ReportWire

Tag: dick durbin

  • Exclusive: Dick Durbin blasts Kristi Noem on proof of citizenship threat

    [ad_1]

    Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin wrote to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem on Friday, telling her he was outraged at “repeated targeting and racial profiling” of American citizens by her agents carrying out “citizen checks.”

    In a letter exclusively shared with Newsweek, the Democrat told Noem that statements she and U.S. Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino had made that U.S. citizens needed to prove their identity were false.

    “To state the obvious, we are not a ‘papers, please’ country,” Durbin wrote. “American citizens generally do not have ‘immigration documents’, and to require them to carry such documents to avoid being violently stopped or interrogated by federal immigration agents is absurd and unconstitutional. There is no requirement in the law for U.S. citizens to carry identification to avoid arbitrary arrest and detention.”

    Why It Matters

    The letter came after Noem spoke to reporters on Thursday, saying that ICE agents may ask U.S. citizens for proof of citizenship during enforcement operations that have seen protesters clash with federal officers and citizens temporarily detained. Some video has shown citizens reacting angrily to such requests, saying they do not need to prove who they are, with concerns around Fourth Amendment protections.

    What To Know

    “If we are on a target, there may be individuals surrounding that criminal that we may be asking who they are and why they’re there and having them validate their identity,” Noem said Thursday, after questions over why some Americans were being asked for proof of citizenship.

    Bovino, who has been the face of DHS’ large-scale operations in Chicago, Charlotte and now Minnesota, has made comments on social media with a similar message, adding that a REAL ID is not proof of citizenship.

    Durbin, who has been outspoken over the Trump administration’s actions over the past year already, said he was deeply concerned at Bovino’s comments.

    “The founders included explicit protections from unreasonable searches and seizures in the U.S. Constitution to prevent the types of arbitrary and indiscriminate arrests of U.S. citizens that are currently occurring in American cities,” Durbin told Noem, adding that current Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had affirmed these protections recently.

    “Unfortunately, these caveats have not prevented an escalating number of arbitrary stops, arrests, and detentions of U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents,” the senator added.

    He went on to outline multiple incidents in Minnesota alone in the past few weeks, which have seen U.S. citizens detained by federal agents, who at times have been seen using aggressive tactics to do so. Tensions have been especially high in the Twin Cities following the death of Renee Nicole Good, who was shot by an ICE agent on January 7.

    “The Department’s cavalier attitude towards the law continues to lead to frequent abuses against American citizens,” Durbin wrote.

    The senator also said that agents had approached multiple non-white people in Minneapolis, and elsewhere, and asked where they were born and for their identification, with at least one person told “we are doing a citizen check.”

    Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), immigrants in the U.S. are required to carry proof of their status. The rule has not been strictly enforced through fines for several years, but under the Trump administration, there have been a few instances of people being fined for not carrying documentation.

    When the rules were tightened, some experts did warn that if one group had to carry documentation, then all people in the U.S. would be affected, even if not legally required to carry proof of nationality.

    The Trump administration, including Noem and Bovino, has insisted agents are working within the law to enforce immigration laws and deliver on the president’s promise of mass deportations of illegal immigrant criminals. DHS has also made it clear that it will seek to prosecute anyone who attacks or impedes federal agents in this work.

    What People Are Saying

    Durbin, in his letter to Noem: “Terrifying experiences like these undoubtedly will become more commonplace for American citizens unless the Department abides by the law and reins in its reckless immigration enforcement operations.

    “Please immediately issue a correction to the Department’s false statement that U.S. citizens must carry proof of citizenship and immediately instruct your employees that unconstitutional “citizen checks” are not permitted and must immediately cease.”

    Mubashir, a Minnesota community member, to members of Congress Friday: “At no time did any officer ask me whether I was a citizen or if I had any immigration status. They did not ask for any identifying information, nor did they ask about my ties to the community, how long I had lived in the Twin Cities, my family in Minnesota, or anything else about my circumstances.”

    Bovino, on X December 11: “One must carry immigration documents as per the INA. A Real ID is not an immigration document.”

    Michael McAuliffe, former federal prosecutor and ex-elected state attorney, to Newsweek Thursday: “Standing near someone who may be illegally in the country is not a crime, and is not––alone––grounds to require someone to identify themselves. If one adds to the scenario any facts that might support a suspicion that a person is helping the suspect, or obstructing the agent’s attempts to evaluate the suspect’s status, it could change what the officer can do in terms of seeking identification, requiring someone to move, or detaining the person.”

    What Happens Next

    As protests and enforcement efforts continue across the U.S., Durbin has called for Noem to respond with information on the questions DHS officials are legally allowed to ask people to determine citizenship, what documents were shared with agents giving the impression they were allowed to carry out “citizen checks,” and what criteria agents are using to determine if there is a reason to believe a person is not legally in the U.S.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Illinois Democrats criticize Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela and look to block further engagement

    [ad_1]

    On the same day that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro pleaded not guilty to drug charges in a Manhattan courtroom, U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi on Monday said he planned to introduce legislation in Washington that would block federal funds from being used for U.S. military occupation in the South American nation.

    The chance of the legislation passing in the Republican-run U.S. House is highly remote for Krishnamoorthi, who is running in the Democratic primary to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin. But his declaration comes as Krishnamoorthi and other Democratic candidates running for the Senate seat — including U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly and Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton — are toeing the party line and raising questions about President Donald Trump’s actions this past weekend in Venezuela in which U.S. military forces captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a raid without alerting Congress.

    The declaration also comes as Congress returns to Washington, D.C., this week following the holiday break to consider the president’s war powers, work to avoid another federal government shutdown and consider an extension of insurance subsidies purchased through the Obamacare exchange.

    Krishnamoorthi linked his opposition to Trump’s plans for Venezuela to the rising cost of living in the U.S.

    “While families here at home are confronting these increases in health insurance, turn on the television and you’ll see what this administration is focused on instead: President Trump’s fixation on Venezuela and an open-ended military occupation abroad,” he said at a news conference in Chicago, again raising the alarm about the expiration of Affordable Care Act tax credits. “That is why today I’m announcing my intention to introduce legislation when I return to Washington to block any federal funds for a military occupation of Venezuela.”

    While the measure’s prospects remain dim, some Senate Democrats have begun discussing ways to block further military action in Venezuela, either by limiting federal spending or by asserting congressional war powers through a resolution.

    U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi speaks at the Cook County Health Bronzeville Health Center on Jan. 5, 2026, to highlight the expiration of ACA tax credits. (Eileen T. Meslar/Chicago Tribune)

    Krishnamoorthi’s announcement came days after a similar news conference highlighted rising health insurance premiums following the end of a pandemic-era special tax credit. Millions of Americans who had their insurance costs subsidized through ACA marketplaces are already seeing premiums double.

    “The American people do not want another endless war, and they do not want their tax dollars diverted overseas while health care … is being cut here at home and Medicaid is being shredded to pieces. The choice before Congress is clear: We can spend billions on another foreign conflict or we can protect health care here at home,” Krishnamoorthi said Monday at a Cook County Health clinic in Bronzeville, standing alongside Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle.

    A House vote is scheduled this week on ACA credits, but Senate Republicans have opposed a simple extension. It is unclear, however, whether they have reached a compromise bill of their own.

    Kelly on Saturday similarly condemned Trump’s attack on Venezuela  in a statement, saying the president’s actions do “nothing to lower the cost of living for Americans and does everything to enrich himself and his billionaire oil-executive friends.”

    The attack, Kelly’s statement said, “is shortsighted and drags the U.S. into a reckless conflict that could destabilize the entire region. I demand a vote on the War Powers Resolution to stop President Trump from launching further military action without Congressional approval.”

    In a weekend social media post, Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton said the action was “yet another unconstitutional abuse of power, one that puts our troops directly in harm’s way. … His actions are endangering the American people and he must be held accountable.”

    For his part, Durbin released a joint statement with Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa about the Trump administration’s decision to exclude the Senate Judiciary Committee from Monday evening’s Capitol Hill briefing on the arrest of Maduro, who was indicted for drug trafficking and narco-terrorism conspiracy. Grassley is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Durbin is the ranking member.

    “President Trump and Secretary Rubio have stated that this was a law enforcement operation that was made at the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request, with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over DOJ, FBI and DEA, and all three agencies are led by individuals who our Committee vetted and processed. The Attorney General herself will be present at today’s briefing,” the joint statement said. “There is no legitimate basis for excluding the Senate Judiciary Committee from this briefing. The administration’s refusal to acknowledge our Committee’s indisputable jurisdiction in this matter is unacceptable and we are following up to ensure the Committee receives warranted information regarding Maduro’s arrest.”

    [ad_2]

    A.D. Quig

    Source link

  • Rep. Tim Burchett Claims Members Of Congress Have Been Blackmailed Over Jeffrey Epstein Information

    Rep. Tim Burchett Claims Members Of Congress Have Been Blackmailed Over Jeffrey Epstein Information

    [ad_1]

    Opinion

    Screenshot: PalmBeachPost YouTube Video

    Representative Tim Burchett (R-TN) made a startling accusation on Thursday, claiming that he believes that members of Congress are “compromised” into not providing public information on notorious sex predator Jeffrey Epstein.

    Burchett’s comments came during a discussion with conservative political analyst Benny Johnson.

    The pair were discussing a letter the lawmaker had written to House Oversight & Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) requesting that he subpoena flight logs for Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane.

    Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) previously pushed to subpoena Epstein’s flight records, but that effort was squashed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL), who suggested that there was no public value in the information.

    Epstein, who was convicted of procuring for prostitution a girl below the age of 18 in 2008 and was facing sex trafficking charges until he died, according to authorities by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019, was known to have traveled by jet.

    The jet earned the nickname, “Lolita Express.”

    RELATED: Vivek Ramaswamy Gets Praise For Promise To Release Epstein Client List: ‘Every Candidate Should Commit To This’

    Have Members Of Congress Been Blackmailed Over Epstein Information?

    At one point during the interview, Burchett is asked in no uncertain terms whether he thinks the information on Epstein’s flight logs is so difficult to obtain due to members of Congress being “compromised.”

    In his questioning, Johnson leaves no room for ambiguity.

    “So you’re saying that right now … there are members of Congress who have been compromised by either special interests or the intelligence community to not give the American public information on Jeffrey Epstein?” Johnson asked.

    “I believe so,” Burchett replied. “One hundred percent.”

    Burchett goes on to slam “unelected bureaucrats” in the intelligence community who have, in his estimation, taken part in other efforts to keep information out of the public square.

    One only has to go back to the Hunter Biden laptop or COVID-19 censorship efforts to see such coverups in action.

    Johnson notes that “many (people) have speculated that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset” who would get famous individuals like Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, or the Royal Family, in “compromising positions,” leading to his own personal wealth and power over those people.

    Burchett responded that he viewed Epstein as a “free agent” who would say, “Hey, I’ve got this guy and what will you give me to keep him under wraps?”

    RELATED: Joe Rogan: Epstein Kept That Painting Of Bill Clinton In A Dress To Let Him Know ‘I Got You B****’

    Who Else Has Been Compromised?

    Burchett and Johnson went into further detail about former President Clinton during their discussion of Epstein.

    Clinton had traveled on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” 26 separate times, according to a Fox News analysis, while other analyses of flight logs led to claims of fewer trips. Regardless, there is no denying he traveled on the plane.

    Doug Band, a former top aide to Clinton, made shocking allegations in a 2020 interview with Vanity Fair, including claims that the former president took a trip in 2003 to Epstein’s famed private island.

    Johnson contends that Epstein likely had an “enormous treasure trove of information on Bill Clinton,” and even referenced the oil painting kept by the sex trafficker.

    Epstein kept a disturbing painting depicting Clinton wearing red high heels and a blue dress hanging in his Manhattan townhouse.

    Podcast host Joe Rogan suggested that the painting was kept there as a means to remind Clinton who had the real power.

    “That painting is like: ‘I got you, b****,” Rogan said. “You know he knows about it.”

    “Imagine if I knew some horrible dark secrets about you and you came over to my house and I have a giant painting of you,” he continued. “Right when you walk into the front door of you in a dress and I’m like, ‘Hey buddy.’”

    “Do you think that Jeffrey Epstein was killed because our intelligence agencies were upset that this all happened, were angry that somebody was able to get one over on Bill Clinton?” Johnson asked the Tennessee congressman.

    “I don’t know if it’s our intelligence agencies or not, but somebody of power,” Burchett replied. “You know … there’s always a diversion in these things. You always look at ‘A’ and it’s always ‘A plus three’, somebody further down that list would push out Clinton.”

    “Because Clinton’s just a boob,” he added.

    Burchett even began wading into the notorious Clinton death toll conspiracies, saying it’s openly discussed in a joking matter inside the congressional gym.

    “They (Democrat colleagues) laugh about it,” he said. “About people that have met their demise, that have been close to them (the Clinton’s).”

    What do you think about this? Let us know in the comments section.

    Tucker Carlson: Deep State Working To Keep Trump From Winning ‘Like When They Killed Kennedy’

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    Rusty Weiss has been covering politics for over 15 years. His writings have appeared in the Daily Caller, Fox News, Breitbart, and many more.

    FREE NEWS ALERTS

    Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.



    By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.

    FREE NEWS ALERTS

    [ad_2]

    Rusty Weiss

    Source link

  • Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    [ad_1]

    While it’s common knowledge that citizens have very little influence on elected officials, The Onion asked U.S. politicians how their constituents feel about a ceasefire in Gaza, and this is what they said.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “A cease what? I’ve never heard that word in my life.”

    Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

    Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “My constituents routinely vote in favor of having blood on our hands.”

    Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

    Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Does AIPAC count as a constituent?”

    Vice President Kamala Harris

    Vice President Kamala Harris

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Am I a politician? Gee, that’s flattering.”

    Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)

    Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “One more word about a ceasefire, and I’m ordering Israel to bomb south Brooklyn.”

    Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Oh, while I’m at work the nanny is the one who looks after the constituents.”

    Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “My constituents know I have been calling for a cease-ceasefire since day one.”

    Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

    Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Representatives are public servants. That means it’s my job to listen to what my constituents have to say, internalize it, and then do whatever I want.”

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I have genuinely not thought about another human being since 1998.”

    Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “When I got elected in 2014, my campaign pitch was ‘You wanna see a dead body?’”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom Of California

    Gov. Gavin Newsom Of California

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Constituents…constituents… Oh, you mean the blurred shapes I sometimes see before meetups with donors?”

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Hmm… What is this ‘feel’?”

    Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)

    Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “My Illinois colleague Dick Durbin, who called for a ceasefire, obviously has different constituents than I do.”

    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I don’t know. I can’t hear frequencies coming out of the mouths of people who make below $400k.”

    Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “They elected me to kill people, so that’s what I’m gonna do.”

    Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I have but one constituent, and their name is Lockheed Martin.”

    Gov. Kathy Hochul Of New York

    Gov. Kathy Hochul Of New York

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I know what they want. I just think they are stupid and don’t respect them. Make sense?”

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “A ceasefire is a sacred bond between one man and one woman. Anything else is a sin.”

    Former President Barack Obama

    Former President Barack Obama

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “No constituents anymore, motherfuckers! You people can’t goddamn touch me! I can say whatever the hell I want. Fuck all of you!”

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

    Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “My term doesn’t expire until 2068.”

    Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO)

    Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Constituents? Oh, do you mean money? The money says to burn it to the ground.”

    Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “I assume all my constituents were also given a full ride by the Federalist Society.”

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ)

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ)

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “We often think about others so much that we forget to think about our own feelings. The question is, do I want a ceasefire?”

    Gov. Greg Abbott Of Texas

    Gov. Greg Abbott Of Texas

    Image for article titled Politicians Try To Recall How Their Constituents Feel About A Ceasefire

    “Most of my constituents are guns, and they love firing. It’s the equivalent of orgasm to them.”

    You’ve Made It This Far…

    You’ve Made It This Far…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 33 Groups Urge Sen. Dick Durbin To Stop Letting GOP Block Biden’s Court Picks

    33 Groups Urge Sen. Dick Durbin To Stop Letting GOP Block Biden’s Court Picks

    [ad_1]

    Dozens of national progressive groups on Wednesday urged Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to stop honoring a committee courtesy known as the blue slip rule, which Republicans have been abusing to block President Joe Biden’s court picks.

    “We are concerned that Republican obstruction is slowing the Judiciary Committee’s efforts,” reads a letter to Durbin signed by 33 organizations, including Demand Justice, Lambda Legal and the League of Conservation Voters. “We are concerned that the current blue slip practice, which has always been based on the Chair’s prerogative, is contributing to this obstruction by giving home state senators more power than they have had through much of modern history, and if unchanged, it will prevent President Biden from filling dozens of judicial vacancies.”

    They added, “The blue slip policy should be reformed or discontinued to ensure a fair process and stop Republicans from blocking highly-qualified Biden judicial nominees.”

    The groups on the letter include pro-democracy, environmental and civil rights organizations, most of whom are taking a position on blue slips for the first time. End Citizens United and the League of Conservation Voters are among those new to the cause.

    “The use of blue slips by Senate Republicans to block highly-qualified judges is essentially another filibuster. It’s purely political and a power grab,” Tiffany Muller, executive director of End Citizens United, told HuffPost in a statement. “We fully support reforms to the blue slip custom or a discontinuation of it to ensure a fair and democratic process. Senate Democrats must not acquiesce to GOP obstructionism.”

    Here’s a copy of the group’s letter:

    The committee’s blue slip rule is not an official Senate rule. Instead, it’s a courtesy unique to the Judiciary Committee, where senators simply turn in a blue slip of paper signaling their support for giving a hearing to a judicial nominee from that senator’s state. If both of a nominee’s home-state senators turn in their blue slips, the nominee gets a hearing. If only one turns in a blue slip, or neither turns them in, the nominee doesn’t get a hearing.

    Republicans haven’t been signing blue slips for many of Biden’s court picks, effectively tanking their nominations in the committee as Durbin continues to uphold the tradition. He doesn’t want to get rid of the courtesy ― at least, not yet ― so his response to the GOP’s obstruction has been to ask them to please turn in their blue slips repeatedly.

    During a hearing last week, Durbin pointed out that Democratic senators had turned in 110 blue slips during the Trump administration. By contrast, Republicans have signed 17 blue slips so far in the Biden administration.

    “I plead with my colleagues to make a good faith effort to sit down and see if they can reach an agreement with the White House on nominees,” he said to GOP senators.

    “Of course I’m frustrated!” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said of Republicans using blue slips to block Biden’s judicial picks. He’s not frustrated enough to do away with the blue slip rule, though.

    HuffPost asked Durbin last month if he’s frustrated by Republicans not turning in blue slips for Biden’s court picks, effectively tanking their nominations.

    “Of course I’m frustrated!” he said.

    But asked if he’s frustrated enough to stop honoring the blue slip courtesy, Durbin said, “We’re not at that point yet.”

    The new letter from progressive groups notes that in addition to Republicans blocking Biden’s judicial picks by withholding blue slips, some also refuse to work with the White House to pick nominees for vacancies in their states. Of the 45 current district court vacancies subject to GOP blue slips, 41 don’t have nominees in the queue.

    “This is, to our knowledge, in spite of your efforts to work in good faith with your Republican colleagues for more than two years,” said the groups in their letter.

    They urge Durbin to take one of two paths forward: Either treat blue slips the way that Biden did when he was the committee chairman when they were considered a factor in advancing a judicial nominee but could not be used to block a nominee or institute a deadline for senators to return blue slips. The groups also call on Durbin to make the status of every blue slip public information. It’s currently kept private by the committee.

    “Republican abuse of the blue slip courtesy is creating a two-tiered system of justice and civil rights in our country and exacerbating the backlog cases, especially in districts designated as judicial emergencies,” the groups said. “As Republicans delay and block highly-qualified, diverse Biden judicial nominees, we are counting on you to act to limit their bad faith and to implement the necessary reforms to ensure that President Biden can fill every judicial vacancy with highly qualified, fair-minded jurists whose personal and professional backgrounds reflect the country they serve.”

    A Durbin spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment about the letter.

    The Illinois Democrat has been feeling the heat to change the blue slip rule from groups beyond those on the letter. Last week, members of the Congressional Black Caucus met with Durbin to lobby him to drop it, too.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court Is Doing Whatever It Wants. Will Democrats Ever Investigate?

    The Supreme Court Is Doing Whatever It Wants. Will Democrats Ever Investigate?

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court is facing the most public scrutiny it has seen in decades, following revelations that Justice Clarence Thomas hid lavish gifts he received from a billionaire conservative donor ― revelations that in turn have snowballed into stories about other justices’ ethically dubious financial arrangements.

    In response, Democrats in Congress, led by Senate judiciary committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have sent letters to Chief Justice John Roberts politely requesting that he appear before a committee (or send another justice in his stead), and asked for answers on a range of ethics-related questions. Roberts has largely rebuffed Congress with separation-of-powers claims, saying the court will continue to police itself.

    Late Monday afternoon, Roberts provided a brief reply to questions Durbin posed about the court’s lack of a binding ethics code after the chief justice refused to testify.

    A Senate judiciary committee hearing on Supreme Court ethics reform is set for Tuesday. But it will be only the second hearing Congress has held over the past two years on the subject, even as a steady flood of corruption scandals and ethical lapses have emerged from the court.

    The slow movement by Democrats on Capitol Hill raises questions about whether they actually want to challenge the courts’ power grabs and ethical failures, even as public opinion on the court and its decisions plummets.

    “The Senate Judiciary Committee’s scheduled hearing is a step in this direction, but we need to see more consistent oversight and strong action to [rein] in the Court’s ‘emperor has no clothes’ approach to ethics and address the Court’s legitimacy crisis,” Russ Feingold, president of the American Constitution Society and a former Democratic senator from Wisconsin who served on the judiciary committee, said in a statement to HuffPost.

    Chief Justice John Roberts (at right) declined to testify to the Senate judiciary committee after reports revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas (left) failed to report gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow.

    Alex Wong via Getty Images

    There is a lot that Congress could investigate. Over the past two decades, Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of luxury gifts from the billionaire conservative donor Harlan Crow. Thomas also failed to disclose his sale of a property to Crow, who has helped fund efforts to push the court to the right. Justice Neil Gorsuch, meanwhile, failed to report that the head of a major law firm with business before the court purchased more than $1 million in property from him.

    These disclosure failures follow the May 2022 leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that ended women’s federal right to an abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. Roberts ordered an internal investigation, which failed to find the leaker. A final report revealed that the investigation only lightly probed the justices about their possible role and did not make them sign sworn affidavits like all other staffers.

    Later, Rev. Rob Schenck, a former evangelical leader who ran a lobbying campaign to influence the court to overturn Roe, alleged that Alito previously leaked his 2014 Hobby Lobby decision to a supporter.

    The House judiciary committee held one hearing featuring Schenck’s testimony in 2022, before Democrats handed the gavel to Republicans. The Senate judiciary committee is set to hold a hearing on the court’s ethics on Tuesday. Durbin has also exchanged letters with Roberts, as has Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the chair of the judiciary subcommittee that covers the courts.

    “They need to investigate Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow and all the related corruption,” Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of the Take Back the Court Action Fund, said. “They need to pass ethics legislation that will mean for the first time the Supreme Court has an actual binding code of ethics.”

    As with a lot of issues in the Democratic Party at the moment, Democrats in Congress may be kicking the wheels here in part because of the party’s generational divide.

    Older and long-serving Democratic elected officials “came of age in the warm afterglow of the Warren Court,” a rare period when the court expanded rather than restricted rights, “and who thus cling to the outdated view of the Supreme Court as a force for good,” Harvard Law School Professor Maya Sen theorized after Roberts declined Durbin’s invite to testify.

    This attitude could impede an actual investigation into the court, as older Democrats still believe that the court’s legitimacy is owed, not earned.

    Senate judiciary committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has taken a go-slow approach to oversight of the Supreme Court.
    Senate judiciary committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has taken a go-slow approach to oversight of the Supreme Court.

    Drew Angerer via Getty Images

    “Old habits die hard,” Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a progressive legal group, said. “There’s still an instinctive urge among Democrats of a certain age to defend even a broken institution because of the lessons they learned in fifth grade civics class.”

    There is also a pervasive cynicism that afflicts many long-serving lawmakers who come to believe that it’s not worth the effort to use their power to force legislative or interbranch fights, Fallon said.

    Just look at how Democrats have handled the situation of judiciary committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has been absent from the Senate since February due to illness and age. Durbin asked Republicans to “show a little kindness” and allow Democrats to replace her on the panel. But Republicans refused to support a new organizing resolution to switch Feinstein out on the committee, because that would help Democrats confirm more judges.

    “The reaction to the aftermath of the Republicans predictably blocking it is like, ‘Well, we tried,’” Fallon said.

    This doesn’t mean the investigation into the court’s ethical morass won’t be serious, even if Democrats can’t pass legislation to require the court to adopt a code of conduct. There is increased support from judiciary committee members, including Whitehouse and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), to fully investigate the court. The court should consider subpoenas for not only Thomas and Roberts, but also Crow, Blumenthal told MSNBC last week.

    A “charitable explanation” for Durbin’s slow-walking and deference to the court is that he “would like to lay a marker down that he gave Roberts repeated opportunities to clean up his own house and he’s sort of reluctantly being pressed into conducting his own investigation because the judicial branch won’t tend to its own affairs,” Fallon said.

    “Instead of declining to call Clarence Thomas to testify because you think he won’t comply, call him to testify,” Lipton-Lubet said. “Let him refuse. Let the people see that. Doing that can illustrate the problem better than half a dozen sternly worded statements.”

    But if the committee’s efforts turn into “a box-checking exercise” that just looks to “toss the hot potato into Roberts’ lap,” Fallon says, “that would be a failure.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats bash Justice Clarence Thomas but their plan to investigate ethics allegations is unclear | CNN Politics

    Democrats bash Justice Clarence Thomas but their plan to investigate ethics allegations is unclear | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Senate Democrats railed against Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday amid reports that the Supreme Court conservative failed to disclose luxury travel, gifts and a real estate transaction involving a GOP megadonor, but their plan to investigate the conservative jurist remains unclear.

    Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin has promised that his committee will hold a hearing on the alleged ethics violations in the coming weeks, but shared no details when pressed by CNN on whether lawmakers will seek testimony from Thomas or others who might have knowledge about his relationship with the donor, Texas-based billionaire Harlan Crow.

    Asked if subpoenas were on the table, Durbin said that no decision has been made on that yet. He said that it was “too soon” to share more information about what his committee’s hearing on Supreme Court ethics might look like. He and other Judiciary Democrats sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts last week calling for him to open an investigation into the Thomas allegations.

    Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters Tuesday that “the American people deserve all of the facts surrounding Justice Thomas’s blatant violation of law.”

    “I hope that [Thomas] will voluntarily appear, and if not, we should consider subpoenas for him and others, like Harlan Crow, who have information,” Blumenthal said.

    Other Democrats on the committee said Tuesday that they were deferring to Durbin, who huddled with Democrats on Monday evening to discuss their strategy towards Thomas.

    Meanwhile, Republicans appear mostly united in defending the Thomas, suggesting the court can handle its own affairs.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell attacked Democrats for criticizing the court, and said he has confidence in Roberts “to deal with these court internal issues.”

    “The Democrats, it seems to me, spent a lot of time criticizing individual members of the court and going after the court as an institution,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday.

    Bringing more transparency to the high court has had some bipartisan support in the past, but the court’s jerk to the right – particularly with the three justices that former President Donald Trump put on the bench – has raised the partisan stakes around the issue. In recent years, the conservative majority has handled pivotal rulings undoing abortions rights, dismantling gun regulations and reining in the powers of executive branch agencies – all prompting outcry from Democrats.

    Even as Senate Democrats have yet to settle on a plan for their own response to the Thomas allegations, they sought to highlight the issue and framed it within their broader push for a code-of-ethics for the Supreme Court, which is excluded from many of the ethics rules that apply to lower rungs of the federal judiciary.

    “I’m disturbed by the recent reports detailing potentially unethical – even potentially illegal conduct – at the highest levels of our judiciary,” Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said at a Judiciary Committee hearing for three lower court nominees on Tuesday. “It should go without saying that judges at all levels should be held to strict and enforceable ethical standards.”

    Durbin said in a speech that Congress shouldn’t have to wait for the court to act.

    “The Supreme Court doesn’t need to wait on Congress to clean up its act; the justices could take action today if they wanted to, and if the court fails to act, Congress must,” Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said on the Senate floor Tuesday.

    Back-to back-reports in ProPublica this month detailed how luxury travel and gifts to Thomas from Crow – and even a real estate transaction – went unreported in Thomas’ annual financial disclosures.

    Thomas has said that the travel and gifts to him and his family that were financed by the Crows went unreported because he had been advised that he was not required to do so, under an exemption in the court’s disclosure rules for so-called “personal hospitality.” After scrutiny of those rules by lawmakers, the Judicial Conference – which operates as the policy-making body for the federal judiciary – recently closed a loophole in those rules that appears to have covered some of the hospitality Thomas received. Thomas said that he intended to follow that updated guidance in the future, and a source close to the justice also told CNN in recent days that he planned to amend his disclosure form to report the real estate transaction, the sale of his mother’s home to Crow.

    “If the reports are accurate, it stinks,” Sen. Mitt Romney said Monday evening, in rare comments from a Republican criticizing Thomas’ lack of transparency.

    Other Republicans lined up in defense of the justice – who was named to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 – and said it wasn’t Congress’ place to push an ethics code on the high court.

    Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, suggested that the accusations against Thomas were part of a “multi-decade effort now to target Clarence Thomas by these liberal activist groups.”

    This is not the first time Thomas has been at the center of an ethics controversy. Last year, CNN reported that his wife Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist, was texting with Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows about the former president’s efforts overturn his 2020 election defeat, and her political lobbying has long raised questions about when justices are obligated to recuse themselves from cases.

    Yet Republicans have shown little interest in joining Democrats in using legislation to impose an ethics code on the justices.

    “The Court, kind of historically I think, has sort of policed itself,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the GOP’s Senate Whip, who said Thomas had been a “solid justice on the court through the years and has acquitted himself well there.”

    “Let’s see what the court does,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told CNN Tuesday. “I prefer them to do it internally.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • No. 2 Senate Democrat agrees Biden has lost ‘high ground’ in criticism over classified documents | CNN Politics

    No. 2 Senate Democrat agrees Biden has lost ‘high ground’ in criticism over classified documents | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin agreed Sunday that Joe Biden has lost the “high ground” in the political back-and-forth over classified document storage following the discovery of additional material at the president’s home in Wilmington, Delaware. But he rejected any comparisons between Biden’s situation and that of former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents.

    “Of course. Let’s be honest about it,” the Illinois Democrat told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked if the president had “lost the high ground on this notion of classified information being where it shouldn’t be.”

    “When that information is found, it diminishes the stature of any person who is in possession of it because it’s not supposed to happen,” Durbin said. “Whether it was the fault of a staffer or an attorney, it makes no difference. The elected official bears ultimate responsibility.”

    But Durbin said that Biden’s situation was “significantly different” from the discovery of classified information at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

    “Donald Trump defied those who knew the documents were in place and ultimately led to, involuntarily, a court order and a search of his Mar-a-Lago hotel resort to find out how many documents were there,” the senator said.

    “Contrast that with Joe Biden. Embarrassed by the situation, as he should have been, he invited the government agencies in to carefully look through all the boxes he had accumulated. It’s a much different approach,” Durbin added. “It is outrageous that either occurred. But the reaction by the former president and the current president could not be in sharper contrast.”

    FBI investigators on Friday found additional classified material while conducting a search of Biden’s Wilmington home.

    Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, said in a statement that during the search, which took place over nearly 13 hours Friday, “DOJ took possession of materials it deemed within the scope of its inquiry, including six items consisting of documents with classification markings and surrounding materials, some of which were from the President’s service in the Senate and some of which were from his tenure as Vice President. DOJ also took for further review personally handwritten notes from the vice-presidential years.”

    Those six items are in addition to materials previously found at Biden’s Wilmington residence and in his private office.

    The federal search of Biden’s home, while voluntary, marks an escalation of the probe into the president’s handling of classified documents and will inevitably draw comparisons to his predecessor – even if the FBI’s search of Trump’s residence was conducted under different circumstances.

    Durbin on Sunday also warned against “playing games” with the national debt and said that Biden should not negotiate with Republicans.

    The US hit the debt ceiling set by Congress on Thursday, forcing the Treasury Department to start taking “extraordinary measures” to keep the government paying its bills and escalating pressure on Capitol Hill to avoid a catastrophic default.

    The battle lines for the high-stakes fight have already been set. Hard-line Republicans, who have enormous sway in the House because of the party’s slim majority, have demanded that lifting the borrowing cap be tied to spending reductions.

    The White House, however, countered that it will not offer any concessions or negotiate on raising the debt ceiling. And with the solution to the debt ceiling drama squarely in lawmakers’ hands, fears are growing that the partisan brinksmanship could result in the nation defaulting on its debt for the first time ever – or coming dangerously close to doing so.

    “If we play games with this, if we delay this, if we have short-term extensions of the national debt, we run the very risk of the recession in this economy,” Durbin said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chief Justice John Roberts will not testify before Congress about Supreme Court ethics | CNN Politics

    Chief Justice John Roberts will not testify before Congress about Supreme Court ethics | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Chief Justice John Roberts has notified Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin that he won’t testify at an upcoming hearing on Supreme Court ethics, instead releasing a new statement signed by all nine justices that is meant to provide “clarity” to the public about the high court’s ethics practices.

    “I must respectfully decline your invitation,” Roberts wrote in a letter to Durbin, which was released by a spokesperson for the high court Tuesday.

    “Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence,” he added.

    Without addressing Durbin’s specific concerns over ethics Roberts simply attached a “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” to which he said, “All of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe.”

    The Illinois Democrat had asked Roberts, in a letter, to voluntarily testify in a hearing on Supreme Court ethics set to take place May 2. The request came in the wake of a ProPublica report that found that Justice Clarence Thomas had gone on several luxury trips at the invitation of a GOP megadonor. The trips were not disclosed on Thomas’ public financial filings.

    Thomas said in a statement that he had not reported the trips because the ethics guidelines in effect at the time had not required such disclosures.

    It was widely expected that Roberts would decline Durbin’s invitation to appear before a separate branch of government to discuss ethics reform.

    Durbin responded to the refusal in a statement Tuesday.

    “Make no mistake: Supreme Court ethics reform must happen whether the Court participates in the process or not,” Durbin said in the statement.

    He also noted that he was surprised that the chief justice had amended his letter with a statement meant to provide “clarity” to the public about how the justices consider ethics issues.

    Durbin dismissed the statement as a “recounting of existing legal standards of ethics” and said that Roberts’ suggestion that current law is adequate “ignores the obvious.”

    “It is time for Congress to accept its responsibility to establish an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, the only agency of our government without it,” Durbin said.

    The new statement, signed by all nine members of the court, says that the justices want to provide “new clarity” to the public. It might serve instead, to infuriate critics of the court who will say it falls far short of what is necessary to provide more binding regulations applicable to the justices.

    Less than an hour after the court released the statement, for example, Gabe Roth, who runs watchdog group Fix the Court, blasted what he called a “rehashing of things we already knew and found insufficient.”

    “Following weeks of scandal, Americans had been seeking some reassurance that nine of the most powerful people in the country understood their responsibility to act above board, avoid corrupting influences and be honest in their dealings and disclosures,” Roth said in a statement.

    The newly drafted statement by the court notes that the justices “today reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and practices to which they subscribe in carrying out their responsibilities as Members of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

    The statement reiterates something that Roberts has stressed before: that the justices “consult a wide variety of authorities to address specific ethical issues.”

    “They may turn to judicial opinions, treatises, scholarly articles, disciplinary decisions, and the historical practice of the Court and the federal judiciary” and they “may also seek advice from the Court’s Legal Office and from their colleagues,” the statement says.

    Indeed, Thomas in a rare statement on April 7 said that he had turned to the advice of his colleagues when deciding that luxury trips paid for by GOP megadonor Harlan Crow did not need to be disclosed in his yearly financial disclosure reports under the ethics guidelines that were in place at the time.

    Last weekend, Durbin released a separate statement noting that Roberts had declined to directly respond to a letter asking him to investigate Thomas’ filings but had referred the letter to the Judicial Conference, which serves as the policy-making body of the federal courts.

    Durbin had also included a letter from Judge Roslynn Mauskopf, the secretary of the Judicial Conference, who said that she would send the matter to the conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure.

    But the new statement emphasizes that while the Judicial Conference has a code of conduct that is followed by lower court judges, the conference “does not supervise the Supreme Court.”

    The statement does note that in 1991, members of the court “voluntarily adopted” a resolution to follow the financial disclosure requirements and limitations on gifts that apply to all other federal judges.

    But when it comes to recusals, the standards are necessarily more restrictive because unlike the lower courts that can freely substitute one district or circuit court judge for the other, the Supreme Court allows only its own members to hear a dispute.

    The statement explains why individual justices “rather than the Court” must decide recusal issues.

    “If the full Court or any subset of the Court were to review the recusal decisions of individual Justices, it would create an undesirable situation in which the Court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its Members may participate,” it says.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate Judiciary chair says ‘everything is on the table’ in response to Clarence Thomas revelations | CNN Politics

    Senate Judiciary chair says ‘everything is on the table’ in response to Clarence Thomas revelations | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin said Sunday that “everything is on the table” as the panel scrutinizes new ethics concerns around Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

    “The bottom line is this: Everything is on the table. Day after day, week after week, more and more disclosures about Justice Thomas – we cannot ignore them,” the Illinois Democrat told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    “The thing we’re going to do first, obviously, is to gather the evidence, the information that we need to draw our conclusions. I’m not ruling out anything,” he added.

    ProPublica reported recently that, for years, Thomas has accepted lavish trips and gifts from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, which have gone mostly unreported on the justice’s financial disclosures. Crow also purchased several real estate properties, including the home where Thomas’ mother lives, from the Thomas family and paid boarding school tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew, according to ProPublica.

    The extent to which these transactions and hospitality should have been reported by Thomas has been the subject of debate among judicial ethics experts, who have noted that a recently closed loophole for certain “personal hospitality” may have covered some of the luxury trips.

    Thomas has said he followed the advice of others in deciding what required disclosure and, in a statement last month, noted that that Crow did not have business before the court.

    But Durbin said Sunday the recent revelations “just embarrasses me” as he called on Chief Justice John Roberts to impose a code of conduct on the court. Roberts previously declined Durbin’s request to voluntarily testify in a hearing on Supreme Court ethics.

    “I must respectfully decline your invitation,” Roberts wrote in a letter to Durbin, which was released by a spokesperson for the high court. “Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”

    The debate over Supreme Court ethics was the subject of a Senate Judiciary hearing last week that featured testimony from a law professor, legal advocates and two former judges. Some Republican lawmakers said they want to see more transparency around the court, though they railed against the Democratic push for Congress to impose a code of conduct on the justices.

    Durbin maintained Sunday that “this is the Roberts court, and history is going to judge him by the decision he makes on this.”

    “He has the power to make the difference.”

    Durbin made clear Sunday that he hasn’t reached “any conclusion” on pursuing subpoenas in relation to

    Supreme Court ethics issues, but he acknowledged that the absence of Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California would pose a challenge to the committee “if we go down that path.”

    “Right now, with her absence, it’s a 10-to-10 Committee, and the majority is not there, and a proxy vote doesn’t count in this circumstance,” Durbin said.

    Feinstein, 89, has been away from the Senate since March as she recovers at home in California from shingles. Her absence has prevented the committee from advancing certain judicial nominees of President Joe Biden and several House Democrats have called on her to resign as a result.

    In a statement last week, Feinstein pushed back on those claims, saying that the Senate continues to “swiftly” confirm “highly qualified individuals to the federal judiciary.” She indicated in the statement that she still plans to return but did not say when that would happen.

    “She’s gone through an awful lot. She lost her husband last year, and she’s had some real medical issues that are problematic for her at her age at this point,” Durbin said. “I hope she returns, and I hope it’s this week. We need her. It is a challenge in the Senate Judiciary Committee to do our business.”

    The situation, he added, is “complicated.”

    “I hope she does what’s best for her and her family and the state of California and makes a decision soon as to whether she’s coming back,” Durbin said.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link