why isn’t Boris Johnson the prime minister? Didn’t he want the job?”At the time, the notoriously ambitious Johnson was foreign secretary. He became prime minister two years later, in 2019, after May was forced to resign.May’s response to the undiplomatic question is not recorded in Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, a new book by the New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman which will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.Trump asked May at debut meeting why Boris Johnson was not PM, book saysRead moreThe Guardian’s Martin Pengelly obtained a copy of “Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America” ahead of its release next week. As you might expect, it contained no shortage of troubling anecdotes about what was going on in the White House during his presidency:In a meeting supposedly about campaign strategy in the 2020 election, Donald Trump implied his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, might be brutally attacked, even raped, should he ever go camping.“Ivanka wants to rent one of those big RVs,” Trump told bemused aides, according to a new book by Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, before gesturing to his daughter’s husband.“This skinny guy wants to do it. Can you imagine Jared and his skinny ass camping? It’d be like something out of Deliverance.”According to Haberman, Trump then “made noises mimicking the banjo theme song from the 1972 movie about four men vacationing in rural Georgia who are attacked, pursued and in one case brutally raped by a local resident”.The bizarre scene is just one of many in Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America, which will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.Kushner camping tale one of many bizarre scenes in latest Trump bookRead morePresident Joe Biden has spoken with Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican who has been critical of the White House and is thought to be mulling a bid for president in 2024, but whose state is now being battered by Hurricane Ian.The pair committed to working together to help the state recover from the storm, according to a readout of the call provided by the White House:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The President spoke this morning with Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida to discuss the steps the Biden-Harris Administration is taking to support Florida in response to Hurricane Ian, including the issuance of a Disaster Declaration this morning. The President told the Governor he is sending his FEMA Administrator to Florida tomorrow to check in on response efforts and see where additional support is needed. The President and Governor committed to continued close coordination.The Guardian has a separate live blog following the latest news on Hurricane Ian:Hurricane Ian: DeSantis says ‘we’ve never seen a flood like this’ as Biden declares disaster – liveRead moreThe Washington Post has a preview of the upcoming supreme court term that indicates new ways the conservative majority could change American law.Here are a few of the issues raised in cases the court will consider, and potentially render consequential decisions on:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Justices have agreed to revisit whether universities can use race in a limited way when making admission decisions, a practice the court has endorsed since 1978. Two major cases involve voting rights. The court again will consider whether laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation must give way to business owners who do not want to provide wedding services to same-sex couples. And after limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority in air pollution cases last term, the court will hear a challenge regarding the Clean Water Act.The court’s liberal minority, in particular justice Sonia Sotomayor, last term wrote lengthy dissents to some of the court’s most controversial decisions, which were viewed as ways of signaling just how split the panel was internally. In the Post’s piece, executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at the Georgetown Law Center Irv Gornstein warned that a continued trend of divisive decisions that broke along the court’s ideological lines could further widen the ideological divisions between justices. “I do think there is a potential for ill will carrying over into this term and into future terms,” he said. What the liberal justices’ scorching dissent reveals about the US supreme courtRead moreA CNN reporter managed to find Ginni Thomas somewhere in Washington, presumably near where the January 6 committee does its business, and reports that she spoke to the lawmakers in person:NEW: Ginni Thomas met with Jan 6 committee IN PERSON. She did not answer my questions pic.twitter.com/5z6pypr0S9— Annie Grayer (@AnnieGrayerCNN) September 29, 2022
      The January 6 committee will today take testimony from Ginni Thomas, wife of conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas and herself a promoter of baseless claims that fraud decided the outcome of the 2020 election, Politico reports.NEWS: Ginni Thomas is testifying virtually to Jan. 6 committee *today,* two sources tell me and @nicholaswu12— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 29, 2022
      Reports in recent months have found Ginni Thomas lobbied Republican legislators around the country to take steps that could have delayed or prevented Joe Biden from entering the White House, as well as communicated with Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff during Donald Trump’s last days in office. While she has said she doesn’t discuss her work with her husband, Clarence Thomas was the lone dissent earlier this year in a supreme court decision that turned down a petition from Trump and allowed access to records concerning the January 6 attack from his time in the White House.Ginni Thomas lobbied Wisconsin lawmakers to overturn 2020 election Read moreWhen its most recent term concluded in June, the supreme court’s conservative majority had flexed its muscles in a big way.They overturned a nearly half-century old precedent to allow states to ban abortion nationwide, expanded the ability to carry a concealed weapon, limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate power plants and expanded prayer in public schools. Thus, much of the drop in the court’s public trust Gallup found in a poll released today comes from Democrats, for which confidence halved in the past year. Overall, only 47% of respondents have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the court, which isn’t bad compared to, say, Congress, but nonetheless represents a 20-percentage-point drop from two years ago and a sharp decline from its usual two-thirds level in Gallup’s surveys.But it’s not just the public itself that has issues with how the court is behaving. The justices, or at least one justice, appear to think it’s gone too far. The White House-appointed jurors usually go to great lengths to appear impartial and stay out of Washington’s daily fray, but something appears to be going on behind the scenes. “If, over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy,” warned Elena Kagan in a July speech, one of the justices comprising the court’s three-member liberal minority. More unusual was the fact that Samuel Alito, the conservative who wrote the opinion overturning abortion rights established by Roe v Wade, appeared to respond to her comments with a remark delivered not in a speech – the typical venue when justices feel like opening up on a topic – but directly to the Wall Street Journal, as many other players in Washington often do.“It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit. But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line,” Alito said.Good morning, US politics readers. The supreme court’s descent into being just another politicized government branch – at least to the public – continued apace, with a new poll showing its approval falling in the wake of a term that saw a series of sharply conservative decisions, including the end to nationwide abortion rights. As if those decisions weren’t enough, liberal justice Elena Kagan twice recently warned of the perils of the court losing its impartiality – prompting an unusual public response from Samuel Alito, the conservative justice who wrote the decision ending Roe v Wade. The court’s new term begins on Monday.Here’s what else is happening today:
      President Joe Biden has declared an official disaster in Florida after Hurricane Ian trapped residents in their homes and knocked out power to millions. He will visit the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency at noon eastern time to assess the response.
      Top House Republicans have a 10am eastern time press conference scheduled to “discuss firing Nancy Pelosi” as the party looks set to reclaim the majority in the chamber.
      The chair of the January 6 committee said it will this week hear testimony from Ginni Thomas, a 2020 election denier and wife of supreme court justice Clarence Thomas. More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The January 6 committee has its sights on Ginni Thomas. She should be worried | Kimberly Wehle

      by

      The January 6 committee has its sights on Ginni Thomas. She should be worriedKimberly WehleThe spouse of a sitting supreme court justice allegedly tried to overturn the 2020 election. It’s hard to say which looks worse – the conflicts of interest, or the possibility that she aided a would-be insurrection After months of wrangling, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, has agreed to sit for an interview with the January 6 committee – thus avoiding a subpoena, at least for now.This development could open a vital inquiry into Thomas’s alleged role in seeking to thwart a peaceful transition of presidential power to Joe Biden. Just as importantly, this news renews attention on the question of whether Ginni Thomas’s radical rightwing activism influenced her husband, who weighed in on numerous 2020 election-related cases despite his conflicts of interest.Time for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from election cases – his wife’s texts prove itRead moreSo far, congressional Democrats have sat on their hands on this issue, presumably in deference to the supreme court. But with the rightwing court taking an axe to constitutional precedent and public opinion, an investigation into the Thomases might be the only way to course-correct what’s happening to the US constitution.We know that Ginni Thomas texted Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, between November 2020 and January 2021 urging measures to undermine Biden’s win and keep Trump in power. After Congress certified the election for Biden, she criticized former vice-president Mike Pence in a message to Meadows for refusing to disrupt the counting of electoral college votes, writing, “We are living through what feels like the end of America.”The messages contain sly references to a “best friend”, which Ginni and Clarence Thomas have been known to call each other. In a viral Facebook post on 6 January 2020, now removed, she wrote, “LOVE MAGA people!!!!” Thomas attended the Capitol rally that day, though she has said she left before Trump’s speech at noon.We also now know that Thomas emailed Arizona lawmakers in November and December of 2020, pushing them to devise a slate of presidential electors in defiance of Arizona voters’ choice for Biden. In an email in November, she urged Arizona legislators to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure”, claiming (wrongly) that the choice of electors was “yours and yours alone”.On 13 December, the day before the electors cast their votes for Biden, she circulated a second email stating: “Before you choose your state’s electors … consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you don’t stand up and lead,” and linking to a video of a man asking lawmakers not to “give in to cowardice”. On 14 December , a group of fake Trump electors met in Arizona to sign a document falsely declaring themselves the “duly elected and qualified electors” for the state.Thomas allegedly waged a similar pressure campaign in Wisconsin. “Please stand strong in the face of media and political pressure,” she emailed two Republican lawmakers on 9 November, shortly after news outlets called the election for Biden. “Please reflect on the awesome authority granted to you by our constitution. And then please take action to ensure that a clean slate of electors is chosen for our state.”Earlier this year, the New Yorker detailed Ginni Thomas’s deep connections to multiple rightwing groups that seek to influence the supreme court. Thomas, herself a lawyer who runs a small lobbying firm, Liberty Consulting, is on record as declaring America to be in danger due to a “deep state” and a “fascist left” peopled by “transexual fascists”. She posted about Trump’s loss on a private listserv, Thomas Clerk World, which includes approximately 120 former Clarence Thomas clerks. Artemus Ward, a political scientist at Northern Illinois University, has called the group “an elite rightwing commando movement”.Thomas is also a director of CNP Action, a dark-money group that the New Yorker described as “connect[ing] wealthy donors with some of the most radical rightwing figures in America”, and on the advisory board of Turning Point USA, a conservative non-profit that sent busloads of protesters to the Capitol on January 6. And in 2019, she announced her partnership in Crowdsourcers, along with James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, an outfit known for producing embarrassing videos of progressives.In 2020, Project Veritas petitioned the US supreme court to halt Massachusetts from enforcing a state law banning the secret taping of public officials. Another Crowdsourcers partner was Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who played a central role helping Trump in his failed efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, and now faces ethics charges. Mitchell was on the 2 January 2021 phone call in which Trump cajoled the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” 11,780 votes to swing the state to Trump. That effort is being criminally investigated by a grand jury in Georgia.According to the New York Times, the January 6 committee is most interested in asking Thomas about her communications with John Eastman, a conservative lawyer who infamously penned a six-step scheme for Pence to block or delay the counting of electoral college votes. According to the committee’s leaders, Eastman also “worked to develop alternative slates of electors to stop the electoral count”.In a March opinion in Eastman v Thompson, a federal judge in California rejected Eastman’s attempt to keep his emails from the committee, identifying Eastman as probably having collaborated with Trump in multiple federal crimes, writing: “Based on the evidence … it is more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”The Thomases’ conflicts of interest have prompted calls for a supreme court code of conduct, which would require justices to recuse themselves from cases that might otherwise give rise to even an appearance of partiality. But it is not at all clear that Ginni Thomas is beyond the sights of criminal liability, either.Of course, that sort of action would have to come through the justice department. Congress’s power is confined to making legislative changes. But the attorney general, Merrick Garland, has been resolute in his public commitment to enforce relevant federal laws, reiterating recently that “Rule of Law means that the law treats each of us alike: there is not one rule for friends, another for foes; one rule for the powerful, another for the powerless.” Ginni Thomas should be concerned.For his part, Clarence Thomas was the only dissenting vote in a January 2021 ruling on an emergency application from Trump asking the supreme court to block the release of White House records to the January 6 Committee regarding the attack on the Capitol – records that in theory could have included messages between his wife and Meadows. He gave no reasons for his dissent.Thomas also dissented, along with Justice Samuel Alito, from the court’s refusal to entertain a lawsuit by Texas asking that it toss out the election results in four other states – a legal “claim” that, to date, does not even exist as a matter of federal law.Perhaps most disturbing is the court’s agreement to hear Moore v Harper this term, a case that strikes at the heart of the January 6 committee’s work. It raises a novel constitutional argument which Trump lost repeatedly in 2020: that the constitution lodges power over elections exclusively in state legislatures. If the court rules that legislatures have full power and control, it could cement unfairness in the electoral system as a matter of constitutional law, as many states are already gerrymandered to lock in power for one political party, mostly Republican.Although Congress could legislatively add seats to the supreme court or impeach a justice, with evidence, to stave off further encroachments on individual rights and federal authority by this court, both measures would require a level of bipartisan support that is difficult to imagine.Yet it’s impossible to predict where the further unraveling of the Ginni Thomas conflicts might lead – and whether those facts could produce another unprecedented fissure in our system of government. For now, Congress must, at the very least, peer behind the Thomases’ curtain.
      Kimberly Wehle is a law professor at American University and a legal analyst for ABC News. Her latest book is How to Think Like a Lawyer and Why
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS supreme courtClarence ThomasLaw (US)commentReuse this content More