World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Succession creator Jesse Armstrong criticises Trump and Johnson at Emmys

      by

      The Succession creator, Jesse Armstrong, used his Emmy acceptance speech to attack Boris Johnson and Donald Trump for their “crummy” response to coronavirus, and also the media moguls who do so much to keep them in power.Armstrong’s HBO show, telling the story of a billionaire media tycoon and his dysfunctional, warring family, was one of the big winners at the ceremony on Sunday. It won seven awards, including outstanding drama, which Armstrong accepted from a hotel room in London.He said it was sad not to be able to share the success with colleagues in the US. “Being robbed of the opportunity to spend time with our peers, maybe I’d like to do a couple of un-thankyous,” he said.“Un-thankyou to the virus, for keeping us all apart this year. Un-thankyou to President Trump for his crummy and uncoordinated response. Un-thankyou to Boris Johnson and his government for doing the same in my country.“Un-thankyou to all the nationalist and quasi-nationalist governments in the world who are exactly the opposite of what we need right now. And un-thankyou to the media moguls who do so much to keep them in power. So un-thankyou!”Armstrong is one of Britain’s most celebrated comedy writers, having co-created Peep Show and Fresh Meat in the UK as well as having been on the writing team for The Thick of It.Succession’s seven wins came from 18 nominations and included the best actor award for Jeremy Strong, who plays the eldest son, Kendall Roy. His success meant that Brian Cox, who plays the patriarch and was nominated in the same category, missed out on a prize that bookmakers had made him odds-on to win.Cox was one of many British and Irish actors to miss out. Olivia Colman (The Crown) and Jodie Comer (Killing Eve) were thwarted in their category when Zendaya made history by becoming the youngest person to win in the best actress drama lead category for Euphoria.Also missing out were Helena Bonham Carter (The Crown), Fiona Shaw (Killing Eve), Matthew Macfadyen (Succession), Harriet Walter (Succession), Jeremy Irons (Watchmen), Paul Mescal (Normal People), Andrew Scott (Black Mirror), Dev Patel (Modern Love) and Phoebe Waller-Bridge for her guest appearance on Saturday Night Live.Aside from Succession the big winners were HBO’s Watchmen, shown in the UK on Sky Atlantic, and the Canadian sitcom Schitt’s Creek, which, since it went on Netflix, has steadily and quietly become a huge feelgood hit. The sixth and final season of the show swept the board in the comedy categories, a feat not even achieved by shows such as Frasier and Modern Family.It won seven Emmys with acting wins for the show’s stars Eugene Levy, Dan Levy, Catherine O’Hara and Annie Murphy. Appearing in the ceremony’s virtual backstage area Dan Levy, its co-creator and showrunner, discussed the possibility of Schitt’s Creek returning as a movie.“Here’s the thing – some people have been asking that,” he said. “If there is an idea that pops into my head and worthy of these wonderful people, it has to be really freaking good at this point.”Other winners included Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, the Birmingham-born writer and comedian who started out on the UK standup circuit before achieving success in the US.RuPaul’s Drag Race, which has spawned a Bafta-nominated British version on the BBC, won the reality competition award.The virtual awards ceremony, hosted by Jimmy Kimmel – “welcome to the Pandemmys” – will go down as one of the oddest in the Emmys’ 72-year history with prizes delivered to winners, often in their homes, by people in hazmat tuxedos.The dress code was “come as you are”, with the suggested option of designer pyjamas. Hardly any of the stars went down that route, although Jane Lynch, in a very smart top, revealed she was also wearing sweatpants.A number of actors used the event to express support for the Black Lives Matter movement, including Regina King, who won the limited series lead actress award for Watchmen. She wore a T-shirt that honoured the police shooting victim Breonna Taylor and used her speech to remind people of the importance of voting.Later she explained why wearing the T-shirt was important. “The cops still haven’t been held accountable,” she said.“She represents just decades, hundreds of years of violence against Black bodies. Wearing Breonna’s likeness and representing her and her family and the stories that we were exploring, presenting and holding a mirror up to on Watchmen, it felt appropriate to represent with Breonna Taylor.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      What the Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Means for America’s Political Future

      by

      The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18 has shaken the judiciary at a moment that could test the foundations of American legislature. Justice Ginsburg was a leftist — or “liberal,” in American parlance — mainstay in her 27 years on the court and four decades on the federal bench.

      The ferocity of nomination battles has intensified in recent years. After Justice Antony Scalia’s death in 2016, President Barack Obama nominated moderate DC Circuit chief judge, Merrick Garland, to the Supreme Court on March 16, more than seven months before the next presidential election. Senate Republicans used their majority to block the nomination, denying a vote and letting the nomination expire on January 3, 2017, shortly before Donald Trump’s inauguration. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell then argued that “The American people should have a say in the court’s direction. It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent.” 

      A primary argument McConnell and his colleagues made was for awaiting the election to renew the presidential mandate because Americans deserved a say this close to election day. Democrats responded that the Constitution and traditional practice grant that power and that America already voted in 2012 for a mandate of four, not three and a half years — to no avail. 

      This recent political precedent will meet its first test over the next two months. Democrats remain the minority party in the upper house, leaving the path clear for Republicans, who unanimously supported President Trump’s nominations of Neil Gorsuch, with 51 Republicans and three Democrats voting to confirm, and Brett Kavanaugh, with 49 Republicans and one Democrat confirming. Whomever President Trump nominates will likely enjoy similar partisan support. The conservative majority of five on the court could now grow to a commanding six out of nine and will influence American society for decades to come. 

      The vote count leaves the words of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, tweeting just hours after the announcement of Justice Ginsburg’s passing, moot: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Schumer’s decision to invoke the Garland precedent is far from obvious. Both party leaders have switched their rhetoric as their positions are reversed. Democrats blame Republicans, and Republicans cry hypocrisy. 

      This runs against observations by political scientists showing that fighting fire with fire weakens democracy. Gone are the days when a president with a governing majority would nominate a justice from the other party, as Harry Truman did in 1945. Trust and bipartisanship have reached a low not seen in decades. 

      Presidential nominees have required a simple majority since 2013, when Democrats for the first time changed chamber rules to allow federal lower court nominations to pass with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote supermajority, over the protests of Republicans. In April 2018, Republicans, now in the majority, expanded the rule to include Supreme Court nominees, making 51 votes sufficient to overcome Democrats still furious over the Garland affair. As both parties raise the stakes, the high court grows more politicized — and voters and the politicians they elect grow more polarized — the future of the political branches of government hangs in the balance. 

      Regardless of who replaces Justice Ginsburg, SCOTUS seats will again inevitably open up the floor to opposing parties. Vociferous opposition to Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 suggests there may be appetite for a bitter battle, however quixotic. Whoever wins the November presidential contest will enter an embittered political environment where the comity and willingness to compromise that characterized Washington a generation ago has all but disappeared, replaced by weakened institutions and disunity in the halls of power. 

      While more active state and local governments, administrative agencies and even courts address questions unanswered by Congress and the White House, nothing can replace efficacy in DC. When paralysis reigns, policies and the people they serve suffer. 

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Second Republican senator says there should be no supreme court vote before election

      by

      Alaska Republican senator Lisa Murkowski said on Sunday she would not support efforts to confirm Donald Trump’s third supreme court pick before the presidential election on 3 November. The move came a day after Susan Collins of Maine, another Republican moderate, took the same position.Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell can now afford to lose only one more senator if he is to achieve his aim of tilting the court firmly to the right for a generation or more.Thanks to reforms initiated by Democrats in 2013 but completed by Republicans in 2017, a simple Senate majority is required to confirm a supreme court justice.Murkowski and Collins’ statements mean that if no Democrats or independents come over to the Republican side, McConnell can count on a win by 51 votes to 49. He could afford to lose one more senator, as Vice-President Mike Pence would break any tie.The Senate majority leader is looking to hold a vote before election day – or even in the lame duck period after the election and before the next presidential inauguration, on 20 January, even if Democrats take the White House and the Senate.A seat on the nine-member court fell open with the death on Friday night of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of pancreatic cancer and at the age of 87.We need to begin thinking about the credibility and integrity of our institutionsLisa Murkowski – in 2018Trump has already named Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the court, but they were conservatives who replaced conservatives. A rightwing replacement for Ginsburg, a heroine to liberals, would weight the court 6-3 in favour of conservatives.Ginsburg’s family said the justice had wished not to be replaced before the election, which is less than 50 days away and for which some states have begun early voting.McConnell immediately disregarded that wish, vowing to advance a Trump nominee.His opponents immediately cried foul, over McConnell’s refusal in in 2016 to sanction even a hearing for Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in February that year. McConnell argued then that a vacancy should not be filled in the final year of a presidency.On Saturday, Collins said she did not support moves to vote on any nominee before an election. That evening, Trump told a rally in North Carolina he would nominate a woman, promising to reveal the name in the coming days.Murkowski had already indicated her opposition to a vote so close to the election. In a statement on Sunday, she made it official.“For weeks,” she said, “I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential supreme court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.“I did not support taking up a nomination eight months before the 2016 election to fill the vacancy created by the passing of Justice Scalia. We are now even closer to the 2020 election – less than two months out – and I believe the same standard must apply.”Republicans insist the Garland precedent does not apply, because their party holds both the Senate and the White House. But there is no constitutional provision which says a president and Senate of different parties cannot confirm a justice. Clarence Thomas, a staunch conservative on the current court, was the last justice confirmed by a Senate held by the party opposing the president.If the Democratic candidate Mark Kelly wins a special election in Arizona, he could be seated by 30 November, producing a tie if a vote has not already been held.More immediately, Republicans either vulnerable to re-election defeat, like Collins, or less likely to toe the Trumpist line than most, like Murkowksi, are being watched closely.Cory Gardner of Colorado is struggling in his re-election race, while Thom Tillis is in a tight fight in North Carolina.Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is both relatively collegially minded and retiring, so relatively free of pressure.Mitt Romney of Utah is a former presidential candidate with one eye on his place in history, the son of a governor who cited his father, his conscience and fidelity to the constitution when he became the sole Republican to vote for Trump’s impeachment. More