Archive by Author

44 percent of GOP lawmakers in key swing states upheld 2020 election lie

Almost half of Republican lawmakers in battleground states attempted to discredit or overturn the 2020 election results, pressing forward with former President Trump’s false narrative that the election was stolen from him.

At least 357 active Republican lawmakers, or 44 percent, made a concerted effort to discredit the election results in 2020, according to an analysis out Sunday from The New York Times. 

Those legislators came from key states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Florida. 

The Times also found that 23 percent of GOP lawmakers attempted to delay the vote count or overturn the results via lawsuits or letters to Congress or then-Vice President Mike Pence, and 11 percent supported sending an alternate slate of electors who would be willing to overturn voters’ selections in some states.

Legal experts have said that a “decertification” of the 2020 election did not have any basis in U.S. election law, but 7 percent of GOP legislators still supported that theory. 

Almost a quarter vouched for an “audit” of the results, but the Times noted that such a review did not follow the typical standards required of auditing. 

Instead, the Republican state Senate in Phoenix, for example, hired a firm with connections to election conspiracy theories to carry out the “audit,” which ultimately found Biden won the election in Arizona, the newspaper reported. 

However, that audit also contained over 70 false, misleading or inaccurate claims, local election officials said.

“The in-depth analysis and review of the reports and presentations issued by the Senate’s contractors found that nearly every finding included faulty analysis, inaccurate claims, misleading conclusions, and a lack of understanding of federal and state election laws,” those officials said, adding that “the Senate’s election review and its contractors fell far short of those standards and instead promoted disinformation and distrust.” 

Though Trump launched several legal efforts across key swing states in an attempt to overturn his loss to President Biden, there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Source: TEST FEED1

Majority of Americans oppose lifting Title 42 border policy: poll

More than half of Americans in a new poll oppose the Biden administration’s decision to lift Title 42, the Trump-era public health policy that allows for the rapid expulsion of migrants at the border and blocks them from seeking asylum amid the pandemic.

According to the Politico-Harvard poll, 55 perfect of American adults oppose ending the use of Title 42. However, 45 percent agree with the administration’s decision to lift it.

Public attitudes about ending the policy “are driven to a large extent by their views about the desirability of future immigration to the U.S.,” the report read.

Specifically, 72 percent of those who believe that immigration should be increased in the U.S. said they favor ending the use of Title 42 to prevent migrants from entering the U.S. In contrast, 77 percent of those who believe future immigration should be limited oppose ending it.

Opposition to the decision is split heavily along party lines, with 81 percent of Republicans saying they oppose lifting Title 42, while 36 percent of Democrats say the same.

The poll was conducted May 6-9 on a sample of 1,025 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.

The results of the poll come after U.S. District Court Judge Robert Summerhays on Friday temporarily stopped the Biden administration from ending Title 42 by granting a nationwide preliminary injunction to a group of GOP state attorneys generals challenging the policy change.

The Trump-appointed judge ruled that the administration cannot roll back the policy while the broader legal challenge plays out in court.

The policy was crafted in the early days of the pandemic and allows rapid expulsion of migrants in the name of public health and prevents them from seeking asylum. The policy directly contravenes asylum law, which grants the right to a hearing for asylum claims.

The Biden administration had planned to end the policy Monday.

Source: TEST FEED1

Akhil Amar and the Dobbs draft

Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, in a prominent defense of the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion overruling Roe v. Wade, argues in the Wall Street Journal that it contains “nothing radical, illegitimate or improperly political.” Amar supports abortion access but doubts that it is protected by the Constitution. He emphasizes that Roe was poorly reasoned. He thinks that the “dire assessments” of many writers that Justice Samuel Alito’s draft in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health endangers same-sex marriage and some forms of contraception “don’t stand up to scrutiny.” He even suggests that the new regime might not be very hard on women.

His essay has been trumpeted by many in the conservative press as evidence that even some liberals concede that overruling Roe would be no big deal. But the piece is full of unwarranted optimism and leaps of logic. 

It is true that the reasoning of Roe was unpersuasive. But courts sometimes reach the right results for the wrong reasons. In Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion relied on shaky social science to declare segregated schools unconstitutional. Warren did that because he wanted a unanimous court, and a condemnation of the entire Jim Crow regime’s vicious racism would have lost the vote of Stanley Reed, a justice from Kentucky. It soon was shown that Brown was unassailable, albeit not for the reasons in the court’s opinion. (Amar knows all this. He cites the “best argument” for Brown, not what Warren wrote.) Should Brown be overruled because the court used the wrong argument? How is Roe different?

Amar writes that “Roe said nothing, amazingly, about the relationship of abortion rights to women’s equality.” Alito’s draft has the same flaw: It “says little—too little—about sex and gender equality,” and Amar thinks that the court “will likely need to take equality issues more seriously.” This is like saying that a boat is seaworthy except for the big hole in the hull. 

Alito disposes of the sex discrimination argument in one short paragraph, relying on a 1974 decision (which Amar elsewhere calls “ridiculous”) holding that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy has nothing to do with sex discrimination — as if the subordination of women were not always about depriving them of control over their reproductive powers. Amar doesn’t give us a hint of how he thinks Alito could defend his position while acknowledging the Equal Protection Clause that, inconveniently, happens to be in the Constitution.

Amar makes a brief sally into originalism: “When Americans adopted the 14th Amendment in the 1860s, almost no one thought it barred laws against abortion.” Yes, and almost no one thought it barred racial segregation. The same Congress that passed the amendment also segregated schools in Washington, D.C. Sophisticated originalists such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia long ago saw that one cannot simply try to channel the framers’ subjective expectations when interpreting text. Amar, like Alito, doesn’t even mention the 13th amendment argument, even though forced pregnancy and motherhood were integral to the slavery that the amendment abolishes.

As for the implications for other rights, one should begin by noticing that we are already near the bottom of the slippery slope: This will be a catastrophe for women even if the court goes no further. (Amar blithely declares that “most women” who live far from the nearest state where abortion is legal “should be able to travel to get the treatment they desire.”) But the news is not good for contraception and same-sex marriage.

On his Amarica’s Constitution podcast, Amar declared that there’s no movement to undo the right to contraception: “Lib law professors, you’re just trying to scare people with boogeymen or something.” Some in the conservative press agree. 

But what is contraception? Many right-to-lifers claim that its most reliable forms, such as the birth control pill and the IUD, are abortifacients. Justice Alito himself has warned of “morning after pills, which destroy an embryo after fertilization.” That’s not how Plan B normally works, and it is uncertain whether it ever harms a fertilized egg. But legislation to ban it is already being considered.

Republican legislatures are already abdicating control over who will be punished for what. The court refused to enjoin a Texas law that empowered anyone to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion — a scheme that could penalize any constitutional right that a legislature doesn’t like. Four other states now have similar laws, and more will probably follow. Some specifically exempt IUDs; some don’t. Statutes criminalizing abortion at any time after fertilization could empower prosecutors to go after doctors who prescribe these contraceptives.

The court probably does not want to revisit the same-sex marriage issue, even though the reasoning of Alito’s abortion opinion is basically copied from his dissent in the marriage case. It may not have a choice. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton denounced the court’s decision to protect same-sex marriages, and has repeatedly encouraged state officials and citizens to defy it.

Suppose he seizes the opportunity to create a test case, declaring that such marriages are no longer available or recognized in Texas? One could easily imagine the extremist Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding that decision, forcing the question onto the Supreme Court docket. Amar points out that this is sex discrimination – “Patrick was allowed to marry Mary, but Patricia was not” – but the court ignored that in its same-sex marriage decision, just as it did in Roe. How can he be confident that it won’t evade it again, as Alito did in his Dobbs draft?

Disclosure: Amar is my friend, he was my constitutional law professor, his course changed my life, and he helped me craft the arguments, discussed above, that the 13th amendment protects abortion and that antigay discrimination is sex discrimination. In his podcast, he calls out by name his friends and former students who, he claims, have mischaracterized the likely results of Dobbs. Here as elsewhere I follow his admirable example. He is egregiously wrong. Even great constitutional scholars have bad days, and this was one of them.

Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, is the author of “Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed” (St. Martin’s Press, forthcoming). Follow him on Twitter @AndrewKoppelman.

Source: TEST FEED1

Van Hollen back home after stroke

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is back home from the hospital after suffering a minor stroke on May 15.

Van Hollen tweeted on Sunday that it was “great to be back home after a long week.”

“I’m grateful for the generous outpouring of support from everyone and the dedicated care I received from the team at” George Washington University Hospital, the senator wrote above a picture of him standing in the backyard with his dog.

Van Hollen was hospitalized last Sunday after he reported a minor stroke related to a venous tear at the back of his head, when a vein bursts or bleeds profusely.

His announcement came on the same day Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, announced he too suffered from a stroke, just two days before he would go on to win the primary election.

Fetterman was also discharged from the hospital on Sunday and is recovering at home after getting a peacemaker implant for cardiac assistance.

Source: TEST FEED1

Ted Cruz to campaign for Mo Brooks in Alabama on Monday

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is heading to Alabama on Monday to campaign for Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) in his bid for a Senate seat.

Cruz and Brooks are planning to hold a town hall event where they are expected to take questions from the audience, Brooks’ campaign said.

Alabama’s primary election is on Tuesday where candidates are running to replace retiring Republican Sen. Richard Shelby. Brooks is running against former political aide Katie Boyd Britt and former combat pilot Mike Durant.

Cruz campaigning for Brooks is a rare break by the Texas Republican against former President Trump, who pulled his endorsement of Brooks for suggesting that Republicans move on from talking about unproven claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

On Sunday, Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said she expects that the race for the Alabama Senate seat is likely headed for a potential runoff.

“I don’t think we’re going to have a final say on this Alabama race,” McDaniel told “Fox News Sunday” moderator Martha MacCallum. “I don’t think any of the three candidates are going to get over 50 percent so we’re going to go to a runoff, and then we’ll figure out who the nominee is.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Latest list of Americans banned by Russia includes dead lawmakers

A number of deceased lawmakers were included on Russia’s latest addition to the growing list of Americans banned from the country amid its war on Ukraine.

Former Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) were all included on the list, though all three lawmakers have passed away. 

Other posthumous bans were handed to late Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), former Defense Intelligence Agency Deputy Director Melissa Drisko, Judge Steven Thomas O’Neill and U.S. Army reservist Jeremy Sivits.

The list included the date of passing for McCain, O’Neill, Sivits and Hastings in the sanctions document.

A litany of living U.S. lawmakers and officials were also named on the list, including President Biden, Vice President Harris and other members of the Biden administration.

Members of the House and various business executives, think tank leaders, former lawmakers and officials were also banned — as were actors and filmmakers Morgan Freeman and Rob Reiner.

The list was released on Saturday by the Russian foreign ministry, which said in a statement that the sanctions came in response to U.S.-imposed sanctions against Russia following its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

The U.S. and a number of its allies have directly sanctioned Putin, along with his closest allies in and out of government, and his family.

Source: TEST FEED1

Cotton: Biden trip to Asia more than a year too late

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Sunday said President Biden’s trip to East Asia beginning last week was “sixteen months too late,” slamming the president for being “asleep at the switch” on the rising national security dangers posed by China.

Cotton, who serves on the armed services and intelligence committees in the Senate, told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” host Maria Bartiromo that he wished Biden had traveled to Asia “early in his tenure,” and not more than a year into his presidency.

“It’s important for the president to visit our allies in the Western Pacific. I think it’s coming about sixteen months too late, because China’s the number one threat we face,” Cotton said.

“And, unfortunately, Joe Biden’s actions right now just are not backing up any words,” Cotton continued. “China is still closing the gap with us militarily. They’re gaining diplomatic ground by opening potential port access in Western Pacific states where Joe Biden and his administration had been caught asleep at the switch.”

Last month, FBI Director Christopher Wray said the current scale of espionage and cybersecurity threats from China were “unprecedented in history.” The U.S. has also expressed alarm at Beijing’s military expansion in the South China Sea and warned that China is learning from Russia’s war on Ukraine with its own ambitions of controlling Taiwan in mind.

Biden traveled to South Korea on Friday to meet with the country’s newly elected president before heading on to Tokyo to meet with leaders of Japan, India and Australia in a joint security partnership dubbed the Quad.

The visit is seen a warning shot to China amid rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, coming just days after Biden hosted Southeast Asian leaders in Washington.

China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi warned U.S. officials last week not to play the “Taiwan card” during the trip.

Cotton told Bartiromo that Biden needs to “take firmer action, not simply talk tough” on China to deter them from hostile actions like an invasion of Taiwan. The senator said funding Ukraine so they could beat back Russian invaders was a good place to start.

“Jinping will invade Taiwan in the next five years if the United States does not take strong action to deter it,” Cotton said. “That starts in part by showing him that we have the resolve to help Ukraine to the end, especially after the debacle in Afghanistan, which only emboldened people like Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Rick Scott says Republicans should 'be clear' about white supremacy: 'It's wrong'

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said on Sunday that Republicans should “be clear” on the topic of white supremacy, saying that the ideology is “wrong”

During an appearance on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” moderator Margaret Brennan asked Scott if he thinks it’s important for leaders to publicly condemn white supremacy, noting a CBS News poll in which 75 percent of Democrats and 23 percent of Republican respondents said it is important for political leaders to reject the ideology. 

“Well, clearly, we ought to all condemn any hatred. We ought to condemn any white supremacy. We’ve got to figure out how to come together. I believe we got to stop all this racial politics and what the plan I put out at Rescue America.com, I said we have to stop asking people on government forms for their skin color,” Scott told Brennan. 

“We ought to judge people by their character, not, you know, not their skin color. So, we’ve got to figure out how to bring people together.”

When asked if he will tell GOP senators who are currently running for reelection to publicly condemn white supremacy, Scott, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, mentioned that “every Senate candidate on both sides is going to decide what is important to them, and what is important to the citizens of their state.”

“If they asked me, I would say, ‘be clear.’ … I don’t think any American should believe in white supremacy or hatred of any kind,” Scott responded. “I mean, it’s wrong.” 

Scott’s remarks come a week after the massacre in Buffalo, N.Y. that left ten people dead and three others injured when a lone gunman opened fire at the community supermarket. 

Payton Gendron, who has been charged with first-degree murder in the shooting, reportedly shared in his manifesto the racist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, which states that white people in the U.S. are being intentionally replaced by members of the minority group.

Some GOP lawmakers such as Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) have called out GOP House leadership for “enabling” white nationalism in their ranks.

Source: TEST FEED1

Robert Gates on Trump running for office again: ‘It would concern me’

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a new interview said another run for office by former President Trump would “concern” him.

Asked by moderator Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation” if Trump running for office again would pose a threat to national security, Gates said, “It would concern me.”

“That’s a very diplomatic phrase,” Brennan responded, to which Gates said, “That’s where I am.”

Gates served as Defense secretary between 2006 and 2011, working under both former Presidents George W. Bush and Obama. He also led the CIA from 1991 until 1993.

In January 2020, Gates told PBS NewsHour that Trump was a “divider.”

“It’s quite clear that being a unifying president is pretty low on the priority of our current incumbent. I think he is a divider, and I think he does so quite consciously,” he said.

Gates has been critical of the GOP. Last May, he told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he did not think the five GOP presidents he worked for would recognize the current Republican Party.

“I would have serious concerns about the future. You know, I’ve … worked for eight presidents. Five of them were Republicans. I don’t think any of them would recognize the Republican Party today,” Gates said. “I think in terms of the values and the principles that the Republican Party stood for under those five presidents are hard to find these days.”

In October, he commented on the “extreme polarization” in the U.S., telling “60 Minutes” that the “greatest threat is found within the two square miles that encompass the White House and the Capitol Building.”

Gates on Sunday also commented on the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. He called that day “a huge blight on our democracy.”

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is set to hold its first of eight hearings next month. Asked by Brennan if he thinks there is value in having the hearings aired publicly, he said, “I think so, yes.”

“I think people need to understand. My worry is that people will- that everybody will retreat to their ideological corner. And, and so nobody will- nobody will listen. I think maybe the best thing to do is just to rerun the videos,” he added.

Source: TEST FEED1