A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



June 30, 2022

Ruling sparks anger...

‘Shocking’ and ‘disgraceful’: Supreme Court climate ruling sparks anger from Democrats, environmentalists

“Climate change is here and happening regardless of whether a tiny, extremist minority wants us to do something about it,” a White House official said.

By ZACK COLMAN, KELSEY TAMBORRINO and JOSH SIEGEL

The Supreme Court’s Thursday decision restricting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to confront climate change sparked an uproar among climate hawks in Congress, environmental activists and the clean energy industry.

But it also left them facing big questions about what their Plan B will be, amid Democrats’ struggles to push President Joe Biden’s climate agenda in Congress.

“Climate change is here and happening regardless of whether a tiny, extremist minority wants us to do something about it,” a White House official said of the decision under condition of anonymity. “This decision is shocking in its impact even if it’s not surprising.”

A White House spokesperson said its lawyers will “study the ruling carefully and we will find ways to move forward under federal law. At the same time, Congress must also act to accelerate America’s path to a clean, healthy, secure energy future.”

Congressional Democrats whose efforts to pass legislation to fight climate change have been blocked for years — both by Republicans and, more recently, by Democrats’ own troubles unifying their razor-thin Senate majority — said their party must take action in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

The court’s “disgraceful ruling” reinforces the urgency under which Democrats must pass climate and clean energy legislation through a party-line measure that can pass with a bare majority vote in the Senate, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said. “The radical-conservative and wildly out-of-touch majority on the Supreme Court just undermined the federal government’s ability to use the Clean Air Act to protect our clean air and clean water from harmful climate warming pollution.”

However, the party has so far failed to garner the 50 votes in the Senate needed to move climate legislation amid resistance from West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, and supporters see the next few weeks as the last chance to pass a measure.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that “just like last week’s dangerously misguided and abhorrent decisions on gun safety and abortion, the extremist MAGA Court’s ruling today in West Virginia v. EPA will cause more needless deaths — in this instance because of more pollution that will exacerbate the climate crisis and make our air and water less clean and safe.”

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in a statement her caucus has called for actions such as ending fossil fuel subsidies and financing for fossil fuel infrastructure overseas that must be pursued in the wake of the ruling.

And House Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said the decision “makes a mockery of the clear separation of powers outlined in our Constitution and subverts decades of settled law. The Clean Air Act is emphatically clear that EPA has both the authority and the obligation to protect public health and regulate dangerous air pollution like greenhouse gases.”

But conservative lawmakers hailed the court’s 6-3 decision in West Virginia vs. EPA.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, called the decision “welcome news,” saying it “further proves that EPA overstepped its authority by imposing enormously burdensome regulations on states to reconfigure our electric grid despite Congress’ rejection.”

The court’s decision “ensures that EPA can never issue an overreaching regulation like the Clean Power Plan again,” she added in the statement.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led the legal challenge brought by red states, tweeted: “Huge victory against federal overreach and the excesses of the administrative state. This is a HUGE win for West Virginia, our energy jobs and those who care about maintaining separation of powers in our nation.”

And Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a statement the court’s decision “recognizes that the Obama administration went far beyond its reach in its attempts to limit American energy production — a trend the Biden administration has continued. The Supreme Court made the right choice putting the ball in Congress’ court.”

But clean energy groups criticized the court for weakening the federal government’s ability to combat climate change.

“At a time when we should be using the most powerful tools in our toolbox to combat the climate crisis, the Supreme Court is blunting our key instruments,” Gregory Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said in a statement.

Heather Zichal, CEO of the American Clean Power Association and a former Obama climate adviser, said in a statement the ruling “highlights the need for swift congressional action on passing the climate provisions in the reconciliation package.”

However, Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president for energy and environmental policy at Center for American Progress, said in an interview that the ruling is not definitive about what the consequences are for EPA’s authority to address pollutants other than carbon from power plants.

“The authority left of EPA to regulate all other aspects of clean air and clean water will be analyzed over time, but there is no doubt they have taken a serious whack at using climate change as a motivating factor for regulating power plants,” Goldfuss said.

A spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute said confronting climate change will “require a combination of policies, industry initiatives and continuous innovation” and API will continue to work with policymakers on “smart regulations” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions reductions while bolstering energy security.

Hmmmm. What don't the pro-life crazies read? This...

Genesis 2:7 – Breath Must Come First

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

This verse talks about the creation of Adam. It specifically states that God formed Adam from dust, but he wasn’t yet a living soul. Not until God breathed life into this inhuman form did it become alive. If Adam, the first human to ever exist, had to take a breath before being considered a living soul, why is the same not true for unborn fetuses?

Numbers 5:27 – Abortion Is Okay, If The Mom Doesn’t Approve

“If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.”

This is a fun one. Earlier in Numbers, it’s stated that, if a man suspects his wife of sleeping with another man, he may bring her to a priest who will create some sort of magic potion with water and dirt. The woman is then made to drink said magic potion. If she has not cheated on her husband, nothing will happen.

If the woman has cheated and is carrying another man’s child, though, the mystical dirt water — we can call it magic mud — will cause her to immediately miscarry. This is a directive coming straight from God himself to Moses. So even if pro-lifers can dodge all these other verses, they can’t deny that this one essentially says, “Abortion is okay as long as it’s forced upon a woman, against her will, for cheating on her husband.”

Yeah… that’s way more acceptable than what pro-choice advocates are going for…

Law is unconstitutional

Judge says Florida's 15-week abortion law is unconstitutional

By Alta Spells

A Florida judge on Thursday ruled that Florida's new law that bans abortions at 15 weeks is unconstitutional and "violates the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution."

The law, which was set to go into effect on Friday, does allow exemptions in cases where a pregnancy is a "serious risk" to the mother or a fatal fetal abnormality is detected if two physicians confirm the diagnosis in writing.

In a verbal ruling, Second Judicial Circuit Court Judge John Cooper said he would be issuing a temporary statewide injunction that will go into effect once he signs the written order in the challenge brought by some Florida abortion providers. He said he will not be signing the order on Thursday.

The law was signed by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis back in April. In a statement, DeSantis' office expressed disappointment with Thursday's ruling but said they were confident that the law will "ultimately withstand all legal challenges."

"The Florida Supreme Court previously misinterpreted Florida's right to privacy as including a right to an abortion," the office said in the statement. "We reject this interpretation because the Florida Constitution does not include -- and has never included -- a right to kill an innocent unborn child. We will appeal today's ruling and ask the Florida Supreme Court to reverse its existing precedent regarding Florida's right to privacy. The struggle for life is not over."

One good thing...

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson: "I am truly grateful to be part of the promise of our great Nation"

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in on the Supreme Court Thursday, becoming the first Black woman to take a seat on the high court. 

In a statement, she said:

"With a full heart, I accept the solemn responsibility of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and administering justice without fear or favor, so help me God. I am truly grateful to be part of the promise of our great Nation. I extend my sincerest thanks to all of my new colleagues for their warm and gracious welcome. I am also especially grateful for the time and attention given to me by the Chief Justice and by Justice Breyer. Justice Breyer has been a personal friend and mentor of mine for the past two decades, in addition to being part of today's official act. In the wake of his exemplary service, with the support of my family and friends, and ever mindful of the duty to promote the Rule of Law, I am well-positioned to serve the American people."

ooops...

 

Russian missile fails and strikes own launcher

Yes........

This is so much worse than Watergate

Opinion by Nicole Hemmer

When the January 6 House select committee announced Monday that it would be holding an emergency hearing the following day with a surprise witness, John Dean sounded a note of warning. Dean, the former White House counsel who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice during the Watergate scandal, noted there had only been one surprise witness during the Watergate hearings: Nixon aide Alex Butterfield, who revealed the existence of the secret taping system in the Oval Office.

"The January 6 Committee is dealing with a very high historical standard in springing a surprise hearing and witness tomorrow," Dean tweeted. "If it is not really important information it's going to hurt the credibility of this committee! Cancel now if you can't match!"

Match it the committee did. The explosive testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to President Donald Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows, not only provided lurid details of Trump's indifference toward the violence at the Capitol and his rage at not being allowed to be present with the rioters, but also the careful efforts by the president's team to stop the certification of the 2020 election.

Hutchinson, a young woman in her 20s, stood out for her willingness both to cooperate with the committee and to reveal damning details in her testimony against the notoriously volatile and vengeful president. She displayed a courage that men twice her age, with far more power and protection, have failed to summon.

And under oath, she testified to details about the plans devised by the president and his inner circle: Trump's then-attorney Rudy Giuliani's palpable excitement in the days before January 6, Trump's determination to join the rioters at the Capitol and the White House counsel's increasingly dire warnings about Trump's legal exposure if he carried through with those plans. She portrayed Mark Meadows's indifference to reports of violence at the Capitol and Trump's rage at those who thwarted his plans, allegedly lashing out at secret service agents and smashing a plate when he learned that his attorney general had admitted the 2020 election was not fraudulent.

In the aftermath of Hutchinson's appearance before the committee, Watergate analogies continued to roll in. 

Journalists dubbed the testimony the "smoking gun," an idiom first attached to presidential scandal during the investigations into the Nixon administration's wrongdoing. Hutchinson drew comparisons with both John Dean and Alexander Butterfield. And former Trump official Mick Mulvaney trotted out the old Watergate chestnut that "it's never the crime, it's always the coverup." (Note to Mulvaney: it absolutely was the crime that mattered on January 6.)

The ubiquity of these Watergate references shows how much we rely on this one historical episode to understand presidential scandal. But they also show the limits of that analogy.

As bad as Watergate was -- and it was a serious set of crimes, provoking a constitutional crisis -- the insurrection is the most acute crisis in US presidential history. It is not a scandal but a crime against democracy; the alleged potential offenses are not only obstruction of justice, but a seditious conspiracy against the government and the people of the United States.

Comparing the events of January 6 to Watergate does more than diminish them. That impulse leads us to focus on the wrong events entirely. Comparing what Hutchinson revealed to any scandal before it obscures central facts of the attack on the Capitol: that it was a coup attempt organized by members of the president's team in order to retain power through both unlawful procedure and physical violence.

Though it has been half a century since the Watergate scandal broke, it remains the template we use for presidential wrongdoing. It's more than just the omnipresent -gate suffix attached to every political scandal. It continues to set our expectations for presidential wrongdoing: smoking guns and secret tapes, coverups and conspiracies, public hearings and -- if the wrongdoing is serious enough -- bipartisan condemnation. (The tale of Republican leaders marching into a meeting with Nixon to tell him he had lost the party's support and should resign remains a set-piece of any retelling of Watergate.)

But those expectations, when they are not met, impede our understanding of scandal.

For example, Iran-Contra, the Reagan administration scandal involving arms for hostages with arms-sales profits illegally diverted to right-wing militias in Nicaragua, had all the makings of a presidency-ending scandal. Initially known as "Irangate," the scandal came to light through a mix of reporting and "smoking gun" evidence of both the diversion and a hasty attempt to cover it up by shredding some documents and falsifying others.

As with Watergate, there were televised hearings and a cascade of indictments and convictions. But the Republican support for Reagan did not crack: even as the hearings implicated the president. The Republican report on the scandal dismissed the accusations outright, calling the rampant criminality of the affair "mistakes in judgment, and nothing more." Neither censure nor impeachment were on the table; years later, President George H. W. Bush, himself implicated in the scandal as Reagan's vice president, pardoned most of those involved.

"Irangate," failing to replicate the Watergate script, largely faded from public memory.

That same set of expectations has helped muddy public understanding of Trump administration wrongdoing, so much of which took place in plain sight -- culminating in the tweet encouraging people to come to Washington, DC, on January 6 with the promise that it "will be wild!" Yet Republican support for Trump throughout the insurrection, and in the years since, has remained nearly unbroken. Those who have publicly condemned the former president, including the two Republicans who now serve on the January 6 select committee, have found themselves personae non grata in the GOP.

The select committee has sought in its hearings to deliver on Watergate expectations: being partially televised in prime time to focus public attention, putting the spotlight on Republican witnesses to emphasize the bipartisan horror at Trump's actions, presenting surprise witnesses and evidence to provoke that "smoking gun" shock. And while that is effective stagecraft, relying too much on the Watergate template of presidential scandal risks derailing the American public from the most fundamental objective of the committee's work.

It is not the cover-up. It is the crimes. And as the hearings progress into the summer, it is crucial that the committee drives that point home.

Kind of a "Bitch Slap"...

Liz Cheney to Secret Service: 'We welcome additional testimony under oath'

By David Wright

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said she is "absolutely confident" in blockbuster testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, and that the January 6 committee welcomes information from the Secret Service related to the incidents Hutchinson described.

In an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" that aired Thursday, Cheney was pressed on Hutchinson's remarks that former President Donald Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent in a vehicle traveling to the White House on January 6, 2021, and the committee's vice chairwoman was asked whether the panel had followed up with the Secret Service.

Cheney told ABC that the panel had spoken with Tony Ornato, then-White House deputy chief of staff, and Robert Engel, who was the Secret Service agent in charge on January 6, 2021 -- and at whom Hutchinson testified that she was told by Ornato that Trump had lunged.

"I don't want to get into too many details," Cheney said. "The committee has spoken to both Mr. Ornato and Mr. Engel, and we welcome additional testimony under oath from both of them, and from anybody else in the Secret Service who has information about any of these issues."

Cheney's comments are consistent with those other members of the January 6 committee had told CNN and other outlets earlier this week.

Cheney added, "We have been working with the Secret Service, we have interviewed, as I said, a number of individuals in the Secret Service. We will continue to do so. And I think it is important that their testimony be under oath."

The Wyoming Republican's remarks were aired the morning after she delivered a searing rebuke of Trump and GOP leaders at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Wednesday night, in a speech where she also praised Hutchinson's bravery.

"I am absolutely confident in her credibility, I'm confident in her testimony, and the committee is not going to stand by and watch her character be assassinated by anonymous sources and by men who are claiming executive privilege," Cheney told ABC.

After Tuesday's hearing, a Secret Service official familiar with the matter told CNN that Ornato denies telling Hutchinson that the former President grabbed the steering wheel or an agent on his detail.

Ornato is known to have a strong relationship with Trump and his team, having been granted an unusual waiver to suspend his time on the US Secret Service to serve as Trump's deputy White House chief of staff. Trump also disputed Hutchinson's testimony.

Cheney was also asked about former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who was subpoenaed Wednesday to formally testify before the committee.

Cheney said Cipollone "has not" said anything that refutes Hutchinson's testimony, and said that "we look forward again to his on the record testimony. The American people deserve to hear his testimony."

Dropping filibuster rules

Biden calls for dropping filibuster rules to put abortion rights into law

By Maegan Vazquez, Betsy Klein, Phil Mattingly and Kevin Liptak

President Joe Biden said on Thursday that he would support making an exception to the filibuster -- the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to pass most legislation -- in order to codify abortion rights and the right to privacy through legislation passed by Congress.

However, despite Biden's newly announced support for the filibuster carveout, his best bet in doing so would be next year -- and only if Democrats gain at least two Senate seats and hold the House of Representatives, an extremely tall task.

Asked about what executive action he would use to strengthen abortion rights following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last week, Biden said, "The most important thing ... we have to change -- I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law."

"And the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it's like voting rights -- it should be (that) we provide an exception to this ... requiring an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision," he added.

The President then clarified that he was also open to changing filibuster rules for the "right to privacy, not just abortion rights."

It's a stark call from a President who has so far been loath to push for any changes to Senate rules despite calls from progressives to do away with the filibuster in order to pass his agenda. Biden had told CNN's Anderson Cooper at a town hall last year that he would be open to altering the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation "and maybe more." His comments on Thursday mark the first time he's expressed total willingness to eliminate the filibuster specifically for abortion rights.

Manchin is open to codifying Roe v. Wade legislatively, but on Thursday, Sinema's office reiterated that the senator is still opposed to gutting the filibuster on any topic, including on reproductive rights.

Sinema's office pointed to a Washington Post op-ed the senator wrote last year in which she argued that the filibuster has been used to protect abortion rights and block things like 20-week abortion bans.

There's been no indication so far that either senator will change their opposition to reducing the 60-vote threshold on legislation, fearing doing so would have damaging long-term repercussions for the country. So, without the support of Manchin or Sinema, Democrats would need to sweep in the November elections -- when their party is facing the bleakest midterm environment in a dozen years -- in order to approve abortion rights legislation.

Despite flagging poll numbers and poor prospects in holding onto the Democratic majority in the House, the White House sees a path to gaining Senate seats to increase their narrow majority.

Holding their current seats and adding at least two new Democratic senators could, in theory, create the pathway to securing the votes for a Senate rules change.

Biden's call dovetails with the White House's efforts to ramp up the urgency in advance of the midterm elections -- and it comes as national Democrats have increasingly raised concerns that the Biden administration is not doing enough to address and fight the Supreme Court decision.

Supreme Court's behavior is 'destabilizing'

Biden, speaking after a series of summits with world leaders in Europe, broadly disputed characterizations that America is going backward. But he conceded that the Supreme Court's roll back on abortion rights and the right to privacy has been "destabilizing."

"We've been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights and privacy rights. And it is a mistake, in my view, for the Supreme Court to do what it did," he said.

The President also defended his ability to effectively convey Democrats' message on abortion, despite a complicated history on the issue, telling progressive members of his party they had little choice in the matter.

"I'm the only president they got," he said.

Some Democrats have been critical of Biden for not speaking out louder on protecting abortion rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, some have complained he isn't willing to go far enough in protecting access to abortions.

But Biden said he was the one in the White House.

"I'm the President of the United States of America," he said. "That makes me the best messenger."

He called the abortion ruling "a serious, serious problem that the court has thrust upon the United States," linking the decision to other potential issues like marriage rights.

"I'm feel extremely strongly that I'm gonna do everything in my power, which I legally can do in terms of executive orders," he said.

During Thursday's news conference, the President said he would be meeting with governors on Friday to discuss abortion issues and would have "announcements to make then."

This story has been updated with more from Thursday's news conference.

Political breaking point?????

Was Tuesday’s testimony a political breaking point for Trump?

Or just another chance to rise from the ashes?

By Ben Jacobs

The political world is still collecting itself following the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson on Tuesday to the committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The sheer volume of shocking details she provided, about what then-President Donald Trump knew in advance of the Capitol riot and his behavior that day, is such that it will take a while to assess its impacts.

Among the obvious questions, though, is just how bad this will be for Trump, politically, and how Republicans will react to it.

In conversations with a half-dozen Republican strategists who represent a spectrum of opinion within the party and were granted anonymity to speak frankly, there was a broad consensus that, yes, this might have an impact on Trump — but probably not on Republicans in the midterms. There was a sense that this would inflict real damage on Trump’s long-term ambitions, even if it did nothing to shift the needle for now.

”What more do you need to believe crimes were committed?” one Republican strategist asked, before also conceding that “There have been a million times when people say Trump is finished, but this could be the millionth and one, but I don’t see a way for him to come back from this testimony.”

Another Republican operative noted that Hutchinson’s testimony has the potential to make a big impact because of her rarefied level of access to the president, and compared her to Miles Taylor, the former Trump DHS official who wrote an anonymous op-ed for the New York Times in 2018.

That operative said while Taylor had “The operative told me,” “This is someone who legit had tremendous daily access ... not some nobody trying to make a name for herself like Miles Taylor. This is a real person who was taken seriously.”

Further, Trump has less goodwill among the political class inside the GOP than he did in the past. As one national strategist pointed out, there are “a lot of people that feel burned by Trump this cycle because he’s getting involved in so many different primaries. There are a lot of Republican consultants who were loyal and our candidates were loyal, and he picked somebody else, so it’s all interconnected.” The national strategist added that they “didn’t know where the breaking point is. I felt like it was after January 6, but it didn’t last as long. Every time you second-guess the guy, he rises like the phoenix from the ashes, but there is a breaking point.”

As to where that breaking point was, the Republican operative noted the silence from most national Republicans. “It’s fascinating how little you’re hearing from people like Ron DeSantis,” they said, and marveled at “how few members of Congress have stepped in” to defend Trump since Hutchinson’s testimony.

Even if Tuesday’s revelations further dent Trump’s potential to mount a political comeback, don’t expect Republicans to publicly say so. “There still is a tribal industrial complex that won’t let people go out and speak against this president,” the strategist said.

Not all agreed. The Republican strategist who was, of all those Vox spoke to, the most dubious of the hearing’s impact simply thought anything Hutchinson said was discredited by what they considered a tainted and partisan process. “The persuasive potential of the committee died when [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi threw [Republican Rep.] Jim Banks off, and not just [Republican Rep.] Jim Jordan. ... At that point, it was clear Nancy wanted a partisan show trial, not an investigation. So Republicans checked out.”

The skeptical Republican added, “Look, Soviet show trials sometimes turned up evidence of real shit, but we don’t take them seriously because it was mixed in with a huge amount of theatrics. Cassidy Hutchinson will be seen the same way, both because her story about grabbing the wheel is unraveling, and because she’s testifying in a ludicrous forum.” (Anonymous pushback to one of the most explosive parts of Hutchinson’s testimony appeared in reports shortly after it, when Secret Service sources disputed to several outlets that Trump ever tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential SUV to go directly to the Capitol on January 6 and assaulted an agent in the process. Hutchinson never claimed to have witnessed that event, simply that that story was relayed to her shortly after it took place by deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato.)

Whatever the impact on Trump, none of the Republicans I spoke to thought the testimony would damage Republicans in the midterms. As one veteran operative pointed out, “people right now are really focused on $5 to $6 a gallon gas and I think that’s where people’s heads are at. By and large people have tuned this out. ... Maybe this would be different if the economy was better but people are focused on their own welfare right now.”

That was echoed by another Republican working on 2022 races, who said, “No one is going to vote based on something that is happening within Washington regarding something that occurred a year and a half ago.”

Abortion pills

What a lawsuit in Mississippi tells us about the future of abortion pills

A mifepristone manufacturer has been arguing in court that state restrictions can’t preempt the FDA.

By Rachel M. Cohen

As some states have moved to fully ban abortion in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, new questions emerged about abortion pills: Do states have the legal authority to outright ban drugs that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration?

An ongoing federal lawsuit in Mississippi could provide a glimpse at the answer. GenBioPro, the manufacturer of generic abortion pills, is fighting to overturn state restrictions that impede access to the abortion pill mifepristone. Their lawsuit, filed in 2020, hinges on an argument that many legal experts expect other states and advocates to make in the coming months: that Mississippi’s restrictions on medication abortion are unduly excessive, illegally pre-empting the FDA’s authority on drug safety.

The FDA approved mifepristone for use in 2000. Over the next 18 years, more than 3.7 million women in the United States used the medication — sold under the brand Mifeprex — to end an early pregnancy. In 2016 the FDA reported mifepristone’s “efficacy and safety have become well-established by both research and experience, and serious complications have proven to be extremely rare.” Three years later the agency approved GenBioPro’s generic version.

Today medication abortion — a combination of both mifepristone and misoprostol — account for more than half of all abortions in the US, and fights over accessing the pills are expected to be among the most fiercely contested in the post-Roe era.

Just hours after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe, President Joe Biden gave a speech promising to protect a woman’s access to drugs approved by the FDA, including mifepristone. Biden announced he was directing the federal Department of Health and Human Services “to ensure that these critical medications are available to the fullest extent possible” and Attorney General Merrick Garland pledged to use the powers of the Justice Department to crack down on states trying to ban medication abortion.

But the Biden administration has stayed quiet on the Mississippi lawsuit. The White House declined to comment on the case, as did the FDA and DOJ. HHS did not return requests for comment.

Mississippi has urged for a dismissal of the case. Judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, requested that both parties provide written submission on the impact, if any, of the Dobbs decision on the lawsuit, and on Mississippi’s “trigger law” banning abortions, which is set to take effect next week. Submissions are due on Thursday.

A ruling in favor of Mississippi could have implications for other jurisdictions seeking to ban abortion pills in a post-Roe landscape.

If upheld, it “would also open the floodgates for states to substitute their judgment for FDA’s in other controversial areas of medicine — some of which we may be aware of — some of which we may not be,” said Delia Deschaine, a DC-based attorney who specializes in FDA regulation. “For example, if there were a group of individuals opposed to palliative care, a state could conceivably limit access to medications that are approved for use in that context. This then becomes a situation where the practice of medicine using pharmaceuticals unpredictably varies between states — which creates its own host of public health issues.”

What it means to “pre-empt” the FDA

Through the passage of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938, Congress empowered the FDA as the sole agency to approve drugs in the US. It’s responsible for reviewing a drug’s safety, weighing its risks and benefits, and regulating appropriate conditions for safe and effective use.

Even though many reproductive health experts — including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — actually say the FDA has too many restrictions on mifepristone (for example, only certified pharmacies or providers can dispense the drug) everyone must abide by the agency’s determinations.

But many red states, including Mississippi, have passed laws that go even further than FDA’s rules around mifepristone. For example, Mississippi requires a doctor to physically examine a patient prior to offering the drug, and for patients to ingest the medication “in the same room and in the physical presence of” the physician who gave it to them, rather than taking the medication at home.

Experts say there is a “strong, though legally uncertain” argument that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution gives the federal government authority over these conflicting state rules. Indeed, GenBioPro has argued Mississippi’s law is “an impermissible effort by Mississippi to establish its own drug approval policy and directly regulate the availability of drugs within the state.”

This idea — that federal regulation of drugs would take precedence, and a state cannot ban a drug that has been given federal approval — is known as the preemption argument.

For now, legal scholars say it’s unclear how preemption arguments will play out in court. Courts often grant deference to the FDA, though there are relatively few examples involving drugs. The main precedent is a 2014 case where a federal judge struck down a Massachusetts effort to restrict the opioid Zohydro, since the FDA had approved the painkiller.

“The fact that this case relates to a medication that is used in abortion is one reason we might see the district court take a different stance than other courts on this issue,” said Deschaine.

Anti-abortion advocates maintain that states have the authority to restrict or ban mifepristone, because states can regulate medical practice, and the FDA lacks the authority to regulate abortion. Legal scholars also note that Congress has never explicitly said that FDA drug approval supersedes state law, though it has expressed that for medical devices.

While the DOJ declined to comment on the GenBioPro case, Attorney General Garland’s recent public statements suggest the agency is thinking about the preemption argument. “The FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone,” Garland said Friday, adding that, “states may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”

What’s next for the GenBioPro lawsuit

Gwyn Williams, an attorney representing GenBioPro, told Vox that in response to the judge’s request, their team submitted a statement reiterating their previous position that the legal issues decided by the US Supreme Court in Dobbs “do not affect GenBioPro’s claims, which are based on federal preemption and not on constitutional rights to privacy or abortion.” Williams says they expect the judge to issue his decision on dismissing the case soon.

Paul Barnes, a Mississippi Assistant Attorney General representing the state, declined to comment.

Greer Donley, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who specializes in reproductive law, told Vox that one reason why the court has been “pretty delayed” in issuing any rulings could be because the judge “might be trying to look for an opportunity to kick the case.”

If Mississippi fully bans abortion statewide — which it’s set to do next week, though that trigger law is now being challenged in court — then the state’s mifepristone restrictions might become moot. “If there’s a statewide ban, then I can imagine the defendant saying the lawsuit is moot now because all these laws that regulate abortion providers are subsumed by the bigger abortion ban generally,” said Donley.

But Donley says the preemption argument would still have broad merit, since the FDA still acts as a gatekeeper.

“To earn the right to sell a drug product, manufacturers must produce years, if not decades, of expensive, high-quality research proving that the drug is safe and effective,” she wrote, along with law professors David Cohen and Rachel Rebouché in a legal article cited in the Dobbs dissent. “If they are successful, they can sell their product in every state; if unsuccessful, they cannot sell their product anywhere. If a state were to ban abortion, it would in effect ban the sale of an FDA-approved drug.”

In other words, if it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law at the same time, there remains a plausible preemption argument.

Deschaine, the attorney who specializes in FDA regulation, thinks upholding state restrictions on abortion pills could certainly affect whether other drug companies seek to go through the FDA approval process in the future.

“The incentives for developing FDA-approved drug products are strong, but those start to erode the more fractured the regulatory scheme for these products becomes,” she said. “If a company does not believe that it will be able to market its product in all US states/jurisdictions, then it may not be willing to assume the risk of pursuing the drug approval pathway. Indeed, even absent those restrictions, that pathway is very costly and uncertain.”

Reinstate gerrymandered congressional maps

A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6

Moore v. Harper is a grave threat to US democracy, and the fate of that democracy probably comes down to Amy Coney Barrett.

By Ian Millhiser 

The Supreme Court’s announcement on Thursday that it will hear Moore v. Harper, a case that could concentrate an unprecedented amount of power in gerrymandered state legislatures, should alarm anyone who cares about democracy.

The case is perhaps the gravest threat to American democracy since the January 6 attack. It seeks to reinstate gerrymandered congressional maps that were struck down by North Carolina’s highest court because they “subordinated traditional neutral redistricting criteria in favor of extreme partisan advantage” for the Republican Party.

The plaintiffs argue that the state supreme court didn’t have the authority to strike down these maps, and rest their claim on legal arguments that would fundamentally alter how congressional and presidential elections are conducted.

Moore involves the “independent state legislature doctrine,” a theory that the Supreme Court has rejected many times over the course of more than a century — but that started to gain steam after Republican appointees gained a supermajority on the Supreme Court at the end of the Trump administration.

Under the strongest form of this doctrine, all state constitutional provisions that constrain state lawmakers’ ability to skew federal elections would cease to function. State courts would lose their power to strike down anti-democratic state laws, such as a gerrymander that violates the state constitution or a law that tosses out ballots for arbitrary reasons. And state governors, who ordinarily have the power to veto new state election laws, would lose that power.

As Justice Neil Gorsuch described this approach in a 2020 concurring opinion in a case concerning the deadline for casting mail-in ballots in Wisconsin, “the Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”

Four justices — Gorsuch, plus Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh — have all endorsed some version of this independent state legislature doctrine. Meanwhile, four other justices, the three liberal justices plus Chief Justice John Roberts, have signaled that they will not overrule the Court’s many precedents rejecting this doctrine.

That most likely leaves the fate of American democracy in the hands of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who typically votes with Republicans in election cases.

This said, it is unclear whether this Supreme Court would implement the most extreme version of this doctrine — with a rigid rule that a state supreme court can never strike down a state election law, or that a state governor can never veto an election bill — or a less extreme one.

Last March, the Moore case appeared on the Court’s “shadow docket.” Although a majority of the Court voted to temporarily turn the case away — with Kavanaugh explaining that he voted to do so because the case arrived at the Court at the wrong time — Alito wrote a dissenting opinion saying that he would have immediately reinstated North Carolina’s gerrymandered maps. His opinion also suggests that he wants to give himself and his fellow justices maximal flexibility to overrule state court decisions that he does not like.

So under Alito’s approach, pro-democracy state constitutional provisions might not cease to function altogether, they would only cease to function when Alito and four of his fellow Republican colleagues wish to suspend them.

Needless to say, the stakes in Moore are exceedingly high. The Court’s decision in Moore could potentially neutralize many states’ efforts to combat partisan gerrymandering. And in key swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — where Republicans control the state legislature and Democrats control either the governor’s mansion, the state supreme court, or both — Moore could give the Republican Party unlimited control over how federal elections are conducted.

The independent state legislature doctrine, briefly explained

The independent state legislature doctrine derives from a deceptively simple reading of the Constitution, which states that “the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” A separate provision says that presidential elections shall also be conducted in a way determined by the state “Legislature.”

One way to read these provisions — the way that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have suggested it should be read — is to say that only the body of representatives that is often described as a state’s “legislative branch” can set election rules. And that the executive branch (including the governor) and the judicial branch (including the state supreme court) may be cut out of this process entirely.

But the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected this theory. The issue first arose in Davis v. Hildebrant (1916), which upheld a provision of the Ohio constitution permitting the people of the state to veto state election laws via a popular referendum.

Davis reasoned that the word “legislature,” as it is used by the relevant provisions of the Constitution, does not refer exclusively to the elected body of representatives who make up the state’s legislative branch. Instead, it refers more broadly to any individual or body that possesses some part of the power to make laws within a state — what the Court referred to as the “legislative power.”

Davis explained that, under Ohio’s constitution, “the referendum was treated as part of the legislative power,” and thus “should be held and treated to be the state legislative power for the purpose of creating congressional districts by law.”

This is the only reading of the relevant US constitutional provisions that makes sense because, as legal scholars (and brothers) Vikram David Amar and Akhil Reed Amar explain in a recent paper, “state people and state constitutions are masters of state legislatures,” and not the other way around.

That is, each state has the power to define, through its constitution, which body or group of bodies possesses the “legislative power” — the power to make laws. A state constitution can assign that power entirely to a body of elected representatives, but it can also give part of that power to the state governor, the state courts, to a redistricting commission, or to the people themselves through ballot initiatives and referendums.

Indeed, this is exactly how most state governments work. State constitutions — like the federal Constitution — typically permit the state’s chief executive to veto election laws. And they typically give state courts the power to resolve conflicts about how to interpret the state constitution and existing state election laws.

As the Amars write, “since the Revolution, every state legislature has been defined and circumscribed, both procedurally (e.g., What counts as a quorum? Is the governor involved in legislation?) and substantively (e.g., What rights must the legislature respect?) by its state constitution.”

The Court’s holding in Davis has been upheld many times since that decision was handed down. Most recently, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the Court upheld Arizona’s decision to use a bipartisan commission to draw congressional maps. In that case, the Court explained that “our precedent teaches that redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the Governor’s veto.”

The Court’s decision to hear the Moore case is very odd

Since four justices have already called for cases like Davis and Arizona State Legislature to be overruled or significantly altered, it’s not surprising that the Court decided to hear a case that could potentially do so — under the Supreme Court’s rules, four votes are needed to place a case on the Court’s docket of cases that receive full briefing and oral argument.

But it is surprising that the Court thought Moore was an appropriate vehicle to hear an independent state legislature doctrine case. That’s because, even if you accept Gorsuch’s theory that the state legislature and not the state judiciary bears “primary responsibility for setting election rules,” the North Carolina legislature explicitly authorized its state’s courts to hear gerrymandering lawsuits.

In other words, even if the independent state legislature doctrine is valid, North Carolina’s courts are still allowed to decide gerrymandering cases because the state legislature told them to do so.

North Carolina law provides that lawsuits challenging “any act of the General Assembly that apportions or redistricts State legislative or congressional districts” may be filed “in the Superior Court of Wake County and shall be heard and determined by a three‑judge panel.” This court’s decision may then be appealed to the state supreme court.

Indeed, North Carolina’s laws — again, laws that were written by the state legislature — provide detailed instructions on how state courts should behave when they determine that a legislative map is illegal. One statute requires state courts to “find with specificity all facts supporting” its conclusion that a map is illegal. Another provides that, after a state court strikes down a redistricting plan, it may not “impose its own substitute plan unless the court first gives the General Assembly a period of time to remedy any defects identified by the court.”

In its eagerness to hear an independent state legislature doctrine case, in other words, the Supreme Court appears to have taken up a case where there is no legitimate legal conflict. Even if state legislatures have exclusive authority to shape a state’s election law, the North Carolina state legislature used this authority to explicitly empower state courts to strike down gerrymandered maps.

And yet, it’s hard to imagine why the Court would agree to hear this case unless it is at least considering rolling back decisions like Davis and Arizona State Legislature.

Been following this for a long time...


Port Townsend Shipwrights Co-op.

Today was a big moment for our shop, seven years in the making. In the company of our family, close friends, and local tradespeople, WESTERN FLYER was gently lowered into the water. It was touching to hear from original builder Martin Petrich's family members, as they blessed and officially rechristened the boat. She will be towed to Seattle on Thursday where the next stage of the restoration will begin at Snow Boat Building. A public ceremony will be held in the future, for all our friends and supporters near and far. We will be posting more photos of the launch, and progress over the years in the coming days. Fair winds and following seas WESTERN FLYER!

This boat gained popularity from being featured in John Steinbeck's "The Sea of Cortez," and after many long hard years, including multiple sinkings, the boat has a new life ahead.

No Limit to GOP Opportunism

San Antonio’s Migrant Tragedy Shows There’s No Limit to GOP Opportunism

ISABELA DIAS

On Monday, at least 46 bodies were found inside a tractor-trailer near the Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, and another 16 people were hospitalized in what authorities have characterized as the deadliest migrant-smuggling operation in US history. By Wednesday, the death toll had reached 51. “They were suffering from heat stroke and exhaustion,” San Antonio’s Fire Chief Charles Hood said about the victims, who were migrants from Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras. Three people were taken into custody in connection with the incident and Homeland Security Investigations is leading the probe into the case.

“Exploiting vulnerable individuals for profit is shameful, as is political grandstanding around tragedy,” President Biden said in a statement about the migrant deaths, “and my administration will continue to do everything possible to stop human smugglers and traffickers from taking advantage of people who are seeking to enter the United States between ports of entry.” 

But that hasn’t stopped Republican politicians and anti-immigration demagogues from seizing on the dreadful event to blame the loss of lives on President Joe Biden’s immigration policies, which they describe, inaccurately, as “open borders.” It was, in fact, another inevitable consequence of the deadly and ineffective legacy of decades of both Republican and Democrat policies of “prevention through deterrence” and militarized borders. Nonetheless, Stephen Miller, Donald Trump’s former senior adviser and a heartless anti-immigrant crusader who fostered the infamous zero-tolerance policy that separated families at the border, attributed the “incomprehensible tragedy” to “vile, monstrous and utterly depraved” open border policies that, according to his twisted reasoning, are somehow “pro-smuggling, pro-cartel.” It goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: this line of reasoning makes no sense.

As Mother Jones has previously reported, strict border policies such as the Trump-era Title 42 health order sealing the border for most migrants and asylum seekers forced people to take increasingly dangerous and riskier routes and have fueled smuggling activities. Albeit belatedly, the Biden administration has tried to end the harmful policy implemented by Trump at the outset of the pandemic, but court challenges have forced the government to keep it in place. According to Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, 2022 already has been the deadliest year at the border.

Still, the chorus of Republicans exploiting this event included a number of those whose very policies and anti-immigrant stance have contributed to a deadlier border. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, for instance, who has repeatedly targeted immigrants, including by busing them to Washington, DC, in various stunts that backfired, and who funded a failed operation to “secure” the border, said, “These deaths are on Biden.” Meanwhile, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, no friend of immigrants who has introduced legislation to transfer migrants from Texas to places “where Democrat elites host their cocktail parties,” asked, “How many more people have to die before Dems give a damn?”

Not to be outdone, Sen. Marco Rubio from Florida tweeted “There is nothing compassionate about Biden’s open border policies that encourage human trafficking.” Fox News also focused on compassion as if the network’s programming didn’t rely on the dehumanization of immigrants on a regular basis. The Border Patrol Union, whose president recently spread conspiracy theories surrounding the racist idea of “great replacement,” also jumped on the outraged bandwagon.

“Loud anti-immigrants who peddle false info about the border share responsibility for this tragedy,” Monika Langarica, a staff attorney with UCLA’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy, wrote. “So do the Republican states that brought the case that blocked the end of Title 42, which has closed safe pathways to the asylum system, and funneled people into deadly non-choices.” 

To be clear: closed borders are causing people to die. That has been the case for decades as violence and death as a means to prevent migration have been factored into policies that have largely failed to manage migration flows in the long run, but have succeeded in producing casualties. As long as anti-immigrant hardliners and different administrations continue to advocate for tough-on-border policies and further militarization, the same outcome will repeat itself. As Jean Guerrero wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “The border has become a mass grave and a testament to the decades-long inhumanity and irrationality of US border and immigration policies.” 

Face fierce backlash

Republicans who backed Trump Jan. 6 probe face fierce backlash at the polls

The votes have fueled a growing anti-incumbent mood among GOP voters that has hit other incumbents too.

By ALLY MUTNICK

Never in nearly 42 years in Congress has Rep. Chris Smith had a primary quite like his last — when he spent the final weeks getting bombarded by angry constituents who felt he crossed President Donald Trump.

The New Jersey Republican won renomination with his lowest primary vote share ever, after he voted to create a bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. And his opponent seized on it, stoking an angry and anti-incumbent mood sweeping through Republican primaries around the country.

Republican members from Utah to Texas to South Dakota who also voted for the Jan. 6 commission have had a similar experience, marking an especially intense primary season for the GOP. The bottom has dropped out for the Republicans who did support a Jan. 6 investigation: They are running 13 points weaker than their average colleague in their primaries, according to a POLITICO analysis of 2022 primary results so far.

But even Republicans who didn’t take that vote are running into stronger primary opposition than in the last midterm, the analysis shows. The average incumbent House Republican pulled 88 percent support in party primaries four years ago. That’s dropped this year to 75 percent for GOP members who didn’t vote for the Jan. 6 commission — and cratered to 62 percent for the incumbents who did back it.

Altogether, the numbers paint a portrait of an angry base sending a message to its ambassadors in Washington: Don’t step out of line, or else.

“Simply being an incumbent puts you in those crosshairs,” said Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah).

POLITICO’s analysis averaged results of all of the completed vote counts in House GOP primaries so far this year.

The current House Select Committee on Jan. 6, which has grabbed the spotlight with televised hearings this month, is not the commission that 35 House Republicans supported. That proposed investigative body died in the Senate, but that nuance is often lost on voters — and ignored by opponents eager to exploit an angry GOP electorate looking to punish any whiff of disloyalty to Trump.

“The irony is the commission that I voted for would have avoided this current commission,” said Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), who won his primary — but, with votes still being tallied, has less than 60 percent support from GOP voters. “My challenger looks at this as an opportunity, thinking he can disingenuously persuade people otherwise. It’s just not accurate.”

Five of the 35 Republican members who voted for that investigation had primaries on Tuesday night. One, Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.), prevailed after being forced into a runoff in which his opponent continued to weaponize the commission vote. Another, Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), lost to Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) in a redistricting-created clash where Miller leaned heavily on Davis’s Jan. 6 vote.

The stats for the commission voters are stark. Heading into Tuesday’s primaries, more than half (eight out of 15) of the members who voted for the Jan. 6 commission got less than 60 percent of the vote in a GOP primary — dangerous territory for an incumbent. For comparison: Of the 102 House Republicans who had GOP primaries earlier this year, only 15 of them fell under that threshold.

So far only three members who backed the commission have lost, all under additional difficult circumstances. One of them also voted to impeach Trump, and two others faced fellow incumbents in redistricting-fueled primaries.

But the specter of costly, months-long primaries and too-close-for-comfort winning margins, which dozens more House Republicans are facing this year, could ultimately deter others from bucking party orthodoxy or taking a tough vote of conscience in the future.

In TV ads, debates and mailers, challengers seized on the Jan. 6 commission vote to cast the incumbents as insufficiently conservative. Some were even inspired to launch bids because of the vote.

The perils of the vote were apparent from the start of the primary season. Rep. Van Taylor (R-Texas), one of the 35 Republicans to back the commission, drew several opponents for his March 1 primary and was ultimately forced into a runoff. (He announced plans to retire shortly after the primary, after admitting to an extramarital affair with the widow of a former member of ISIS.)

“Every time I talked, [I] brought it up,” said Keith Self, who won a runoff slot with Taylor and is now the GOP nominee.

“It was the central point,” Self said. “There were other votes. There were other things. But that was a big one. I mean I’ll admit that was a big one. It was a big meaningful one here in the district.”

In Idaho, GOP Rep. Mike Simpson had to beat back a rematch from an attorney who previously ran against him in 2014 and launched a second bid zeroing in the commission vote. Simpson won with 55 percent, after spending nearly $1 million in the run-up to the primary.

Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) also faced another matchup with the same candidate he faced during his first run in 2014. He prevailed, but with less than 60 percent of the primary vote, a notable dip for the incumbent.

Some of the lower-than-usual victory margins could be ascribed to redistricting. Nearly all members inherited some new voters amid changes to the lines of their districts. But Democrats are also dealing with redistricting, and their average incumbent’s performance in party primaries hasn’t shifted compared to the last midterm, holding steady at 90 percent.

Plus, many Republicans had only minor tweaks to their constituencies — and at least one didn’t see any change.

In South Dakota’s at-large district, GOP Rep. Dusty Johnson got just under 60 percent after a serious primary challenge from state Rep. Taffy Howard, who took aim at the incumbent for backing the commission and for voting to certify the election results.

A pro-Howard super PAC went beyond Jan. 6 in its attacks on Johnson, running a spot warning that Johnson “denies that the communists stole the election from President Trump.”

“I do think you see a lot more primaries,” Johnson said. “I think that there are so many disagreements within the Republican Party that people feel like they need to litigate those in primaries.”

But Johnson said he didn’t regret any of his votes, either for the commission or to certify the election results.

“I’m a big believer in the Constitution — that’s generally an important characteristic of a Republican,” Johnson said. “A clear and plain reading of the Constitution is: Members of Congress will be witnesses to a ceremonial event, not super-judges.”

It’s not just Republicans who backed the Jan. 6 investigation that have had primary trouble.

Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) and William Timmons (R-S.C.) all got under 55 percent of the vote. None backed the commission, though Mace faced a Trump-endorsed challenger anyway.

“They are very polarized, very angry,” said Rep. Tom Cole, a former GOP campaign chief, of the electorate. “So that’s a high-risk time for an incumbent.”

“Every time I talked, [I] brought it up”

Keith Self, who defeated Rep. Van Taylor (R-Texas) in a runoff.

“There’s always a frustration when you’re the minority,” Cole said, adding that reality is often ignored. “You can fight awfully hard, but you’re still going to lose given the vote total.”

In interviews, many of the GOP members said they were forced to repeatedly explain that the Select Committee on the Jan. 6 attacks is not the version of the investigation they supported. The proposal they backed would have been an independent commission modeled after the one that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, with equal say for GOP members — and not just Trump foes Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

But when that proposal died in the Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi unilaterally created a new committee. And after some partisan bickering, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy yanked all five of his picks from serving on the panel and refused to participate

That kind of distinction is often lost on voters.

“When they hear what I voted for, they’re fine with it,” said Curtis, who sailed through his Utah primary on Tuesday despite his support for the commission. “But the assumption is that I voted for the one that we’re actually seeing right now, so it takes some explaining.”

In Smith’s New Jersey seat, the distortion was even greater. He said he was fielding constant questions from voters on why he voted to impeach Trump — which he didn’t. And he accused his opponent of spreading that falsehood.

“Frankly, there were more lies in this race than I ever had in 23 races. I first ran in ‘78,” Smith said in an interview after his primary.

His defeated GOP challenger, Mike Crispi, said he never accused Smith of that — but added that voters were so angry at his Jan. 6 commission vote that they “look at it as a third impeachment.”

“People are connecting a Jan. 6 vote to impeachment, I can’t help that they do that,” Crispi said. “I can’t help that they look at his record that is so left and then correlate it with being anti-Trump.”

Crispi hasn’t ruled out another challenge — and he believes he’s already had an impact on Smith, after receiving grateful calls and texts last week when the incumbent declined to support Congress’ new bipartisan gun safety package.

“He definitely is voting more carefully,” Crispi said. “That gun control bill shows that we’re in his head because in any other circumstance, he would have voted yes on that.”

Loyal to the Constitution?

Liz Cheney: 'Republicans cannot be both loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution'

She didn’t shy away from her newfound role as the face of the anti-Trump GOP.

By MYAH WARD

Rep. Liz Cheney, speaking at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Wednesday, said it’s time for Republicans to make a choice: Donald Trump or the Constitution.

The vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee leaned into her message just a day after White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s stunning testimony unveiled new details about the highest echelons of the White House in the final days and hours before the violent Capitol attack.

In taking the stage at the Reagan Library in California, Cheney didn’t shy away from her newfound role as the face of the anti-Trump GOP and a relic of the Republican Party before the dominance of Trump, who she said is “attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic.” The Wyoming Republican, who has yet to rule out a run for president in 2024, spoke in a manner that paves the path for a presidential run.

She ran through the Jan. 6 committee’s damning weeks of testimony that has illustrated Trump’s multi-pronged attempt to hold on to power and his bubbling rage. Cheney mentioned Trump’s summoning of rioters to Washington, D.C., and Hutchinson’s claim that Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said Trump felt that “Mike deserves it” as rioters called for the death of then-Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6. Cheney took aim at Republicans and elected officials who have “made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man.”

“It’s undeniable. It’s also painful for Republicans to accept. And I think we all have to recognize and understand what it means to say those words, and what it means that those things happened,” Cheney said to the crowd at a site long associated with traditional Republican values as reflected in Reagan’s presidency.

“But the reality that we face today as Republicans — as we think about the choice in front of us — we have to choose. Because Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution.”

Cheney, who is at risk of losing her primary for her Wyoming House seat, said she’s a conservative Republican, a politician who believes in limited government, low taxes, a strong national defense and that family is the center of Americans’ lives. She hit the Biden administration for its economic policies and record-high inflation plaguing American households.

But she said as a leader in her party, she said she cannot ignore “the threat posed by Donald Trump,” nor can other Republicans.

She then quoted Reagan: “No party and no people and no nation can defend and perpetuate a constitutional republic if they accept a leader who’s gone to war with the rule of law, with the democratic process, or with the peaceful transition of power, with the Constitution itself.”

Cheney talked about seeing the world through the eyes of her children, and through the eyes of young Americans. She talked about the need to put people above politics, as well as a need for bipartisanship and decency in a time when Americans are so divided.

“One of my Democratic colleagues said to me recently that he looked forward to the day when he and I could disagree again,” Cheney said. “And believe me, I share that sentiment.”

She said her youngest son wrote her a note on Mother’s Day, telling her that every time she left the house, he knew she was going to “work for America.” She said it brought her to tears. And in the months since Jan. 6, and her role on the committee, Cheney said she’s been moved by young Americans approaching her — especially the young women.

“And I will tell you that it is especially the young women, young women who seem instinctively to understand the peril of this moment for our democracy,” Cheney said.

While Hutchinson’s superiors, men much older than her, have “hidden behind executive privilege, anonymity and intimidation,” Cheney said, Hutchinson exhibited bravery and patriotism that will show young girls “what it really means to love this country.” The crowd cheered.

“Let me also say this to all the little girls and young women who are watching tonight,” Cheney said. “These days, for the most part, men are running the world, and it is really not going well.”

The fallout

The fallout at the workplace from the ruling on Roe

A wave of academic studies in recent decades suggest that the option to terminate a pregnancy increases economic freedom, especially for women of color.

By VICTORIA GUIDA

The demise of Roe v. Wade is raising alarms among abortion rights advocates that historic gains for lower-income women in the workplace will be in jeopardy.

Some economists — including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen — argue that access to abortion opened up opportunities for many of the most financially vulnerable women to enter the labor force and earn higher wages. They fear that new limits on the practice will not only hurt those people but the overall economy as well at a time when inflation is raging and low workforce participation looms as an obstacle to the recovery.

“It’s clear that women have already been facing barriers to full participation in the economy,” said Kate Bahn, chief economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, a progressive think tank. “Overturning Roe imposes more barriers.”

While the likely impact of the ruling on the labor force isn’t clear-cut — some conservative economists say it could be minor — a wave of academic studies in recent decades suggest that the option to terminate a pregnancy increases economic freedom, especially for women of color.

Yellen said at a Senate hearing last month that banning abortion “would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades,” limiting their involvement in the workforce by making it harder to balance career and family. That drew a rebuke from Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only Black Republican senator, who said framing the abortion debate around labor force participation “feels callous to me.”

Yet Yellen said avoiding poverty and enhancing quality of life were also at issue.

More than 2 million fewer Americans are actively connected to the labor market than before the pandemic, which has fed worker shortages, contributed to production and transportation delays and fueled inflation, hitting lower-income people the hardest. The drop in labor force participation was particularly acute among Black and Hispanic women as well as people with young children, according to Federal Reserve researchers.

“A single woman, earning an average wage, living with a child aged 0 to 5 was 5 percentage points more likely to exit the labor force relative to a similar woman with no children at home,” according to a Fed paper by Katherine Lim and Mike Zabek.

Labor force participation had already been declining for women since the turn of the century when it peaked at 60 percent, a factor in the Biden administration’s recent failed push to increase government spending for affordable child care.

Decreased access to abortion could further hurt employment opportunities for those women, abortion rights advocates say, though the full net effect is hard to calculate at this point.

“It’s not cut or dry; we can generally say there might be some marginal impacts on labor force participation,” said Rachel Greszler, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. She said some women are likely to take greater precautions to avoid getting pregnant and cited the relatively high number of women who have gotten abortions — 60 percent — who already have kids.

“In general, most women do continue to participate in the labor force after having children,” Greszler said.

Meanwhile, many people who get abortions are already more likely to have less economic opportunity, regardless of whether they are parents, she said.

According to a 2016 survey by the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, roughly three-quarters of people who get abortions have low incomes and half are below the poverty line. Advocacy groups are warning that those people could see a further hit to wages, whether from needing to take time off work to travel to another state, carrying a pregnancy to term or caring for an unplanned child.

The ability to terminate a pregnancy has also led to higher educational attainment and earning potential for women in the years since Roe, research shows.

More than 150 economists and researchers filed a brief with the Supreme Court before the decision saying “abortion legalization had large effects on women’s education, labor force participation and earnings,” especially for Black people.

A 2021 paper from American University professor Kelly Jones echoed that point. Black women who had access to abortion before age 24 went to school on average for 2.5 to 3 years longer and were two to three times as likely to finish college.

Research from the Washington Center for Equitable Growth suggests that women in states with more restrictive abortion laws were 7.6 percent less likely to go into a higher-paid occupation. And a paper from Ohio State University researcher Ali Abboud found that postponing motherhood for one year increased wage rates by 11 percent.

“Over time, teenage mothers did somewhat worse economically than their classmates who had not become parents in their teen years,” said Frank Furstenberg, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who conducted a 30-year study of more than 300 teen moms.

Asha Banerjee, an economic analyst at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, argued that the financial consequences for some women could be particularly large because states that are likely to ban abortion also tend to have fewer social services.

“This decision is hitting first in the states where it is as economically difficult as possible to support oneself, let alone carry out a pregnancy and raise a child,” she said in a webinar this week on the economic fallout from the reversal of Roe.

Greszler of the Heritage Foundation said that those opposed to abortion are thinking through the need for help in those states.

“This is now the focus of some in the pro-life movement: how to support women and children in states where there is no longer access to abortion,” she said.

Coordinate rapid response

NATO establishes program to coordinate rapid response to cyberattacks

The U.S. will offer “robust national capabilities” to support this program, according to a fact sheet put out by the White House on Wednesday.

By MAGGIE MILLER

NATO member countries on Wednesday agreed in Madrid to create a new program to quickly respond to cyberattacks.

Russian threat: The “virtual rapid response cyber capability” comes after months of Russian cyberattacks in Ukraine as part of the war and amid concerns that Moscow may target the United States and other NATO countries in retaliation for assistance to Ukraine.

The program is voluntary. According to a fact sheet put out by the White House on Wednesday, the U.S. will offer “robust national capabilities” to support this program.

There’s more: NATO also announced a separate package of cyber assistance to Ukraine. Neither NATO nor the White House immediately responded to questions about the scope of the new programs.

New strategy: In a new strategy document, NATO reaffirmed a 2021 commitment that a cyberattack could (but would not automatically) trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which would make it an attack against the alliance as a whole. It also pledged to work with the private sector to counter threats, formally recognized threats in cyberspace posed by Russia and China, and promised to update NATO’s command structure to reflect new cyber threats.

More research funds: Officials speaking prior to the strategy’s release on the condition that they not be identified told POLITICO that NATO’s new strategy will include over $1 billion to fund research into emerging technologies including quantum computing and artificial intelligence.

So sad, he needs justice...

1955 warrant in Emmett Till case found; family seeks arrest

Carolyn Bryant Donham made the allegations that led to Till's lynching in Mississippi.

From Politico

A team searching a Mississippi courthouse basement for evidence about the lynching of Black teenager Emmett Till has found the unserved warrant charging a white woman in his 1955 kidnapping, and relatives of the victim want authorities to finally arrest her nearly 70 years later.

A warrant for the arrest of Carolyn Bryant Donham — identified as “Mrs. Roy Bryant” on the document — was discovered last week by searchers inside a file folder that had been placed in a box, Leflore County Circuit Clerk Elmus Stockstill told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Documents are kept inside boxes by decade, he said, but there was nothing else to indicate where the warrant, dated Aug. 29, 1955, might have been.

“They narrowed it down between the ’50s and ’60s and got lucky,” said Stockstill, who certified the warrant as genuine.

The search group included members of the Emmett Till Legacy Foundation and two Till relatives: cousin Deborah Watts, head of the foundation; and her daughter, Teri Watts. Relatives want authorities to use the warrant to arrest Donham, who at the time of the slaying was married to one of two white men tried and acquitted just weeks after Till was abducted from a relative’s home, killed and dumped into a river.

“Serve it and charge her,” Teri Watts told the AP in an interview.

Keith Beauchamp, whose documentary film “The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till” preceded a renewed Justice Department probe that ended without charges in 2007, was also part of the search. He said there’s enough new evidence to prosecute Donham.

Donham set off the case in August 1955 by accusing the 14-year-old Till of making improper advances at a family store in Money, Mississippi. A cousin of Till who was there has said Till whistled at the woman, an act that flew in the face of Mississippi’s racist social codes of the era.

Evidence indicates a woman, possibly Donham, identified Till to the men who later killed him. The arrest warrant against Donham was publicized at the time, but the Leflore County sheriff told reporters he did not want to “bother” the woman since she had two young children to care for.

Now in her 80s and most recently living in North Carolina, Donham has not commented publicly on calls for her prosecution. But Teri Watts said the Till family believes the warrant accusing Donham of kidnapping amounts to new evidence.

“This is what the state of Mississippi needs to go ahead,” she said.

District Attorney Dewayne Richardson, whose office would prosecute a case, declined comment on the warrant but cited a December report about the Till case from the Justice Department, which said no prosecution was possible.

Contacted by the AP on Wednesday, Leflore County Sheriff Ricky Banks said: “This is the first time I’ve known about a warrant.”

Banks, who was 7 years old when Till was killed, said “nothing was said about a warrant” when a former district attorney investigated the case five or six years ago.

“I will see if I can get a copy of the warrant and get with the DA and get their opinion on it,” Banks said. If the warrant can still be served, Banks said, he would have to talk to law enforcement officers in the state where Donham resides.

Picks fights abroad

With Turkey’s economy in crisis, ErdoÄŸan picks fights abroad

Facing a showdown with worried voters back home, Ankara’s long-time leader is wading into conflicts overseas.

BY GABRIEL GAVIN

Restaurants have invested in wipe-clean menus so they can update their prices daily. Taxi drivers are asking passengers to top up their fares to meet rising fuel costs. A cappuccino that cost 20 lira earlier this year is now 30 lira. 

“It’s ridiculous,” said Osman, who runs a local coffee shop and is trying to keep up with Turkey’s runaway inflation — officially at a 20-year high of 70 percent and, according to the independent Inflation Research Group, more than double that. 

Yet as anxiety courses through the country and elections loom in 2023, President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan's rhetoric has only become increasingly uncompromising, rejecting calls to change monetary policy in the face of voters’ financial fears. 

Instead, ErdoÄŸan is looking abroad to help solve his country’s problems, partly out of economic necessity, and partly out of political expediency.

In Ukraine, Ankara has emerged as a major military supplier to Kyiv, while also positioning itself as a diplomatic power broker and refusing to adopt Western sanctions against Moscow. A major reason: Turkey has a large financial stake in both countries it wants to preserve.

And at the NATO summit in Madrid this week, ErdoÄŸan made sure he was front and center, threatening to block Sweden and Finland from joining the alliance before backing down after they committed to helping Turkey thwart Kurdish groups — giving him a center-stage photo op.

Elsewhere, ErdoÄŸan has riled up nationalist sentiment — a vote-winning strategy. By painting Greece as an external threat to Turkey’s territory, and Kurdish separatism as an internal one, he has created a sense that the country is facing attacks that only he can protect it against.

This pattern of moves reflects ErdoÄŸan’s rising leverage internationally. For geographic and geopolitical reasons, Western allies need Turkey’s cooperation. Its presence in the Middle East and along the Black Sea makes it an indispensable partner, even if it is an unreliable one.

“For the West, Russia is the crisis, Putin is the big threat, and all of a sudden that makes ErdoÄŸan more important, more acceptable, and his excesses more tolerable,” said Karabekir Akkoyunlu, a lecturer in politics and international relations at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). “That gives him a freer hand at home, and gives him a sense of indispensability on the world stage, and he uses it to the maximum.”

Electoral politics

ErdoÄŸan is facing economic strife back home at an important moment. 

Before the end of next June, he will have to ask voters to re-elect him for a third term, while his party, the populist AKP, will also be fighting to increase its share of seats in parliament after being deprived of an absolute majority in 2015.

Until now, polls have shown ErdoÄŸan struggling to attract more votes than his rivals, who are expected to unite behind one candidate. Meanwhile, AKP maintains only a narrow lead over the main opposition party, the social-democratic CHP.

A parliamentary group meeting at the Turkish Grand National Assembly | Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images
“Despite the fact the government controls much of the media and the judiciary, this is still an election where they can’t take victory for granted,” Akkoyunlu said. 

And a teetering economy is threatening to make ErdoÄŸan’s position more precarious.

Just along the Bosporus straits, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has turned the Black Sea into a war zone, threatening food imports and crashing the global energy markets. Sluggish recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and a major budget deficit has added to the problem, sending inflation and the cost of living skyrocketing.

Instead of launching a charm offensive, however, ErdoÄŸan has stood by his long-standing monetary policy. While raising interest rates is the most orthodox approach to dealing with inflation, the Turkish leader has flatly refused, arguing interest is contrary to Islamic principles.

“Unfortunately, in some parts of our country, a state of dissatisfaction and pessimism has taken its toll,” the president said last month. “First of all, we should be grateful for what we have.”

Global problems 

While Turkey’s leader is being accused of inaction at home, he is taking a more and more assertive stance abroad, from Eastern Europe to Central Asia.

Turkey’s advanced Bayraktar TB-2 attack drones have been credited with helping Ukraine destroy vast columns of Russian hardware and earned plaudits from Western allies.  

Yet Ankara has kept a foot in both camps. 

Turkey has hosted talks between the warring countries over ending Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, which has left much of the world’s grain languishing in warehouses. It has even offered to broker broader peace talks. But it has also kept open economic pathways for Russia, even at the expense of angering Ukraine, which accused Ankara of buying up grain Moscow stole from Ukraine. 

“On the one hand, Turkey acts as a mediator and supports Ukraine in important ways,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy complained last month. “But on the other hand, we see them at the same time opening up routes for Russian tourists.”  

Turkey has pursued a similarly complex strategy in other regional conflicts. The country recently doubled down on its support for Libya’s embattled government — pitting itself against Russia, which has backed an insurgency trying to displace the government. And it is supporting a close ally, Azerbaijan, in an ongoing conflict with Armenia, a Russian partner, over the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

“Some people will always argue that Turkey is being more active abroad to distract from issues at home,” said Matthias Finger, an economist at Istanbul Technical University. “But in fact, its foreign policy priorities relate to genuine issues for the country’s development — things like food, industry and energy.”

With Russia and Ukraine, the economic interests are evident — both countries are top trading partners for Turkey. Grain and vegetable oil come from Ukraine. Oil and gas come from Russia. Tourists come from both. Analysts estimate a fall in visitors from Russia and Ukraine could ultimately cost Turkey $3-4 billion in lost revenues.

Turkey “is one of the most affected by the shock in Europe,” said Alper Üçok, a representative of Turkey’s TÃœSÄ°AD industry group.

Playing politics

Some of Turkey’s other foreign conflicts appear to have more to do with politics than economics. 

ErdoÄŸan has warned a new military operation against Kurdish forces in northern Syria could begin at any moment. 

The offensive would play a dual role. 

Ankara has long targeted pro-Kurdish independence groups on both sides of the border. It accuses the YPG militia, which controls much of Syrian Kurdistan, of having close links to bombings inside Turkey. An offensive against its forces would be both popular at home and crush the idea of a breakaway Kurdish state.

It would also help pave the way for Ankara to build almost a quarter of a million homes in the region for Syrian Arabs who have been displaced by the fighting. With economic pressures squeezing Turkish residents, anti-immigrant sentiment is rising to the point where migrant rights workers have warned of a potential “pogrom” against refugees. 

Ahead of the presidential election, one of ErdoÄŸan’s fiercest critics has threatened to outflank him on the right. The Victory Party’s Ãœmit ÖzdaÄŸ, who has campaigned on a platform of sending Syrians back, now has more followers on Twitter than the president. And while his single-issue platform may not ultimately deliver a landslide at the ballot box, it is shifting the conversation among voters.

Likewise, the long-standing dispute between Turkey and Greece over the Aegean Sea hit a fever pitch this month, with ErdoÄŸan appearing to threaten military action and accusing Athens of deploying arms to islands in the disputed waters.

Akkoyunlu, the SOAS lecturer, argues the row is part of an effort to shore up the president’s support. 

“Every election since 2014 has taken place in an environment of existential crisis — a narrative that says ‘dominate or die,’ and that has become more and more intense each time people go out to vote,” he said. 

“Looking at the economic situation and the short-term outlook of the war in Ukraine, there’s no light at the end of the tunnel. The policies they’re pursuing mean inflation will continue to rise, life is going to get more expensive and more desperate for the average Turkish citizen,” he predicted. 

“It is likelier than ever that the electorate will want to punish ErdoÄŸan,” he added, “and some of the crises we’re seeing now to pressure the electorate are likely being artificially intensified.”

For the time being though, voters will have to decide if ErdoÄŸan’s policies are the answer to an increasingly uncertain world, or the cause of it.