10 February 21
Stand Up For Reader Supported News
Come on folks don’t just sit there and let RSN struggle financially. What we need to function is a drop in the bucket.
When you get involved, when you take an ownership stake good things happen.
Help RSN!
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611
10 February 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Al Franken and Norman Ornstein | Make the Filibuster Great Again
Al Franken and Norman Ornstein, The Star Tribune
Excerpt: "Restore the procedure as a sign of minority passion and maybe, just maybe, compromise will follow."
n a Thursday evening in July 2009, one of us had just cast his last vote of the week on the U.S. Senate floor and wished a Republican colleague a good weekend by saying, "I'll see you on Monday!"
The colleague replied, "Oh, I won't be here on Monday. It's a cloture vote."
That's when the senator realized just how egregiously his Republican colleagues were abusing the filibuster. Mitch McConnell was well on his way to filibustering more of former President Barack Obama's executive branch nominees than had been filibustered in the previous 200 years. And yet, only one Republican would have to show up on Monday.
"Why do we have to come up with 60 votes to end a filibuster?" the senator thought to himself. "Why don't they have to come up with 41 votes to sustain a filibuster? That way I could work in my state on Monday. Or even better — fundraise!"
Later that weekend the senator talked to the other one of us, the political scientist, who explained how the filibuster was no longer serving its original purpose. Instead of giving the minority a chance to stop legislation it strongly opposed, the filibuster had become a tactic to eat up time.
It wasn't uncommon for McConnell to object to, say, an Obama appeals court or Cabinet nominee, forcing first a two-day delay to get a cloture motion to "ripen," and then spending days till Democrats finally got 60 votes (in July 2009, Ted Kennedy lay dying in Hyannis Port) and then waiting another 30 hours of "post-cloture debate" after which the nominee was confirmed — sometimes unanimously.
The strategy very often had nothing to do with principled opposition to a nominee, or in other cases, to a bill. It was only deployed to eat up hours and hours of Senate legislative time to bollix up the Senate and hurt Obama and Democrats.
Both of us had grown up in St. Louis Park where all the Republicans were reasonable, all the Democrats were civic-minded, and all the children were pro-Israel. The political scientist (OK, by now you should've out figured out that's Norm) had gone off to Michigan to get his Ph.D. in political science. The senator (Al) to New York for a degree in sketch comedy.
Now we were both in Washington, D.C. And it didn't take a Ph.D. in political science for Al to see that the Senate was all messed up. Both had grown up during the fabled civil rights era, when Strom Thurmond, Richard Russell and a legion of Southern segregationists had filibustered against civil rights and voting rights, taking to the Senate floor for hours (Thurmond once for 24 hours straight, with either a cast iron bladder or a catheter) to defend their position.
Not anymore. Why? The biggest reason was an inadvertent effect from a bipartisan change in the Senate rules in 1975. For many decades, the requirement to stop debate and move to a vote, in the Senate's Rule XXII, was two-thirds of senators present and voting. The Senate changed the rule to three-fifths of the entire Senate. On the surface, it was a change to make ending filibusters easier. But it actually raised the bar.
With a present and voting standard, the majority facing a filibuster could go around-the-clock, and minority senators would have to be there, waiting for the possibility of a vote. If, say, only 60 senators showed up, it would take just 40 votes to invoke cloture and move to a vote on the underlying bill or nominee. The burden was on the minority to be there.
And that meant that starting a filibuster could bring discomfort and stress to the minority. It also meant that the drama of an around-the-clock session would bring serious national attention to the issue, forcing the minority to explain why they opposed something widely popular with the public.
The change in the rule perversely put the burden on the majority. Want to go around-the-clock? The minority needs only to deputize one or two of its members to stay in the Senate in order to prevent a unanimous consent agreement to move to a vote. But the majority would have to stick around to make a quorum to stay in session. Meaning it was the majority senators who would have to sleep on lumpy cots off the Senate floor. But unless they had the 60 votes, that would serve no purpose.
Then came Mitch McConnell. And Barack Obama. Honeymoon? Hah. It is clear McConnell is ready to do the same mass obstruction to block all of President Joe Biden's, and Democrats', priorities in 2021.
What to do now? Flip the numbers. Instead of requiring 60 votes to end debate, require 41 to continue debate. Then, the majority leader could call votes any time the Senate was in session, and the minority would have to show up. Including for votes at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m., coming off their lumpy cots off the Senate floor. Around the clock. Including 87-year-old Chuck Grassley and both 86-year-olds Richard Shelby and Jim Inhofe. And soon-to-be-79-year-old Mitch McConnell. No Mondays off while only the majority had to be there. Weekends in D.C., including for the 17 Republicans up for re-election in 2022, who want to be back home campaigning.
This kind of simple change would not eliminate filibusters. In fact, it would restore their original purpose — for the minority to demonstrate when it really cares about something, maybe even leading to, oh, constructive compromises. It would take away the incentive to use the tactic on every bill as a delaying device and begin to limit its use to high profile legislation.
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have made clear that they are adamantly opposed to eliminating the filibuster. OK. Great! They revere the tradition of a minority willing to go, literally, to the mattresses for something they believe deeply. So they should be enthusiastic about supporting a rule that provides just that.
Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, D.C. (photo: Brent Stirton/Getty Images)
Trump's Lawyers Say He Was Immediately 'Horrified' by the Capitol Attack. Here's What His Allies and Aides Said Really Happened That Day.
Rosalind S. Helderman and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "President Donald Trump was 'horrified' when violence broke out at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, as a joint session of Congress convened to confirm that he lost the election, according to his defense attorneys."
Trump tweeted calls for peace “upon hearing of the reports of violence” and took “immediate steps” to mobilize resources to counter the rioters storming the building, his lawyers argued in a brief filed Monday in advance of Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate. It is “absolutely not true,” they wrote, that Trump failed to act swiftly to quell the riot.
But that revisionist history conflicts with the timeline of events on the day of the Capitol riot, as well as accounts of multiple people in contact with the president that day, who have said Trump was initially pleased to see a halt in the counting of the electoral college votes. Some former White House officials have acknowledged that he only belatedly and reluctantly issued calls for peace, after first ignoring public and private entreaties to do so.
The assertion that Trump acted swiftly and out of genuine horror as his supporters ransacked the Capitol is largely a side note to his lawyers’ defense. In their 78-page brief, they focused on two legal arguments: that the Constitution does not allow for the conviction of an impeached former officeholder and that Trump’s speech to the crowd on Jan. 6 was political rhetoric protected by the First Amendment.
On Tuesday, the majority of Republican senators agreed with the defense’s arguments that the proceedings are unconstitutional, although six Republicans joined all of the chamber’s Democrats and independents as the Senate voted 56 to 44 to allow the trial to proceed.
But the decision by Trump’s attorneys to also assert a claim about Trump’s reaction that day in a footnote to their legal brief gave an opening to the House impeachment managers. On Tuesday, they excoriated the assertions by his defense team, saying the former president “barely attempts to justify his abject failure to stop the riot after it began.”
Among the possible witnesses who could rebut the contention that Trump moved quickly to rein in his supporters are Republican senators who will now sit as jurors in the impeachment trial — some of whom have spoken publicly about their failed attempts to get the president to act expeditiously when his supporters invaded the Capitol.
“It took him a while to appreciate the gravity of the situation,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of Trump’s most loyal supporters, said in an interview with The Washington Post two days after the riot. “The president saw these people as allies in his journey and sympathetic to the idea that the election was stolen.”
That same day, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) told conservative radio broadcaster Hugh Hewitt that it was “not an open question” as to whether Trump had been “derelict in his duty,” saying there had been a delay in the deployment of the National Guard to help the Capitol Police repel rioters.
“As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building,” he said, indicating that he had learned of Trump’s reaction from “senior White House officials.”
Sasse declined to comment on Monday, saying he was a juror in the trial. Graham did not respond to requests for comment.
A spokesman for Trump’s defense team did not respond to requests for comment.
For many White House aides, lawmakers and others who had been ensconced in the Capitol, Trump’s actions after the riots began were particularly offensive — even more objectionable, some said, than what he did to incite the crowd.
“President Trump did not take swift action to stop the violence,” the nine House impeachment managers wrote in their opening brief submitted last week, adding: “This dereliction of President Trump’s responsibility for the events of January 6 is unmistakable.”
A plea for 'extreme courage'
Weeks before the joint session of Congress, Trump had summoned the crowd to Washington for a protest to coincide with counting of the electoral college votes. In the days leading up to the rally on the Ellipse, Trump was consumed with the event, former White House officials said, as he met with aides to plan the speakers, music and even staging.
On Jan. 6, Trump spent part of his morning making a final pitch to Vice President Mike Pence to derail the proceedings. The president tried to persuade Pence to use his ceremonial role presiding over the joint session of Congress to reject slates of electoral college votes that confirmed President Biden’s victory.
“All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!” Trump tweeted at 8:17 a.m.
Trump also kept up the pressure privately, calling Pence before he left his home at the Naval Observatory for the Capitol and making one last effort to push him to try to overturn or delay the election results, former White House officials said.
Instead, Pence informed the president on the call that he would soon be issuing a public statement arguing the Constitution did not allow him to interfere with the counting of the vote.
Trump’s mood immediately soured, aides said.
As the thousands of people gathered on the Ellipse, Trump monitored warm-up speeches by attorneys Rudolph W. Giuliani and John Eastman from the White House. Around midday, he left the White House and made his way to a tent set up for VIPs near the stage. In videos posted on social media by his son Donald Trump Jr., the president can be seen intently watching the gathering crowd, surrounded by family members and aides.
A permit filed with the National Park Service for the event explicitly said there were no plans for an “organized march” from the Ellipse after the rally concluded.
But some publicity for events that day, including ads posted to a now-defunct website called www.marchtosaveamerica.com, urged participants to “take a stand with President Trump” at the Ellipse and then “march to the US Capitol building to protest the certification of the Electoral College.”
And Trump was taken with the idea that he might lead the crowd in a dramatic walk along Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol and raised it with aides days before the event, according to an official with knowledge of the discussions, who was among more than 15 advisers, members of Congress, GOP officials and Trump confidants who described his actions to The Post last month, many speaking on the condition of anonymity to share candid details.
Even after the Secret Service and advisers around Trump nixed the idea for security reasons, according to former officials, Trump still included several references to such a march in his speech.
“After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you,” Trump said early in his speech. Later, he added, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” He concluded: “So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue!”
Instead, Trump returned to the White House.
Even before Trump’s speech was over, thousands of his supporters turned and began marching toward the Capitol.
There was already a large crowd gathered around the complex. By the time Trump had finished his 70-minute speech, Pence had gaveled open the joint session inside the Capitol. Outside, crowds were surging toward the building and already overwhelming metal barricades set up outside.
Soon, cable news reports showed rioters clashing with police outside the building.
By 1:49 p.m. — nearly an hour after the Capitol Police chief had urgently requested backup from D.C. police — Trump remained focused on his recently concluded speech.
He tweeted a video of his own remarks, adding the caption, “Our country has had enough, we will not take it anymore, and that’s what this is all about.”
At 2:11 p.m., the rioters broke into the building, smashing a window with a piece of lumber, video footage shows.
Minutes later, Pence was hustled from the Senate chamber. First the Senate, and then the House, went into recess and lawmakers were hastily evacuated.
A spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has said that around this time Lee received a call on his cellphone from Trump.
The president was not calling to inquire about the well-being of the senators who had been rushed from the chamber. Rather, he thought he had the phone number for Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who had said he would object to the electoral votes of some states. Trump was hoping to persuade Tuberville to expand his challenges and slow the process further.
Lee’s spokesman did not respond to requests for comment this week.
Not long afterward, at 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution . . . USA demands the truth.”
Inside the Capitol, the pro-Trump mob had just come within seconds of encountering Pence, who had been rushed into a hideaway by his Secret Service detail.
Speaking Sunday on Fox News, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) questioned whether the tweet, sent as the invading mob was marauding through the Capitol, was “a premeditated effort to provoke violence.”
A belated call for peace
At the White House, Trump’s aides began fielding panicked calls from members of Congress, including close allies who had long been loyal to the president. They had promised they would vote against the counting of the electoral college votes — but begged him now to tell the crowd to stand down.
Graham reached out to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who had gone to the Oval Office as the riot began, to implore her for help, he said in the interview last month.
“They were all trying to get him to speak out, to tell everyone to leave,” Graham said of the aides huddled with Trump that day. The senator said he did not know why it took so long to get the president to respond.
Another close adviser said that rather than appearing appalled, Trump was voraciously consuming the events on television, enjoying the spectacle and encouraged to see his supporters fighting for him.
At some point, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was persuaded by staff members to attempt to intervene with the president.
Finally, at 2:38 p.m. — more than 90 minutes after the siege had begun — Trump tweeted, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
One person familiar with discussions about what the president should tweet said Trump had resisted adding the final phrase: “Stay peaceful.”
A little after 3 p.m., acting defense secretary Christopher Miller authorized full activation of all 1,100 members of the D.C. National Guard after urgent requests from the Capitol Police.
While Trump’s defense attorneys claim he and the White House “took immediate steps to coordinate with authorities,” the president played no known role in organizing reinforcements that day.
Among those who reached out to Trump that afternoon was House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), a close Trump ally, who later told other allies he found Trump watching events on television and distracted.
Concerned his request for the president to intervene had not gotten through, McCarthy followed up with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and asked him to get Trump to urge the rioters to go home.
At 3:13 p.m., a little more than a half-hour after his first tweet, Trump tweeted again. This time he wrote more forcefully: “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order — respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
Another hour passed. During this time, as rioters surged through the building and reveled on the Senate floor, Trump made no effort to check on the well-being of his vice president or his team, who were sheltering in place in the Capitol complex. Aides said that lack of outreach angered Pence more than anything else Trump did before or after the riot. Five days passed before the two men spoke again.
Trump also did not make contact with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.), then the Senate majority leader, who was in constant communication with Pence, Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), aides said, along with military and law enforcement officials. Trump did not participate in any of the group calls.
Shortly before 4 p.m., former New Jersey governor Chris Christie went on ABC News and said he had been trying without success to reach Trump for 25 minutes.
“The president caused this protest to occur; he’s the only one who can make it stop,” Christie, a close Trump confidant, said he had hoped to tell the president.
At 4:17 p.m., more than an hour after his last public comment and as police continued to wage hand-to-hand combat with rioters trying to press into the building, Trump posted a video to Twitter in which he told crowd directly, “You have to go home.”
But he also expressed sympathy for them and their cause. Trump insisted the election had been fraudulent, adding, “There’s never been a time like this when such a thing happened when they could take it away from all of us.”
“Go home. We love you. You’re very special,” he said.
Trump aides later said that the video was considered the best of three separate takes he filmed that day.
As a curfew called by D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) fell over the city at 6 p.m., Trump tweeted again. This time, he went even further in expressing sympathy for his supporters and their actions.
“These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” he wrote. “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
In The Post interview two days after the riot, Graham called the tweet “very unhelpful” and expressed confusion about why Trump had not acted more forcefully during the riot. “I’d like to know more,” he said then.
In opening remarks at the trial Tuesday, House impeachment manager David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) said every time he read the tweet, it “chilled” him “to the core.”
“He issued a tweet five hours after the Capitol was sacked in which he sided with the bad guys,” he said of Trump’s message.
In the immediate wake of the riot, Meadows was already telling people that Trump had wanted the violence to end immediately, according to an administration official at the time.
The official said it was “not believable” then — or now, when presented by Trump’s lawyers. A spokesman for Meadows did not respond to a request for comment.
The House impeachment managers are expected to argue that Trump could have restrained the mob if he had acted more swiftly and forcefully.
In a new brief filed Tuesday, the impeachment managers wrote that Trump’s team had failed to explain his conduct, confining their “entire discussion of the point to a convoluted footnote that hardly offers any response or explanation at all.”
Comments by some of those who allegedly invaded the Capitol support the notion that they would have responded if Trump had told them to back down earlier in the day.
In a video posted to the social media site Parler on the afternoon of Jan. 6, Jacob Chansley — who was photographed in the well of the Senate chamber, wearing a headdress of animal fur and horns — told an unnamed person after he exited the building that he had done so because Trump had tweeted that the rioters should leave.
“Donald Trump asked everybody to go home,” Chansley said. “He just put out a tweet. It’s a minute long. He asked everybody to go home.”
President Biden speaking with reporters. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
Dems Attempt to Push Through Minimum Wage Increase, $130 Billion in School Funding as Part of Pandemic Relief
Collin Binkley, Associated Press
Binkley writes: "House Democrats on Tuesday muscled past Republicans on portions of President Joe Biden's pandemic plan, including a proposed billion in additional relief to help the nation's schools reopen and a gradual increase of the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour."
Democrats on the Education and Labor Committee say schools won't be able to reopen safely until they get an infusion of federal funding to repair building ventilation systems, buy protective equipment and take other steps recommended by federal health officials. The plan faces opposition from Republicans who want to tie new school funding to reopening.
The panel met Tuesday to craft its portion of a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package that tracks with Biden's plan for battling the pandemic and reviving a still staggering economy. Democrats hope to rush the bill to Biden for his signature by mid-March, using a special budget-related process allowing certain legislation to be approved by a simple majority.
Rep. Bobby Scott, chair of the Education and Labor Committee, dismissed complaints from Republicans who objected to use of the process.
“We must address the urgent needs of the people now," said Scott, D-Va., “The multiple crises affecting our communities will grow worse every day if we do not act. We must recognize that we cannot afford to prioritize process over the urgent needs of people across this country.”
House Republicans attempted dozens of changes to the legislation at a hearing that stretched late into the evening. They proposed amendments to limit funding only to schools offering in-person instruction, or to steer aid to families if their schools continued operating online. On the wage increase, they sought to exempt small businesses or certain rural areas. It appeared all of the amendments would be defeated.
Biden has made reopening most of the nation's K-8 schools within his first 100 days in office a key goal. The issue has become increasingly heated as some school districts face gridlock with teachers who have refused to support reopening until their demands are met. Biden's plan for $130 billion in school funding is in addition to more than $8 billion from previous relief packages.
In a tweak to Biden's plan, the Democratic proposal would require schools to reserve at least 20% of the funding for efforts to address learning loss, including after-school programs and summer classes. The bill also matches Biden's proposed $40 billion for colleges and universities but, unlike the White House plan, makes private colleges eligible for relief.
Democrats also tucked in a new limit on for-profit colleges that the party has pushed for years. The proposal would prevent for-profit colleges from accepting more than 90% of their overall funding from federal sources. An existing federal law includes that cap for some federal sources but excludes funding from the GI Bill and other veterans programs.
Republicans blasted the legislation in its entirety, saying schools have already received billions in aid and are safe to reopen. They cited data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that social distancing and wearing a mask significantly reduce the spread of the virus in school settings.
“Students are falling behind, and mental health issues are on the rise. We know the costs of keeping schools closed are high. So why are schools still closed?” said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., the ranking Republican on the Education and Labor Committee. “Unfortunately, this bill is full of partisan policies disguised as COVID relief measures.”
The lawmakers' dispute reflected the complexities and frustrations of the national debate over reopening schools. Republicans proposed several variations of the same idea: to limit funding to schools that don't reopen. Rep. Gregory Murphy, R-N.C., sought to block funding from schools unless they bring at least high-needs students back to the classroom.
“We need to stop the excuses," Murphy said. "We need to stop all the nonsense. We need to get our kids back in school. Stop ruining their futures and stop playing games.”
Scott countered that schools can't make changes needed to reopen safely unless they get the funding in Biden's plan.
Republicans also signaled a fight over standardized testing, backing a proposed change to prevent relief funding from being used on academic assessments. Republicans say states should be exempt from federally required tests this spring because of the pandemic, while some Democrats say it's necessary to identify and help students who have fallen behind.
The $350 billion portion of the bill before the committee also includes Biden's plan to raise the minimum wage from $7.25, where is has been since 2009. The proposal calls for gradual increases that would reach $15 over five years. It faces an uphill climb, however, and even Biden has said it likely won’t survive.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Tuesday that Democrats were trying to overcome a potential procedural obstacle that could prevent them from including the wage increase in the COVID-19 relief bill.
“We’re trying to work as well as we can with the parliamentarian to get minimum wage to happen,” Schumer said.
Under Senate rules, provisions cannot be included in the special procedure Democrats are using if the language’s impact on the budget is only secondary to its main thrust. It is up to the chamber’s nonpartisan parliamentarian to determine that, though it would be possible for Democrats to vote to ignore that ruling. The fast-track process Democrats are using would let them prevent a GOP filibuster.
The minimum wage boost faces other significant challenges, including opposition from Republicans and a wariness by some Democrats arguing it would hurt small businesses, especially during a pandemic.
Also on Tuesday, Biden met with five business leaders, including the heads of JPMorgan Chase, Walmart, Gap, Lowe’s and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Biden said the meeting was a chance to find common ground with the business community.
“We’re going to talk about the state of the economy, the recovery package. We’re going talk a little bit, God willing, about infrastructure down the road, and also about the minimum wage,” Biden said at the start of the meeting.
The president said he has been “exchanging correspondence and telephone calls with Republicans to see if we can follow up beyond where we are with members of House and Senate,” even as Congress is moving forward with a budgetary process that will enable them to pass the relief package along party lines.
Lisa Montgomery. (photo: Kansas City Star)
82 Advocacy Groups Call on Biden to End Federal Executions
Michael Tarm and Michael Balsamo, Associated Press
Excerpt: "Dozens of civil rights and advocacy organizations are calling on the Biden administration to immediately halt federal executions after an unprecedented run of capital punishment under President Donald Trump and to commute the sentences of inmates on federal death row."
The organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 80 others, sent a letter to President Joe Biden on Tuesday morning, urging that he act immediately “on your promise of ensuring equality, equity, and justice in our criminal legal system.”
Biden has been systematically undoing many Trump administration policies on climate, immigration and ethics rules. Although he is against the death penalty and has said he will work to end its use, Biden has not commented on what he will do with Trump’s unprecedented push for the federal death penalty. The Bureau of Prisons carried out more executions under Trump, 13, than any previous president.
The reinstated executions began in July as the coronavirus raged through the prisons. An Associated Press analysis found the executions were likely a virus superspreader. About 70% of the inmates on federal death row in addition to prison staff members, employees on the agency’s execution team and witnesses contracted the virus.
The Trump administration carried out the 13 executions in six months, beginning July 14 and ending four days before Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20. They were the first federal executions in 17 years, and more were conducted under Trump than in the previous 56 years combined.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said last week that while Biden has spoken about his opposition to the death penalty, she didn’t “have anything to predict for you or preview for you in terms of additional steps.”
The groups say Biden should step in immediately and take action, as his administration works to establish priorities, address systemic racism and overhaul parts of the criminal justice system.
In the letter, the civil rights groups said the use of the death penalty “continues to perpetuate patterns of racial and economic oppression endemic to the American criminal legal system.” A report by the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center said that Black people remain overrepresented on death rows and that Black people who kill white people are far more likely to be sentenced to death than white people who kill Black people.
“Any criminal legal system truly dedicated to the pursuit of justice should recognize the humanity of all those who come into contact with it, not sanction the use of a discriminatory practice that denies individuals their rights, fails to respect their dignity, and stands in stark contrast to the fundamental values of our democratic system of governance,” the letter said.
The executions went ahead for inmates whose lawyers claimed were too mentally ill or intellectually disabled to fully grasp why they were being put to death. Lawyers for Lisa Montgomery, convicted of killing a pregnant Missouri woman and cutting out her baby, said her mental illness was partly triggered by years of horrific sexual abuse as a child. Days before Biden took office, she became the first woman executed by the federal government in nearly seven decades.
The groups told Biden he has the power to dismantle the death chamber building at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana — the small building where the 13 executions were carried out in six months — in addition to rescinding the Justice Department’s execution protocols and a regulation that no longer required federal death sentences to be carried out by lethal injection and cleared the way to use other methods like firing squads and poison gas.
They also said Biden could prohibit prosecutors from seeking death sentences and commute the sentences of the several dozen inmates on federal death row.
Far-reaching steps by Biden, the letter said, would also preclude any future president from restarting federal executions. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, halted federal executions but never cleared death row or sought to strike the death penalty from U.S. statutes. That left the door open for Trump to resume them.
“We … recognize that if there is one thing that the waning months of the Trump presidency also made clear, it is the horrendous implications of simply having an informal federal death penalty moratorium in place,” it said.
Cynthia Roseberry, the ACLU’s deputy director of policy for the justice division, said she knows that Biden has a lot on his plate and that he should be given some time to act on the death penalty. But she said the groups wanted to assure Biden “that there is broad based support to be bold” on the issue and that some don’t require complicated policy initiatives or new legislation.
“These things,” Roseberry said, “can be accomplished with the stroke of the pen.”
DACA recipients and their supporters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
'They Need to Move Quickly': A Texas DACA Case Could Force Congress to Move on Immigration
Sabrina Rodríguez, Politico
Excerpt: "A federal judge in Texas is likely to overturn DACA protections for more than 640,000 undocumented young people."
he Biden administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill have vowed repeatedly to secure a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. But a federal judge in Texas could be the one to force them to take the first step in making it happen.
Advocates, attorneys and lawmakers expect a ruling within days — or weeks — on a court case that will determine the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which provides protections for more than 640,000 immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.
Many anticipate that DACA will be ruled unlawful, given the Trump administration’s handling of the case and the judge’s track record on immigration. It would be the latest blow to the program, which has been caught in legal limbo since former President Barack Obama introduced it in 2012.
Still, despite its legal challenges, DACA remains popular, with widespread support among both Republicans and Democrats, who believe so-called Dreamers should be shielded from deportation and given legal status. But if DACA is overturned, recipients will be stripped of their protection from deportation and work permits. And that could pressure Congress to offer permanent legal status for Dreamers — and potentially other undocumented immigrants.
“The times where Congress [has been] most energized to move was when they felt they were in the middle of a crisis moment,” said Alida Garcia, vice president for advocacy at FWD.us, an immigration advocacy group.
But Garcia said she is “scared” because “we’ve gone through so many crisis moments on DACA that people have a bit of fatigue.” Congress doesn’t seem to get that — right now, the program is facing its greatest risk, she said.
“They need to move quickly,” she said.
Texas and eight other states are asking the court to end DACA. They argue the program is unconstitutional and forces states to bear extra costs from providing DACA recipients with services like education. Meanwhile, DACA proponents argue Obama acted within his executive powers to create the program and point to research documenting the program's benefits for both young immigrants and the country. The Center for American Progress, for example, estimates that ending DACA would mean a loss of billions of dollars in GDP for the states suing to overturn it.
A hearing took place in late December, but U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen did not issue an immediate ruling.
Several advocates say they expect Hanen to rule against DACA because in 2015 he ruled against expanded DACA protections and another Obama-era program — Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would have given protections to as many as five million undocumented immigrants.
However, in 2018, Hanen declined to issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily stop DACA, but said the program as enacted by Obama was unconstitutional and that it was up to Congress to pass immigration reform.
If Hanen rules against DACA, however, it's unlikely he will shut down the program immediately — or even imminently. Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, made clear in the December hearing that he was wary of a quick end to the program. And while an end to the program could make immigration reform more of a legislative priority, a drawn-out process could impact any sense of urgency on Capitol Hill.
The program has already faced several ups and downs. In 2017, former President Donald Trump tried to end the program. But in June 2020, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration. It found the way the government rescinded the program was unlawful — but left the door open for other legal challenges. DACA applications resumed last December.
That's why immigrant advocates say Congress must pass legislation now that it has a Democratic majority and a White House sending the right signals.
A ruling on the Texas case could be “a forcing event or action that makes things move at a greater speed,” said Lorella Praeli, president of Community Change Action, a progressive grassroots group. “It changes the politics, creates that sense of urgency.”
However, Praeli said Congress shouldn’t wait for a ruling — or “crisis moment” — to take action since the program has never been fully safe.
On his first day in office, President Joe Biden released a comprehensive immigration reform bill with a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. It has been welcomed by many Democrats, but Republicans quickly shut it down — a reminder that it'll be challenging to pass in a 50-50 Senate. Biden also signed an executive order on day one to safeguard DACA.
But another DACA case heading to the Supreme Court would likely not play out as it did before given the high court's current makeup. The makeup of the Supreme Court has changed, and with a 6-3 conservative court, it feels like an uphill climb, Garcia said.
“We do not have the certainty that the DACA program and the recipients within it will be protected much longer,” Garcia said. “That’s why we’re pushing urgently for Congress to act."
Last week, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reintroduced the Dream Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for an estimated 2 million undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, known as Dreamers. The bill has been around for 20 years without being signed into law.
“Passing the Dream Act is still my highest legislative priority,” a visibly emotional Durbin said in a 16-minute speech last week. He added: The Texas DACA case “is a reminder that a law has to pass.”
Meanwhile, Graham said he doubts the Dream Act would pass as a standalone bill, but rather part of a bigger immigration package. In the past, talk of a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers has been used by immigration hardliners to seek out stronger immigration enforcement and more border security.
But the Dream Act “will be a starting point for us to find bipartisan breakthroughs providing relief to the Dreamers and also repairing a broken immigration system,” Graham said in a statement last week.
Immigrant advocates say they want to see Dreamers, TPS recipients and undocumented farmworkers get legal status at the same time. Advocates are eyeing a pair of bills passed by House Democrats in 2019 — the American Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. They want to see them passed by mid-March, an ambitious goal as the Senate faces Trump’s impeachment again and still needs to pass a Covid relief bill, Biden’s top priority.
Meanwhile, some civil rights groups and advocates, such as Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, are hoping Congress will move without a push from the courts. Saenz, whose organization has defended DACA recipients, said he wants to see Hanen permit further discovery and briefing in the case, since the U.S. government’s position in the case has changed now that Biden is in office.
“The Trump administration’s position was that DACA was unlawful, but now the real defendant is in a position to defend — and that’s different,” Saenz said.
But if that doesn’t happen, Saenz is cautiously optimistic Congress can pass immigration reform. However, like other advocates, he recognizes the major challenge of doing so in a 50-50 Senate with the filibuster still in place.
“It has always been true that relief for this particular group of immigrants has strong voter support,” Saenz said. Therefore, he said, it should be relatively easy to get bipartisan support in the Senate to get relief for this population. Data and polls show broad support for offering legal status to immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, he said.
“But it’s certainly true that many leaders of the Republican Party have aligned themselves quite clearly with Donald Trump,” Saenz said. “So, that’s the question: Can Republican senators who have aligned themselves with Trump still find a way to support legislation?”
Thousands of people rallied against the military takeover in Yangon, Myanmar's most populous city, on Sunday. They demanded the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, whose elected government was toppled by the army that also imposed an Internet blackout. (photo: AP)
Myanmar Coup: Woman Shot by Police at Protest Fights for Life Amid Rising Coup Resistance
BBC News
Excerpt: "A woman who was shot in the head while protesting against Myanmar's military coup is in a critical condition at a hospital in the capital Nay Pyi Taw."
ya Thwe Thwe Khaing, 19, was hurt on Tuesday when police tried to disperse protesters using water cannon, rubber bullets and live rounds.
The wound was consistent with one from live ammunition, rights groups say.
There have been reports of serious injuries as police have increased their use of force, but no deaths so far.
Tens of thousands have turned out in street protests against last week's coup, which overthrew Aung San Suu Kyi's democratically-elected government, despite a recent ban on large gatherings and a night curfew.
Demonstrations re-started on Wednesday morning, for a fifth consecutive day, with a large group of civil servants gathering in Nay Pyi Taw to protest.
On Tuesday, police used water cannon in Nay Pyi Taw against protesters, who refused to retreat.
Warning shots were reportedly fired into the air before rubber bullets were used. Doctors later said it appeared live ammunition had hit protesters.
According to BBC Burmese, who spoke to an unnamed medical officer from a Nay Pyi Taw hospital, Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing suffered a serious head injury and another demonstrator had chest injuries.
Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing is now in intensive care.
Her sister, Mya Tha Toe Nwe, who was also at the protest, said the chances of her sister surviving are slim.
"It's heart breaking," she said. "We only have our mother, our dad is already dead.
"I'm the eldest of four siblings, she's the youngest. I can't comfort mum, we have no words."
According to a report by Human Rights Watch, a doctor from the hospital said the teenager had a "projectile lodged in her head and had lost significant brain function".
The unidentified doctor said the wound was consistent with the use of live ammunition, and that a metal bullet had penetrated the back of the injured woman's right ear. A man wounded at the same protest also appeared to have similar injuries.
A separate report by Fortify Rights quoted a doctor who said the woman was brain dead from an "imminently fatal gunshot wound to the head".
Earlier, a clip purportedly showing a woman being shot circulated online. The footage shows the woman wearing a motorbike helmet collapsing abruptly.
Separately, pictures on social media showed what appeared to be a blood-stained helmet. The BBC has not verified the authenticity of the images.
The United Nations special rapporteur on Myanmar has warned the country's security forces that they face prosecution under international law if they use excessive force against demonstrators.
"Myanmar military personnel and police need to know that 'following orders' is no defence for committing atrocities and any such defence will fail, regardless of their place in the chain of command," Thomas Andrews said in a statement issued in Geneva.
He said that "hundreds of arbitrary detentions" had been recorded since the coup.
Previous protests against the country's decades-long military rule, in 1988 and 2007, saw large numbers of demonstrators killed by the security forces. At least 3,000 protesters died in 1988 and at least 30 people lost their lives in 2007. Thousands were imprisoned during both sets of events.
Late on Tuesday, Myanmar's military also raided Ms Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) party headquarters in the country's largest city, Yangon, the party said.
BBC Burmese understands that security forces broke down the doors by force. No party members were present in the building at the time. Footage of the headquarters filmed by the AFP news agency showed damaged computer servers and ransacked cupboards.
The raid took place during a nationwide night curfew, which lasts from 20:00 to 04:00 (13:30 to 21:30 GMT).
What else is happening on Wednesday?
In eastern Kayah state, dozens of police officers appeared to have joined the protesters' cause and staged their own demonstration.
According to the local news outlet Myanmar Now, they were holding posters that read "We stand with the people" and "We don't want the dictatorship".
One protester at the scene told the BBC that as many as 40 officers took part and they were later seen trying to protect the demonstrators from other police.
Another eyewitness said some of the police protesters were later arrested.
Meanwhile, large crowds continued to gather in various cities, including Nay Pyi Taw and Yangon.
Several groups of young people staged colourful protests wearing ball gowns and sitting in inflatable tubs.
Why are people protesting?
The military seized control on 1 February following a general election which the NLD won by a landslide.
The armed forces had backed the opposition, who were demanding a rerun of the vote, claiming widespread fraud. The election commission said there was no evidence to support these claims.
The coup was staged as a new session of parliament was set to open.
Ms Suu Kyi is under house arrest and has been charged with possessing illegally imported walkie-talkies. Many other NLD officials have also been detained.
Recent research suggests that some nuclear waste storage facilities along the U.S. coast could experience flooding from rising seas. (photo: Art Wager/Getty Images)
US Nuclear Waste Sites Face Sea-Level Rise Threat
Yale Climate Connections
Excerpt: "Nuclear power is a source of low-carbon electricity, but producing it creates dangerous radioactive waste that needs to be stored safely and permanently."
Recent research suggests that as seas rise, some nuclear waste storage facilities are at risk of flooding or storm damage.
"We really focused in to say, 'OK, well, how many plants might actually be subject to these risks?'" says Sarah Jordaan of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
Her team looked at 13 facilities along the U.S. coast.
They found that if seas rise about six feet – which is possible by the end of the century – more than half of the waste storage sites would be directly along the water's edge or even surrounded by water.
So she says it's critical to anticipate these long-term vulnerabilities and take action.
"There are certainly ways that those risks can be managed now," Jordaan says.
For example, after five years, spent fuel can be moved to dry casks. This is a safer long-term storage method than the cooling pools where a lot of spent fuel is currently stored.
So Jordaan says it's critical for policymakers to understand the risks at nuclear facilities and create regulations and policies to ensure greater safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.