Archive by Author

House Select Committee must not give the Republican Party a free pass

In six presentations in June, the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 made a clear, compelling, and convincing case that Donald Trump: 1) continued to claim he won the 2020 presidential election after members of his administration, including then-Attorney General Bill Barr, repeatedly informed him there was no evidence of widespread fraud; 2) told Vice President Mike Pence to use powers he did not have under the U.S. Constitution to reject Electoral College results and ridiculed him when he refused to do so; 3) pressured legislators in battleground states to overturn already certified election returns; 4) instructed Department of Justice officials to send official communications to battleground states stating they were investigating credible claims of election fraud and planned to fire them when they refused; 5) badgered state election officials to find the votes he needed to win; 6) falsely accused local election workers of tampering with ballots, exposing them to death threats; 7) endorsed a scheme to send fake Electoral College slates to the National Archives, Congress, and Vice President Pence; 8) ordered security precautions for his rally at the Ellipse lifted after officials discovered that members of the crowd had weapons and body armor because ‘no one intended to harm him;’ and 9) after exhorting his supporters to “fight like hell,” did nothing to stop the insurrection, despite pleas from members of his family, ardent supporters in Congress and the media, when the mob broke into the Capitol to “Stop the Steal” and “hang Mike Pence.”

The revelations of the Select Committee, whose conduct 60 percent of Americans believe has been fair and impartial, are likely to increase Americans’ growing disillusionment with Trump. As the hearings began, 55 percent of Americans did not want him to run again; 58 percent of Republicans support their party more than the former president. Only 26 percent of these party-first Republicans would definitely or probably vote for Trump if he ran again. In mid-June, 79 percent of Americans (including almost half of Republicans) agreed that Trump was involved in a wide-ranging effort to overturn the election.

Nonetheless, if the Committee continues to focus, almost exclusively, on Trump’s immoral, unconstitutional, and probably illegal attempts to hold on to power, it will do the GOP a favor. In effect, the Committee will give voters a free pass to vote for Republican candidates who are not out-and-out election deniers in 2022 and 2024.

Consider the praise Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has heaped on Vice President Pence: “He resisted the pressure. He knew it was illegal. We are fortunate for Mike Pence’s courage on Jan. 6. Our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe. That courage put him in tremendous danger.” 

Thompson did not mention that in November and December 2020 Pence didn’t concede, or even acknowledge that Joe Biden had won the election. Pence did not declare in public that he had no constitutional authority to refuse to certify Electoral College tallies. To this day, he has not said that allegations of fraud are groundless.

And thus far, the Committee has spent very little time examining the clear and present danger to our democracy posed by a Republican Party controlled by election deniers:

In February 2022, the Republican National Committee officially declared that Jan. 6 protesters were engaged in “legitimate political discourse.” The RNC censured Representatives Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) for participating in the Select Committee’s “persecution of ordinary citizens.”

In June 2022, the Texas GOP Committee Platform asserted that Joe Biden “was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States.” The platform also affirmed the right of Texas to secede from the United States and called on the state legislature to endorse a referendum to determine whether the state “should reassert its status as an independent nation.”

Determined to rewrite the rules and replace the referees, Republican election deniers now occupy or seek to occupy local, state, and federal government offices with authority over elections. In June, the commissioners of Otero County, N.M., voted 3-0 against certifying the results of the June primary there. Citing unfounded concerns about Dominion voting machines, Commissioner Vicki Marquardt, said, “In my heart, I don’t know if it’s all right.” Commissioner Couy Griffin, founder of “Cowboys for Trump,” who has been convicted of trespassing on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, declared, “I’m not going to be a rubber stamp.”

In 2020, Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, who is now the GOP candidate for governor, advocated sending a slate of pro-Trump electors to Congress. He subsequently introduced legislation to eliminate mail-in voting and remove authority over elections from Pennsylvania’s (currently Democratic) Secretary of State. Mastriano used campaign funds to charter buses to bring 135 people to Washington, D.C. for the Jan. 6 rally. He has condemned the Department of Justice for “oppressing innocent” protestors. He wants to compel all Pennsylvanians to re-register to vote, a violation of the law.

Tasked not only to analyze what went wrong but also to make recommendations that “will strengthen the security and resilience of the United States and American institutions,” the House Select Committee must find more ways to demonstrate that these institutions will be neither secure nor resilient if Republican election deniers and their craven enablers control voter access, election administration and the machinery of government in state capitols and Washington D.C. — and that defending democratic institutions, which, it is now clear, are more fragile than most of us ever imagined, should be uppermost in the hearts and minds of all Americans when they cast their ballots.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Stuart Blumin) of “Rude Republic: Americans and Their Politics in the Nineteenth Century.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Why national pride is evaporating in America

The poll result was one of the more stunning you’ll see: Just 39 percent of Americans are extremely proud of their country, according to a recent Gallup poll. For context, the same poll taken in 2011 had that number at 69 percent.

So how exactly did so many of us become so pessimistic? Is the United States really so different today than it was 11 years ago? What has changed?

For starters, when kids are being taught in schools and the culture that America is an inherently racist country, that message is going to stick with some, unfortunately. 

Many have also lost trust in our institutions. Americans of all political stripes are increasingly distrustful of government, for example. Pew Research found that just two in 10 Americans say “they trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always,” down from 77 percent during the Kennedy administration.

Around trust in other institutions, the divide falls more along party lines. Just 13 percent of Democrats trust the Supreme Court, per Gallup, while 39 percent of Republicans say they trust the high court.

How about the media? Things are bleak on that front as well, except in reverse: Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they have “a lot” or “some” trust in national news organizations, according to Pew. Ask a GOP voter the same question, and the trust number is 43 points lower. Simple theory here: Conservatives believe the news is biased against them, while Democratic voter beliefs align with many outlets. The one-sided coverage of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade is a prime example of that. 

On the question “Are you proud of the country?” the results even begin to fall according to party. Democrats top the list on this question, albeit with just 46 percent of those surveyed expressing patriotism. The number falls to only 36 percent when Republicans are asked the same question, followed by independents, who sit at just 29 percent. 

The answers here may point directly at who is occupying the Oval Office. As you may have heard, President Biden is polling lower than any first term president going back to Harry Truman. A Harvard University-Harris poll finds that just 29 percent of the country wants Biden to seek a second term. 

“Only 30 percent of Democrats would even vote for him in a presidential primary,” noted former Clinton pollster Mark Penn, who conducted the survey. 

So perhaps so few Americans are proud of their country not because their historical conception of America has changed but because of the current state of affairs, involving deepening political divides, sky-high inflation, rampant crime and other ills.

There isn’t much optimism in the country right now, with an eye-popping 85 percent of voters saying in a recent survey that things are going in the wrong direction. 

Independence Day is upon us. Hot dogs and baseball and fireworks will make it a festive day for many. 

But for many, the cost of filling up a gas tank or buying food for a barbecue will be significantly higher this time around. The evening news will feature stories that will continue to sow outrage and division.

Americans are known for their optimism, but things feel different lately, and for good reason. America has come back from these conditions before, and will do so again. The question is: Will trust in our leaders and institutions come with it? That remains to be seen. 

Joe Concha is a media and politics columnist.

Source: TEST FEED1

Harris: Roe ruling similar to 'history … of government trying to claim ownership over human bodies'

Vice President Harris said during an appearance late Saturday at the Essence Festival in New Orleans that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was “problematic on so many levels.”

“We have to recognize we’re a nation that was founded on certain principles that are grounded in the concept of freedom and liberty,” Harris said. “We also know that we’ve had a history in this country of government trying to claim ownership over human bodies.”

“We had supposedly evolved from that time and that way of thinking,” she said. “So this is very problematic on so many levels.”

The Supreme Court last month in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women Health Organization voted to uphold a Mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks, also overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established abortion as a constitutional right.

The decision has fueled intense Democratic anger and a flurry of lawsuits in states opposing so-called trigger laws that automatically implemented abortion restrictions following the court’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court, with the Dobbs decision, for the first time in the history of our nation took a constitutional right that had been recognized and took it from the women of America,” Harris said in New Orleans. “Took a constitutional right.”

Harris on Saturday also pointed to Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion, which stated the court should consider overruling other precedents based on the same view of substantive due process rights the majority held in Dobbs. He specifically signaled a willingness to overturn precedents that guarantee rights to same-sex marriage, same-sex intimacy and contraception.

No other justice joined Thomas’s opinion, and the majority stressed in its opinion that the decision in Dobbs should not be taken to signal an overturning of those constitutional protections. But many Democrats are still raising alarm bells over what they view as a court now poised to roll back other major precedents.

“The statement has been made that the government has a right to come in your home and tell you, as a woman and as a family, what you should do with your body,” Harris said.

Source: TEST FEED1

The irony of today’s tough-on-crime rhetoric

America faces a challenge on the issue of crime. Whether we deal with it effectively or not, however, depends on the willingness of leaders from both the left and right to drop the slogans and culture wars and truly put public safety first.

“Let them go.” “Lock them up.” “Defund the police.” “Back the blue.” Conflicting messages from political leaders are not only confusing and divisive, they also miss the point that many people don’t feel safe and want solutions that work. 

Regardless of the historic decline in overall crime rates — a trend that accounts for the current uptick in certain violent crimes — some are demagoguing the broader issue to usher in an era of draconian sentences under the guise of public safety. Ironically, these tough-on-crime proposals actually can make things worse.

Locking up every offender for every crime is not the way to produce safer communities. We know that prison has almost no impact on crime. In fact, some studies show that long sentences can increase crime. So, why do we keep doubling down on this strategy?

People must be held accountable for their actions. But there is a point of diminishing returns for using incarceration to manage crime. Because governors and state legislators must balance budgets, solutions such as violence prevention programs, substance use treatment, job training, and mental health care don’t get funding. Taxpayers instead shoulder skyrocketing costs to cover the building, operating and filling of prisons — leaving people and communities worse off.  

We can have safer neighborhoods while addressing incarceration rates and being smarter with taxpayer dollars. Here are some proven approaches:s

• Diversion programs, especially for youths, veterans and individuals experiencing mental health illness, poverty or drug use. Tossing people into a system that exacerbates these challenges is expensive, inhumane and ineffective, and won’t help people choose a better path going forward.
• Reforms for sentencing and parole. America is the land of extreme sentencing. Decades-long and life sentences offer little chance for redemption, and — drumroll — do not make us safer. Numerous policies to cap incarceration for minor offenses, such as those adopted by Louisiana, have reduced reoffense rates and saved taxpayers money.
• Education and job training. The higher the degree earned in prison, the less likely someone will be to reoffend. Since every case of recidivism is a new crime, a new court case and a new victim, leveraging education to reduce the reoffense rate is one of the most cost-effective crime control strategies.
• Record clearance. A criminal record makes it difficult to find a safe place to live and access meaningful work — two critical ingredients for getting on your feet after prison. Yet, we often impose an economic life sentence for those with a felony conviction. Clearing old criminal records for those who remain crime-free gives people a chance to rebuild their lives.

• Better policing. Justice reform is inextricably linked to better law enforcement. Today, police are pulled in every direction — called to be not just cops but traffic monitors, social workers, mental health professionals, substance use disorder experts, and marital counselors. With police officers policing everything, they have a harder time keeping our communities safe. More resources and training, combined with specialized community programs to address such things as mental illness and substance use, can enable police to better serve and protect. 

None of these is a new idea. Beginning in Texas in 2007, significant criminal justice reforms have advanced in jurisdictions across the country. Groups including the American Conservative Union and the American Civil Liberties Union have worked on policies in more than 30 states that have lowered crime and incarceration rates. These efforts culminated in landmark criminal justice reform legislation signed in 2018 by Donald Trump. That bill, the First Step Act, is helping transform federal prisons from warehouses of inhumanity to places where rehabilitation happens.

Unfortunately, the impact of the pandemic on crime and bitter partisanship on both sides of the aisle threaten to derail a real policy success: criminal justice reform. If we halt this momentum, politicians will send us back to days marked by high crime and high incarceration rates. If our leaders have the best interests of their communities in mind, they’ll leave the scapegoating and political divisions behind in their pursuit of truly effective solutions that make America safer. 

Ana Zamora is the founder and CEO of The Just Trust, which is dedicated to advancing criminal justice reform across the country. Follow her on Twitter @anarzamora.

David Safavian is director of the American Conservative Union Foundation’s Nolan Center for Justice, which works on policies that improve public safety, ensure accountability, and foster human dignity. Follow him on Twitter @DSafavianEsq.

Source: TEST FEED1

Cassidy Hutchinson testimony tests Trump’s political strength

President Trump is taking a beating from the Jan. 6 panel, with ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson this week offering particularly damaging testimony about the former president’s temperament and knowledge of what was happening in the attack on the Capitol. 

The hearing underscored the panel’s effort to build a public case that Trump is unfit to serve as president again as he moves toward launching a possible new bid for the White House. 

Yet it’s unclear how much the testimony of Hutchinson and others is breaking though. 

A poll published Friday by Emerson Polling found Trump with a sizable lead among potential 2024 GOP primary candidates. Fifty-five percent of respondents said they’d back Trump for the nomination, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) garnering 20 percent.

And in a hypothetical 2024 rematch between Trump and President Biden, the Emerson poll found Trump leading with 44 percent support to Biden’s 39 percent.

The poll was conducted June 28-29, meaning the effects of Hutchinson’s testimony may not have been fully taken into account by some respondents.

Multiple former Trump aides have argued the Jan. 6 hearings amount to a television production that is bipartisan in name only given the two Republican members, Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), are among the most outspoken Trump critics.

GOP strategists also believe that while the Jan. 6 hearings may cost him with voters who were reluctant to vote for him in 2016 before backing him in 2020, it may not be enough to cost Trump in a hypothetical matchup with Biden, particularly given all the other problems the country is facing.

“It’s all too soon to say. We’ll see what the final product is,” one GOP strategist with ties to Trump’s orbit said.

“I think that the biggest problem for folks that want this commission to be everything and anything is the American people are facing real life daily problems and that can be directly attributed to the policies of the Biden administration,” the strategist added.

Hutchinson, who served as a top aide to then-chief of staff Mark Meadows, painted a picture with her testimony on Tuesday of a former president with a temper who disregarded warnings things could get violent on Jan. 6 and seethed with anger when he was unable to join his supporters at the Capitol that day.

The most explosive piece of testimony – that Trump lunged for the wheel of his SUV and then at a Secret Service agent when told he couldn’t go to the Capitol – has faced pushback from some of the individuals involved in the episode, though they have not testified publicly to dispute the account.

But Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump and his chief of staff were warned some in the crowd had weapons and that Trump wanted to go the Capitol with the scores of supporters who went on to storm the complex have not been refuted by others involved.

Hutchinson’s appearance before the committee built on a larger narrative the House panel has laid out: That Trump was told repeatedly by officials that his claims of election fraud were not supported by evidence but pushed his claims that the 2020 election was stolen anyway, culminating in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

One hearing featured Department of Justice officials testifying in detail about how Trump pushed the agency to investigate fraud claims even as those same officials said they explained one-by-one why those claims were false.

Another hearing featured officials close to former Vice President Pence testifying about how Trump and his allies pressured Pence to overturn the 2020 election results without legal basis.

And at the end of Tuesday’s hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) showed text messages that indicated Trump allies may have engaged in witness intimidation.

With at least a few more public hearings still to come, followed by the committee’s final report, Trump’s standing among potential 2024 voters could still take a hit. And there are signs that the public is taking the committee’s findings seriously.

An Associated Press-NORC poll published Thursday found 48 percent of adults believe Trump should be charged with a crime for his role in the Jan. 6 riots, while 31 percent said he should not be charged.

The poll, which was conducted before Hutchinson’s public testimony, also found 58 percent believe Trump bears a great deal or quite a bit of responsibility for the events of Jan. 6.

A pair of conservative editorial boards this week also raised concerns about Trump’s viability should he run in 2024.

The Washington Examiner editorial board wrote that Hutchinson’s testimony “ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump’s political career. Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again.”

The Wall Street Journal noted that some of Hutchinson’s testimony was second hand and wrote that the committee “is steeped in partisanship.”

“But that doesn’t mean Republicans should look away from the considerable evidence it is producing about Mr. Trump’s behavior that would surely be relevant to voters if he runs in 2024,” the editorial board wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

Black man shot at least 60 times by Ohio police as he ran away: lawyer

A Black man in Akron, Ohio, was killed on Monday when police shot him at least 60 times as he was running away following a traffic stop, according to his family’s lawyer, who cited police body-camera video that he viewed.

Akron Police Department officers attempted to stop 25-year-old Jayland Walker at 12:30 a.m. for a traffic violation and conducted a pursuit after he refused to stop, the police department said in a Tuesday statement on its Facebook page. After a few minutes, Walker slowed down and left his car while it was still in motion and ran away from police, according to the statement. 

The statement says Walker ran into a parking lot, and “actions by the suspect caused the officers to perceive he posed a deadly threat to them.” Officers shot him and called for medical services, but Walker was pronounced dead at the scene, according to the statement. 

Bobby DiCello, the attorney for Walker’s family, told the Akron Beacon Journal in an interview published Friday evening that Walker does not appear to have gestured toward the officers in a threatening way, based on the body-cam video he viewed. He said officers appear to have fired dozens of shots at Walker while he was fleeing with nothing in his hands.

The police department said in its statement that the officers involved have been placed on paid administrative leave in accordance with departmental procedure. It did not name them. 

DiCello did not immediately return a request from The Hill for comment. 

DiCello said the video shows an officer calmly telling dispatchers about chasing Walker at 12:30 a.m. after police attempted to stop him. 

The police department’s statement says that officers reported a firearm being discharged from Walker’s car while they pursued it. But DiCello questioned that, telling the Journal that the back windshield of Walker’s car was undamaged, meaning a shot was not fired directly backward. 

“And I’ve got to emphasize there is no evidence that we’ve been shown, or that we’ve found, or that we know of that says that the young man somehow while driving away from the officers pointed his gun at the officers,” he said. 

He added that police say an Ohio Department of Transportation traffic video shows gunfire coming from Walker’s car, but his legal team has not found that evidence as of yet. 

DiCello told The New York Times that the city’s police chief told him in a meeting that he has not found evidence of anything Walker did that would put the officers involved in the incident, in the lawyer’s words, “in fear” or require them to shoot. He said the chief also told him that two officers tried to use stun guns on Walker moments before the shooting began. 

DiCello told the Journal that in the body-cam video an officer calls out the speed that Walker is traveling at, as high as 50 miles per hour, before he slows down to 15 miles per hour and then runs “as if he were a football player running for the endzone.” 

He said officers ran after him and shot him “within seconds.” He compared the sound to “a whole brick of fireworks going off.” 

He said he thinks the number of shots fired topped 90, and that an investigation indicates Walker received 60 to 80 wounds. 

“I think the firing happens in about six seconds,” DiCello said. “It was an unbelievable amount of gunfire.” 

The Journal reported that police will release the body-cam footage following a press conference on Sunday. 

DiCello told the outlet the video is “very, very disturbing” and unlike anything he has seen. 

The police department’s statement says that the department’s major crimes unit will conduct an initial investigation with assistance from the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation. After that investigation is completed, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office will review the case before it is presented to the Summit County grand jury. 

The Office of Professional Standards and Accountability will conduct a separate internal investigation, and the results will be presented to the police chief and the city’s police auditor for review, the statement reads. 

Akron Mayor Dan Horrigan (D) and Police Chief Steve Mylett released a joint statement on Wednesday, saying anytime an officer must discharge their weapon is a “dark day” for the city, the families of those involved and the officers. 

“Tragically, we are once again faced with a young man, with his life before him, gone too soon,” they said. “Every single life is precious, and the loss of any life is absolutely devastating to our entire community.” 

They said they trust the attorney general’s criminal investigation bureau to conduct a “thorough, fair and honest investigation.” They said they made cooperating with the investigation a top priority for their staff members.

Source: TEST FEED1

Zelensky: 2,610 Ukrainian cities, towns remain under Russian occupation

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an address to his country on Saturday that more than 2,600 cities and towns remain under Russian occupation as the war carries on. 

Zelensky said Ukrainian forces have liberated more than 1,000 cities and towns, but they still need to free 2,610. He said most of those locations impacted by the conflict need to be reconstructed, and hundreds of them were “completely destroyed by the Russian army.”

“Of course, we have already begun to restore normal life in liberated communities and territories on our own,” Zelensky said. “But implementing such a large-scale project across the country, providing new safety standards and a new quality of life is possible only by attracting international capabilities.” 

He said a conference that Ukraine will jointly host with Switzerland on Monday and Tuesday will be “an important step” to rebuilding Ukraine. 

The conference in Lugano, Switzerland, was originally planned as the 5^th annual Ukraine Reform Conference, an event where Ukraine typically discusses its recent political reforms and goals. But after Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, Ukraine and Switzerland decided to reorganize the conference to focus on the current situation. 

The conference will allow Ukraine to share its recovery plan with international allies and “develop the best possible response to the enormous challenges lying ahead,” according to the conference’s website. 

“It is necessary not only to restore everything that the occupiers destroyed, but also to create a new basis for our life, for Ukraine – safe, modern, convenient, barrier-free,” Zelensky said. 

He urged Ukrainians in areas against sinking into a feeling of “relaxation” as the war continues and added that people should continue to volunteer to help others and spread the truth of what is happening in the war with the rest of the world. 

“The main thing, no matter how difficult it is for us today, we must remember that there will be tomorrow,” he said. “And tomorrow should bring maximum benefit to Ukraine – everyone should do absolutely everything possible for this.” 

Multiple new outlets reported that Zelensky this week told leaders of the Group of Seven (G-7), made up of the world’s largest economies, that he hopes the war will conclude by the end of the year. 

President Biden said on Thursday that he is willing to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes” for the country to win the war. The following day, the Pentagon announced $820 million in additional security assistance for Ukraine.

Source: TEST FEED1

Officer injured on Jan. 6: ‘We’ve seen ample probable cause’ suggesting Trump committed crimes

A former Washington, D.C., police officer said that the public has seen “ample probable cause” indicating former President Trump committed crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. 

Michael Fanone, who was beaten by rioters and suffered a heart attack during the insurrection while working for the city’s Metropolitan Police Department, told CNN’s Jim Acosta on Saturday that in order to “restore the credibility of the Department of Justice” the country needs to return to the rule of law, which he said means that no one is above the law, including Trump. 

“If there’s probable cause to suggest that he committed these crimes, which I think we’ve seen ample probable cause, he should be arrested. The case should be put before a grand jury, and if they indict him, he should be tried,” Fanone said. 

Fanone’s comments come amid a series of public hearings being held by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot in which the panel is making the case Trump was at the center of an effort to retain power that led directly to the violence that day.

In the most recent hearing earlier this week, Cassidy Hutchinson, who worked as a top aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, gave testimony detailing some of Trump’s actions on the day of the attack. 

Hutchinson testified, among other things, that Trump knew members of the crowd that gathered for his rally at the Ellipse before the riot were armed and requested that attendees be allowed to skip going through magnetometers. Trump has denied those allegations.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), a member of the panel, claimed at the end of the hearing that Trump allies sent messages to two witnesses testifying to the committee in an apparent attempt to intimidate them. 

Fanone said he does not have “the highest of hopes” that Attorney General Merrick Garland will bring charges against Trump because he believes Garland desired political accountability for Trump without a trial, which would be “ugly” for the country. 

“But I don’t think that’s enough,” Fanone said. “It’s not enough for me, and I don’t think it’s enough for most Americans.”

Source: TEST FEED1

How SCOTUS's latest decision could hinder Democrats’ effort to reinstate net neutrality rules

The Supreme Court’s ruling to curb the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could hurt Democrats’ long-fought battle to reinstate Obama-era net neutrality rules. 

If the same principle is applied from the majority opinion in Thursday’s case, arguing that Congress must grant clear authorization for certain regulations, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may not be able to restore rules banning service providers from blocking or throttling websites.

“There is a large shift of power from the agencies to the courts,” said Blair Levin, a policy adviser to New Street Research who served as chief of staff to former FCC Chair Reed Hundt.

Levin and other experts say the decision was written in a way that opens the door for rulemaking decisions at the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to potentially be overturned in court. 

At the heart of the issue is the conservative majority basing its 6-3 decision on a legal philosophy called the “major questions doctrine.” The principle means proposed rules can be challenged on the basis that the rule is a “major question” that only Congress should be able to address.

The decision essentially gives courts the ability to decide what is a major question, and in turn decide the regulation requires clear authorization from Congress, Levin said. 

“So it adds a level of uncertainty to any decision by an agency,” he said. “Whatever you thought the odds of the agency decision being overturned before, you now think are higher.”

Democrats and advocates have been pushing to have the 2015 net neutrality rules reinstated after they were revoked under the Trump administration. But a year and a half into the Biden administration, the FCC has been unable to take action due to a 2-2 partisan deadlock on the commission amid hold-ups over Biden nominee Gigi Sohn in the Senate.

Now, even if a Democratic-controlled FCC were to reinstate the order, the rules would face a more uncertain path forward in the courts. 

“There’s no way to sugarcoat it and say that this is good news for the [Federal Trade Commission] or the FCC. Or any kind of regulatory action,” said Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press.

But, he said, it’s not necessarily “decisive or bad news,” since the decision was delivered in a way that appeared to apply the major questions doctrine more specifically to the agency and statute before the court. 

“I can’t sit here and guarantee that the FCC would win on that again, I just think they have better chances, by far, than what it seems like the EPA faced today on this particular question,” Wood said. 

Especially after the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, including reversing nearly 50 years of precedent to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade, Wood said nothing feels like “settled law” anymore with the current justices. 

Levin also said that the FCC may fare better in keeping its authority compared to other agencies, in part because the court cited the 2006 ruling in the Gonzalez v. Oregon case in its decision to curtail the EPA’s power. The Gonzales decision “seemed to imply the FCC has broad powers not subject to being undercut by the” major questions doctrine, Levin wrote in a note for New Street Research on Friday. 

However, the court also cited a dissent written by then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, now a Supreme Court justice, from when the D.C. circuit upheld the Obama administration’s net neutrality rules. 

Kavanaugh, in the dissent, suggested the FCC’s authority in that case should be considered a major question. 

The FTC, which has been more aggressively pursuing rule changes since Chair Lina Khan assumed her position, may be in a more precarious position. 

New rules put in place by the FTC, including the agency’s joint effort with the Department of Justice to create new merger guidelines, may be interpreted as a major question if challenged in court, according to experts. 

“The more ambitious, the more far reaching, the more novel the approach that the FTC uses in its rules, the greater the degree of scrutiny the court would apply to them,” William Kovacic, a George Washington University Law professor and former FTC chair, said. 

“All of this is happening at exactly the moment the FTC is seeking to expand the frontiers of its program and to do novel and creative things — they’re doing exactly the moment that the Court yesterday and in other decisions is saying, ‘we’re skeptical,’ ” he added. 

Source: TEST FEED1