US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court poses a real threat to US democracy | Richard Wolffe

      by

      The US supreme court poses a real threat to Americans’ democracyRichard WolffeIt did not start with Donald Trump. And it will not end with his shuffling off stage, in handcuffs or disgrace America is not just a country. It’s an idea. But whose idea is it anyway?Peering through the mists of time, the current right-wingnut majority of the US supreme court believe they can divine the original ideas of some very dead white men.On that flimsy basis, they rule by fiat.They order states to remove sensible gun safety measures. Then they deny women reproductive rights by pretending that states can do whatever they want.They say that presidents cannot limit carbon emissions to tackle the climate crisis. And now they are ready to change the way we elect presidents.Whatever you call the current crusade of this supreme court, their approach is not conservative.There is nothing stable or traditional about throwing out a half-century of civil rights and quite possibly a century of democratic practice.This is a radical bunch of ideologues who have spent years projecting themselves onto their critics. For decades, the Republican party has picked activist judges while pretending to correct the notion of activist judges on the other side of the divide.It’s the same excuse that Fox News used for decades as it cosplayed the shows of an actual news division: it was just correcting the bias on the other side.If you can convince the suckers that the other side is misbehaving, you can justify pretty much anything.That little ruse is the last refuge of scoundrels, dictators, and bankrupt real estate developers. It’s lovely to see the supreme court following their logic.Which brings us to one of their last decisions in a very long list of reactionary and repressive opinions last month: their willingness to hear arguments about the fringe notion that state legislatures can set their own rules for federal elections. That includes picking whoever they want for president.This just happens to have been the big wet dream of one Donald Trump in the weeks after he definitively lost the presidential election of 2020.An amazing coincidence that this group of eminent jurists should glob on to the electoral priorities of a comically incompetent sociopath who just happened to appoint three of them to a lifetime of unchecked power.Who needs messy democracy when you can just have Republican rule?Since most of the state legislatures have been gerrymandered into huge Republican majorities – and the electoral college skews power towards smaller states – this wonderfully undemocratic and un-American idea is now perfectly in line with the original intent of the founders and ratifiers.The constitution may say that states can pick their own presidential electors however they want. But the electoral college has been decided by the popular vote since the 19th century when the states realized early in the nation’s life that all the other methods of picking electors led to widespread corruption.So to return to the original intent of the founders just ignores more than a century of democracy – and the very idea that the United States somehow leads the free world.To be frank, the threat to democracy posed by this supreme court is clear and present.But it did not start with Donald Trump. And it will not end with his shuffling off stage, in handcuffs or disgrace – if either are possible in this multiverse of madness.Two decades ago, another supreme court took it upon itself to steal an election for the Republican candidate. That court decided to ignore all its own high-minded principles about state rights as it shut down a state-ordered recount of votes in Florida in 2000.Its reasoning was so blatantly corrupt, the rightwing majority even declared that its own decision could not stand as precedent.The “winner” of that stolen election was George W Bush who went on to appoint two of the justices who just voted to end abortion rights as we know them: Samuel Alito and John Roberts. According to a study commissioned by major news organizations, a full statewide recount would have handed Florida’s electoral college votes – and the presidency – to Al Gore.That was, as they say, the tipping point that led to our current supreme state of upheaval. Once the court became just another political tool, it began its death spiral.No amount of novel legal fantasies about the founders’ ideas can paper over a rightwing putsch.For all those many things that are not mentioned explicitly in the constitution – like abortion, marriage, the internet, or a democratically-elected presidency – our rightwing supremes have taken it upon themselves to imagine anything they like about what the founders were thinking.Coming out of the July 4 holiday, it might seem churlish to observe that many parts of what we now see as the American idea were not, in fact, the favorite ideas of the founding fathers.Their notion of a democratic republic was what you might expect from a men’s club whose property – landed and human – allowed them to define freedom for themselves.They preferred presidents to be picked by an electoral college made up of men just like them. The people could pick the House, but real democracy would be easily demagogued by someone just like Donald Trump.If we’re going back to their original intent, let’s try to be a little consistent, shall we?The founders didn’t explicitly give the supreme court the powers this particular bunch of rightwing radicals has assumed for themselves. They didn’t say there should be only nine of them, or that they should serve until they die.So if Democrats, and a handful of Republicans, are truly interested in defending democracy, it’s time to rein in the rightwing supremes who have used the court to grab power for themselves, ignoring their own court precedents and culture.At the very least, they could introduce term limits and allow each president the pick of two justices in each term.The preamble to the constitution talks about “a more perfect union”, as if the American idea is a work in progress, not regress.It’s time for fundamental reform of American democracy – including the supreme court – before the radical right steals that democracy away forever.
      Richard Wolffe is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS supreme courtOpinionLaw (US)RepublicansUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Global dismay as supreme court ruling leaves Biden’s climate policy in tatters

      by

      Global dismay as supreme court ruling leaves Biden’s climate policy in tattersBiden’s election was billed as heralding a ‘climate presidency’ but congressional and judicial roadblocks mean he has little to show Joe Biden’s election triggered a global surge in optimism that the climate crisis would, finally, be decisively confronted. But the US supreme court’s decision last week to curtail America’s ability to cut planet-heating emissions has proved the latest blow to a faltering effort by Biden on climate that is now in danger of becoming largely moribund.The supreme court’s ruling that the US government could not use its existing powers to phase out coal-fired power generation without “clear congressional authorization” quickly ricocheted around the world among those now accustomed to looking on in dismay at America’s seemingly endless stumbles in addressing global heating.The US supreme court has declared war on the Earth’s future | Kate AronoffRead moreThe decision “flies in the face of established science and will set back the US’s commitment to keep global temperature below 1.5C”, said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh, in reference to the internationally agreed goal to limit global heating before it becomes truly catastrophic, manifesting in more severe heatwaves, floods, droughts and societal unrest.“The people who will pay the price for this will be the most vulnerable communities in the most vulnerable developing countries in the world,” Huq added.The “incredibly undemocratic Scotus ruling” indicates that “backsliding is now the dominant trend in the climate space,” said Yamide Dagnet, director of climate justice at Open Society Foundations and former climate negotiator for the UK and European Union. António Guterres, the secretary general of the United Nations who has called new fossil fuel infrastructure “moral and economic madness”, said via a spokesman that the ruling was a “setback” at a time when countries were badly off track in averting looming climate breakdown.In the 6-3 ruling, backed by the rightwing majority of justices, the supreme court did not completely negate the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate emissions from coal plants. But it did side with Republican-led states in stating that the government could not set broad plans to shift electricity generation away from coal because of the nebulous “major questions doctrine” that demands Congress explicitly decide on significant changes to the US economy.“The court appoints itself, instead of Congress or the expert agency, the decision-maker on climate policy,” wrote justice Elena Kagan in an unusually blunt dissenting opinion. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”Al Gore, the former US vice-president said the ruling was the “result of decades of influence and coordination by the fossil fuel lobby and its allies to delay, obstruct, and dismantle progress toward climate solutions”.For Biden, who called the ruling “devastating”, the court’s decision is just the latest crushing jolt to what was billed as a “climate presidency” when he was elevated to the White House.Landmark legislation to bolster clean energy has stalled in Congress, largely due to the opposition of Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat who has a coal-trading firm, and is perilously close to not being resurrected in time before midterm elections later this year in which Democrats are expected to lose their tenuous hold on Congress. The US, almost uniquely among major democracies, still has no national climate or energy policy in place.Biden’s promise to end oil and gas drilling on public land has been unfulfilled, while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused gasoline prices to leap, prompting the president to urge oil companies to ramp up production, to the horror of climate campaigners.The president has vowed that the US will cut its emissions in half by 2030 but this goal, and America’s waning international credibility on climate change, will be lost without both legislation from Congress and strong executive actions. Both of these factors remain highly uncertain, with the supreme court’s ruling sharply restricting the latter option. Gina McCarthy, the White House’s top climate adviser, has admitted the administration will have to get “creative” in forcing down emissions.“Congress acting on climate was important before this decision, now it’s even more important,” said John Larsen, partner at Rhodium group, a climate and energy analysis organization. According to Rhodium, the supreme court ruling is not fatal to US climate targets but there are still 1.7bn to 2.3bn tons of greenhouse gases that will need to be prevented on top of current policy if the 2030 goal is to be met.“The EPA still has authority, although it is more narrow than it was, so they need to get moving and crank out some rules because there’s not a lot of time left,” Larsen said.“It’s entirely possible the US will meet its emissions target but we have just eight years until 2030. The ball needs to start rolling very fast, very soon, if we are to get there. Everyone needs to really step up and start delivering.”TopicsClimate crisisUS supreme courtUS Environmental Protection AgencyUS politicsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      With Roe v Wade Overturned, A Strange Inconsistency Remains

      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

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      This Fourth of July, it’s worth pondering the true meaning of patriotism | Robert Reich

      by

      This Fourth of July, it’s worth pondering the true meaning of patriotismRobert ReichTrue patriots don’t fuel racist, religious or ethnic divisions. Patriots seek to confirm and strengthen and celebrate the ‘we’ in ‘we the people of the United States’ On this Fourth of July, it’s worth pondering the true meaning of patriotism.It is not the meaning propounded by the “America first” crowd, who see the patriotic challenge as securing our borders.For most of its existence America has been open to people from the rest of the world fleeing tyranny and violence.Nor is the meaning of patriotism found in the ravings of those who want America to be a white Christian nation.America’s moral mission has been greater inclusion – equal citizenship for Native Americans, Black people, women and LGBTQ+ people.True patriots don’t fuel racist, religious or ethnic divisions. Patriots aren’t homophobic or sexist. Patriots seek to confirm and strengthen and celebrate the “we” in “we the people of the United States”.Patriots are not blind to social injustices. They don’t ban books or prevent teaching about the sins of our past.They combine a loving devotion to America with a demand for justice.This land is your land, this land is my land, Woody Guthrie sang.Langston Hughes pleaded:Let America be America again,The land that never has been yet –And yet must be – the land where every man is free.The land that’s mine – the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME –.Nor is the meaning of patriotism found in symbolic displays of loyalty like standing for the national anthem and waving the American flag.Its true meaning is in taking a fair share of the burdens of keeping the nation going – sacrificing for the common good. Paying taxes in full rather than lobbying for lower taxes, seeking tax loopholes or squirreling away money abroad.It means refraining from political contributions that corrupt our politics, and blowing the whistle on abuses of power even at the risk of losing one’s job.It means volunteering time and energy to improve the community and country.Real patriotism involves strengthening our democracy – defending the right to vote and ensuring more Americans are heard. It is not claiming without evidence that millions of people voted fraudulently.It is not pushing for laws that make it harder for people to vote based on this “big lie”. It is not using the big lie to run for office.True patriots don’t put loyalty to their political party above their love of America.True patriots don’t support an attempted coup. They expose it – even when it was engineered by people they once worked for, even if it’s a president who headed their own party.When serving in public office, true patriots don’t try to hold on to power after voters have chosen not to re-elect them. They don’t make money off their offices.When serving as judges, they recuse themselves from cases where they may appear to have a conflict of interest. When serving in the Senate, they don’t use the filibuster to stop all legislation with which they disagree.When serving on the supreme court, they don’t disregard precedent to impose their ideology.Patriots understand that when they serve the public, one of their major responsibilities is to maintain and build public trust in the offices and institutions they occupy.America is in trouble. But that’s not because too many foreigners are crossing our borders, or we’re losing our whiteness or our dominant religion, or we’re not standing for the national anthem, or because of voter fraud.We’re in trouble because we are losing the true understanding of what patriotism requires from all of us.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS supreme courtcommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Alarm as US supreme court takes a hatchet to church-state separation

      by

      Alarm as US supreme court takes a hatchet to church-state separation A series of court decisions has raised fears that the conservative majority are forcing religion back into the US political systemWhen America’s highest court ended the constitutional right to abortion after half a century, Jeff Landry, the attorney general of Louisiana, knew whom he wanted to thank.“This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice in it and be glad,” he said in an official statement. “Today, along with millions across Louisiana and America, I rejoice with my departed mom and the unborn children with her in Heaven!”The US supreme court is letting prayer back in public schools. This is unsettling | Moira DoneganRead moreThe southern state’s top law enforcement official was not the only Republican to reference God while taking a victory lap. Nor was he alone in rooting for the supreme court to continue a pattern of forcing religion back into the US political system and tearing down the wall that separates church from state.The court – said to be more pro-religion than at any time since the 1950s – wrapped up one of its most consequential and divisive terms this week. Critics lamented a string of decisions that they say undermine legal traditions that prevent government officials from promoting any particular faith.In May the conservative majority ruled in favor of a Christian group that wanted to fly a flag emblazoned with a cross at Boston city hall under a programme aimed at promoting diversity and tolerance among the city’s various communities.Last month they endorsed taxpayer money paying for students to attend religious schools under a Maine tuition assistance programme in rural areas lacking nearby public high schools.Then they backed an American football coach at a Washington state public high school who was suspended by a local school district for refusing to stop leading Christian prayers with players on the field after games. This ruling cast aside a 1971 precedent, known as the Lemon test, which took into account factors such as whether the challenged government practice has a secular purpose.In all three cases, the court decided against government officials whose policies and actions were taken to avoid violating the constitution’s first amendment prohibition on government endorsement of religion, known as the “establishment clause”.In addition, although their decision last week to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that legalised abortion nationwide did not involve the establishment clause, it was celebrated as a seminal victory by religious conservatives. Mike Pence, the former vice-president and a born again Christian, called for a national ban on the procedure.Paradoxically, the trend comes against the backdrop of an increasingly diverse and secular nation.Last year a Gallup survey revealed that Americans’ membership in houses of worship dropped below 50% for the first time, and last month Gallup found that the share of US adults who believe in God – 81% – was the lowest since it first asked the question in 1944.White Christians represented 54% of the population when Barack Obama first ran for president in 2008 but now make up only 45%. Former president Donald Trump’s appointment of three rightwing justices, however, helped put the court on a very different track. And the nature of its rulings have been unusually radical and sweeping.Robert P Jones, founder and chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute thinktank in Washington, said: “What we’re seeing is a desperate power grab as the sun is setting on white Christian America. In the courts, instead of moving slowly and systematically, it’s a lurch.”Jones added: “In the meantime we’re going to be left with essentially an apartheid situation in the US where we’re going to have minority rule by this shrinking group that’s been able to seize the levers of power, even as their cultural democratic representation in the country shrinks.”The establishment clause prevents the government from establishing a state religion and bars it from favoring one faith over another. Thomas Jefferson, the third president, said in an 1802 letter the provision should represent a “wall of separation” between church and state.Some far-right Republicans now brazenly challenge that premise. The Colorado congresswoman Lauren Boebert reportedly told a church service last Sunday: “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.”In its trio of provocative decisions over the past two months, the supreme court decided that government actions intended to maintain a separation of church and state had instead infringed separate rights to free speech or the free exercise of religion, also protected by the first amendment.In the ruling on school football coach Joseph Kennedy, the conservative justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the court’s aim was to prevent public officials from being hostile to religion as they navigate the establishment clause. “In no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom violations justify actual violations of an individual’s first amendment rights,” Gorsuch opined.Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the school board in the case, said the separation was “under complete attack” by the supreme court as it favours the free exercise clause at the expense of the establishment clause, thereby raising the specter of religious favoritism.“We are at risk of taking away the religious freedom of vast numbers of Americans, which should make the founders of our country be doing somersaults in their grave and I’m sure is alarming to the world as a whole, because they see America as a beacon of light when it comes to religious freedom.”The line between church and state has been crucial, Laser argues, to advances in LGBTQ equality, racial justice, reproductive freedom, protecting religious minorities, the teaching of science in schools and safeguarding democracy itself. But all this is suddenly precarious because of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.She added: “The court pandered to a religious extremist agenda and implemented it by forcing one set of religious views on all of us and taking away the right of a woman to do with her body what her religious and moral views dictate, or taking away the right of a Maine taxpayer to not fund the teaching of a religion or religious discrimination that they disagree with, or taking away the right of a Jewish or Muslim or an atheist or a Buddhist public school student not to feel pressured to pray to play and be included in public school.”Like Jones, Laser perceives in the court’s opinions a backlash against America’s religious pluralism, racial diversity, an increase in women’s power in society and the advent of marriage equality and progress on LGBTQ equality.“This is a backlash that is meant to reinforce and cement existing power structures into our law, and it panders to a white Christian right extremist agenda. It’s incredibly divisive. It’s dangerous to our democracy in that regard.”Unusually, the nine-member supreme court currently includes six Catholics: Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, all appointed by Republican presidents, and Sonia Sotomayor, seated by a Democrat. Last year the court ruled that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could ignore city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to take in foster children.But although most of the court’s religious rights decisions in recent years involved Christian plaintiffs, it has also backed followers of other religions. These included a Muslim woman in 2015 denied a retail sales job because she wore a headscarf for religious reasons and a Buddhist death row inmate in 2019 who wanted a spiritual adviser present at his execution in Texas.The court also sided with both Christian and Jewish congregations in challenges based on religious rights to governmental restrictions such as limits on public gatherings imposed as public safety measures during the coronavirus pandemic.The New York Times reported recently: “Since John Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has ruled in favor of religious organizations in orally argued cases 83% [now 85%] of the time. That is far more than any court in the past seven decades – all of which were led by chief justices who, like Roberts, were appointed by Republican presidents.”The shift has been welcomed by conservative pressure groups. Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said: “The court’s recent pro-religious liberty streak shows how far it has come from earlier decades. A majority of the justices continue to demonstrate a clear record of protecting religious liberty and expression, something the constitution explicitly guarantees.”Activists and academic experts, however, warn that the emboldened supermajority of six justices is out of kilter with the will of the people on government endorsement of religion and other issues. Amanda Hollis-Brusky, an associate professor of politics at Pomona College in Claremont, California, said: “It’s paradoxical but it’s also a function of our system that creates so many avenues for minority rule and that’s something that we as Americans need to really reckon with: whether this 18th-century system still works for us in the 21st century.”TopicsUS constitution and civil libertiesUS politicsUS supreme courtChristianityReligionLaw (US)featuresReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden calls court’s Roe ruling ‘tragic reversal’ during meeting with Democratic governors – as it happened

      by

      Opening the meeting with Democratic governors, Biden called the court’s ruling on abortion a “tragic reversal”. “I share the public outrage of this extremist court that is committed to moving America backwards,” Biden said. He vowed to fight to protect women’s rights: “This is not over.”He pointed to two steps the administration has taken to increase the availability of medication abortion and protect women who travel out-of-state for an abortion. He also warned that if Republicans won control of Congress they would try to pass a nationwide ban on abortion. Per the White House, the Democratic governors participating in Friday’s meeting are: Ned Lamont, Governor of ConnecticutKathy Hochul, Governor of New YorkMichelle Lujan Grisham, Governor of New MexicoJB Pritzker, Governor of IllinoisJay Inslee, Governor of WashingtonKate Brown, Governor or OregonRoy Cooper, Governor of North CarolinaJared Polis, Governor of ColoradoDan McKee, Governor of Rhode IslandThis afternoon Joe Biden met with a group of Democratic governors to highlight their efforts to protect abortion. During the meeting, Biden called the supreme court’s ruling a “tragic reversal” and again vowed that the federal government was exploring more actions it could take to help women access reproductive care.
      Speaking from the White House, Biden said the administration had already taken steps to protect women. He said the Justice Department would defend anyone who travels to another state to have abortion and said the Department of Health and Human Services was working to make abortion medications more available. “This is not over,” he promised.
      Biden acknowledged that Democrats do not have enough votes in the Senate to change the filibuster rules to pass a bill protecting abortion and other privacy rates. He urged Americans to vote for pro-choice candidates, noting that two more Democratic senators would likely be enough to carve out an exception in the filibuster to pass abortion rights.
      The governors of New York and New Mexico urged Biden to consider using federal lands in states where abortion is banned or severely restricted to provide reproductive care. The White House has so far dismissed the suggestion as “well intentioned” but impractically and potentially risky.
      Biden also warned that if Republicans win control of Congress they will seek to ban abortion nationwide.
      Biden also announced that he will award the presidential medal of freedom to 17 people, including actor Denzel Washington, gymnast Simone Biles and the late Arizona senator, John McCain.
      That’s all from us this week. But for more, we invite you to listen to the latest episode of Politics Weekly America. This week, columnists 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.”Politics Weekly AmericaAmericans lose faith in the US supreme court: Politics Weekly AmericaSorry your browser does not support audio – but you can download here and listen https://audio.guim.co.uk/2020/05/05-61553-gnl.fw.200505.jf.ch7DW.mp300:00:0000:25:01Biden concluded the public portion of the meeting, but asked the governors to stick around so they could discuss ways in which the federal government might act to protect abortion access. During a press conference yesterday, Biden suggested that he might unveil a series of new actions but there was no such announcement. Speaking first, New York governor Kathy Hochul, said her state is acting quickly to shore up women’s reproductive rights in its constitution and protect access to contraception and other rights. “This is frightening time for women all across our nation, a lot of fear and anxiety out there,” she said. Hochul also pushed Biden to use federal lands for abortion services – a suggestion that the White House has so far dismissed as “well-intentioned” but potentially risky.Next we’re hearing from North Carolina governor, Roy Cooper, a Democratic in a Republican-leaning state. “This democratic governor is going to hold the line to protect women’s reproductive freedom in our state,” he said. But he said he needs more Democrats in the state legislature to help sustain his vetos of Republican bills that seek to ban or severely restrict abortions.Already he said North Carolina is seeing an influx of patients from other states with bans and tighter restrictions. “We are in fact that brick wall against this horrific supreme court decision,” said Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico said. She outlined the ways New Mexico was preparing to be a haven for women coming from neighboring states that have already outlawed abortions. She also pressed Biden to do more at the federal level to protect abortion access, such as setting up abortion clinics on tribal lands, should a tribe want to open private clinics for non-Native Americans to receive care. Opening the meeting with Democratic governors, Biden called the court’s ruling on abortion a “tragic reversal”. “I share the public outrage of this extremist court that is committed to moving America backwards,” Biden said. He vowed to fight to protect women’s rights: “This is not over.”He pointed to two steps the administration has taken to increase the availability of medication abortion and protect women who travel out-of-state for an abortion. He also warned that if Republicans won control of Congress they would try to pass a nationwide ban on abortion. Per the White House, the Democratic governors participating in Friday’s meeting are: Ned Lamont, Governor of ConnecticutKathy Hochul, Governor of New YorkMichelle Lujan Grisham, Governor of New MexicoJB Pritzker, Governor of IllinoisJay Inslee, Governor of WashingtonKate Brown, Governor or OregonRoy Cooper, Governor of North CarolinaJared Polis, Governor of ColoradoDan McKee, Governor of Rhode IslandAs we await Biden’s appearance with Democratic governors, the White House announced that the president will travel to Cleveland, Ohio next week. There he will speak about his “economic agenda and building the economy from the bottom up and the middle out,” the White House said in a statement. In what has become something of a pattern for Republicans, an Utah lawmaker has apologized for a bizarre comment that suggested women could do more to prevent pregnancies resulting from rape. (See: Todd Akin.)According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah state representative, Karianne Lisonbee, said during a press conference that she had received messages urging lawmakers should also hold men accountable for unwanted pregnancies in the wake of the supreme court’s ruling on Roe. “I got a text message today saying I should seek to control men’s ejaculations and not women’s pregnancies,” Lisonbee reportedly said. She added: “I do trust women enough to control when they allow a man to ejaculate inside of them and to control that intake of semen.”In a statement to the paper, she clarified her remarks and pointed to her efforts to expand protections for victims of sexual assault. “Women do not have a choice when they are raped and have protections under Utah’s trigger law,” she told the Tribune. “The political and social divide in America seems to be expanding at an ever-faster pace. I am committed to ongoing respectful and civil engagement. I can always do better and will continue to try.”Utah Republican apologises for saying women can control ‘intake of semen’Read moreHere are the other names of individuals who will receive the presidential medal of freedom next week. Julieta García, the former president of The University of Texas at Brownsville and the first Hispanic woman to serve as a college president Father Alexander Karloutsos, the former Vicar General of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.Sandra Lindsay, a New York critical care nurse who was the first American to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside of clinical trial. Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming who advocated for campaign finance reform, responsible governance, and marriage equality.Wilma Vaught, one of the most decorated women in the history of the US military.Raúl Yzaguirre, a civil rights advocate who served as CEO and president of National Council of La RazaGymnast Simon Biles, actor Denzel Washington, the late Apple founder, Steve Jobs, soccer player Megan Rapinoe, the late Arizona senator John McCain, and former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords are among the 17 people who will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom this month.It is the nation’s highest civil honor, presented by the president to individuals who have “demonstrate[d] the power of possibilities and embody the soul of the nation – hard work, perseverance, and faith,” the White House said in a press release.Biden will present the awards during a ceremony at the White House on 7 July. Recipients also include barrier-breaking activists and lawmakers such as Sister Simone Campbell, a Catholic social justice advocate, Fred Gray, one of the first black members of the Alabama State legislature, Diane Nash, a founding member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Richard Trumka, the late leader of the AFL-CIO, and Khizr Khan, a Gold Star father who rose to prominence when he challenged Trump’s commitment to the Constitution. Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney is in the fight of her political life as she tries to keep her seat while leading the charge against her party’s most popular figure, Donald Trump. Last night she participated in a debate against her opponent, the one-time Trump critic turned loyalist Harriet Hageman. Here’s Martin Pengelly’s write up of the event. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court has declared war on the Earth’s future | Kate Aronoff

      by

      The US supreme court has declared war on the Earth’s futureKate AronoffIn a major environmental case, the court has made clear that it would rather represent the interests of corporations and the super-rich than the needs and desires of the vast majority of Americans – or people on Earth In remarks to the first Earth Day gathering in 1970, the Maine senator Edmund Muskie made the case for the Clean Air Act – a bill he helped draft – in stark terms. “There is no space command center, ready to give us precise instruction and alternate solutions for survival on our spaceship Earth,” he told the crowd. “Our nation – and our world – hang together by tenuous bonds which are strained as they have never been strained before – and as they must never be strained again. We cannot survive an undeclared war on our future.”In its Thursday ruling on West Virginia v EPA – in line with a string of decisions that will make life here more dangerous – the US supreme court all but declared that war, curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate power plants under a provision of the Clean Air Act and – more worryingly – striking an opening blow to the government’s ability to do its job.It hasn’t done so alone. The foundations for today’s ruling, like the other disastrous ones delivered this term, were laid well before Muskie gave his speech in Philadelphia. Along with the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act – passed during the Nixon administration – was a last gasp of the New Deal order, putting the government to work on an audacious and unprecedented task. Muskie hoped, as he said that day, that it might bring about “a society that will not tolerate slums for some and decent houses for others, rats for some and playgrounds for others, clean air for some and filth for others” through “planning more effective and just laws and more money better spent”.That approach to governance is precisely what a coterie of rightwing philanthropists and legal activists found so threatening, and why they became a core part of the right’s decades-long crusade against the kinder, bigger state.The crowning achievement of that crusade was the election of Ronald Reagan, who proved to be a useful cipher for fossil fuel-funded thinktanks and neoliberal economists to get their message out. It was none other than Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother who helped Reagan try to strip the federal government’s environmental protection apparatus for parts. As Reagan’s pick to lead the EPA, Anne M Gorsuch made it her personal mission to shrink the body tasked with enacting the Clean Air Act. She railed against what she described as a “set of commands from Congress”. Looking back on her term, Gorsuch – who slashed the agency’s budget by a quarter – took pride in having helmed the “only agency in Washington that was truly practicing New Federalism”, devolving as many of its responsibilities as possible down to the states. Following in her footsteps, Judge Gorsuch has railed against the Chevron Doctrine that’s been a main target of the conservative legal movement (not overturned today, thankfully), saying it allowed “executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power”.But the roots of this ruling run deeper than Neil Gorsuch wanting to make mom proud. Polluters have always been happy to throw small fortunes at the right’s quest for minority rule, keen to protect fossil fuel profits and their ability to dump waste into the air and water from pesky things like democracy. As Nancy MacLean writes in Democracy in Chains, Charles Koch took a special interest in destroying public education, thus maintaining de facto segregation, before leading the charge against climate policy at every level of government. He continues to be a generous funder of the Federalist Society, an instrumental force in building and filling the pipeline of clerks, judges and cases that has created the judicial branch as we know it, and rulings like the one that overturned Roe v Wade last week. Secretive dark-money outfits like Donors Trust, as well as Chevron and the Scaife Foundation – furnished by old oil and aluminum money – have joined him.West Virginia v EPA itself was brought with the help of the Republican Attorneys General Association, a network of state attorneys general whose own funders include the country’s biggest fossil fuel companies and the beleaguered coal barons who had the most to lose from the modest power plant regulations. They also spent $150,000 sponsoring Trump’s rally on 6 January.The interests of the country’s wealthiest residents and corporations are at odds with the vast majority of people who live here. Luckily for the right, a political system designed by slaveholders provides an easy on ramp to concretize minority rule, encasing their power within definitionally undemocratic institutions. With a young, ideological rightwing majority on the court, there’s no telling how far they might go. And there’s not much that can stop them.Gorsuch, ironically, put it well in his concurring opinion. But the line applies better to him and his colleagues than to the federal bureaucrats he was railing against: “a republic – a thing of the people – would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable ‘ministers’.”
      Kate Aronoff is a staff writer at the New Republic and the author of Overheated: How Capitalism Broke the Planet – And How We Fight Back
      TopicsEnvironmentOpinionUS politicsUS supreme courtUS Environmental Protection AgencyLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Anti-abortion movement achieved goal of reversing Roe – but it is far from done

      by

      Anti-abortion movement achieved goal of reversing Roe – but it is far from done A total end to abortion in the US is the next goal – and how the movement aims to accomplish that depends on who you askThe anti-abortion movement has historically been among the best organized factions in American politics, and for decades has had a seemingly singular goal: overturn Roe v Wade.Last week, that was accomplished and as the anti-abortion movement celebrated its victory via the US supreme court, one question has emerged: what will they do next?The court’s conservative supermajority reversed the landmark 1973 decision, which had granted US women the federal right to terminate a pregnancy. The end to the constitutional right almost immediately led more than half a dozen states to ban the procedure. In the coming weeks and months, more than half of US states are expected to institute severe restrictions or outright bans.But that does not mean the end of the movement. Far from it, in fact.“There still is a singular goal,” said Mary Ziegler, a historian of abortion laws in the US, a visiting law professor at Harvard, and recent author of Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment. That goal “has never been the overruling of Roe” but fetal personhood – a legal concept that would establish “some kind of recognition of fetal rights”.Global healthcare groups and human rights advocates have called the US court’s decision “an unconscionable attack” on the health and rights of US women and girls, warned it will cause a global chilling effect on reproductive healthcare, and that abortion bans and forced birth will exacerbate already egregious maternal mortality disparities in the US.Nevertheless, the anti-abortion movement has made clear its work is not done. But how to set about achieving the next goal – a total end to abortion in the US – depends on who you ask.Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former liberal supreme court justice and famous supporter of reproductive rights, had argued Roe provided opponents of abortion, “a target to aim at relentlessly”.With the landmark case no longer an impediment to anti-abortion ambitions, “there’s much more of a kind of free-for-all about how you should achieve personhood”, Ziegler said. Now, the once rigidly cohesive movement is wrestling with the best way forward.In Georgia, where a ban on abortion at six weeks gestation is likely to go into effect, anti-abortion leaders immediately called on the Republican governor, Brian Kemp, to impanel to pass a “personhood” amendment to the state’s constitution.Such a law would imbue fertilized eggs with the rights of people, ban embryo selection for in vitro fertilization, and call into question treatment for ectopic pregnancies (in which an embryo implants outside the uterus and is never viable).“We are petitioning him to call a special legislative session,” said Zemmie Fleck, executive director for Georgia Right to Life. “Brian Kemp says he is pro-life, and if he is truly pro-life, then we’re saying this is your time to protect every innocent human life.”Fleck also opposes emergency contraception and some forms of birth control, said there should be no exemptions to allow abortions for rape, incest or fetal abnormalities, and that ectopic pregnancies should be “reimplanted” – though no such procedure exists, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.Whether Georgia Right to Life will endorse prosecuting women, Fleck said, is something the group is now actively considering.“The fact someone is intentionally taking a life is a huge consideration, because we have laws in Georgia that pertain to someone who murders someone,” said Fleck. “But again [we] do not have a strict position statement.”However, anti-abortion campaigners’ strategy in Georgia is just one of many to emerge in the days leading up to and following Roe’s reversal.Former vice-president Mike Pence called for a national abortion ban. The anti-abortion group National Right to Life (NRL) issued model legislation to ban abortion except to save a woman’s life. It also suggested states ban “giving instructions over the telephone, internet or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortion”, a suggestion with enormous free speech implications.Anti-abortion leaders in several states called for constitutional amendments to clarify there is no right to abortion, such as in Alaska and Kentucky. West Virginia pioneered this path before the fall of Roe, and Kansas voters are already scheduled to cast ballots on a similar measure on 2 August.Meanwhile, the largest US anti-abortion online media site, Live Action, has been furiously fundraising to “cut through the lies about what the ending of Roe really means for children, women, and families”. One email argued treatment for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage will remain legal, although reproductive rights advocates said access to such procedures is will probably diminish when obstetricians and gynecologists fear prosecution.Addia Wuchner, executive director of Kentucky Right to Life, argued assertions that anti-abortion activists want to ban some forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization and “monitor ovulation” were not true.“These are the great lies of an industry – I know they want to be called a healthcare service – that has made great profits off the back of women,” Wuchner said about abortion providers, such as obstetricians and gynecologists.Similarly, Wuchner said concerns about the right to contraception and same-sex marriage being overturned in the courts are “blown out of proportion”. Kentucky right to life is neither working to ensure access to birth control, nor to “make it illegal”, she said.When the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas explicitly stated the court should “reconsider” cases that established same-sex marriage, same-sex intimacy and the right to contraception. Thomas’s opinion, advocates fear, was an invitation for such rights to be challenged.Debates about how to enforce abortion bans have also emerged. Some progressive prosecutors have made national headlines for refusing to enforce abortion bans. However, conservative local prosecutors have also vowed to vigorously investigate alleged abortion ban violations, such as Benton county, Arkansas, prosecuting attorney Nathan Smith.“We’ll approach it like any other potential crime,” said Smith, who sent a letter to a local Planned Parenthood affiliate assuring them he would seek criminal charges. “If somebody reports an initial violation of the statute, law enforcement will investigate it, and we’ll proceed on a case by case basis like anything else”.In the chaos that has followed the Dobbs decision, the long-term direction of the movement is difficult to predict, Ziegler said, though one aim remains – a total ban on abortion.“Ultimately, the end goal is the same for everybody,” Ziegler said.TopicsUS supreme courtAbortionWomenLaw (US)US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More