USA News and Discussions

[Time_Traveller]

‘We will fight like hell’: US western states band together to protect abortion rights

Sat 25 Jun 2022

Democratic state governors of California, Oregon and Washington issued a new commitment to enshrine abortion rights across the west coast on Friday, as the US grappled with the supreme court’s ruling removing the federal right to abortion.

Calling their states a “a safe haven for all people seeking abortions and other reproductive health care services”, California governor Gavin Newsom, Oregon governor Kate Brown, and Washington governor Jay Inslee pledged to defend access to reproductive healthcare and protect those who cross their borders from other states seeking care.

They vowed to hamper out-of-state investigations or efforts to target those who receive services in their states, including barring local law enforcement from cooperating with outside agencies.

State attorney generals who supported the supreme court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade: Georgia's Chris Carr, Texas's Ken Paxton and Missouri's Eric Schmitt.

“California has banded together with Oregon and Washington to stand up for women, and to protect access to reproductive health care,” Newsom said in a statement. “We will not sit on the sidelines and allow patients who seek reproductive care in our states or the doctors that provide that care to be intimidated with criminal prosecution. We refuse to go back and we will fight like hell to protect our rights and our values.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... washington

[Lorem Ipsum]

I'm the only one who doesn't find this that important? It's the only way to satisfy both parties.
The real problems would come if it became nationwide during Trump presidency (or reverted by Democrats when elected).

Sounds pretty clickbaitty tbh

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

[weatheriscool]

Biden Signs Bipartisan Gun Bill, Ending Years of Stalemate
Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Saturday signed into law a bipartisan gun bill intended to prevent dangerous people from accessing firearms and invest in mental health across the country, breaking through years of stalemate over whether to toughen the nation’s gun laws.

Mr. Biden signed the bill a day after it cleared the House, and two days after it passed the Senate, where a small bipartisan group of senators labored to reach a compromise that could break a Republican filibuster, a hurdle that has long stymied any effort to change gun laws.

Passage of the legislation came one month after a horrific mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, left 19 children and two teachers dead, as the country was already reeling from a racist attack at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y. And while Mr. Biden acknowledged that the bill fell far short of the sweeping gun control measures he had pushed for, he noted that it included some long-sought priorities.

“God willing,” Mr. Biden said as he put his pen down, “it’s going to save a lot of lives.”

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/p ... tw-nytimes

[caltrek]

Biden Signs Bipartisan Gun Bill, Ending Years of Stalemate
Source: New York Times

...

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/us/p ... tw-nytimes

More on that from Naoh Kim writing in Mother Jones:

... The bill...shores up background checks for 18- to 21-year-olds and eliminates the so-called “boyfriend loophole”—a gap in existing law that previously allowed domestic abusers to acquire deadly weapons so long as they and their partners were unmarried and childless.

The legislation also includes funding for states to implement red flag laws. However, the red flag provisions aren’t mandatory, and, as my colleague Abby Vesoulis has reported, it’s extremely unlikely that Republican-controlled states will adopt them.

The legislation is notable for breaking through a sclerotic legislative branch mired in partisan wrangling. Nevertheless, it falls far short of the proposals that gun control advocates have pushed for and that most Americans say they want in public opinion surveys, such as universal background checks and assault-weapon bans. Democrats, including Biden, have described the bill as a small step forward that will help break the seal on gun safety, rather than a conclusion to the debate.

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -bill-law/

[Time_Traveller]

Meanwhile in the USA....

[Time_Traveller]

The USA currently...

[Time_Traveller]

January 6 testimony puts Donald Trump in even greater legal peril

Wed 29 Jun 2022

Donald Trump and his two closest advisers could face widening criminal exposure over the Capitol attack after ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified about their potentially unlawful conduct to the House January 6 select committee at a special hearing on Thursday.

The testimony revolved around the disclosure – one of several major revelations from Hutchinson – that the former president directed supporters to descend on the Capitol even though he knew they were armed and probably intended to cause harm.

Donald Trump arrives to speak at the rally in Washington DC on 6 January 2021.

Hutchinson testified under oath that Trump was deeply angered by the fact that some of his supporters who had gathered on the National Mall were not entering the secure perimeter for the Save America rally at the Ellipse where he was due to make remarks.

The supporters did not want to enter the secure perimeter, Hutchinson testified, because many were armed with knives, blades, pepper spray and, as it later turned out, guns, and did not want to surrender their weapons to the Secret Service to attend the rally.

“I don’t fucking care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me,” Trump exclaimed in an extraordinary outburst of fury, according to Hutchinson. “Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the fucking mags [magnetometers] away.”

The response from the former president is significant for two main reasons: it makes clear that he had been informed that his supporters were carrying weapons, and that he knew those armed people intended to make a non-permitted march to the Capitol.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... y-giuliani

[caltrek]

^^^Writing in Mother Jones, Dan Friedman further reports on this testimony and attempts at corroboration:

Introduction:

In a sense, Secret Service agent Bobby Engel spoke for most Americans when he reportedly told President Donald Trump, on January 6, 2021: “Take your hand off the steering wheel.”

That of course is according to the show-stopping, “holy-shit” testimony on Tuesday by Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top aide to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Hutchinson described an account shared with her by Anthony Ornato, Trump’s chief of operations. He described it in the presence of Engel, who did not dispute it, Hutchinson said.

Trump wanted to get to the Capitol and join the insurrectionists, many armed, who he had just incited with lies about election fraud. But Engel, who headed the security detail in Trump’s armored limousine, known as “the Beast,” told Trump he could not, due to security concerns, according to Hutchinson’s account. Enraged, Trump declared “I’m the f-ing president,” Hutchinson said, and “reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel.” Engel told him: ‘Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing.”

The President of the United States, in Hutchinson’s account, then “used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel.” Ornato, Hutchinson said, indicated to her that Trump went for Engel’s throat.

Several media outlets reported Tuesday night that Engel and the driver of Trump’s vehicle deny that Trump had reached for the wheel or assaulted either man, though they reportedly do not dispute that Trump demanded to be driven to the Capitol. Some outlets, citing unnamed sources, also reported that Ornato denied Hutchinson’s account. Trump on Tuesday denied Hutchinson’s account, as well as her testimony that she knew of Trump “throwing dishes or flipping the tablecloth and letting all the contents of the table go onto the floor” on various occasions. In a series of social media posts, he also disputed other aspects of her testimony.

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... anuary-6/

caltrek’s comment: Of course, Trump’s credibility is zero. Still, some of the details about whether Trump actually grabbed for the steering wheel and assaulted the Secret Service agent are disputed by more than just Trump. The overriding point that Trump did want to be driven to the Capital does not seem to be in dispute (except perhaps by Trump depending on his mood of the day).

[caltrek]

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to Retire Thursday
by Kelsey Reichmann
June29, 2022

Introduction:

WASHINGTON (Courthouse News) — Justice Stephen Breyer sent a letter to the White House on Wednesday announcing his retirement from the Supreme Court will be effective Thursday at noon.

“It has been my great honor to participate as a judge in the effort to maintain our Constitution and the Rule of Law,” the 83-year-old justice wrote.

Breyer was appointed to the court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton and is the court’s oldest member. After announcing his intention to retire in January, Breyer said it was a miracle that so many different people could be brought together to solve their differences under the law.

“People have come to accept this Constitution, and they’ve come to accept the importance of a rule of law,” Breyer said during remarks at the White House.

As one of only three liberal justices on the court, Breyer has ended his tenure in opposition to some of the court’s biggest rulings of the term. Last week, Breyer joined a co-dissent to the conservative majority’s blockbuster ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. He also wrote a dissent to a ruling that expands the Second Amendment by recognizing the right to carry a handgun in public.

Read more here: https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme ... thursday/

[weatheriscool]

Supreme Court Limits Power of EPA, Other Regulatory Agencies
Wall Street Journal ^ | June 30, 2022 | Jan Wolfe
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-co ... 1656598034

The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to restrict greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, in a decision that could limit the authority of government agencies to address major policy questions without congressional approval.

Elaborating on earlier decisions, the high court said federal agencies need explicit authorization from Congress to decide issues of major economic and political significance, drawing on a principle known as the “major questions doctrine.”

In his decision for the 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress never gave the EPA the authority to change the methods a power plant uses—regulations known as “generation shifting” requirements.

Chief Justice Roberts said that forcing a nationwide transition away from coal may be a “sensible” idea, but the EPA cannot do so without a clear authority from Congress.

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” the chief justice wrote, adding that the “EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute.”

The chief justice’s opinion was joined by the court’s conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Alito.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent on behalf of herself, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer, whose retirement becomes effective on Thursday.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the importance of the ruling cannot be overstated.

“Today, the Supreme Court has taken a major step to restore representative government and require legislators, not bureaucrats, to make the major policy decisions affecting the lives of Americans,” the group’s executive vice president, Derrick Morgan, said

[weatheriscool]

Supreme Court allows Biden to end Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' policy
Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court handed President Joe Biden a victory Thursday, ruling that he can shut down a Trump administration program designed to restrict immigration at the southern border. The court said the Biden administration acted properly in seeking to end the "Remain in Mexico" policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols. It required people seeking asylum at the southern border, mainly from Central America, to wait in Mexico while their claims were decided.

From late January 2019 until Biden suspended the program, more than 68,000 people were shuttled back to Mexico. Tent cities sprang up near border entry stations on the Mexican side of the border. Human rights groups said hundreds of asylum seekers were kidnapped, raped, tortured or assaulted. Immediately after taking office, Biden ordered an end to the program. He cited the dangerous conditions along the border, the difficulty immigrants faced in getting help from lawyers in the United States and the complications the program produced for America’s foreign policy dealings with Mexico.

Biden quickly shut it down, but Texas and Mississippi sued. They said the Trump-era program vastly reduced the surge of immigrants at the southern border, decreasing the number coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras by 80 percent. A federal court in Texas ruled for the states. U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said federal law required the government to send asylum seekers back to Mexico if there was no room to detain them and if they cannot safely be allowed to wait in the U.S. for their claims to be evaluated. The Biden Department of Homeland Security, the judge said, failed to offer a sufficiently detailed explanation for why it wanted to abandon the policy.

Kacsmaryk issued an injunction to prevent the government from shutting the program down, and a federal appeals court agreed, so the Trump policy was once again in effect. Last August, the Supreme Court also declined to let the White House shut the program down while the court case was working its way through the appeals process. The Justice Department argued that federal immigration law gave the government discretion to return immigrants to Mexico while their asylum claims were considered or, on a case-by-case basis, to allow them wait inside the U.S. if they would not present a danger. There simply isn’t enough space, given limited funds provided by Congress, to detain them all, government lawyers said.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna32187

This is so stupid. We shouldn't be the worlds trash dump!!! That is how the world treats the united states and it needs to stop. Time to deport anyone that illegally crosses our border all the way back home.

[weatheriscool]

Fed's preferred inflation measure rose 4.7% in May, around multi-decade highs

PUBLISHED THU, JUN 30 2022 * 8:33 AM EDT * UPDATED MOMENTS AGO

Jeff Cox

Inflation held at stubbornly high levels in May, though the monthly increased was slightly less than expected, according to a gauge closely watched by the Federal Reserve.

Core personal consumption expenditures prices rose 4.7% from a year ago, 0.2 percentage points less than the previous month

This is breaking news. Please check back here for updates.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/30/feds-pr ... -high.html

[caltrek]

Supreme Court allows Biden to end Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' policy

More on that by Kelsey Reichmann writing for Courthouse News:

Conclusion:

Monika Y. Langarica, a staff attorney at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy, said the ruling was only a partial win because the court left open the ability for the policy to be reinstated.

“For years, at the border, we have witnessed the devastating impact the Remain in Mexico policy has had on the lives of thousands of people seeking safety,” Langarica said in a statement. “Today’s decision is a win for the movement that has long sought to expose the horrors of MPP. But it’s not a final victory, as the court’s opinion leaves open a door for MPP to be reinstated.”

The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the ruling and urged the Biden administration to fully terminate the Remain in Mexico policy.

“The Supreme Court was right to reject the spurious argument that this cruel policy is statutorily required,” Judy Rabinovitz, special counsel with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “While, as noted in the decision, the case will return to the district court, the Biden administration can and should move forward swiftly to finally terminate ‘remain in Mexico’ for good — a result that has been long, and unjustly, delayed.”

Source: https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme- ... co-policy/

[Time_Traveller]

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

Fri 1 Jul 2022

The anti-abortion movement has historically been among the best organized factions in American politics, and for decades has had a seemingly singular goal: overturn Roe v Wade.

Last week, that was accomplished and as the anti-abortion movement celebrated its victory via the US supreme court, one question has emerged: what will they do next?

The court’s conservative supermajority reversed the landmark 1973 decision, which had granted US women the federal right to terminate a pregnancy. The end to the constitutional right almost immediately led more than half a dozen states to ban the procedure. In the coming weeks and months, more than half of US states are expected to institute severe restrictions or outright bans.

But that does not mean the end of the movement. Far from it, in fact.

“There still is a singular goal,” said Mary Ziegler, a historian of abortion laws in the US, a visiting law professor at Harvard, and recent author of Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment. That goal “has never been the overruling of Roe” but fetal personhood – a legal concept that would establish “some kind of recognition of fetal rights”.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ju ... -what-next

[Time_Traveller]

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

Sat 2 Jul 2022

When 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 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.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ju ... separation

[caltrek]

TechCrunch Examines Supreme Court Decision to Curtail Environmental Protection Agency Authority
by Tim De Chant
July 2, 2022

Introduction:

(Techcrunch) This week’s Supreme Court decision to curtail the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions may not have been unexpected, but it was still a bombshell. Not only did it kill the prospect of quick executive action on the matter, it potentially cut off a number of regulatory solutions.

The EPA had sought to rein in carbon emissions first through the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which had been shelved after court losses, and then through Biden administration regulations. The two Democratic administrations relied on part of the Clean Air Act that authorized the EPA administrator to use their judgment to produce a list of stationary pollution sources “which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

Carbon emissions certainly deserve to be on the list, with climate change expected to cause nearly 5 million excess deaths annually by 2100.

Now, if anything is to be done on the matter, the court said that Congress must explicitly authorize it. Given the current state of Congress, climate legislation isn’t impossible, but it’s also not very probable.

Read more here: https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/02/4-cl ... a-ruling/

caltrek's comment: Apparently, only fetuses have a right to life in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court. The rest of us can just broil to death.

[caltrek]

The Real Target of the Supreme Court’s EPA Decision
by Blake Emerson
July 1, 2022

Introduction:

(Mother Jones) In yet another major blow to democratic constitutionalism, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. EPA that the Clean Air Act does not give EPA authority to regulate the power grid as a whole. The decision will likely limit the EPA’s authority to address climate change across the board. But the issue is even broader. The opinion undermines the federal regulatory state that Congress has established—with the court’s blessing—over the past 200 years. Using a legal rule of its own invention that defies the intent of Congress, the court has struck at the heart of government agencies’ ability to protect the public.

Together with the court’s elimination of the constitutional right to abortion, restriction of gun regulations, and expansion of religious authority, a clear picture is emerging: The people have less power now to create a safe and healthy society. Instead, the court has consolidated power in its own hands to the benefit of factional economic and cultural interests.

West Virginia v. EPA strips the EPA of significant authority to address climate change. The Supreme Court itself practically required the EPA to take action against climate change during the second Bush administration. Years later, the Obama administration’s EPA issued a groundbreaking Clean Power Plan to do so. The CPP required states to submit plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a combination of burning coal more cleanly, shifting from coal to natural gas, and shifting power generation from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas to renewable sources like wind and solar. Thus, it provided for both regulations at particular power plants and at the level of the electric grid as a whole.

West Virginia—a coal-producing state—and other parties sued to stop the rule from going into effect. In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court stayed the rule while appeals were pending toward the end of the Obama administration. The Trump administration’s EPA then replaced the Clean Power Plan with its Affordable Clean Energy rule. ACE was extremely weak by design: It did away with CPP’s grid-level improvements, claiming that the Clean Air Act did not permit them.

Read more here: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... e-ruling/