World news
Subterms
More stories
38 Shares199 Views
in US PoliticsWalter Mondale obituary
Though his long political career did not warrant such a disaster, Walter Mondale, who has died aged 93, gained an unwelcome place in American political history. In 1984, challenging the incumbent president, Ronald Reagan, he won only 13 of the nation’s 538 electoral college votes, the worst defeat ever suffered by a Democratic presidential candidate. Only Alfred Landon had put in a worse performance: his 1936 Republican campaign against Franklin Roosevelt foundered with a mere eight of 531 electoral votes.Reagan’s performance in his televised debates with Mondale had revealed early signs of the former actor’s growing mental confusion, but he romped into his second term with 59% of the popular ballot and 525 electoral votes. Had Mondale not scraped a razor’s edge victory in his home state of Minnesota he would have become the nation’s all-time loser, winning only the three electoral votes of the irrepressibly Democratic District of Columbia.What Mondale did achieve, in addition to his productive years in state politics and the Senate, was to significantly redefine the difficult post of vice-president. His working relationship with President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 set a pattern that helped his successors find a more meaningful role.As a presidential candidate, Mondale largely engineered his own defeat. Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro was the first female vice-presidential candidate from a major party, but lost credibility when her family finances eventually came under scrutiny. In his acceptance speech to the Democratic nominating convention in San Francisco, Mondale assured its 4,000 startled delegates that: “Mr Reagan will raise taxes and so will I. He won’t tell you: I just did.”To a nation basking in the sunshine politics and tax reductions of Reagan’s first four years, Mondale’s declaration was seen as an appalling blunder. It certainly had its impact on Reagan’s vice-president, already planning his own assault on the White House. Mondale’s gaffe prompted George HW Bush’s infamous sound bite of 1988: “Read my lips: no new taxes.”The plain talking that scuppered Mondale had deep roots. Born in Ceylon, in rural southern Minnesota, he was the son of Theodore, a Methodist minister whose own grandfather, Frederick Mundal, had come from Norway, and Claribel (nee Cowan), a part-time music teacher. Theodore’s annual stipend could not support a family, so Walter Frederick – universally known as Fritz – sought odd jobs to boost the family’s finances. He delivered newspapers, served in a local grocery and worked in a nearby canning factory checking harvested peas for lice.It was on this production line that his lifelong fascination with politics emerged. Jeopardising an already meagre contribution to the family income, he took part in a strike for better working conditions. His friends saw this increasing political involvement as a response to the excessive piety of his upbringing, though his parents imprinted their insistence on straight-dealing and absolute honesty.Mondale became fascinated with his state’s Byzantine politics in his teenage years. Local Democrats had split between rightwing supporters of President Harry Truman and leftwingers backing the maverick Henry Wallace, who intended to run against Truman in 1948. Wallace’s refusal to condemn that February’s Communist coup in Czechoslovakia turned Mondale against him, and he volunteered to undertake political work for the mayor of Minneapolis, Hubert Humphrey – an association that coloured Mondale’s political life.From Macalester College, St Paul, he went to the University of Minnesota, where he gained a degree in political science (1951). After two years’ army service he qualified for a government-subsidised course, and returned to the university to take a law degree. In 1955 he married Joan Adams, and the following year started in private practice. Since he had little interest in litigation, he immersed himself in Minnesota’s Democratic politics. At the age of 30 he was asked to manage the governor’s re-election campaign and, when Orville Freeman won by a thumping two-thirds majority, Mondale’s career prospects soared. Two years later, when the state’s attorney general unexpectedly retired, Freeman appointed Mondale to fill the post until the next election, making him the youngest person to hold that position in the US.Skulduggery in a local charity fortuitously thrust the new attorney general into the headlines, and this publicity continued as he evolved into a relentless legal activist, particularly on issues of consumer protection. When he faced the voters in November 1960 they confirmed him in office. His rigorous approach to law enforcement made him one of the most influential politicians in Minnesota and later within the wider Democratic party, an influence reinforced by his next re-election campaign.Mondale burst on to the national scene at the Democrats’ 1964 nominating convention through his adept handling of a serious rebellion by southern Democrats opposed to President Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights platform. When Johnson then picked Humphrey, by now a senator for Minnesota, as his running mate, Mondale was designated by the state’s governor to complete Humphrey’s Senate term. The choice was vigorously confirmed by the electorate in 1966.The complexities of the Johnson presidency soon coiled round Mondale. Over the years Humphrey had become his political mentor and idol, so the new senator arrived in Washington with a deep sense of loyalty towards his predecessor. Mondale had no problem supporting the administration’s civil rights reforms, but the widening war in Vietnam and its poisonous impact on domestic politics left him squirming.As the chasm expanded in the Democratic party and in the country, Mondale havered. “Tragic and disheartening as this problem is,” he said to one antiwar group, “I still think our policy is better than any of the alternatives.” He later acknowledged that his stance had been the greatest mistake of his political career.Meanwhile, he dodged round the issue by concentrating on civil rights, choosing at one point to guide the administration’s Fair Housing bill through the Senate, though it had twice been rejected by Congress. In what the New York Times described as “a stunning victory for a tiny band of scrappy liberals”, Mondale doggedly forced the legislation on to the statute book. His efforts were recognised by being asked to manage what turned out to be Humphrey’s calamitous 1968 presidential campaign.In the wake of Robert Kennedy’s assassination, that year’s Democratic convention in Chicago was a disaster, featuring nightly television pictures of antiwar rioters being brutally attacked by local police. Humphrey himself was indelibly stained by his support for the war, and the governor of Alabama, George Wallace, continued the southern Democrats’ anti-civil rights revolt by running as a third party candidate. Richard Nixon narrowly won the White House with 301 electoral college votes.Mondale publicly renounced his support for the war and concentrated on domestic issues. After a three-year legislative battle over federal court orders that pupils be transported to distant schools to secure racial balance, he had to give up in the face of a white backlash.The Democrats’ continuing disarray was further demonstrated by their choice of an ultra-liberal, George McGovern, as the party’s 1972 presidential candidate. Mondale declined McGovern’s invitation to join the ticket.He seemed destined to spend the rest of his political life in the Senate until the Watergate scandal forced Nixon’s resignation. President Gerald Ford’s blanket pardon of his patron generated a countrywide revulsion and, in this far more propitious climate, Mondale accepted Carter’s offer of the 1976 vice-presidential slot. They squeezed into office by a mere two per cent of the popular vote, clear warning that they still had to prove themselves.Far more experienced in national politics than the new president, Mondale argued that the vice-president should have a wide-ranging and independent advisory role. To be effective he should receive all intelligence and other significant information sent to the president. Carter agreed and extended the vice-president’s role to become second-in-command of America’s nuclear arsenal. The two also arranged to hold weekly meetings to review administration policies. It might have worked splendidly had Carter been a better president, but his wavering policies and the increasing tensions they created among members of Congress became insuperable. Years later Mondale commented that: “Carter lost confidence in his ability to lead public opinion. He told me once that people no longer listened to what he had to say.” So, for all Mondale’s effort to appease members of Congress, the administration lurched from one crisis to another.The overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and the revolutionary regime’s seizure of American embassy staff in Tehran sounded the death knell of Carter’s presidency. It was already in steep decline when a military attempt to rescue the diplomatic hostages went disastrously wrong. Reagan cantered into the White House.Four years later, Mondale’s own bid to remove him was probably doomed from the outset. He hated campaigning on television, which he thought too shallow for serious politics, and was a stiff and unconvincing performer in a medium that Reagan had effortlessly mastered.Mondale was also unlucky. On a trip to Philadelphia his frustrated staff finally persuaded him to highlight local unemployment by chatting onscreen to a young couple. “I understand you lost your job,” Mondale said encouragingly to the wife. “Oh yes,” she responded brightly, “but I got a new one that’s even better.” The chagrined loser lay low for some time before returning to his legal practice in 1987.In 1993 President Bill Clinton appointed him ambassador to Japan – a well-established perquisite for defeated politicians of both parties. When he returned from Tokyo three years later, at the age of 68, he seemed bound for a comfortable retirement.However, in the 2002 election he was dramatically summoned to the party colours. Eleven days before polling Minnesota’s senior senator, Paul Wellstone, his wife, daughter and five campaign staff were killed in a plane crash. Since the Minnesota result could determine control of the Senate, local Democrats persuaded a reluctant Mondale to stand in Wellstone’s place. Incredibly, and to Mondale’s horror, the party hierarchy then turned the family’s memorial service into a campaign rally, a disastrous miscalculation condemned across the state.Mondale lost the election by a two per cent margin – the only time he was ever defeated in Minnesota. It was none of his doing and a sadly bitter note on which to exit from public life. In 2018 Carter and other leading figures joined him to celebrate his 90th birthday.His daughter, Eleanor, died in 2011, and Joan died in 2014. He is survived by his sons, Theodore and William, and four grandchildren. More
150 Shares189 Views
in US PoliticsMaxine Waters says she won’t be ‘bullied’ by Republicans over Chauvin remarks
After Republicans launched a long-shot attempt to censure and expel Maxine Waters from Congress over comments on the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, which the judge said could provide grounds for appeal, the veteran California progressive stayed defiant.“I am not worried that they’re going to continue to distort what I say,” Waters, 82, told the Grio. “This is who they are and this is how they act. And I’m not going to be bullied by them.”Chauvin, a former police officer, is on trial in Minneapolis for murder, after he knelt on George Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes in May last year. As the world awaits a verdict, tensions are high in the city.On Tuesday, comments by Joe Biden also attracted attention. At the White House, the president told reporters he was “praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is, I think … it’s overwhelming, in my view”.Waters, who is African American, has served in Congress since 1991. She has a long record of campaigning for civil rights and confronting political opponents in blunt terms, in some quarters earning the nickname Kerosene Maxine.Long a favorite target of Republicans, she attractedfocused ire in 2018, when she said Trump aides and officials should be confronted by the public. Last week, she told the hard-right Republican congressman Jim Jordan to “shut your mouth” during a hearing with Dr Anthony Fauci, the White House medical adviser.She spoke to the media on Saturday during a protest in Brooklyn Center, the Minneapolis suburb where police shot dead a 20-year-old Black man, Daunte Wright, earlier this month.Waters said she hoped Chauvin would be found “guilty, guilty, guilty”.If Chauvin was acquitted, she said, “we’ve got to stay on the street, and we’ve got to get more active. We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”[embedded content]Republicans were quick to accuse Waters of inciting violence as, they said, Democrats accused Donald Trump of doing before the 6 January Capitol riot.The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy – who voted against impeaching Trump over the Capitol attack, which resulted in five deaths – said on Monday he would introduce a resolution censuring Waters for what he deemed “dangerous comments”.“This weekend in Minnesota, Maxine Waters broke the law by violating curfew and then incited violence,” McCarthy tweeted.In a co-ordinated attack, the Florida representative María Elvira Salazar said Waters had “a long history of inciting unrest and supporting dictators who use violence to get what they want”. The Texas representative August Pfluger called her rhetoric “outrageous and shameful”.Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right Georgia Republican and conspiracy theorist who has expressed support for executing prominent Democrats and FBI agents, said she would try to expel Waters, whom she called “a danger to our society”.Greene claimed Waters “incited Black Lives Matter domestic terrorists”, following a shooting in which two Minnesota national guard members sustained minor injuries.The Chauvin trial is at the center of national dialogue. On Tuesday Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, told NBC he had received a call from Biden.The president, he said, “was just calling. He knows how it is to lose a family member. And he knows that the process of what we’re going through so he was just letting us know that he was praying for us, and hoping that everything would come out to be OK.”Later, at the White House, Biden told reporters: “I can only imagine the pressure and the anxiety they’re feeling. They’re a good family, and they’re calling for peace and tranquility.”The president added: “I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is, I think … it’s overwhelming, in my view. I wouldn’t say that, lest the jury was sequestered now and not hear me say that.”The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, said Biden was “moved” by his conversations with the Floyd family. Biden was “certainly not looking to influence” the outcome of the trial by commenting, she said, adding: “I don’t think he would see it as weighing in on the verdict … regardless of the outcome, the president has consistently called for peace.”Waters’ words were raised in the courtroom in Minneapolis on Monday when defense attorneys motioned for a mistrial because of them. Judge Peter Cahill denied the motion but also expressed frustration, saying Waters had been “disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch”.Cahill also told the defense: “I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”But Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, defended Waters, saying she did not need to apologize.“Maxine talked about ‘confrontation’ in the manner of the civil rights movement,” Pelosi said. More
175 Shares159 Views
in US PoliticsNew Amy Klobuchar book attacks Trump for ‘a whole lot of bluster’ on antitrust
In a new book, the senator and former presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar condemns Donald Trump for “a whole lot of bluster with limited results” on her chosen subject, antitrust.Klobuchar cites his appointment of the conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court as proof Trump never had any intention of reining in giant companies for pursuing anti-competitive practices, whatever he told the little guy out on the campaign trail.Antitrust matters will come into focus on Capitol Hill this week, with a confirmation hearing on Wednesday for Lina Khan, a 32-year-old Columbia law professor and “tech antitrust icon” nominated by Joe Biden for a seat on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).The Minnesota Democrat’s book, Antitrust, will be published next week, beating the Missouri Republican Josh Hawley’s similarly themed The Tyranny of Big Tech to US shelves by a week.The two senators are ideologically poles apart – Hawley lost a publisher over his support for Trump’s attempt to overturn his election defeat – but both have introduced antitrust legislation.The Guardian obtained a copy of Klobuchar’s book. Noting Trump’s campaign rhetoric against big companies, the former candidate for the Democratic nomination writes that he failed to deliver in office.“Trump’s business career had one major thing in common with his ultimate antitrust impact,” Klobuchar writes, recounting Trump’s famous antitrust lawsuit against the NFL in 1986. “A whole lot of bluster with limited results.”Klobuchar also criticises Trump for demanding investigations of companies or mergers for political reasons, notably when inveighing against a merger between Time Warner, owner of CNN, and AT&T.“The president’s comments and, at times, actual actions and involvement,” she writes, “repeatedly raised serious questions about the integrity of his administration’s antitrust work, no matter how hard the [Department of Justice] and FTC antitrust staff worked.”She also says Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, two of three rightwingers Trump appointed to the supreme court, have “extremely conservative views on antitrust”.This, she writes, makes them likely to rule in favor of big companies in an era of mega-mergers and shrinking consumer choice, as major antitrust cases involving tech giants Google and Facebook move through the US court system.At confirmation hearings, Klobuchar writes, Gorsuch dodged her questions on antitrust. Of Kavanaugh – with whom Klobuchar had a famously testy exchange about the judge’s liking for beer – she writes that she “was not impressed by what I saw”.Kavanaugh, Klobuchar writes, seemed a disciple of Robert Bork, the author of The Antitrust Paradox and a conservative whose bitter confirmation hearings in 1987 ended with his withdrawal.Groups including the American Antitrust Institute opposed Kavanaugh but amid allegations of sexual assault, which he strenuously denied, he made it on to the court. With the addition of Amy Coney Barrett in place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the panel is now tilted 6-3 to conservatives.On antitrust, though, there was a small sting in the tail. In May 2019, Kavanaugh joined the court’s liberals in a 5-4 ruling which said consumers could sue Apple for monopolising the market for iPhone apps. More
200 Shares159 Views
in US Politics‘All you need is the filing fee and a dream’: who are Gavin Newsom’s recall challengers?
As the California gubernatorial recall effort heats up, Gavin Newsom is preparing to face off against a motley mix of political challengers – including a reality TV star, a former Facebook executive, a Los Angeles billboard model and a Republican businessman who lost the last gubernatorial race by 24 points.California election officials are expected to verify by the end of April that Newsom’s opponents have collected enough signatures to force a recall later this year – probably sometime in November.But the political opportunity it offers has already drawn out all manner of “celebrities, billionaires and multimillionaires, gadflies”, as well as some serious contenders, said Fernando J Guerra, a political scientist at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.The race has so far attracted three traditional Republican candidates: John Cox, a businessman who lost to Newsom by 24 points during the last gubernatorial election, the largest margin in a California governor’s race since the 1950s), Kevin Faulconer, the former mayor of San Diego and Doug Ose, a former US representative.Then there’s everyone else. Caitlyn Jenner, a former Keeping Up with the Kardashians star and Olympic champion, is working with former Trump campaign figures to plot out a potential run. The porn actor and reality TV star Mary Carey, who ran against the Democrat Gray Davis in the 2003 recall, has also thrown her hat in. And Angelyne, the model who rose to prominence in the 1980s after she was featured in a series of billboards around LA, is also running.“All you really need to run is $4,200 for the filing fee and a dream,” said Joshua Spivak, a senior fellow at the Hugh L Carey Institute for Government Reform who studies recall elections. The 2003 recall election against Davis attracted 135 such dreamers, including the HuffPost founder Arianna Huffington, the former child actor Gary Coleman and the pornographer Larry Flynt. The actor Arnold Schwarzenegger won that year, in the first successful recall of a US governor.The latest recall campaign, spearheaded by Republicans who opposed the governor’s Covid-era business shutdowns, as well as his immigration and tax policies, gained steam in the winter as California faced its most severe phase of the pandemic. But as the pandemic abates, and the economy shows promising signs of recovery, Newsom remains fairly popular among Californians despite scandals and setbacks. He was elected to office in 2018 with a whopping 62% of the vote and recent polling from the Public Policy Institute of California found that he remains fairly popular. Fifty-six per cent of likely voters oppose recalling the governor, and 5% are unsure – only 40% would vote to remove the governor from office“I am convinced that Newsom is going to beat the recall,” Guerra said, though, he added, a stagnating economy or major political blunder (say, a repeat of Newsom’s infamous dinner party at the Michelin-starred French Laundry at the height of the pandemic) could knock the governor off his sturdy perch.Notably missing from the governor’s cast challengers is a Democrat. So far, the party has formed a united front, with moderates and progressives, including the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, backing Newsom. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, warned Democrats not to turn against one of their own, dismissing the idea of a Democratic challenger to Newsom as an “unnecessary notion” that doesn’t even rise “to the level of an idea”.That hasn’t squashed speculation that the former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who ran against Newsom in 2018, could join the race. The former Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya, a big Democratic donor who recently redirected his wealth toward the amplifying petition to gather signatures for the recall, also says he wants to run. And Tom Steyer, the billionaire former hedge fund manager and climate change campaigner who ran in the Democratic presidential primaries, is also reportedly considering a candidacy.A liberal candidate who wouldn’t outshine Newsom could serve as an insurance policy for the state’s Democrats, Guerra said. “A Democratic candidate would not peel off enough votes from Newsom in the recall, but could beat out Republicans if voters choose to remove Newsom could be strategic,” he said. “Because what happens if there’s another one or two scandals that drag Newsom down – without another Democrat in the race, you’re left with Caitlyn Jenner or John Cox as governor.”But Spivak said that based on recall history, Democrats would do well to avoid such a strategy. In the 2003 recall, Davis’s lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, tried the campaign line “No on Recall, Yes on Bustamante”, and it failed spectacularly. Bustamante trailed Schwarzenegger by 17 points. “And it killed his political career,” Spivak said. The Democrat spectacularly tanked his only other bid for political office since the recall, losing the 2006 election for insurance commissioner to a Republican by 12 points.On the other hand, for Republicans hoping to gain a foothold in deep-blue California, the only chance comes from the chaos and confusion of a crowded, messy election, Spivak said. “Republicans can’t win a straight, regular election – so having 400 candidates, including maybe some Democrats, running against Newsom helps them,” he said.In a recall, voters are asked two questions: first, whether they want to recall Newsom, and then, who should replace him? If at least 50% of voters agree to remove Newsom from office, whichever of is opponents gets the most votes would replace him – even if they’ve collected a tiny fraction of the total ballots cast. More
200 Shares179 Views
in US Politics‘It would be glorious’: hopes high for Biden to nominate first Black woman to supreme court
Joe Biden’s promise to nominate an African American woman to the supreme court for the first time holds broad symbolic significance for Darlene McDonald, an activist and police reform commissioner in Salt Lake City, Utah.But McDonald has specific reasons for wanting a Black woman on the court, too.When Chief Justice John Roberts asserted in 2013 that federal oversight of voting in certain southern states was no longer needed because “things have changed dramatically” since the civil rights era, McDonald said, he revealed a blindness to something African American women have no choice but to see.“I believe that if Chief Justice Roberts had really understood racism, he would never have voted to gut the Voting Rights Act,” McDonald said, adding that hundreds of voter suppression bills introduced by Republicans in recent months suggest things have not “changed dramatically” since 1965.“Myself, as an African American woman, having that representation on the supreme court will be huge,” McDonald said, “especially in the sense of having someone that really understands racism.”The gradual diversification of US leadership, away from the overwhelming preponderance of white men, towards a mix that increasingly reflects the populace, was accelerated by the election last November of Kamala Harris, a woman of color, as vice-president.Black women have been overlooked in terms of their values and what they have to bring to society as well as to the benchNow enthusiasm is building around a similarly historic leap that activists, academics and professionals expect is just around the corner: the arrival on the court of a justice who would personify one of the most historically marginalized groups.“Black women have been overlooked for decades and decades in terms of their values and what they have to bring to society as well as to the bench,” said Leslie Davis, chief executive of the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms. “We should be able to look at our highest court in the land and see the reflection of some of the folks who have made America great. And that absolutely includes Black women.”Out of 115 justices in its history, the supreme court has counted two African American justices, one Latina and just five women. The court has no vacant seats but calls are growing for Stephen Breyer, a liberal who turns 83 this year, to retire. Last month, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Biden’s campaign commitment to nominating a Black woman “absolutely” holds.“This is a big moment in the making,” said Ben Jealous, president of People For the American Way, which recently launched the Her Fight Our Fight campaign to support and promote women of color in government and public service roles.“The presumption is that whomever Biden nominates, the first Black woman to the supreme court would be filling both the shoes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Thurgood Marshall,” said Jealous.The late Ginsburg, a pioneering lawyer for women’s rights, was succeeded last fall by the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett. Marshall was succeeded in 1991 by the George HW Bush appointee Clarence Thomas, who “is anathema to everything that the civil rights community stands for”, Jealous said.“It would be both glorious and a relief to have a Black woman on the supreme court who actually represents the values of the civil rights community, and the most transformative lawyers in our nation’s history.”Tomiko Brown-Nagin, a civil rights historian, dean of the Harvard Radcliffe Institute and professor of constitutional law, said having qualified federal judges who “reflect the broad makeup of the American public” would strengthen democracy and faith in the courts.“It’s an important historical moment that signifies equal opportunity,” Brown-Nagin said. “That anyone who is qualified has the chance to be considered for nomination, notwithstanding race, notwithstanding gender. That is where we are. In some ways, we shouldn’t be congratulating ourselves, right?”Brown-Nagin pointed out that a campaign was advanced in the 1960s to nominate Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to sit as a federal judge, but some Democratic allies of President Lyndon Johnson opposed such a nomination because they saw it as too politically risky.“This moment could have happened 50 years ago,” Brown-Nagin said.Daniel L Goldberg, legal director of the progressive Alliance For Justice, said to call the moment “overdue” did not capture it.“It is stunning that in the entire history of the republic, that no African American woman has sat on the highest court in the country,” Goldberg said. “For way too long in our nation’s history, the only people who were considered suitable and qualified for the court happened to be white males.”The first Black woman supreme court justice is likely to be nominated at a time when a renewed push for racial justice brings renewed focus on the court, which has played a key role in enforcing desegregation and reinforcing anti-discrimination laws.I would like to see someone like Sherrilyn Ifill or Lia Epperson – a woman who comes out of Thurgood Marshall’s old law firmThe killing of Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, by a white police officer outside Minneapolis last weekend during the murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin has sharpened cries for a national answer to serial injustice at the local level – precisely the kind of conflict that typically lands before the supreme court.“As we sit here today, and watch the trial of Derek Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd, that precipitated a summer of protests for the lives of Black people to matter – it feels that it is time for there to be a Black woman on the supreme court, because of the moment that we are in right now,” said McDonald, the Utah activist.Davis said it was “imperative” the country make strides toward racial justice after the invasion of the Capitol in January by white supremacists intent on overturning the 2020 presidential election, goaded on by a former president.“That shows that there are folks who are intentional about not seeing diversity, equity and inclusion thrive,” Davis said. “Now is the time for us as a country to recognize that until we value the voices of everyone, including Black women, we are silencing a very important part of the fabric of America.”‘A significant pool’The percentage of Black women who are federal judges – a common stepping-stone to a high court nomination – is extraordinarily small.According to the federal judicial center, the US circuit courts count only five African American women among sitting judges out of 179. There are 42 African American women judges at the district court level, out of 677.Those numbers are partly owing to Republican obstruction of Black women nominated by Barack Obama, including former seventh circuit nominee Myra Selby. She was denied a hearing in the Senate for the entirety of 2016 – a year later Republicans filled the seat with Donald Trump’s nominee: Amy Coney Barrett.“There is a significant pool of lawyers, law professors, public officials who would be viable nominees for the federal courts,” said Brown-Nagin. “The problem is not the pool.”Last month, Brown-Nagin co-signed a letter to the Senate judiciary committee supporting the nomination of district court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the court of appeals for the DC district, sometimes informally referred to as the second-highest court in the land.“Her resumé virtually screams that she is an ideal nominee for an appellate court or even the supreme court, and that is because she has the combination of educational and professional experience on the federal courts that feasibly fits the mold of typical supreme court nominees,” Brown-Nagin said.“I would say it goes beyond what we’ve seen, frankly, in recent nominees to the court.”Jealous, a former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), said he would like to see a nominee “who cut their teeth defending the people, not corporations”.“I would like to see someone like Sherrilyn Ifill or Lia Epperson – a woman who comes out of Thurgood Marshall’s old law firm, the NAACP legal defense fund, with a courageous commitment to defending the rights of all Americans,” he said.McDonald said having a Black woman on the supreme court would mean American history had “come full circle”.“I feel in my heart that it’s time,” she said. “Everything takes its time. And everything happens at its time. I was raised in a church, so I’m just going to say it like that.” More
150 Shares169 Views
in ElectionsJudge orders two Proud Boys leaders held in custody over Capitol attack
A federal judge has ordered two leaders of the far-right Proud Boys group to be detained in jail pending trial for their involvement in the 6 January attack on the Capitol in Washington DC.Both were indicted in one of many Proud Boys conspiracy cases to stem from the investigation into the assault on the building that followed a pro-Donald Trump rally.Ethan Nordean of Washington state and Joseph Biggs of Florida, along with two other Proud Boys regional leaders, are charged with conspiring to stop the certification of the 2020 election – and with organizing and leading dozens of Proud Boys to the Capitol.Many of those followers were among the first to breach the building and cause damages in scenes of violence that shocked the world and led to five deaths.“The defendants stand charged with seeking to steal one of the crown jewels of our country, in a sense, by interfering with the peaceful transfer of power,” the US district judge Timothy Kelly said as he explained his decision on Monday. “It’s no exaggeration to say the rule of law … in the end, the existence of our constitutional republic is threatened by it.”The judge’s decision to detain the pair is a reversal of an earlier notion to release them after the Department of Justice argued for pre-trial detention based on new accusations in an updated indictment filed by prosecutors in March.The judge cited profanity-laced social media posts and encrypted messages sent by the defendants, in which Biggs said it was time for “war” if Democrats “steal” the election and Nordean called for militia groups to contact him.Though the evidence does not point to the defendants using direct physical violence against others on the day, Kelly said, their communications and movements before, during and after the riot showed they played a part in planning and leading the efforts that day, celebrated the events of the day and have not expressed remorse.Nordean will be detained in Seattle as opposed to DC after the judge granted his defense attorney’s request to cease the transfer, arguing: “Capitol defendants have been violently assaulted in DC jail.”Another alleged co-conspirator, Charles Donohoe, is set for his own detention hearing later on Monday afternoon. More
113 Shares199 Views
in ElectionsMaxine Waters criticised by Republicans for Minneapolis remarks – video
The Democratic representative Maxine Waters has come under criticism from the Republican house minority leader, after she expressed support for protesters against police brutality at a rally on Saturday in Brooklyn Center, the Minneapolis suburb where Daunte Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, was shot and killed by police last week.
Waters said she would ‘continue to fight in every way that I can for justice’, prompting the Republican minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, to accuse Waters of ‘inciting violence in Minneapolis’Republicans demand action against Maxine Waters after Minneapolis remarks More