US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 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