US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Bloodied but unbowed: liberal justices wield dissents as weapon of resistance

      by

      Bloodied but unbowed: liberal justices wield dissents as weapon of resistance The three justices may be in the minority, but their opinions are sounding an alarm that equal rights are under threat by the new rightwing supermajority of the supreme courtThe US supreme court, with its new rightwing supermajority, is transforming America at breakneck speed. In a single judicial year, it overturned the right to an abortion, unleashed legally carried guns on to city streets, stymied government action to combat the climate crisis and Covid pandemic, and took a hatchet to the time-honored separation of church and state.Seasoned observers described the 2021-22 term that ended in June as perhaps the most momentous in the court’s 233-year history. The six rightwing justices – three of them appointed by Donald Trump – demonstrated an iron grip over blockbuster cases.The three liberal-leaning justices, by equal measure – Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – were outnumbered and bloodied. When the court reconvenes in October, the retired Breyer will be replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson, but the same punishing 6-to-3 dynamic will prevail.Bloodied but unbowed. The three liberal justices may be in the minority, but they are fast emerging as a vital resistance to the Trump-instigated judicial revolution now under way.That resistance is reflected in the dissenting opinions produced by the three. Not only were liberal dissents more in evidence in 2021-22 – Sotomayor alone wrote 13, more than she has in any previous term – but the language deployed in them was also direct and unrestrained.The dissents went beyond polite disagreements over jurisprudence. They amounted to the sounding of an alarm, alerting the nation that equal rights, constitutional government, and even what it is to be an American, are all under threat.Here are six of the most visceral warnings contained in the dissents of the three liberal-leaning justices.1. Attacking equal rights and individual freedomsOver 60 white-hot pages of dissent, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan tore into the majority ruling in Dobbs v Jackson that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. Pointing out that such a right had been the law of the land for half a century, they decried the ruling as a full-on attack on an individual’s freedom.“After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had,” the dissenting opinion said. From the moment of fertilization, “a woman has no rights to speak of”.The decision struck at the core of American values, they said. Individual freedom and equal rights “have gone far toward defining what it means to be an American. For in this nation, we do not believe that a government controlling all private choices is compatible with a free people.”2. Overriding the will of Congress and that of the American peopleThe ultimate source of power in the United States is “we the people”. Today there are 240 million citizens eligible to vote for their representatives in Congress and president.And then there are the five men and one woman who control the supreme court and who are busily changing the face of America.The liberal-leaning justices accuse their rightwing peers of supplanting their own will over that of “we the people”. Kagan wrote the dissent to West Virginia v EPA, the majority ruling which hobbled the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to tackle the climate crisis by regulating fossil-fueled power plants.Kagan charges the six rightwing justices of ignoring clear instructions given to the EPA by Congress to address the “potentially catastrophic harms” of global heating. The justices had in effect rewritten the Clean Air Act in favour of their own policymaking.“The court appoints itself – instead of Congress or the expert agency – the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening,” Kagan said.In a separate 6-to-3 ruling, the supermajority blocked the Biden administration’s requirement that employees of large businesses vaccinate themselves against Covid or take weekly tests. A dissenting opinion from all three liberal justices said that, here too, the majority had negated the will of the people as expressed in the 1970 law that commanded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) to protect workers “exposed to grave danger”.On the one hand, the dissent said, there is the Osha trying to protect employees from the “grave danger” of Covid. The agency is responsible to the president, who in turn “is responsible to – and can be held to account by – the American public”.On the other hand, there is the supreme court. “Its members,” the dissenters noted acerbically, “are elected by, and accountable to, no one”.3. Undermining the integrity of the supreme court and the rule of lawThe liberal-leaning justices accuse the supermajority of abandoning long-held legal principles in their rush towards radical change. Foremost of these is “stare decisis” – “to stand by things decided” – a respect for past precedents set by the court.By throwing out the right to an abortion established in 1973 by Roe v Wade, the six rightwing justices had disregarded stare decisis, and shown that “today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law,” Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote.The rightwing justices are very sensitive to the suggestion that they are acting according to political whim rather than legal principle. Last September, Clarence Thomas, arguably the de facto leader of the new supermajority, irritably denied the claim.“The media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference,” he bemoaned.He need not look to the media for such an accusation. Three of his fellow justices have expressed it forcefully.In their dissenting opinion in Dobbs, the liberal justices noted that it took less than two years following the appointment of Trump’s third pick, Amy Coney Barrett, for the court to overthrow Roe v Wade. Such a rapid shift, they argued, could not be explained by any change in the social landscape of the country.The only thing that had changed was the composition of the court, and with it “the new views of new judges. The majority has overruled Roe for one and only one reason: because it has always despised them, and now has the votes to discard them.”The consequences of the highest court being seen to be swayed by personal biases rather than legal principles are potentially cataclysmic. “It undermines the court’s legitimacy,” the dissenters warned.4. One law for the rich, another for the poorIn their Dobbs dissent the three justices spell out the impact of ending of abortion rights for women of contrasting means. Wealthy women will “find ways around a state’s assertion of power”, travelling out of states that ban abortion to those where it is legal.Other women without the resources “will not be so fortunate”. They might resort to an illegal abortion and be harmed “or even die”; they might give birth to the child at great cost to themselves and their families; “at the least, they will incur the cost of losing control over their lives”.The dissenters warned that the consequences go beyond the devastating impact on individual women. A central pillar of the US constitution, of American values, has also been destroyed – equal protection under the laws.“The constitution will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all.”5. Turning the clock back to the 18th centuryIn New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, the supermajority threw out New York’s restricted licensing regime for firearms, opening the door to concealed and loaded handguns being carried publicly in US cities.Thomas, who wrote the ruling, rejected any argument relating to the dangers posed by guns in modern America, where gun violence far exceeds that in comparable countries. Instead, he argued that licensing regimes had to be consistent with “this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” and specifically with the way the US ruled in 1791 when the second amendment right to bear arms was ratified.In his dissent, Breyer said that this “history-only approach” not only ignored the “real and present danger of guns in modern American society”, it set a framework that was so rigid it would be impossible to apply to modern situations “beyond the Framers’ imaginations”.How, for instance, could centuries-old laws “dictate the legality of regulations targeting ‘ghost guns’ constructed with the aid of a three-dimensional printer?”6. This is just the beginningPerhaps the most chilling warning given by the liberal justices is that the hurricane of contentious rulings issued by the supermajority this term is not the end of the revolution – it is just the beginning.“No one should be confident that this majority is done with its work,” they write in their Dobbs dissent.The supermajority could go on to ban all abortions nationwide, from the moment of conception and with no exemptions for rape or incest. They could also use exactly the same arguments deployed to overturn Roe to go after contraception, the right to same-sex intimacy and marriage, and even interracial marriage.The logical conclusion of the supermajority’s legal tactics is that “all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure … Additional constitutional rights are under threat.”Sotomayor closed her dissent in Carson v Makin on a profoundly disturbing note. The 6-to-3 ruling bulldozed decades of precedent on the separation of church and state by insisting that Maine had to extend its taxpayer-funded tuition assistance program to include students attending religious schools.“With growing concern for where this court will lead us next,” Sotomayor wrote, “I respectfully dissent.”TopicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      This summer may be one of the most consequential in US democracy | Thomas Zimmer

      by

      This summer may be one of the most consequential in US democracyThomas ZimmerThe Long Summer of 2022 began in May, when the abortion opinion draft leaked, and continued through a series of brutal rulings and congressional hearings American politics is about to take a summer break. The supreme court’s next term won’t start until October. Congress will be in recess in August. And the January 6 hearings will be on hiatus until September. Things will calm down for a little while. Or so it will seem on the surface, at least.This supposed respite follows what historians might come to call the Long Summer of 2022. It began in early May, when Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in Dobbs v Women’s Health Organization leaked – the decision that in June overturned Roe v Wade and abolished the right to abortion. This was not the start, but itself a manifestation and apotheosis of a reactionary assault on the post-1960s civil rights era that originated in Republican-led states and has been consistently enabled and actively advanced by the supreme court. The Dobbs leak, which dominated the political discourse for weeks, clearly indicated an escalation of rightwing attempts to turn the clock back by many decades.In early June, the House select committee on the January 6 attack tried to capture the nation’s attention with the first in a series of televised hearings that, for better or worse, have formed the center of the institutional defense of democracy. It all came to a head in the final days of June, when the central political conflict crystallized in the span of just a little over a week. On Thursday, 23 June, the January 6 committee’s fifth hearing focused on Donald Trump’s outrageous attempts to corrupt the justice department. It is generally not a good sign that such an explosive revelation about how the former president tried to nullify a democratic election was able to dominate the news cycle for only about 12 hours.The very next day, the supreme court published its decision to abolish the right to abortion. It came in the context of a remarkably aggressive assault not just on democracy and civil rights, but also on the state’s ability to handle the challenges of a modern, pluralistic society. Within a week, the court undermined the separation of church and state, weakened the ability of liberal states to regulate guns, basically made it clear that it would tolerate even the most brazen racial gerrymandering, and undercut the administrative state’s attempts to tackle environmental problems.Amid all these decisions that left no doubt about the court majority’s intention to help conservatives impose their will on the entire country, Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified in the committee’s sixth hearing, on 28 June. She painted a clear picture of the former president’s deliberate efforts to summon a violent, armed mob. To care about American democracy, in those last days of June, was to exist in a state of constant emergency, whiplash, and exhaustion.Yet even in those hectic days of late June, and certainly throughout the Long Summer of 2022, the experience of most Americans, even those who followed the proceedings in Washington closely, were shaped not just by the political upheavals, but by the normal challenges of everyday life. Stores remained open, people had to go to work, they suffered or celebrated with their favorite sports teams.It would be unfair to denounce these as just illusions of normalcy. In a lot of ways, things really are “normal”, in the sense that most of us continue the routines that dominate our daily lives, even in the midst of a political crisis around us. We have to function, we compartmentalize, we experience a strange mixture of normalcy and emergency that can sometimes feel almost disorienting. Franz Kafka famously noted in his diary on Sunday, 2 August 1914: “Germany has declared war on Russia. Swimming lessons in the afternoon.” Kafka had just witnessed the beginning of what quickly escalated into the first world war. His remark captures the tension between the global and the personal, the extraordinary and the routine, history and everyday life, the outrageous and the mundane.There is always a temptation to resolve that tension by ignoring the emergency and focusing on the ordinariness of it all – because how bad could things possibly be, the sky isn’t ever falling. This, however, is a privilege not available to the women who are dealing with the cruel consequences of their bodily autonomy being denied or the traditionally marginalized, vulnerable groups who are the targets of the reactionary offensive. Such a focus on the markers of normalcy is deceptive and politically dangerous. It is difficult for contemporaries to discern the exact nature and extent of the crisis through which they are living. We can’t necessarily see the democratic backsliding by simply looking out the window – certainly not until it may be too late – but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a continuing crisis underneath.“Crisis”, of course, might be the most overused term in the public discourse. And in its colloquial meaning, in which it vaguely refers to any kind of difficult situation, it certainly doesn’t have much analytical or explanatory value. But if taken seriously, the notion of “crisis” delineates a highly unstable situation in which established strategies, tactics and patterns of behavior don’t work any more, a constellation in which accepted modes of making sense of the world around us prove inadequate and unable to generate viable solutions.The summer of 2022 should have hammered home the fact that all of us who prefer democracy are experiencing such a profound crisis. The supreme court, one of the critical institutions of constitutional government, is not only complicit in the full-on assault on democracy, civil rights and the state’s ability to adequately tackle urgent public policy issues, it is its spearhead. In this situation, simply clinging to the established idea that the public trust in institutions must not be undermined will not be good enough.And it’s true that, in a vacuum, it is highly problematic for authorities to prosecute the leading political opponent of a sitting president. But we are not in a vacuum. We are in a situation in which the former president was the central figure in a multi-layered, multi-month scheme that amounted to an actual coup attempt. Not holding him accountable would gravely endanger the future of constitutional government.In medical terms, the word “crisis” refers to the turning point of a disease: the patient will either recover – or die. In this sense, a crisis is the opposite of a stable equilibrium. And that’s precisely where we find ourselves.After the overturning of Roe, the overwhelming message from all corners of the right has been: We are not done yet – or, as First Things, the pre-eminent intellectual platform of the religious right, put it: Dobbs was just “the end of the beginning” and a “resounding first step”. Nothing more. There’s no appeasing those who are behind the reactionary crusade, no bargain or truce to be had. The refusal to compromise with the vision of multiracial pluralism, with anyone who deviates from their idea of the natural and/or divinely ordained order, is at the heart of their political project. They are not looking for a consolation prize, partial victories, or an exit ramp. They will keep going – until and unless they are stopped.The current situation necessarily marks a turning point. It is a veritable crisis because it will have to be resolved, one way or the other. America will either overcome this reactionary counter-mobilization and make the leap to multiracial, pluralistic democracy – or the country will regress, and let democracy perish before it’s ever been fully achieved in this land.
      Thomas Zimmer is a visiting professor at Georgetown University, focused on the history of democracy and its discontents in the United States, and a Guardian US contributing opinion writer
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionJanuary 6 hearingsUS supreme courtRepublicansDemocratscommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Cheney and Kinzinger tee up possible January 6 subpoena for Ginni Thomas

      by

      Cheney and Kinzinger tee up possible January 6 subpoena for Ginni ThomasRepublicans on House committee suggest wife of supreme court justice Clarence Thomas could be compelled to testify

      Robert Reich: Trump’s coup continues
      The House January 6 committee could subpoena Ginni Thomas, the wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, if she will not testify voluntarily about her involvement in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.Josh Hawley, senator who ran from Capitol mob, mocked by home paperRead moreThe news, from panel member Liz Cheney, came two days after Trump’s former strategist, Steve Bannon, was convicted of criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with the committee. He faces time in jail.On Sunday the second Republican on the committee, Adam Kinzinger, said, “You can’t ignore a congressional subpoena or you’ll pay the price”, a warning he said applied to “any future witnesses too”.Cheney, vice-chair of the panel, told CNN’s State of the Union: “The committee is engaged with [Ginni Thomas’s] counsel. We certainly hope that she will agree to come in voluntarily but the committee is fully prepared to contemplate a subpoena if she does not.”Thomas corresponded with Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, and John Eastman, a law professor who shaped the congressional side of a push which culminated in the deadly Capitol attack.She also corresponded with Arizona Republicans about attempts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory there.Her activities have added to pressure on her husband. The arch-conservative was the only justice to say Trump should not have to release records to the House committee. His wife’s communications with the Trump camp were subsequently revealed.Some on the left have called for Thomas to be impeached – a political non-starter.Cheney said: “I hope it doesn’t get to [a subpoena]. I hope [Ginni Thomas] will come in voluntarily. We’ve certainly spoken with numbers of people who are similarly situated in terms of the discussions that she was having … so it’s very important for us to speak with her.”Bannon was convicted after the committee made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice but in Meadows’ case, the DoJ declined to pursue charges.Kinzinger told ABC’s This Week those who defy subpoenas should face ‘justice, right? Come in, you can plead the fifth if you want in front of our committee but you can’t ignore a congressional subpoena or you’ll pay the price.”He added: “That’s to any future witnesses too.”Elaine Luria, the Virginia Democrat who with Kinzinger presented the committee’s case in a hearing on Thursday, told NBC’s Meet the Press: “I don’t think [the DoJ] can revisit something that they’ve already dismissed but [Meadows is] certainly someone who has probably more information than anyone, you know, other than the folks who we have already heard from who were in the White House that day.”She added: “If he’s listening, we’d love to hear from him.”Kinzinger has said he thinks the panel has proved Trump broke the law in his attempts to overturn the election. Cheney would not go so far.She said: “I think that Donald Trump’s violation of his oath of office, the violation of the constitution that he engaged in, is the most serious misconduct of any president in the history of our nation.“The committee has not decided yet whether or not we’ll make criminal referrals … I would also say that the Department of Justice certainly is very focused, based on what we see publicly, on what is the largest criminal investigation in American history.“But there’s no doubt in my mind that the former president of the United States is unfit for further office.”Luria said: “I sure as hell hope [the DoJ has] a criminal investigation at this point into Donald Trump.”She also said Merrick Garland, the attorney general, “has already told us he’s listening, and if he’s watching today, I’d tell him he doesn’t need to wait on us because I think he has plenty to keep moving forward.”The House committee has held nine hearings, eight in a summer run which ended on Thursday with almost three hours on Trump’s inaction while the Capitol was attacked. There will be more hearings in September. Cheney said more interviews were scheduled and the committee “anticipate[s] talking to additional members of the president’s cabinet. We anticipate talking to additional members of his campaign.“Certainly we’re very focused as well on the Secret Service.”The deletion of Secret Service text messages from 5 and 6 January 2021 despite an order from the committee to preserve them is another flashpoint.Cheney praised witnesses including Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Meadows, and Sarah Matthews, a former White House press aide.Cheney said: “Certainly it is the case that the attacks against some of the women witnesses have been particularly vicious. I also think the response that we’ve seen from the House Republicans is really disgraceful.‘US democracy will not survive for long’: how January 6 hearings plot a roadmap to autocracyRead more“… I think our country is at a moment where we really have to all of us take a big step back and say, ‘Look, the normal, sort of vitriolic, toxic partisanship has got to stop and we have to recognise what’s at stake.’ And … the leadership of the Republicans in the House need to be held accountable for their actions.”Cheney is expected to lose her seat in Wyoming over her opposition to Trump. She would not be fully drawn on whether she plans to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, when Trump is expected to do so.“I’ve not made a decision about 2024,” Cheney said, “and I am really very focused on the substance of what we have to do on the select committee, very focused on the work that I have to do to represent the people of Wyoming. And I’ll make a decision about 2024 down the road.“But I do think as we look towards the next presidential election … I believe that our nation stands on the edge of an abyss. And I do believe that we all have to really think very seriously about the dangers we face and the threats we face and we have to elect serious candidates.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackClarence ThomasUS politicsDonald TrumpUS supreme courtnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney: January 6 panel will subpoena Ginni Thomas if necessary

      by

      Liz Cheney: January 6 panel will subpoena Ginni Thomas if necessaryWife of Justice Clarence Thomas corresponded with Trump camp about attempts to overturn 2020 election

      Robert Reich: Trump’s coup continues
      The House January 6 committee will subpoena Ginni Thomas, the wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, if she will not testify voluntarily about her involvement in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.Josh Hawley, senator who ran from Capitol mob, mocked by home paperRead more“The committee is engaged with her counsel,” Liz Cheney, the panel vice-chair, told CNN’s State of the Union. “We certainly hope that she will agree to come in voluntarily but the committee is fully prepared to contemplate a subpoena if she does not.”Thomas corresponded with Mark Meadows, Trump’s final chief of staff, and John Eastman, a law professor who shaped the congressional side of a push which culminated in the deadly attack on the Capitol.She also corresponded with Arizona Republicans about attempts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory there.Her activities have added to pressure on her husband. An arch-conservative on a court tilted firmly right, Clarence Thomas was the only justice to say Trump should not have to release records to the House committee. His wife’s communications with the Trump camp were subsequently revealed.Some on the left have called for Thomas to be impeached – a political non-starter.Cheney said: “I hope it doesn’t get to [a subpoena]. I hope [Ginni Thomas] will come in voluntarily. We’ve certainly spoken with numbers of people who are similarly situated in terms of the discussions that she was having … so it’s very important for us to speak with her.”Steve Bannon, Trump’s former White House strategist, faces jail time after being convicted of criminal contempt of Congress, for ignoring a subpoena.Meadows was also referred to the Department of Justice for failing to co-operate but the DoJ declined to pursue charges.On Sunday Elaine Luria, the Virginia Democrat who presented the committee’s case in a hearing on Thursday, told NBC’s Meet the Press: “I don’t think [the DoJ] can revisit something that they’ve already dismissed but [Meadows is] certainly someone who has probably more information than anyone, you know, other than the folks who we have already heard from who were in the White House that day.”She added: “If he’s listening, we’d love to hear from him.”Cheney would not go as far as her fellow Republican on the January 6 committee, Adam Kinzinger, who has said he thinks the panel has proved Trump broke the law in his attempts to overturn the election.She said: “I think that Donald Trump’s violation of his oath of office, the violation of the constitution that he engaged in, is the most serious misconduct of any president in the history of our nation.“The committee has not decided yet whether or not we’ll make criminal referrals … I would also say that the Department of Justice certainly is very focused, based on what we see publicly, on what is the largest criminal investigation in American history.“But there’s no doubt in my mind that the former president of the United States is unfit for further office.”Luria echoed Kinzinger, telling NBC: “I sure as hell hope [the DoJ has] a criminal investigation at this point into Donald Trump.”She also said Merrick Garland, the attorney general, “has already told us he’s listening, and if he’s watching today, I’d tell him he doesn’t need to wait on us because I think he has plenty to keep moving forward.”The House committee has held nine public hearings, eight in a summer run which ended on Thursday with almost three hours on Trump’s inaction while his supporters attacked the Capitol.There will be more hearings in September. Cheney said more interviews were scheduled and the committee “anticipate[s] talking to additional members of the president’s cabinet. We anticipate talking to additional members of his campaign.“Certainly we’re very focused as well on the Secret Service and on interviewing additional members of the Secret Service and collecting additional information from them.”The deletion of Secret Service text messages from 5 and 6 January 2021 despite an order from the committee to preserve them is another flashpoint in the continuing saga of Trump’s attempted coup.On Sunday, Cheney repeated her praise of witnesses who have come forward, including Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Meadows, and Sarah Matthews, a former White House press aide.Asked about Republican attacks on such witnesses, Cheney said: “Certainly it is the case that the attacks against some of the women witnesses have been particularly vicious. I also think the response that we’ve seen from the House Republicans is really disgraceful.“… I think our country is at a moment where we really have to all of us take a big step back and all of us say, ‘Look, the normal, sort of vitriolic, toxic partisanship has got to stop and we have to recognise what’s at stake.’ And … the leadership of the Republicans in the House need to be held accountable for their actions.”‘US democracy will not survive for long’: how January 6 hearings plot a roadmap to autocracyRead moreCheney, a stringent conservative, is nonetheless expected to lose her seat in Wyoming, over her opposition to Trump. She would not be fully drawn on whether she plans to run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, when Trump is expected to mount another campaign.“I’ve not made a decision about 2024,” Cheney said, “and I am really very focused on the substance of what we have to do on the select committee, very focused on the work that I have to do to represent the people of Wyoming. And I’ll make a decision about 2024 down the road.“But I do think as we look towards the next presidential election … I believe that our nation stands on the edge of an abyss. And I do believe that we all have to really think very seriously about the dangers we face and the threats we face and we have to elect serious candidates.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackClarence ThomasUS politicsDonald TrumpUS supreme courtnewsReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      US Supreme Court Decisions Highlight Ethical Concerns

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris urges voters to elect a ‘pro-choice Congress’ in midterms

      by

      Kamala Harris urges voters to elect a ‘pro-choice Congress’ in midtermsVice-president highlights that down-ballot contests at local level would also be central to restoring abortion rights Vice-President Kamala Harris renewed pleas to voters ahead of the midterm congressional races to elect pro-choice candidates, as the Biden administration continues to face criticism from progressives over a perceived lackluster response to the recent landmark supreme court decision striking down federal abortion rights in the US.In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Harris urged voters to elect a “pro-choice Congress” in November and highlighted that down-ballot contests at the local level would also be central to restoring abortion rights in certain parts of the country.“You don’t have to advocate or believe that this is right for you or your family, but don’t let the government make the decision for her family, whoever she may be,” Harris said in a pre-recorded interview. “It means state offices, governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general. It means local races, who’s going to be your DA, who’s going to be your sheriff, enforcing laws that are being passed to criminalize medical health providers, and maybe even the women who seek the service.”On Friday, Joe Biden signed a limited executive order designed to protect access to reproductive health services by expanding access to emergency contraception and bolstering legal services to support people who cross state lines to seek an abortion.But for many abortion advocates and progressive Democrats, the president’s measures do not go far enough. The administration has, for example, resisted calls to use federal land in anti-abortion states to facilitate terminating pregnancies, or subsidizing travel to people forced to travel in order to access services.At least nine US states have banned abortion in the wake of 6-3 supreme court ruling that overturned the Roe v Wade decision that had enshrined the procedure as a constitutional right since 1973. The ruling makes it likely that around half the country – 26 states – will eventually outlaw abortion in some way.The decision followed Donald Trump’s installation of three rightwing justices to the supreme court, paving the way for a conservative super majority on the court.Harris, then a US senator, voted against the former president’s appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And she said on Sunday she had never believed assurances made in private and public by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that they respected the precedence of the Roe decision.“I start from the point of experience of having served in the Senate,” Harris said. “I never believed them. I didn’t believe them. So I voted against.”Asked if the Democrats should have done more to enshrine the right to abortion into federal law when the party controlled both chambers of Congress, Harris responded: “We certainly believe that certain issues are just settled. Certain issues are just settled. And that’s why I do believe that we are living, sadly, in real unsettled times.”Democrats have faced criticism for fundraising drives off the back of the supreme court decision and recent polling indicates their party still faces a tough day at the ballot box in November, with Biden’s approval ratings plummeting and the party looking set to lose its majority in the House of Representatives.On Sunday, Harris sought to quell calls for Biden to serve just one term as president before allowing a new Democratic nominee to contest the 2024 election.“Listen to President Biden,” Harris said. “He intends to run. And if he does, I intend to run with him.”TopicsKamala HarrisUS midterm elections 2022US politicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden signs executive order to protect US abortion access and urges Americans to ‘vote, vote, vote’ – as it happened

      by

      Biden is currently speaking on the rollback of federal abortion protections, two weeks after the supreme court voted to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark case that protected abortion rights nationwide. “This was not a decision driven by the constitution. This was not a decision driven by history,” said Biden of the supreme court overturning Roe v Wade. Discussing the conservative majority in the court, Biden said: “Today’s supreme court majority is playing fast and loose with the facts.” Later on in his remarks, Biden called on Americans to use their electoral power to elect senators who would help codify Roe v Wade, saying that it was the “fastest route” to solidifying federal abortion rights. “Your votes can make that a reality,” said Biden, acknowledging the frustration his administration has received amid urging people to vote. “You, the women of America, can determine the outcome of this issue,” adding the courts do not have a “clue about the power of American women.” “For God’s sakes, there’s an election in November. Vote, vote, vote,” said Biden. Biden’s remarks come on the same day that he is signing an executive order protecting access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare nationwide. That’s it from me today! Here’s a wrap up of everything that happened, US politics-wise:
      Joe Biden to signed an executive order to protect access to abortion and reproductive healthcare services after the rollback of Roe v wade, urging Americans to elect pro-choice senators during the midterm elections this November.
      Biden spoke critically of the conservative-leaning Supreme court, accusing the justices who voted to overturn Roe v wade of “playing fast and loose with the facts”.
      Democrats generally applauded Biden’s order, but urged him to do more amid nationwide rollbacks of abortion rights.
      US politicians published statements of condolences after the assassination of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, including Biden, Kamala Harris, and Barack Obama.
      The US job market added over 300,000 jobs in June, a sign of economic resilience amid slowed growth.
      Thank you for reading!In other news, the US economy added 372,000 jobs in June, an sign of economic resilience despite signs of slowed economic growth.Here’re more information from the Guardian’s Edward Helmore: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The US economy added 372,000 jobs in June, an indicator of resilience despite signs of slowing economic growth.
      The jobs reports is seen as a key indicator on whether high inflation – and central bank efforts to tame it with interest rates rises – is beginning to bite down on the wider American economy.
      The US unemployment rate held steady at 3.6%, the same as month earlier, the labor department said on Friday. Job growth far exceeded the projections of economists, who expected the US to add roughly 278,000 jobs last month, according to consensus estimates.
      The figures may ease some fears of a looming recession, but also show that the Federal Reserve has more room to raise interest rates, cooling consumer demand, in its fight against historically high inflation.Read the full article here. US adds 372,000 jobs in June as growth exceeds expectationsRead moreSeveral Democrats have responded to Biden’s executive order, calling the order a good first step but urging Biden to do more to protect abortion rights federally, reports Politico. From Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren:.@POTUS’ executive order will help Americans receive the reproductive health care they need. I urged the Biden administration to expand access to medication abortion, protect patient privacy, and safeguard interstate travel for care. Today’s actions are important first steps.— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 8, 2022
      The Administration should continue to explore every available option to protect access to abortion care. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this extremist Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and we must use every tool possible to address this emergency.— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 8, 2022
      From US representative Adam Smith of Washington: Today @POTUS announced actions he’s taking to protect access to reproductive health care in the wake of the Supreme Court’s dangerous decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.— Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) July 8, 2022
      The Executive Order will also protect consumer privacy, personal data, and sensitive health information and importantly will advance the safety of providers and clinics who are courageously providing essential reproductive health care services in the face of heightened risk.— Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) July 8, 2022
      These actions are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough on their own. We must codify Roe v. Wade into law, and to do so, we must be willing to scrap the filibuster – our freedoms are so much more important than Senate procedure.— Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) July 8, 2022
      On the same day that Biden signed an executive order safeguarding access to abortions, Louisiana is now able to enforce a near-total ban of abortions in the state under a judge’s order issued on Friday. Here’s a piece from the Guardian’s health reporter Jessica Glenza on the issue: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} Louisiana is fighting to become a leader in the race to criminalize doctors who allegedly provide abortions, since the US supreme court ended federal abortion protections.
      In doing so, the state may also become an example of how abortion bans could worsen maternal health in America, as criminal penalties across the US redefine where and how doctors are willing to practice.
      In turn, that is likely to worsen a leading reason some states are more dangerous places to give birth – lack of hospitals, birthing centers and obstetricians.
      “It should be no surprise that in a lot of the states where there’s a [trigger ban], there’s a strong correlation [with maternity care deserts],” said Stacey Stewart, president and chief executive of the March of Dimes, an organization that advocates for maternal and infant health and is strictly neutral on abortion.Read the rest of the piece here. Pregnant women face increasingly dangerous risks as doctors flee punitive US statesRead moreWith abortion access threatened across the country, those seeking out abortion services and other reproductive healthcare options will be forced to travel if their states do not provide it. The Guardian’s Alvin Chang, Andrew Witherspoon and Jessica Glenza have explored how the creation of abortion “deserts” throughout the country will change who can access care – and how far they will be forced to travel. Abortion deserts: America’s new geography of access to care – mappedRead moreDuring the briefing, White house press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre got into a back and forth discussion with a reporter on whether or not people can peacefully protest against Supreme court justices, even in settings like restaurants. The question was prompted after Justice Brett Kavanaugh reportedly had to leave a steakhouse when protestors confronted him for voting to overturn Roe v wade. Jean-Pierre replied to a question on if protestors could confront justices at a restaurant they’re eating at, saying that the Biden administration is against the intimidation of Supreme court justices and using violence against them. Jean-Pierre also cited recent legislation passed to protect the safety of justices. Later on in her response, Jean-Pierre clarified, saying the Biden administration supports the right to peaceful protest, even outside of a restaurant. Here is more information on the bill expanding security for Supreme court justices that passed:US House passes bill to expand supreme court security to justices’ familiesRead moreThe White house press briefing is happening right now, with questions largely focused on Biden’s executive order meant to safeguard access to abortions and other reproductive healthcare services. Questions were answered by White House Gender Policy Council director Jen Klein, who clarified actions that will be taken under the executive order. A link to watch the briefings is available below: White House Press Briefing with @PressSec Karine Jean-Pierre and @JKlein46 – LIVE online here: https://t.co/a3vT0sqXcw pic.twitter.com/YxLsmvhHhQ— CSPAN (@cspan) July 8, 2022
      Here’s additional context on Biden’s remarks from the Guardian’s health reporter Jessica Glenza:In a speech to mark an executive order to on reproductive rights, President Joe Biden emphatically called on the American people to “vote, vote, vote, vote,” in the upcoming election, describing it as the fastest way to regain abortion rights in the US. Both the speech and executive order, which directs federal agencies to enhance coordination and regulation, “just like in the Civil Rights era,” comes amid mounting criticism of the administration’s response to the end of federal abortion rights. Federal abortion rights ended nearly two weeks ago when the supreme court, controlled by a conservative supermajority, overturned Roe v Wade. The landmark 1973 case had prevented states hostile to the procedure from banning abortion. However, the president’s emphasis on voting also underscores the limitations on the federal government. While the executive order calls on agencies to protect access to the abortion pill, patient privacy, abortion clinics in states where it remains legal and interstate travel, intervention from Congress is necessary to restore the rights of people who can become pregnant in state that have already banned the procedure. “The choice is clear: if you want to change the circumstances for women and even little girls in this country please go out and vote,” said Biden. He also emphasized the stakes of abortion bans, citing the case of a 10-year-old sexual abuse victim from Ohio who was allegedly forced to travel to Indiana to obtain an abortion. “10 years old, 10 years old!” said Biden. “Raped, six weeks pregnant, already traumatized, was forced to travel to another state… Does anyone believe that it is Ohio’s majority view that should not be able to be dealt with? A 10-year-old girl should be forced to give birth to a rapist’s child?”Tracking where abortion laws stand in every stateRead moreDuring his remarks, Biden also pledged to veto any further abortion restrictions that could come across his desk if Republicans gain control of Congress during the midterm elections in November. “As long as I’m president it won’t happen, because I’ll veto it,” said Biden during his speech today, shortly before he signed an executive order safeguarding access to abortions and other reproductive healthcare services. From the Guardian’s Lauren Gambino: Biden warns that Republicans would seek a national ban on abortion if they take control of Congress in November. As long as I’m president, he said, “I’ll veto it.”— Lauren Gambino (@laurenegambino) July 8, 2022
      cc @amandalitman who told me last week that voters so far hadn’t heard Biden say clearly that he would veto any new abortion restrictions sent to him by a potential Republican-controlled Congress. https://t.co/Z8ngEYyZVm— Lauren Gambino (@laurenegambino) July 8, 2022
      It’s official; Biden has formally signed an executive order protecting access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare services. Here is a previous post detailing what is in the executive order. Biden also brought up the story of a 10-year-old girl in Ohio who was raped and forced to travel to Indiana to receive an abortion. “A 10-year-old girl should be forced to given birth to rapist’s child?” said Biden of the Ohio case, calling it an example of Republican extremism.Biden added: “Does anyone believe it’s Ohio’s majority view that that should not be able to be dealt with?”Read the Guardian’s coverage of the case by Ed Helmore here: 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortionRead moreBiden is currently speaking on the rollback of federal abortion protections, two weeks after the supreme court voted to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark case that protected abortion rights nationwide. “This was not a decision driven by the constitution. This was not a decision driven by history,” said Biden of the supreme court overturning Roe v Wade. Discussing the conservative majority in the court, Biden said: “Today’s supreme court majority is playing fast and loose with the facts.” Later on in his remarks, Biden called on Americans to use their electoral power to elect senators who would help codify Roe v Wade, saying that it was the “fastest route” to solidifying federal abortion rights. “Your votes can make that a reality,” said Biden, acknowledging the frustration his administration has received amid urging people to vote. “You, the women of America, can determine the outcome of this issue,” adding the courts do not have a “clue about the power of American women.” “For God’s sakes, there’s an election in November. Vote, vote, vote,” said Biden. Biden’s remarks come on the same day that he is signing an executive order protecting access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare nationwide. Ahead of Biden’s speech, US politicians are sharing reproductive rights resources that are currently available, modest steps the Biden administration have taken prior to the executive order expected today. From US House representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} ICYMI: in response to the Supreme Court’s assault on reproductive health care, @HHSGov created a guide for women about their reproductive rights. Abortion & other reproductive care remains safe & legal in California.ICYMI: in response to the Supreme Court’s assault on reproductive health care, @HHSGov created a guide for women about their reproductive rights.Abortion & other reproductive care remains safe & legal in California.https://t.co/b9UaitzI74— Rep. Zoe Lofgren (@RepZoeLofgren) July 8, 2022
      At 11.30am, Joe Biden will give remarks from the White House on protecting abortion access nationwide. Biden will likely speak on an executive order he is expected to sign today that would safeguard access to abortions and other reproductive healthcare services. Stay tuned to hear highlights from his remarks and watch the live speech here. Other US politicians have shared statements of condolence following the assassination of Shinzo Abe.Vice-president Kamala Harris called Abe “a close friend of the United States,” writing that the country stands “with our Japanese friends in honoring him and condemning this horrific act of violence”. Doug and I send our deepest condolences to the family of former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo and the Japanese people. He was a close friend of the United States and on this tragic day, we stand with our Japanese friends in honoring him and condemning this horrific act of violence.— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) July 8, 2022
      Former US president George W Bush released a statement today on Abe’s death, writing: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I am deeply saddened to learn of the senseless assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. I had the privilege of getting to know him during his first time as Prime Minister in 2006 and found him to be a decent and caring man. Shinzo Abe was a patriot of his country who wanted to continue serving it. Laura and I send our heartfelt condolences to Akie Abe, their family, and the people of Japan during this difficult time.In a series of tweets published today, Barack Obama wrote: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} I am shocked and saddened by the assassination of my friend and longtime partner Shinzo Abe in Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe was devoted to both the country he served and the extraordinary alliance between the United States and Japan.I am shocked and saddened by the assassination of my friend and longtime partner Shinzo Abe in Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe was devoted to both the country he served and the extraordinary alliance between the United States and Japan.— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) July 8, 2022
      In other news, Joe Biden has publicized a statement following the shooting death of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. Abe was assassinated yesterday while giving a campaign speech in the south-central Japanese city of Nara. In a statement shared on Twitter, Biden said: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} I am stunned, outraged, and deeply saddened by the news that my friend Abe Shinzo, former Prime Minister of Japan, was shot and killed.
      He was a champion of the friendship between our people. The United States stands with Japan in this moment of grief.Today, with the addition of 372,000 new jobs in June, our private sector has recovered all of the jobs lost during the pandemic – and added jobs on top of that. We have more work to do. But no country is better positioned than America to face global economic challenges.— President Biden (@POTUS) July 8, 2022
      Here are more specifics on what Biden’s executive order protecting access to abortion will entail.According to a fact sheet from the White house, the executive order will direct the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to take steps in a number of areas concerning abortion access and report back in 30 days. The HHS secretary will take steps to:
      Protect access to medication abortion, also known as abortion pills
      Ensure emergency medical care for pregnant people and anyone experiencing pregnancy loss
      Launch education and public outreach efforts
      Convene volunteer lawyers to represent patients who seek out care
      The executive order will also seek to protect patient privacy and ensure the safety of patients, providers, and clinics who provide reproductive healthcare services. Biden’s executive order comes at a time when frustration is mounting against his administration for not doing enough to protect federal abortion rights. Progressive politicians and abortion rights advocates have been public about their disappointment with the Biden administration, asking Biden and other Democrats to do more to protect reproductive rights following the overturning of Roe v Wade two weeks ago. US House representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat of New York, urged Democrats to push back harder against the rollback of abortion protections, tweeting last week: “Use the bully pulpit. We need more.”Now we’re talking! Time for people to see a real, forceful push for it. Use the bully pulpit. We need more. https://t.co/dZ1qhdu8iM— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 30, 2022
      A group of more than 20 Black Democratic congresswomen signed a letter last week, urging Biden to declare a public health emergency following the rollback of Roe v Wade. “In this unprecedented moment, we must act urgently as if lives depend on it because they do,” the legislators wrote.Biden urged to do more to defend abortion rights: ‘This is a five-alarm fire’Read moreGood morning! It’s Gloria from the New York office. Here’s what is happening today:Joe Biden is signing an executive order to protect abortion access for millions, two weeks after the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, a landmark ruling that ensured federal abortion protections for the past 50 years.According to a fact sheet, the executive order will protect access to several reproductive healthcare services, including abortion and contraception. The order also safeguards access to medication abortions, also known as abortion pills, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The executive order comes as many have been critical of the Biden administration for failing to do more to protect abortion rights, including codifying abortion access amid ongoing attacks on reproductive rights nationwide. Biden is expected to speak on the executive order and abortion rights generally at 11:30am eastern time. Joe Biden to sign executive order protecting access to abortionRead more More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans lose faith in the US supreme court

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

      The US supreme court has struck down the constitutional right to an abortion, one of several landmark decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.
      Jonathan Freedland and Jill Filipovic discuss whether it’s still possible for a deeply divided court of nine judges, a group that now has a 6-3 conservative majority, to keep the promise to the American people of ‘equal protection’, and what happens if it can’t

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      This episode was originally played on Politics weekly America You can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Spotify Archive: CNN, CBS, C-Span More