ReportWire

Tag: political platforms and issues

  • Income Tax Deadline Fast Facts | CNN

    Income Tax Deadline Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the annual income tax filing deadline in the United States. April 15, 2024, is the deadline to file 2023 income tax returns.

    In fiscal year 2022, the IRS amassed more than $4.9 trillion in gross tax collections.

    (Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 2023)
    Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, marketplace subsidies 24%
    Social Security 21%
    National Defense 13%
    Economic security programs 8%
    Benefits for veterans & federal retirees 8%
    Interest on debt 10%
    Education 4%
    Transportation 2%
    Natural resources and agricultrue 1%
    Science and medical research 1%
    Law enforcement 1%
    International 1%
    All other 4%

    1862 – During the Civil War, the IRS is born when President Abraham Lincoln and Congress create the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enact an income tax to pay war expenses. The first income tax levies 3% on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and 5% on anything over $10,000. This income tax lasts until 1872.

    1895 – The Supreme Court rules in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. that taxing incomes uniformly throughout the United States is unconstitutional.

    1913 – The 16th Amendment is ratified by the states, giving Congress the authority to enact an income tax. Congress also introduces the first 1040 form and levies a 1% tax on personal incomes over $3,000 with 6% surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

    1954 – The tax filing deadline is moved from March 15 to April 15, to give taxpayers more time to prepare their returns.

    January 3, 1996 – Congress enacts the Taxpayer Bill of Rights to ensure relief from overzealous collection efforts on the part of IRS personnel.

    March 20, 2020 – Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin tweets that tax day is moving from April 15 to July 15 due to the coronavirus pandemic.

    March 17, 2021 – The IRS announces the filing deadline has been moved from April 15 to May 17, to allow filers more time to navigate tax situations complicated by the coronavirus pandemic.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at some of the most important cases decided by the US Supreme Court since 1789.

    1803Marbury v. Madison
    This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.

    Situation: Federalist William Marbury and many others were appointed to positions by outgoing President John Adams. The appointments were not finalized before the new Secretary of State James Madison took office, and Madison chose not to honor them. Marbury and the others invoked an Act of Congress and sued to get their appointed positions.

    The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.

    Historical significance: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” It was the first time the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that had been passed by Congress.

    1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford
    This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the US Constitution.

    Situation: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in Missouri, a slave state, after having lived with their owner, an Army surgeon, in the free Territory of Wisconsin.

    The Court decided against Scott 7-2.

    Historical significance: The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, where Congress had prohibited slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned later with the adoption of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868, granting citizenship to all born in the United States.

    1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson
    This decision established the rule of segregation, separate but equal.

    Situation: While attempting to test the constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, Homer Plessy, a man of 1/8 African descent, sat in the train car for whites instead of the blacks-only train car and was arrested.

    The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.

    Historical significance: Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote, “The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.” The Court gave merit to the “Jim Crow” system. Plessy was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In January 2022 Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards granted a posthumous pardon to Homer Plessy. The pardon comes after the Louisiana Board of Pardons voted unanimously in November 2021 in favor of a pardon for Plessy, who died in his 60s in 1925.

    1954 – Brown v. Board of Education
    This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.

    Situation: Segregation of the public school systems in the United States was addressed when cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware and Virginia were all decided together under Brown v. Board of Education. Third-grader Linda Brown was denied admission to the white school a few blocks from her home and was forced to attend the blacks-only school a mile away.

    The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.

    Historical significance: Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    1963 – Gideon v. Wainwright
    This decision guarantees the right to counsel.

    Situation: Clarence Earl Gideon was forced to defend himself when he requested a lawyer from a Florida court and was refused. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for breaking and entering.

    The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.

    Historical significance: Ensures the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

    1964New York Times v. Sullivan
    This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

    Situation: The New York Times and four African-American ministers were sued for libel by Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan claimed a full-page ad in the Times discussing the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., and his efforts toward voter registration and integration in Montgomery were defamatory against him. Alabama’s libel law did not require Sullivan to prove harm since the ad did contain factual errors. He was awarded $500,000.

    The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.

    Historical significance: The First Amendment protects free speech and publication of all statements about public officials made without actual malice.

    1966Miranda v. Arizona
    The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.

    Situation: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his constitutional right to remain silent.

    The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.

    Historical significance: Upon arrest and/or questioning, all suspects are given some form of their constitutional rights – “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

    1973 – Roe v. Wade
    This decision expanded privacy rights to include a woman’s right to choose pregnancy or abortion.

    Situation: “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), single and living in Texas, did not want to continue her third pregnancy. Under Texas law, she could not legally obtain an abortion.

    The Court decided in favor of Roe 7-2.

    Historical significance: Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have the right to choose between pregnancy and abortion.

    1974 – United States v. Nixon
    This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.

    Situation: President Richard Nixon’s taped conversations from 1971 onward were the object of subpoenas by both the special prosecutor and those under indictment in the Watergate scandal. The president claimed immunity from subpoena under executive privilege.

    The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.

    Historical significance: The president is not above the law. After the Court ruled on July 24, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8.

    1978 – Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke
    This decision ruled that race cannot be the only factor in college admissions.

    Situation: Allan Bakke had twice applied for and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was white, male and 35 years old. He claimed under California’s affirmative action plan, minorities with lower grades and test scores were admitted to the medical school when he was not, therefore his denial of admission was based solely on race.

    The Court decided in Bakke’s favor, 5-4.

    Historical significance: Affirmative action is approved by the Court and schools may use race as an admissions factor. However, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works both ways in the case of affirmative action; race cannot be the only factor in the admissions process.

    2012 – National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al

    Situation: The constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.

    The Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act.

    Historical significance: The ruling upholds the law’s central provision – a requirement that all people have health insurance or pay a penalty.

    2013 – United States v. Windsor
    This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.

    Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they lived. Upon Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.

    The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.

    Historical significance: The court strikes down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that legally married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits.

    2015 – King et al, v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al

    Situation: This case was about determining whether or not the portion of the Affordable Care Act which says subsidies would be available only to those who purchase insurance on exchanges “established by the state” referred to the individual states.

    The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    Historical significance: The court rules that the Affordable Care Act federal tax credits for eligible Americans are available in all 50 states, regardless of whether the states have their own health care exchanges.

    2015 – Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.

    Situation: Multiple lower courts had struck down state same-sex marriage bans. There were 37 states allowing gay marriage before the issue went to the Supreme Court.

    The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Obergefell et al.

    Historical significance: The court rules that states cannot ban same-sex marriage and must recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.

    2016 – Fisher v. University of Texas

    Situation: Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas after her admission application was rejected in 2008. She claimed it was because she is white and that she was being treated differently than some less-qualified minority students who were accepted. In 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

    The Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the University of Texas. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.

    Historical Significance: The court rules that taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.

    2020 – Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

    Situation: Gerald Bostock filed a lawsuit against Clayton County for discrimination based on his sexual orientation after he was terminated for “conduct unbecoming of its employees,” shortly after he began participating in a gay softball league. Two other consolidated cases were also argued on the same day.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that being fired “merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Historical Significance: Federal anti-bias law now protects people who face job loss and/or discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    2022 – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

    Situation: Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, passed in 2018 and which greatly restricts abortion after 15 weeks, is blocked by two federal courts, holding that it is in direct violation of Supreme Court precedent legalizing abortion nationwide prior to viability, which can occur at around 23-24 weeks of pregnancy, and that in an “unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability.” The court said states may “regulate abortion procedures prior to viability” so long as they do not ban abortion. “The law at issue is a ban,” the court held. 

    Mississippi appeals the decision to the Supreme Court.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Samuel Alito states that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start…Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

    In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan heavily criticized the majority, closing: “With sorrow – for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection – we dissent.”

    Historical Significance: The ruling overturns Roe v. Wade and there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion, leaving abortion rights to be determined by states.

    1944 – Korematsu v. United States – The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States.

    1961 – Mapp v. Ohio – “Fruit of the poisonous tree,” evidence obtained through an illegal search, cannot be used at trial, 6-3 for Mapp.

    1967 – Loving v. Virginia – Prohibition against interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional, 9-0 for Loving.

    1968 – Terry v. Ohio – Stop and frisk, under certain circumstances, does not violate the Constitution. The Court upholds Terry’s conviction and rules 8-1 that it is not unconstitutional for police to stop and frisk individuals without probable cause for an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.

    2008 – District of Columbia v. Heller – The Second Amendment does protect the individual’s right to bear arms, 5-4 for Heller.

    2010 – Citizens United v. FEC – The Court rules corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment’s right to free speech, 5-4 for Citizens United.

    2023 – Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard together with Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina – Colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis in admissions. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Roberts, claims the court is not expressly overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action and suggests that how race has affected an applicant’s life can still be part of how their application is considered.

    2024 – Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al – The Court rules former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado in a decision that follows months of debate over whether Trump violated the “insurrectionist clause” included in the 14th Amendment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chuck Schumer Fast Facts | CNN

    Chuck Schumer Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Chuck Schumer, the US Senate majority leader and Democratic senator from New York.

    Birth date: November 23, 1950

    Birth place: Brooklyn, New York

    Birth name: Charles Ellis Schumer

    Father: Abe Schumer, exterminator

    Mother: Selma (Rosen) Schumer

    Marriage: Iris Weinshall (1980-present)

    Children: Jessica, Alison

    Education: Harvard University, A.B., 1971; Harvard Law School, J.D., 1974

    Religion: Jewish

    He was valedictorian at James Madison High School in Brooklyn and received a perfect 1600 score on the SAT test. He edited his high school newspaper, and at one point considered pursuing a career in chemistry. His parents encouraged him to go to medical school, but he opted for law school instead.

    He funded his Harvard education by selling class rings while in school.

    For more than three decades, Schumer shared an aging row house in Washington with Congressional colleagues, including Dick Durbin and George Miller. He lived in the row house during the week and returned to his family home in Brooklyn on weekends.

    Writer/actress Amy Schumer is his second cousin, once removed.

    1975-1980 – New York state assemblyman.

    1981-1999 – US representative from New York 9th District (formerly 10th District and 16th District).

    1987-1988 – Sponsors the Fair Credit and Charge Card Disclosure Act, which requires credit card companies to list detailed information about fees and interest rates when soliciting new customers. The credit card disclosures are nicknamed “Schumer Boxes.”

    1993-1994 – Sponsors the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which requires background checks and a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases. Sponsors the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, meant to prevent the government from interfering with an individual’s right to express his or her faith. Also, cosponsors the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a measure that provides funding to expand police departments, increases prison capacity and allows judges to impose longer sentences for violent crimes. The crime bill includes an assault weapons ban, prohibiting the sale of certain types of military-style semi-automatic rifles for 10 years.

    1998 – Wins election to US Senate.

    2004 – Wins reelection to the US Senate.

    2004 – Leads an unsuccessful push to renew the assault weapons ban.

    2005-2008 – Chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

    2007-2008 – Introduces the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act, requiring registered sex offenders to give law enforcement their email addresses and social media accounts so their online activity can be tracked.

    2007-2010 – Chairs and vice chairs the US Senate’s Joint Economic Committee.

    2009 – Cosponsors the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, broadening the definition of hate crimes to include acts of violence against individuals based on their actual or perceived gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

    2009-present – Serves on the US Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.

    2010 – Wins reelection to US Senate.

    2011-present – Chairman of the US Senate’s Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

    2013 – Works on immigration reform as a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight.” The group’s bill, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, passes the Senate. The House, however, declines to vote on the package, which creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

    August 3, 2015 – Holds a joint press conference with his cousin, actress and comedian Amy Schumer, to announce gun control legislation promoting stricter state background check laws. The press conference takes place 11 days after a deadly mass shooting at a screening of Schumer’s comedy, “Trainwreck,” in Louisiana. Schumer’s bill, the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2016, stalls in the Senate.

    August 6, 2015 – Expresses his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran in a statement. He says that he is concerned about a 24-day delay for inspectors to access facilities and other limitations on inspections.

    November 8, 2016 – Wins reelection to the US Senate.

    November 16, 2016 – Senate Democrats choose Schumer to succeed Harry Reid as leader in the chamber.

    January 3, 2017 – On his first day as Senate minority leader, Schumer tells CNN that Senate Democrats plan to hold President-elect Donald Trump accountable but will also work with him if he supports legislation that is true to the Democratic Party’s principles.

    March 2, 2017 – Schumer calls on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign in the wake of a report that Sessions met with the Russian ambassador to the US during the presidential campaign, contradicting his testimony during his Senate confirmation hearing. Sessions does not resign but recuses himself from involvement in the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

    September 6, 2017 – Schumer meets with Trump and other congressional leaders in the Oval Office. During the meeting, Trump agrees to endorse a plan to attach hurricane relief money to a three-month extension of the debt ceiling that was proposed by Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

    January 19, 2018 – Schumer meets with Trump at the White House to discuss a deal that could avert a looming government shutdown. Schumer offers to increase military spending and fully fund border security measures in exchange for a pledge to protect beneficiaries of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). Trump ultimately rejects the deal. The failed negotiations lead to a brief shutdown that White House officials label the “Schumer Shutdown.”

    June 27, 2018 Schumer introduces a bill, the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act, that would decriminalize and regulate marijuana at the federal level.

    November 11, 2018 – Schumer says that Democrats may combine a must-pass spending bill with a measure protecting the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation into Russian election meddling.

    November 10, 2020 – Schumer is reelected as a Senate party leader.

    January 20, 2021-present – Senate majority leader.

    July 14, 2021 – Schumer and a group of other Senate Democrats introduce draft legislation that would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level by striking it from the federal controlled substances list.

    November 8, 2022 – Wins reelection to the US Senate.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California man sentenced to 1-year in federal prison for cyberstalking, harassing parent of Parkland school shooting victim | CNN

    California man sentenced to 1-year in federal prison for cyberstalking, harassing parent of Parkland school shooting victim | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A California man who sent hundreds of harrowing messages to an activist against gun violence whose daughter was killed in the 2018 Parkland, Florida, school shooting has been sentenced to 1 year in federal prison, according to prosecutors and court documents.

    James Catalano, 62, of Fresno, California, pled guilty to cyberstalking on March 28, according to the court documents. CNN has reached out to his attorney.

    In December 2021, a parent of one of the students killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School “began receiving a slew of harassing messages” with references to “his daughter, the manner of her death, her pain and suffering as she was murdered and his advocacy against gun violence.” The parent is identified only with the initials “F.G.” in court documents.

    According to a complaint, on June 21, 2022, “F.G.” tweeted, “Three weeks after the Parkland shooting, & on the day that gun safety legislation was passed in Florida, I stood with @marcorubio & asked him to support what was about to happen in Florida. He refused. He was a waste then and he is a waste now. Florida will elect @valdemings.”

    CNN has found that the tweet and others mentioned in the complaint were sent by Fred Guttenberg – who has dedicated his life to “fighting for gun safety in America” after his 14-year-old daughter, Jaime, was among the 17 people killed at Parkland, his Twitter profile reads.

    Catalano replied to Guttenberg’s tweets and continued to send harassing messages through July 2022 via multiple online platforms. Catalano sent “hundreds of disparaging messages, which graphically described the victim’s daughter’s death, and focused on the debate surrounding gun control and the victim’s activism against gun violence,” according to a news release Monday from the US Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida.

    Federal authorities were informed of the messages and traced two IP addresses to Catalano’s workplace and home in Fresno, according to court documents.

    On July 20, 2022, Catalano met with law enforcement after waiving his Miranda rights, according to a complaint. He admitted to sending the messages.

    Guttenberg tweeted following the sentencing Friday, saying it “sends a message to those who cyberstalk the families of shooting victims that they will be caught and punished.”

    CNN has reached out to Guttenberg for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government on brink of shutdown ahead of midnight deadline as McCarthy slates last-minute vote | CNN Politics

    Government on brink of shutdown ahead of midnight deadline as McCarthy slates last-minute vote | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Federal agencies are making final preparations with the government on the brink of a shutdown and congressional lawmakers racing against Saturday’s critical midnight deadline – as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy mounts a last-minute push to avert the lapse in funding.

    McCarthy announced that the House will vote on a 45-day short-term spending bill Saturday, and it will include the natural disaster aid that the White House requested.

    The bill does not include $6 billion in funding to aid Ukraine, a key concession that many House Republicans demanded and a blow to allies of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who lobbied Congress earlier this month for additional assistance.

    Asked if he is concerned that a member, including Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, could move to oust him over this bill, McCarthy replied, “If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.”

    Infighting among House Republicans has played a central role in bringing Congress to a standoff over spending – and it is not yet clear how the issue will be resolved, raising concerns on Capitol Hill that a shutdown, if triggered, may not be easy to end.

    Democrats in the House have been trying to slow down passage of the GOP-led continuing resolution throughout the day Saturday, objecting to being forced to vote on a bill just introduced and wanting to keep Ukraine aid. It’s unclear how long Democrats will stall the House from voting.

    House Republicans met throughout Saturday morning, seesawing between options for how to proceed. Republicans including veteran appropriators and those in swing districts pushed to bring a short-term resolution to keep the government funded for 45 days to the House floor for a vote Saturday.

    McCarthy has faced threats to keeping his job throughout the month if he works with Democrats as he endures a consistent resistance from the hardline conservatives in his own party.

    A shutdown is expected to have consequential impacts across the country, from air travel to clean drinking water, and many government operations would grind to a halt – though services deemed essential for public safety would continue.

    Both chambers are scheduled to be in session Saturday, just hours before the deadline. The Senate was expected to take procedural steps to advance their own plan to keep the government funded – GOP Sen. Rand Paul had vowed all week to slow that process beyond the midnight deadline over objections to the bill’s funding for the war in Ukraine. The Senate is now waiting to see how the House developments shake out before proceeding.

    But Paul told CNN on Saturday afternoon that he won’t slow down the Senate’s consideration of the House GOP’s 45-day spending bill, if it passes the House and the Senate takes it up, allowing the Senate the ability to move the bill quickly – though any one other senator could slow that down beyond the midnight deadline.

    House Republicans have so far thrown cold water on a bipartisan Senate proposal to keep the government funded through November 17, but they have failed to coalesce around a plan of their own to avert a shutdown amid resistance from a bloc of hardline conservatives to any kind of short-term funding extension.

    “After meeting with House Republicans this evening, it’s clear the misguided Senate bill has no path forward and is dead on arrival,” McCarthy wrote on X. “The House will continue to work around the clock to keep government open and prioritize the needs of the American people.”

    His late Friday night message came after a two-hour conference meeting in the Capitol, where McCarthy floated several different options – including putting the Senate bill on the floor or passing a short-term bill that excludes Ukraine money. But there is still no consensus on what – if anything – they will put on the House floor Saturday to avoid a government shutdown.

    McCarthy suffered another high-profile defeat on Friday when the House failed to advance a last-ditch stopgap bill.

    In the aftermath of Friday’s failed vote, McCarthy told reporters he had proposed putting up a “clean” stopgap bill, and said he was “working through maybe to be able to do that.”

    “We’re continuing to work through – trying to find the way out of this,” McCarthy said.

    The Senate’s bipartisan bill would provide additional funds for Ukraine aid, creating a point of contention with the House where many Republicans are opposed to further support to the war-torn country.

    McCarthy argued on Friday that aid to Ukraine should be dropped from the Senate bill. “I think if we had a clean one without Ukraine on it, we could probably be able to move that through. I think if the Senate puts Ukraine on there and focuses on Ukraine over America, I think that could cause real problems,” he told CNN’s Manu Raju.

    The Senate, meanwhile, is working to advance its own bipartisan stopgap bill. The chamber is on track to take a procedural vote Saturday afternoon to move forward with the bill, particularly if the last-minute House bill falters. But it’s not yet clear when senators could take a final vote to pass the bill and it may not happen until Monday, after the government has already shut down.

    Border security has also become a complicating factor for the Senate bill as many Republicans now want to see the bill amended to address the issue.

    Senate Republicans said Friday that they were still discussing what kind of border amendment they would want to add to the bill, and were unsure if the chamber could even advance the bill in Saturday’s procedural vote without the addition of a border amendment.

    “Nothing’s really coming together, too many moving parts at this stage,” said Sen. Mike Braun, an Indiana Republican. “I think what I understand is we’re going to have a vote tomorrow … and other than that, there’s nothing that’s really crystallized in anything that probably would be palatable with the House.”

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dianne Feinstein, longest-serving female US senator in history, dies at 90 | CNN Politics

    Dianne Feinstein, longest-serving female US senator in history, dies at 90 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Dianne Feinstein, whose three decades in the Senate made her the longest-serving female US senator in history, has died following months of declining health. She was 90.

    Feinstein’s death, confirmed to CNN by a source familiar, will hand California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom the power to appoint a lawmaker to serve out the rest of Feinstein’s term, keeping the Democratic majority in the chamber through early January 2025. In March 2021, Newsom publicly said he had a list of “multiple” replacements and pledged to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein, a Democrat, were to retire.

    News of Feinstein’s death also comes as federal funding is set to expire, as Congress is at an impasse as to how to avoid a government shutdown, though Senate Democrats still retain a majority without her.

    Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, was a leading figure in California politics for decades and became a national face of the Democratic Party following her first election to the US Senate in 1992. She broke a series of glass ceilings throughout her political career and her influence was felt strongly in some of Capitol Hill’s most consequential works in recent history, including the since-lapsed federal assault weapons ban in 1994 and the 2014 CIA torture report. She also was a longtime force on the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

    In her later years, Feinstein’s health was the subject of increasing scrutiny and speculation, and the California Democrat was prominent among aging lawmakers whose decisions to remain in office drew scrutiny, especially in an age of narrow party margins in Congress.

    A hospitalization for shingles in February led to an extended absence from the Senate – stirring complaints from Democrats, as Feinstein’s time away slowed the confirmation of Democratic-appointed judicial nominees – and when she returned to Capitol Hill three months later, it was revealed that she had suffered multiple complications during her recovery, including Ramsay Hunt syndrome and encephalitis. A fall in August briefly sent her to the hospital.

    Feinstein, who was the Senate’s oldest member at the time of her death, also faced questions about her mental acuity and ability to lead. She dismissed the concerns, saying, “The real question is whether I’m still an effective representative for 40 million Californians, and the record shows that I am.”

    But heavy speculation that Feinstein would retire instead of seek reelection in 2024 led several Democrats to announce their candidacies for her seat – even before she announced her plans. In February, she confirmed that she would not run for reelection, telling CNN, “The time has come.”

    Feinstein was fondly remembered by her colleagues on Friday.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that he will address Feinstein’s death on the Senate floor later Friday morning, calling it a “very, very sad day for all of us.” North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called her a “trailblazer” and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said “she was always a lady but she never backed down from a cause that she thought was worth fighting for.”

    “We lost one of the great ones,” Durbin said.

    San Francisco native and leader

    Feinstein was born in San Francisco in 1933 and graduated from Stanford University in 1955. After serving as a San Francisco County supervisor, Feinstein became the city’s mayor in 1978 in the wake of the assassination of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician from California to be elected to office.

    Feinstein rarely talked about the day when Moscone and Milk were shot but she opened up about the tragic events in a 2017 interview with CNN’s Dana Bash.

    Feinstein was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors then, and assassin Dan White had been a friend and colleague of hers.

    “The door to the office opened, and he came in, and I said, ‘Dan?’ ”

    “I heard the doors slam, I heard the shots, I smelled the cordite,” Feinstein recalled.

    It was Feinstein who announced the double assassination to the public. She was later sworn in as the first female mayor of San Francisco.

    Her political career was marked by a series of historic firsts.

    By that time she became mayor in 1978, she had already broken one glass ceiling, becoming the first female chair of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

    California’s first woman sent to the US Senate racked up many other firsts in Washington. Among those: She was the first woman to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the first female chairwoman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and the first female chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    Feinstein also served on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee and held the title of ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2017 to 2021. In November 2022, she was poised to become president pro tempore of the Senate – third in line to the presidency – but declined to pursue the position, citing her husband’s recent death.

    Feinstein reflected on her experience as a woman in politics in her 2017 interview with Bash, saying, “Look, being a woman in our society even today is difficult,” and noting, “I know it in the political area.” She would later note in a statement the week she became the longest-serving woman in US history, “We went from two women senators when I ran for office in 1992 to 24 today – and I know that number will keep climbing.”

    “It has been a great pleasure to watch more and more women walk the halls of the Senate,” Feinstein said in November 2022.

    Led efforts on gun control and torture program investigations

    Though she was a proud native of one of the most famously liberal cities in the country, Feinstein earned a reputation over the years in the Senate as someone eager to work across the aisle with Republicans, and at times sparked pushback and criticism from progressives.

    “I truly believe that there is a center in the political spectrum that is the best place to run something when you have a very diverse community. America is diverse; we are not all one people. We are many different colors, religions, backgrounds, education levels, all of it,” she told CNN in 2017.

    A biography from Feinstein’s Senate office states that her notable achievements include “the enactment of the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, a law that prohibited the sale, manufacture and import of military-style assault weapons” (the ban has since lapsed), and the influential 2014 torture report, a comprehensive “six-year review of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program,” which brought to light for the first time many details from the George W. Bush-era program.

    Feinstein’s high-profile Senate career made its mark on pop culture when she was portrayed by actress Annette Bening in the 2019 film “The Report,” which tackled the subject of the CIA’s use of torture after the Sept. 11 attacks and the effort to make those practices public.

    In November 2020, Feinstein announced that she would step down from the top Democratic spot on the Senate Judiciary Committee the following year in the wake of sharp criticism from liberal activists over her handling of the hearings for then-President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

    While Democratic senators could not block Barrett’s nomination in the Republican-led Senate on their own, liberal activists were angry when Feinstein undermined Democrats’ relentless attempt to portray the process as illegitimate when she praised then-Judiciary Chairman and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham’s leadership of it.

    Feinstein said at the time that she would continue to serve as a senior Democrat on the Judiciary, Intelligence, Appropriations, and Rules and Administration panels, working on priorities like gun safety, criminal justice and immigration.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House strategy on government funding meets serious test this week | CNN Politics

    White House strategy on government funding meets serious test this week | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden and his top aides at the White House plan to hammer away at a blunt message as the US government inches closer to a shutdown this week: A handful of extremist Republicans are entirely to blame for the havoc that would be unleashed across the country.

    For Biden, there’s a lot riding on that message getting through to Americans.

    Biden’s advisers have been assessing for weeks how involved to get in lawmakers’ deliberations to fund the government ahead of the end-of-month deadline, and ultimately decided to take a hands-off approach. The expectation: Should the Republican-led House struggle to reach consensus, they would ultimately shoulder the blame for any disruption.

    “Watch the GOP struggle and force them to govern or be blamed for shutdown,” a Biden administration official said, summing up the strategy.

    The White House is planning to dispatch a number of Cabinet officials this week to help lay out the broad range of ramifications if the government were to shutdown – everything from flight delays to childcare centers shutting down.

    Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will appear at Monday’s White House news briefing to discuss how a government shutdown could hit everything from food programs to loans for farmers, a White House official said.

    “This would stop us in our tracks,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said on CNN on Sunday. “A shutdown that would mean service members wouldn’t get paid, coming back to transportation to air traffic controllers who would be working in the towers. They wouldn’t get paid.”

    Over the weekend, White House officials continued to monitor for any signs of movement on Capitol Hill to extend funding for the federal government ahead of the deadline. How to handle a possible shutdown was a key agenda item when White House chief of staff Jeff Zients huddled with senior advisers in the West Wing on Saturday, according to people familiar. But heading into a new work week, Republican members had not put anything realistic on the table, officials said, leaving the White House bracing for what is to come.

    In the days ahead, the president and his allies will repeatedly point to “who’s responsible” for the mess that could unfold, one senior administration official said simply.

    The White House took a similar approach this spring during the debt ceiling negotiations, but not without a seeming hit to Biden. In a CNN poll conducted mid-May, 59% of respondents said the president was not acting responsibly as talks stalled and the government careened toward default. The difference then: Republicans had coalesced around a specific position, passing a bill in the House that reflected their priorities and catching the White House off guard. Negotiations escalated in the weeks that followed, resulting in a deal that set broad guardrails around federal spending for the 2024 fiscal year.

    That deal was supposed to usher in months of in-depth appropriations work that would yield a full-year spending package and avert a government shutdown. Now, the White House says Republicans dropped the ball.

    Speaking over the weekend at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Phoenix Awards Dinner, Biden said it was “small group of extreme Republicans” that was refusing to “live up to the deal” that he had struck months ago with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

    “The president did his job,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said when asked whether the White House would do anything to stave off a shutdown. “This is not something we can fix. The best plan is for House Republicans to stop their partisan political play and not do this to hurt Americans across the country. That’s the plan.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden unveils a new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention | CNN Politics

    Biden unveils a new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden on Friday unveiled a new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, a step he said was part of an effort “to send a clear message about how important this issue is to me and the country.

    In a speech in the White House Rose Garden, the president detailed his experience traveling to the sites of mass shootings across the country, including after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 as vice president.

    “Anyone who doesn’t think that these kinds of engagements have a permanent effect on young children … these were hardened, tough cops, asking me, could I get them psychiatric help?” he asked, raising his voice.

    An official told reporters on a call Thursday previewing the announcement that the office’s mandate will be twofold – it will be tasked with implementing and expediting last year’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the president’s signature gun legislation, and with finding additional actions within the president’s purview to stem the flow of gun violence.

    The announcement comes just days after a group of congressional Democrats in a letter called on Biden to leverage “the full power of the executive branch” to combat gun violence. In March, a day after a mass shooting left six dead in Nashville, Biden told reporters, “I have gone the full extent of my executive authority to do, on my own, anything about guns.”

    Biden on Friday took the opportunity to tout the steps his administration had taken to address the scourge of gun violence.

    “To date my administration has announced dozens of executive actions to reduce gun violence – more than any of my predecessors at this point in their presidencies, and they include everything from cracking down on ghost guns, breaking up gun trafficking, and so much more,” he said.

    “And last year with the help – with your help I signed into law the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most significant gun safety law in almost 30 years. It expanded background checks, expands the use of red flag laws, improves access to mental health services and so much more. This historic law will save lives. It’s a really important first step.”

    Vice President Kamala Harris will head the new office, Biden said.

    Biden said Harris “understands this more than any vice president ever – no, really. That’s not hyperbole, that’s a fact. She’s been on the front lines of this her entire career as a prosecutor, as an attorney general and as a United States senator. Her deep experience will be invaluable for this office.”

    And he thanked the gun safety advocates assembled in the Rose Garden for their work.

    “We’re never going to forget your loved ones, we’re never going to get there unless we remember. You know, I know we will do this because I know you – heroes, heroes proving that even with heavy hearts, you have unbreakable spirits,” he said.

    CORRECTION: This headline and story have been updated to reflect the correct name of the office.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy privately outlines new GOP plan to avert shutdown, setting up clash with Senate | CNN Politics

    McCarthy privately outlines new GOP plan to avert shutdown, setting up clash with Senate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy privately outlined to members a new GOP plan to keep the government open on Wednesday after a marathon two-and-a-half-hour GOP conference meeting.

    The California Republican later told reporters that Republican negotiators made “tremendous progress as an entire conference,” following days of GOP infighting and less than two weeks before a government funding deadline.

    “We are very close,” McCarthy said Wednesday evening when asked specifically what progress had been made on the GOP short-term bill. “I feel like just got a little more movement to go there,” he added of the new GOP plan. When asked specifically about the topline numbers, he wouldn’t get into details but said: “We’re in a good place.”

    The plan, as outlined by the speaker, would keep the government open for 30 days at $1.471 trillion spending levels, a commission to address the debt and a border security package. Separately, they also agreed to move year-long funding bills at a $1.526 trillion level. That level is below the bipartisan agreement that the speaker reached with the White House to raise the national debt limit.

    The levels are also far lower than what senators from both parties and the White House are willing to accept, meaning it’s unclear how such a deal would avert a government shutdown. With just 10 days left to fund the government, the new plan sets up a standoff with the Senate over how to keep the government open.

    As part of the deal, Republicans now believe they have the votes to move forward on the yearlong spending bill that five conservative hardliners scuttled just Tuesday.

    GOP Rep. Mike Garcia of California said after Wednesday evening’s conference meeting there is now “a little more clarity” on the path forward.

    “We have a little more clarity as to a potential plan moving forward,” Garcia said, adding, “We are still negotiating that final number and trying to figure out exactly what we can do.”

    Some of the people that were previously opposed now signaled they are supportive. Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Ken Buck of Colorado indicated they will flip to a yes on the rule and will vote to advance the Department of Defense bill Thursday after the speaker came down to the spending levels that Norman had been demanding.

    “Sounds like we’ve got the votes for the rule,” Garcia said, pointing to Buck and Norman as having committed to changing to a “Yes.”

    With McCarthy’s extremely thin margin in the chamber – and Democrats so far united against the GOP proposal – Republican leadership has been negotiating for days to try to win over enough GOP support to pass their legislation.

    When asked about struggling to make progress earlier Wednesday, McCarthy repeated his favorite line, insisting he will never back down from a challenge no matter how messy.

    “I wouldn’t quit the first time I went for the vote for speaker,” McCarthy said, a reference to how he was voted speaker only after 15 rounds and days of voting in January. “The one thing if you haven’t learned anything about me yet, I will never quit.”

    However, an additional potential complicating factor emerged Wednesday night with former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination, coming out in opposition to a short-term funding bill as he called on lawmakers to defund the DOJ and the investigations into him.

    McCarthy and his GOP leadership team have been trying to sell the House Republican Conference on unifying behind a plan to fund the government, brokered between the House Freedom Caucus and the more moderate Main Street Caucus over the weekend. But that proposed legislation encountered immediate opposition from more than a dozen far-right Republican lawmakers who wanted deeper spending cuts attached.

    Amid that impasse with conservatives, moderates in the bipartisan House Problem Solver’s Caucus are close to finalizing their own framework on a short-term spending bill that would fund the government for several months at current levels and include Ukraine aid and disaster assistance, according to two sources. Even with Democratic support, that plan would still likely face major challenges – not the least of which is how it would get to the floor before the government runs out of money.

    There are already signs that this alternative plan could face its own strong headwinds – not just with Republicans but with Democrats. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a progressive Democrat from Washington state, told CNN on “Inside Politics” that she wants a “clean” continuing resolution of funds, a sign that progressives may not back some of the border security provisions that the Problem Solvers Caucus members are eyeing.

    House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries met with the House Problem Solvers Caucus earlier Wednesday, and said afterward that they need a bipartisan agreement in line with what was already negotiated in the debt ceiling package.

    “We need to find a bipartisan agreement consistent with what was previously reached,” he said.

    House GOP leadership announced Wednesday night that the House will be in and voting on Friday and Saturday, making official what was expected as the majority struggled to reach an agreement all week.

    The House is expected to pass a rule for the defense appropriations bill Thursday. Assuming the rule passes, the House will then start consideration of the defense bill with final passage expected Friday.

    The thinking would then be to pass the new GOP stopgap plan on Saturday, which is expected to be a full day.

    Members were advised on Tuesday to keep their schedules flexible as weekend votes were possible. Members filtering in and out of Whip Emmer’s office the past two days are insistent that they are making progress, but Rep. Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota told CNN earlier Wednesday that while they are getting closer, they are not close yet.

    Rep. Garrett Graves from Louisiana, who has been in the room for negotiations, had echoed that schedule change and projected Friday and Saturday work.

    “I think we’re going to be here this weekend,” he said.

    When pressed on what exactly they’d be up to and if they’d be able to vote by Saturday, Graves said, “Well, we won’t be having Mardi Gras parties,” indicating they’d be voting.

    Rep. Steve Womack, a Republican from Arkansas who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, lambasted the hardliners, calling it a “breach of duty.”

    “We’ve got a handful of people that are holding the rest of the conference, the majority of our conference kind of held hostage right now and in turn, holding up America,” he told CNN.

    Womack also said this will likely extend into the weekend and that “either it’s gonna be good or it’s gonna be bad.”

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Americans are feeling gloomier about the economy | CNN Business

    Americans are feeling gloomier about the economy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    Americans aren’t feeling gloomy about higher gas prices just yet, but they’re still on edge about inflation and the economy’s direction — and concerns are starting to surface about the possibility of a government shutdown.

    Consumer sentiment tracked by the University of Michigan edged down in September from the prior month by 1.8 points, according to a preliminary reading released Friday.

    “Both short-run and long-run expectations for economic conditions improved modestly this month, though on net consumers remain relatively tentative about the trajectory of the economy,” said the University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers Director Joanne Hsu in a release. “So far, few consumers mentioned the potential federal government shutdown, but if the shutdown comes to bear, consumer views on the economy will likely slide, as was the case just a few months ago when the debt ceiling neared a breach.”

    Sentiment could start to sour soon, since gas prices are highly visible indicators of inflation. Sentiment fell to its lowest level on record last summer when gas prices topped $5 a gallon and inflation reached a four-decade high. The national average for regular gasoline stood at $3.87 a gallon on Friday, according to AAA, seven cents higher than a week ago and 17 cents higher than the same day last year.

    Consumers’ expectation of inflation rates in the year ahead fell to a 3.1% rate in September, down from 3.5% in the prior month.

    This story is developing and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A federal hate crime investigation is underway after a racially motivated shooting left 3 people dead in Jacksonville, officials say. Here’s what we know | CNN

    A federal hate crime investigation is underway after a racially motivated shooting left 3 people dead in Jacksonville, officials say. Here’s what we know | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal hate crime investigation is underway after a White gunman with a swastika-emblazoned assault rifle killed three Black people at a Dollar General store in Jacksonville, Florida, on Saturday, authorities said.

    The shooting, described as being racially motivated, claimed the lives of Angela Michelle Carr, 52, Anolt Joseph “AJ” Laguerre Jr., 19, and Jerrald Gallion, 29.

    The gunman, identified as 21-year-old Ryan Christopher Palmeter, left behind racist writings and used racial slurs, Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters said. He was armed with an AR-15-style rifle and a handgun, both legally purchased, and targeted Black people as he opened fire inside the store, according to the sheriff.

    The Justice Department is now investigating the shooting as a hate crime and an act of racially motivated violent extremism, Attorney General Merrick Garland said Sunday.

    As a hurting community gathered Sunday to honor the victims, Jacksonville Mayor Donna Deegan called to an end to division.

    “The division has to stop, the hate has to stop, the rhetoric has to stop,” She added, “We are all the same flesh, blood and bones and we should treat each other that way.”

    The attack in Florida is the latest in a number of shootings in recent years where a gunman has targeted Black people, including at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, last year and a historically Black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015.

    It also marked one of several shootings reported in the US over two days, including one near a parade in Massachusetts and another at a high school football game in Oklahoma.

    There have been at least 475 mass shootings in the US so far in 2023, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which, like CNN, defines a mass shooting as one in which four or more people are wounded or killed, not including the shooter.

    As investigators probe the Jacksonville gunman’s motives and history, Waters cautioned against trying to find reason in the attack.

    “Our community is grappling to understand why this atrocity occurred. I urge us all not to look for sense in a senseless act of violence,” the sheriff said. “There’s no reason or explanation that will ever account for the shooter’s decisions and actions.”

    While Jacksonville grieves those killed, here’s what we know about how the shooting unfolded Saturday, the guns used in the attack, the victims and the ongoing investigation:

    The shooter, who lived with his parents in Orange Park in Clay County, left his home around 11:39 a.m. and headed to Jacksonville in neighboring Duval County, Waters told CNN Saturday.

    At 12:48 p.m., the suspect stopped at Edward Waters University in New Town, a predominately Black area of Jacksonville, where the sheriff said the suspect put on a bulletproof vest. A TikTok video captured him getting dressed, Waters said.

    A student flagged down campus security when they saw the shooter because he “looked out of place,” President and CEO of Edward Waters University, Dr. A. Zachary Faison Jr. told CNN Sunday.

    The man immediately got in his vehicle and started to drive away after being confronted by a security officer, who followed him until he left campus, Faison said.

    “We don’t know obviously what his full intentions were, but we do know that he came here right before going to the Dollar General,” Faison said. “Members of our university security team reacted almost immediately. I think the reports are in less than 30 seconds after he made contact and drove onto our campus.”

    Faison said the campus security actions alone probably saved “dozens of lives.”

    “It’s not by happenstance, we believe, that he came to the first historically Black university in this state, first,” Faison said.

    University police followed him out of the lot around 12:58 p.m. and flagged down a sheriff’s officer, saying there was a suspicious person on campus, according to the sheriff.

    People walk past the Dollar General store Sunday in Jacksonville, Florida.

    At 1:08 p.m., the gunman shot into a black Kia at the nearby Dollar General parking lot and killed Carr, the sheriff said. He then entered the store and fatally shot Laguerre, the sheriff said.

    Others fled out the back exit of the store followed by the suspect seconds later, the sheriff said. He then came back inside and shot at security cameras.

    The first 911 call went out at 1:09 p.m., seconds before the third victim, Gallion, walked into the store with his girlfriend.

    The gunman then fatally shot Gallion and chased after another person, whom he shot at but didn’t hit, the sheriff said.

    At 1:18 p.m., the gunman texted his father and told him to go into his room, where the father found a will and a suicide note, the sheriff said.

    Officers entered the store a minute later – 11 minutes from the start of the shooting – and heard one gunshot, which is presumed to be when the gunman shot and killed himself, the sheriff said.

    The suspect’s family members called the Clay County Sheriff’s Office at 1:53 p.m., the sheriff said.

    Authorities on Sunday played two short video clips of the shooting.

    One clip shows the shooter, wearing a tactical vest and blue latex gloves, pointing his weapon at a black Kia car outside the store, and the other shows the shooter walking into the store and pointing his rifle to his right.

    “I wanted the people to be able to see exactly what happened in this situation and just how sickening it is,” Waters said.

    The shooter did not appear to know the victims and it is believed he acted alone, he said.

    “He targeted a certain group of people and that’s Black people,” Waters said at a Saturday news conference. That’s what he said he wanted to kill. And that’s very clear… Any member of that race at that time was in danger.”

    The suspect had left behind writings to his parents, the media and federal agents outlining his “disgusting ideology of hate,” the sheriff told reporters Saturday.

    The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office released a photo of a firearm used in the shooting, left, and a close-up, right, which shows several swastikas drawn on it.

    Photos of two weapons the gunman had were released by authorities, including one firearm with swastikas drawn on it.

    The shooter had no criminal arrest history, and it appears he legally purchased the two firearms earlier this year, the sheriff said.

    The shooter was the subject of a 2017 law enforcement call under the state’s Baker Act, which allows people to be involuntarily detained and subject to an examination for up to 72 hours during a mental health crisis.

    Waters did not provide details on what led to the Baker Act call in that case but said normally a person who has been detained under the act is not eligible to purchase firearms.

    “If there is a Baker Act situation, they’re prohibited from getting guns,” he told CNN Saturday. “We don’t know if that Baker Act was recorded properly, whether it was considered a full Baker Act.”

    On Sunday, the sheriff said investigators found the guns appeared to be obtained legally.

    “There was no flag that could have come up to stop him from purchasing those guns,” Waters said at a Sunday news conference. “As a matter of fact, it looks as if he purchased those guns completely legally.”

    “There was nothing indicating that he should not own guns,” he added.

    The sheriff did not provide further details on the Baker Act petition from 2017, but said Sunday it does appear that the shooter, who was 15 at the time, was held for 72 hours and then released.

    Sabrina Rozier, left, and Jerrald Gallion.

    A relative of the 29-year-old Gallion who was attending Sunday evening’s vigil in honor of the victims described him as a fun, loving young man.

    Sabrina Rozier told CNN that the family is holding up the best that they can and that they have yet to tell Gallion’s 4-year-old daughter that her father is gone.

    “It’s hurtful, I thought racism was behind us and evidently it’s not,” Gallion said

    Dollar General identified one of the victims, Laguerre, as an employee of the store in a statement to CNN Sunday evening.

    “The DG family mourns the loss of our colleague Anolt Joseph “AJ” Laguerre, Jr., who, along with two of our customers, were the victims of senseless violence yesterday. We extend our deepest sympathies to their families and friends as we all try to comprehend this tragedy. There is no place for hate at Dollar General or in the communities we serve,” the company said.

    Residents of the Jacksonville community attend a prayer vigil for the victims Sunday.

    Jacksonville is processing the loss, said Florida State Sen. Tracie Davis, who represents the area of Jacksonville where the shooting happened.

    “I’m angry, I’m sad to realize we are in 2023 and as a Black person we are still hunted, because that’s what that was,” Davis told CNN. “That was someone planning and executing three people.”

    The attack coincided with the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the March on Washington, the iconic civil rights demonstration that called on the government to better protect the rights of Black people.

    “[T]his day of remembrance and commemoration ended with yet another American community wounded by an act of gun violence, reportedly fueled by hate-filled animus and carried out with two firearms,” Biden said in a written statement.

    “Even as we continue searching for answers, we must say clearly and forcefully that white supremacy has no place in America,” the president added. “We must refuse to live in a country where Black families going to the store or Black students going to school live in fear of being gunned down because of the color of their skin.”

    Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday called on Congress to ban assault weapons and pass common sense gun safety legislation.

    “America is experiencing an epidemic of hate. Too many communities have been torn apart by hatred and violent extremism,” Harris said. “Too many families have lost children, parents, and grandparents. Too many Black Americans live every day with the fear that they will be victims of hate-fueled gun violence—at school, at work, at their place of worship, at the grocery store.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bipartisan House caucus leaders say ‘all options are on the table’ as shutdown looms | CNN Politics

    Bipartisan House caucus leaders say ‘all options are on the table’ as shutdown looms | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    With government funding slated to run out September 30, the leaders of the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus told CNN on Sunday that “all options are on the table” to force a vote on their alternative stopgap plan to avert a shutdown.

    There is no consensus plan to keep the government funded, and persistent opposition by a bloc of conservatives to House GOP leadership’s agenda has made any effort to pass a stopgap bill in the House a major challenge.

    While the caucus leaders, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick and Josh Gottheimer, said they hope House Speaker Kevin McCarthy puts the measure on the floor, they said they have spoken with the parliamentarian about other avenues and raised the possibility of using a discharge petition – an arcane procedural step – to force a vote.

    The procedural tool can be used to force a floor vote, but only if a majority of House members sign on in support. Discharge petitions rarely succeed because of how high the threshold is to clear.

    “We’re going to do whatever it takes to get that bill on the floor. … A discharge petition is one of several options, and a group of us met with the parliamentarian this past week to discuss all the options we have to force a vote on our bill,” Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, added: “I think our plan is reasonable. And it deals with the extremes and … instead of burning the place down as, Speaker McCarthy said of the far right, it actually provides a reasonable, commonsense solution working with people like Brian Fitzpatrick who want to get things done.”

    The caucus last week endorsed a potential backup plan if House Republicans are unable to pass their stopgap bill alone. The bill would fund the government through January 11 and include Ukraine aid, disaster response and border security provisions.

    “This is a decision the speaker is gonna have to make. He can bring that reasonable bill to the floor that we’ve proposed, and I guarantee you’re gonna get Democrats (and) Republicans coming together to support it and we can keep the lights on,” Gottheimer said.

    McCarthy, who is under pressure and has faced threats of an ouster, said Saturday he still lacks support from a handful of GOP hardliners to put a stopgap measure on the floor, making a shutdown likely.

    Rep. Tim Burchett, one of the holdouts, told CNN on Sunday he is still a “no” on passing a stopgap funding bill.

    “No, ma’am,” the Tennessee Republican told Bash. “I think it’s completely blowing away our duties. We have a duty to pass a budget.”

    He also said he would strongly consider support for ousting McCarthy if the California Republican cuts a deal with Democrats to keep the government open.

    “That would be something I’d look strongly at, ma’am, if we do away with our duty that we said we’re going to do,” Burchett said.

    McCarthy has been hoping the momentum of a handful of appropriations bills, which will head to the House floor this week, would bring some of those holdouts into the fold. But Burchett’s comments Sunday are the latest indication that hope may be in vain.

    “We’re sticking to our guns and all of a sudden we’re the bad guys because we want to balance our budget,” Burchett said.

    Another holdout, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, said Sunday that McCarthy is in “breach” of promises he made regarding government spending when elected speaker.

    “We should have separate single-subject spending bills. Kevin McCarthy promised that in January, he is in breach of that promise, so I’m not here to hold the government hostage, I’m here to hold Kevin McCarthy to his word,” Gaetz said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

    Gaetz added it would be fine if some departments shut down for a few days if it meant measures such as the Homeland Security appropriations bill passed first.

    “If, you know, the (departments) of Labor and Education have to shut down for a few days as we get their appropriations in line, that’s certainly not something that is optimal, but I think it’s better than continuing on the current path we are to America’s financial ruin,” Gaetz said.

    The holdouts’ comments come as the White House urges Republicans to find a solution, warning that a government shutdown could threaten crucial federal programs.

    “Funding the government is one of the most basic responsibilities of Congress, and it’s time for Republicans to start doing the job America elected them to do,” President Joe Biden said Sunday at an event held by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

    Speaking on Sunday to CNN’s Bash, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called on House Republicans to “come to their senses and keep the government running.”

    “This is something that can and should be prevented,” Buttigieg said on “State of the Union.” He echoed Biden administration talking points, saying Republicans should hold up their end of the agreement made this year during debt ceiling negotiations.

    The White House has warned of massive disruptions to air travel if the government shuts down, as tens of thousands of air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration personnel will have to work without pay.

    “They’re under enough stress as it is doing that job without having to come into work with the added stress of not receiving a paycheck,” Buttigieg said of air traffic controllers.

    He added, “The American people don’t want to shutdown. From what I can tell, the Senate is ready to go. The administration is ready to go. House Republicans need to come to their senses and keep the government running.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House readies itself for operating in a government shutdown | CNN Politics

    White House readies itself for operating in a government shutdown | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The White House is now “girding for a shutdown” and senior West Wing officials are drawing up plans for which personnel would be deemed “essential” starting on October 1 as the deadline to fund the government is only a handful of days away.

    Most of President Joe Biden’s senior-most aides are expected to be designated “essential,” meaning they would not be furloughed, one administration official said. The contingency planning currently underway kicked off in earnest on Friday when the Office of Management and Budget began its formal process of communicating with agencies about the possibility of bringing to halt all work deemed “non-essential.”

    Within the ranks of the White House, prior shutdowns have seen employees whose roles carrying the title “Special Assistant to the President” – a rank that also carries access to the Navy Mess – automatically deemed to be serving in essential roles. A 2023 directory of White House staff and salaries submitted to Congress each year showed 97 employees with that title.

    Even Biden is planning to remain in Washington this weekend, a relatively rare occurrence, as the likelihood of a shutdown loomed. He typically decamps for one of his Delaware homes or Camp David on Friday afternoons, but White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Tuesday that he would remain in the capital.

    The active preparations related to White House staffing is yet another sign of the widespread anticipation in Washington that lawmakers on Capitol Hill may fail to find a way to fund the government by the end-of-month deadline.

    With four days until funding expires, Senate leadership on Tuesday reached a deal that would keep the government open through November 17, with $6.2 billion in funding for Ukraine and $6 billion for domestic disasters, CNN reported. A White House official had said earlier this week that Biden would be “broadly supportive” of a Senate-brokered deal, even if it included a fraction of the $24 billion the administration was seeking to continue assisting Ukraine.

    But even after a deal was reached in the Senate, White House officials maintained that the ultimate outcome remained unpredictable, in large part because it was impossible to guess what House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s next moves might be. McCarthy, who may see a harder-line package with steeper spending cuts as the antidote to his intra-party politics, has not committed to putting a bipartisan Senate bill on floor for a vote.

    “Ultimately it’s going to come down to Kevin McCarthy and his conference,” said National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications John Kirby on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper.”

    Behind the scenes, the White House is not confident the two chambers can reach a mutually agreed deal in the next few days.

    “Nothing is inevitable, but every day that passes, it’s more likely,” a White House official said of a shutdown. “It’s hard to say we are confident about anything.”

    The White House has been closely monitoring the ongoing deliberations on Capitol Hill, including McCarthy’s efforts to placate some of the hardline members of his own caucus, as well as the deliberations in the Senate.

    Yet without a direct role in the negotiations, the White House strategy has been as much about messaging as it is about finding a funding solution. Biden’s aides are broadly confident that Republicans will catch the blame if the government shutters, and the president recorded a video this week pointing the figure at a “small group of extreme House Republicans” he said are “determined to shut down the government.”

    House Republicans, he added, “refuse to stand up to the extremists in their party – so now everyone in America could be forced to pay the price.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Two members of the ‘Tennessee Three’ will win back remainder of their terms in special elections, CNN projects | CNN Politics

    Two members of the ‘Tennessee Three’ will win back remainder of their terms in special elections, CNN projects | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The two young, Black Tennessee state House Democrats whose expulsion following a gun control protest sparked a nationwide controversy in April, will win reelection on Thursday, CNN projects.

    State Rep. Justin Jones, who first won the overwhelmingly Democratic, Nashville-area District 52 seat with no Republican opposition in the 2022 general election, will defeat his largely unknown GOP opponent Laura Nelson.

    State Rep. Justin Pearson, who first won the deep blue Democratic, Memphis-area District 86 in a special election earlier this year, faced no Republican opposition for his seat, but he will defeat little-known independent Jeff Johnston.

    Following their victory, Jones said Friday that he will continue fighting for gun reform.

    “The speaker should know that his attempt to expel us for speaking up for our district will not happen unchallenged, that we’re not going to be afraid,” Jones told CNN’s Brianna Keilar. “We’re not going to bow down.”

    Both Jones and Pearson were reinstated on an interim basis by local officials within a week of their expulsion. But the two needed to win Thursday’s special elections in order to retain their seats for the remainder of their two-year terms.

    The GOP supermajority had cited breaches of decorum after the lawmakers had led a gun control protest from the statehouse floor in response to a Nashville school shooting that left three children and three adults dead. Their protest alongside Democratic state Rep. Gloria Johnson led to them being dubbed the “Tennessee Three.” Johnson, a White woman, also faced an expulsion vote, but was not ousted.

    Their expulsion in April turned into a flashpoint in debates over gun violence, race and what forms of protest are acceptable.

    Jones and Pearson met with President Joe Biden weeks after their ousters.

    “What the Republican legislature did was shocking. It was undemocratic,” Biden said in April.

    The pair’s reelection comes as the state assembly is expected to reconvene later this month. Tennessee GOP Gov. Bill Lee, who lost a friend in the Nashville shooting, scheduled a special session “to strengthen public safety.”

    Jones urged his “Republican colleagues to put the lives of Tennessee children above the campaign contributions” from gun lobbying groups.

    “We’re going to show up again and we’re going to bold, going be clear in our call for commonsense gun laws,” he told CNN Friday.

    Tennessee was home to three state legislative special elections on Thursday. State Rep. Timothy Hill, a Republican who represents the eastern District 3, will win the special election for the remainder of a two-year term, CNN projects, making permanent the former state lawmaker’s return to a seat he previously held for eight years.

    He will defeat Democratic challenger Lori Love in the deeply conservative district.

    Hill was appointed by local officials after Republican state Rep. Scotty Campbell resigned in April amid allegations he had sexually harassed an intern. Hill had represented a previous version of the district, first winning in 2012 and holding office until he ran for Congress in 2020 – a race in which he finished second in the GOP primary.

    None of the contests alter partisan control of the Tennessee House, where the GOP holds a 75 seat to 24 seat supermajority.

    This story and headline have been updated with CNN’s projections.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Illinois Supreme Court upholds state’s assault-style weapons ban | CNN Politics

    Illinois Supreme Court upholds state’s assault-style weapons ban | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Illinois Supreme Court on Friday upheld the state’s assault-style weapons ban in a 4-3 ruling after months of legal challenges sought to dismantle the law.

    State lawmakers in January passed, and Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law, a measure to ban assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. Those who already own such rifles face limitations on their sale and transfer and must register them with the Illinois State Police by 2024.

    That law – which came about six months after the July 2022 Highland Park, Illinois, shooting – faced immediate lawsuits in state and federal court that argued it violated the Illinois and US constitutions.

    A Macon County Circuit Court judge found earlier this year that exemptions to the law, including for law enforcement officers and armed guards at federally supervised nuclear sites, violated the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution.

    The Illinois Supreme Court agreed to fast-track the state’s appeal, and in a 20-page opinion, reversed the circuit court’s judgment. The majority’s opinion claimed to focus on two core issues brought by the plaintiffs: Whether the law violated the plaintiffs’ right to equal protection and if it constituted special legislation that created laws for some firearms owners and not others. The majority opinion notably did not decide if the ban violated the Second Amendment, asserting that the plaintiffs had waived this issue.

    “We express no opinion on the potential viability of plaintiffs’ waived claim concerning the Second Amendment,” they wrote.

    However, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Jerry Stocks, told CNN the majority justices misrepresented their arguments. Stocks said the Second Amendment is a fundamental right inextricably linked to their arguments and thus should have weighed heavily on scrutiny of the ban. Ignoring the issue altogether was improper, he said.

    “We have a circus in Illinois and the clowns are in charge right now,” Stocks said.

    Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said the new law is a “critical part” of the state’s efforts to combat gun violence, and Pritzker’s office hailed the decision to uphold “a commonsense gun reform law to keep mass-killing machines off of our streets and out of our schools, malls, parks, and places of worship.”

    Nancy Rotering, the Democratic mayor of Highland Park, called on Congress to act on tougher federal restrictions and said Friday’s decision “sends a message to residents that saving lives takes precedence over thoughts and prayers and acknowledges the importance of sensible gun control measures.”

    Illinois has struggled to restrict the flow of illegal guns, particularly in Chicago, while officials in the state have faced legal hurdles to implementing new gun restrictions.

    Despite gun rights advocates challenging the assault-style weapons ban and asking the US Supreme Court to block the ban – along with a city ordinance passed last year by Naperville, Illinois, that bans the sale of assault rifles – the US Supreme Court in May refused to intervene.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Going to food banks. Canceling after-school activities. How federal workers will manage a government shutdown | CNN Politics

    Going to food banks. Canceling after-school activities. How federal workers will manage a government shutdown | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The last time the federal government shut down five years ago, Jesse Santiago found himself standing in line at his local food bank, rationing medication and falling behind on his mortgage payments, which ultimately cost him his home.

    Santiago, who has worked as a Transportation Security Administration officer at Houston’s airport since 2002, likes his job and takes pride in keeping Americans safe when they fly. But he’s outraged that Congress once again is on the brink of letting the federal government shut down, throwing him and his fellow federal workers into financial and emotional chaos.

    “Imagine serving the American people only to have to beg for food,” said Santiago, who lives with his husband in Cleveland, Texas, and has started stocking up on canned beans and other nonperishable food in case this impasse drags out. “I refuse to stand in food lines again while working for the federal government.”

    Santiago is among several million federal employees who will stop being paid if lawmakers cannot agree on funding the federal agencies by the start of the coming fiscal year on October 1. Some, like Santiago, are considered essential workers and have to go to work regardless. Others will be furloughed until Congress passes a spending package, which took more than a month during the 2018-19 shutdown.

    Hundreds of people wrote to CNN to express their views about the looming shutdown. Several said they were concerned about taking trips to national parks, including a bride-to-be who is holding her wedding at one in mid-October, while many senior citizens said they were terrified they wouldn’t get their monthly Social Security checks. (In fact, Social Security payments continue during shutdowns.)

    Some charitable organizations are already offering to help federal workers get through their payless period. Earlier this week, chef Jose Andres said his World Central Kitchen restaurants in Washington, DC, would provide food to federal employees during a shutdown, as they did during the previous impasse.

    Among the hardest hit by government shutdowns are federal employees, who won’t get paid until Congress funds their agencies, and federal contractors, who don’t receive back pay. Many wrote of the toll the last shutdown – the longest on record – took on them and their concerns that they and their families will likely have to go through this again.

    For Carrie Martin, who works in the finance department of the National Institutes of Health, potentially losing her paycheck comes at a tough time. Not only is she shelling out more for groceries, rent and other essentials because of inflation, but she’ll have to start making student loan payments of a little more than $700 a month in October.

    “Not knowing when I will get my next paycheck is very stressful considering I am living paycheck to paycheck,” said Martin, who earned a master’s in health administration degree from George Washington University this spring. “Adding student loans back into my bills is making it 10 times worse.”

    Plus, she said it’s difficult to work under such uncertain conditions. She and her colleagues have been putting in extra hours preparing for the end of the current fiscal year and the start of the next one.

    “Preparing for something that may not happen takes a lot of energy out of you,” said Martin, who is also still adjusting to living on one income after her wife passed away last year.

    Other federal workers are already planning to cut back their spending.

    Nicole, a federal law enforcement officer in southern Missouri, said she won’t be able to throw a party for her 6-year-old son whose birthday is in early October. She had hoped to invite a dozen or so children since he just entered kindergarten and is starting to make friends. Instead, her son will just have cake and presents at home with his parents, grandparents and younger brother.

    “I’ll probably feel more sad than he will,” said Nicole, who did not want her last name used because of the nature of her job. “I don’t want to tap into my savings and not pay my bills.”

    Even though her husband will continue to be paid since he works in the restaurant industry, Nicole said the family will have to make sacrifices, including not signing up her older son for after-school activities, such as basketball and painting. And they’ll skip going to fall festivals in their area.

    During the last shutdown, they bought fewer groceries, reduced their cable plan and paid a decent amount of late fees on bills. Plus, they had to take out a loan from their local credit union, though at least they didn’t have to pay interest on it.

    “That was probably one of the worst things we’ve been through,” said Nicole, who still has to report to work during a shutdown.

    The stress from the 2013 impasse prompted Rob, who was a federal police officer in Washington, DC, at the time, to leave federal service. He had to work long shifts without knowing when he’d see his next paycheck.

    A decade later, Rob decided to return to the federal workforce so he could get a better-paying job than the one he has working security at a local retailer. He is currently behind on his rent and car payments and depends on food stamps to feed his family, including his 4-year-old daughter.

    Just last week, he accepted a position as a police officer at a Veterans Health Administration hospital with a tentative start date of November 5. But if the government shuts down, he fears his paperwork and medical reviews will be delayed so he’ll have to wait longer to begin the job he desperately needs.

    “This was a light at the end of the tunnel for us,” said Rob, who now lives outside of Boston and did not want his last name used for fear of losing his job offer. “I just want to work. I just want to serve my country, do my job.”

    Many federal contractors, meanwhile, are gearing up to give up their paychecks completely until Congress resolves the impasse.

    Theresa Springer of Pittsburgh is a senior consultant for a small management consulting firm that works with various federal agencies. During the last shutdown, she and her coworkers were able to take paid time off, so her income didn’t suffer even though it cost her employer hundreds of thousands of dollars. The company is making the same offer again this year, giving her around two weeks of breathing room before she stops being paid.

    Though Springer said she has the savings to get her through, she will have to watch her spending and may have to delay some purchases if there is a shutdown. Regardless, she’s irritated at lawmakers’ inability to govern and thinks they should forgo their paychecks.

    “My emergency fund is for emergencies, not for the federal government not being able to get their act together,” she said.

    The situation is also tough for small businesses that depend on federal employees, like Sue Doyle’s Home Sweet Home Cleaning Services in Columbia, Maryland. Between 10% and 20% of her clients work for the government, and many cancel their appointments during shutdowns.

    During shutdowns, Sue Doyle temporarily loses many of her clients who work for the federal government.

    Not only does that hurt her income, it cuts into the earnings of her seven employees. Doyle tries not to lay anyone off, opting instead to reduce all of their schedules. While most understand, they are frustrated because they also have bills to pay, she said.

    “A shutdown has a trickle-down consequence,” said Doyle, who is already talking to a bank about a business loan so she can cover her expenses during the impasse. “Hopefully, my employees won’t have more than one day off a week.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress poised for messy September as McCarthy races to avoid government shutdown | CNN Politics

    Congress poised for messy September as McCarthy races to avoid government shutdown | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    GOP hardliners in the House are eager to play a game of chicken over the end-of-the-month deadline to fund federal agencies, seeking to force the White House and Senate to make a choice: Accept a slew of conservative priorities or risk a debilitating government shutdown.

    And caught in the middle, once again, is Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

    In a private conference call last week, McCarthy urged his colleagues to back a short-term spending deal to avoid an October 1 shutdown and instead focus their energy on the larger funding fight later in the fall, sources on the call told CNN. His argument: The year-long spending bills to fund federal agencies would be better suited to enact cuts and policy changes they have demanded, including on hot-button issues like border security and immigration policy.

    And, he argued, if they spend too much time squabbling among themselves, they’ll end up getting jammed by senators in both parties and forced to accept higher spending levels than they’d like.

    “It’s a great place to have a very strong fight and to hold our ground,” McCarthy told his colleagues, according to a person on the call, referring to having an immigration fight on the bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security – not on short-term funding legislation that the far-right House Freedom Caucus is pushing to use as a bargaining chip.

    As the Senate returns this week after its August recess, and the House reconvenes next week, the two chambers have little time to resolve major differences over funding the government. The two sides are hundreds of billions of dollars apart after McCarthy backed away from a previous deal he cut with the White House and later agreed to pursue deeper cuts demanded by his right-flank.

    Now, the two sides will have to work together to punt the fight until potentially early December and pass a short-term funding bill – all as Congress faces other key end-of-the-month deadlines, such as an extension of federal aviation programs, and as a potential impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden looms in the House.

    None of it will be that easy.

    The White House and senators from both parties want to tie the short-term funding bill to $24 billion in aid to Ukraine and with another $16 billion in much-needed funds for communities ravaged by a spate of natural disasters. But a contingent of vocal House conservatives are furiously opposed to quickly passing more aid to Ukraine – while GOP sources said McCarthy privately voiced displeasure at the White House for formally unveiling its funding request during the congressional recess and not briefing lawmakers.

    Moreover, to pass legislation in the House by a majority vote, the chamber must first approve a rule – a procedural vote that is typically only supported by the majority party and opposed by the minority party. Yet several hard-right conservatives told CNN they are prepared to take down the rule over the spending bill if their demands aren’t met.

    That would leave McCarthy with a choice: Either side with conservative hardliners and set up a major clash with the White House or cut a deal with Democrats and pass the spending bill by a two-thirds majority, a threshold that would allow them to approve the bill without having to adopt a rule first but could force McCarthy to give more concessions to Democrats.

    But if he works with Democrats to circumvent his far-right, McCarthy risks enraging the very members who have threatened to push for a vote to oust him from the speakership.

    GOP Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, who leads one of the appropriations subcommittees, acknowledged that they’ll need Democratic support for both a short-term spending patch and for any longer-term bills to fund the government – which he said could put McCarthy in a predicament.

    “The challenge for McCarthy, and I’ll be real honest with you, is that if he works with the Democrats, obviously, the Democrats are not going to do it for free. They want something. So, it’s going to be a compromise – one of those really bad words in Washington for some reason,” Simpson told CNN. “Then you’re going to find a resolution introduced on the floor to vacate the chair.”

    One GOP lawmaker acknowledged there have been conversations among conservative hardliners about using a “motion to vacate” – a procedural tool that forces a floor vote to oust the speaker – to gain leverage in the funding fight, if they feel like McCarthy isn’t sticking to his spending promises or gives too much away to Democrats.

    A few on the right, who were furious with McCarthy over his bipartisan debt ceiling deal, briefly floated the idea of triggering a motion to vacate this summer, but then dialed back their threat when it became clear there wasn’t much support for the move.

    McCarthy allies say the hard-liners are playing with fire.

    GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who represents a Nebraska swing district won by Biden, said of the right’s hardline approach to spending: “It’s not realistic.”

    “This theory that you gotta have 100% (of what you want), and if you don’t get 100, you’ll take zero – it’s not that the way it works,” he added. “And it’s not good for the country.”

    Part of the McCarthy strategy to get conservative hardliners on board is to channel their energy on other matters that won’t lead to an end-of-the-month shutdown.

    In recent weeks, McCarthy has tried to use the right’s desire to investigate and impeach Biden as part of his argument against a shutdown, warning that their probes into the administration would have to come to a halt if the government were to shut down.

    Meanwhile, the House will consider its homeland spending bill on the floor the week they return from recess, giving the right a fresh opportunity to offer amendments and shape their party’s border policy — and train their focus away from the must-pass short-term extension.

    Democrats are already trying to pin the blame on any shutdown on the House GOP.

    “When the Senate returns next week, our focus will be on funding the government and preventing House Republican extremists from forcing a government shutdown,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a letter to his colleagues on Friday.

    How McCarthy deals with the immediate spending demands remains to be seen, including whether he’ll agree to pair the short-term spending bill with any aid to Ukraine.

    While Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell is a staunch advocate for Ukraine aid, McCarthy has been more circumspect amid loud calls from his right-flank against pouring more money into the war-torn country.

    And as he toured Maui on Saturday, McCarthy acknowledged the need for more disaster relief aid, though it’s unclear if he will separate that package from Ukraine funding — even as the White House and senators in both parties want them to move together.

    Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, leader of the conservative Republican Study Committee, told CNN that disaster relief and Ukraine “need to be separated.”

    “The president needs to come forward, or the speaker, leadership of the Republican Party, the Democrat Party need to come together to share with the American people what we’re doing, what’s the outcome of this?” Hern said.

    Simpson said of tying Ukraine aid to the short-term spending bill: “That’s a tougher sell. Particularly in our conference.”

    But advocates of more Ukraine aid say that the longer that Congress waits, the more difficult it will be to approve money needed to deter Russian aggression and the brutality of Vladimir Putin’s war.

    “I think we need to get that done because we’re not going to get it done next year, right?” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat. “Once you get truly into the presidential cycle, everything gets that much more difficult.”

    Hard-line conservatives are already threatening to make McCarthy’s calculus more complicated if he cuts a short-term spending deal with Democrats. Several of them are already threatening to oppose any rule if the bill falls short of their demands – a tactic that they have employed this Congress to bring the House to a halt. It would take just five Republicans to take down a rule, assuming all Democrats vote against it as they typically do.

    Rep. Ralph Norman – who serves on the House Rules Committee, where such a procedural step would originate – told CNN he hasn’t made up his mind yet on the rule.

    But the South Carolina Republican said he has concerns about the supplemental request for Ukraine aid, which he said needs to be offset, as well as top-line funding levels for their remaining spending bills.

    “There is no appetite for getting our financial house in order by anyone of either party,” he said.

    Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, another hardliner, also hinted that he may vote against both the short-term spending bill and the rule, but when asked for clarification by CNN, he said: “I’m on a very different decision calculus than this.”

    Gaetz didn’t respond to a follow-up question about what he meant, but later posted on social media a long list of grievances he has with GOP leadership – including on spending issues – and ended his post with: “We are going to have to seize the initiative and make some changes.”

    Some have made their demands directly known to GOP leaders, including Virginia Rep. Bob Good, who said on last week’s conference call that lawmakers shouldn’t fear a potential shutdown, according to a source on the call.

    Other Republicans made clear they want no part of a shutdown – something California Rep. Darrell Issa said is “not constructive.”

    “We will get there,” Issa said of funding the government. “Now if we get there earlier without a shutdown, the American people are better served.”

    When asked how the next few months will shake out, Simpson had some words of warning: “I tell people: buckle up. It’s going to be crazy for September, October, November, December,” Simpson said. “The next four months are going to be wild.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Looking at an upcoming Supreme Court term from the vantage point of the first Monday in October rarely tells the full story of what lies ahead, but the docket already includes major cases concerning the intersection between the First Amendment and social media, gun rights, racial gerrymandering and the power of the executive branch when it comes to regulation.

    The court will still determine if it will hear oral arguments on issues such as medication abortion and transgender rights, not to mention the possibility of a flurry of emergency requests related to the 2024 election.

    Here are some of the key cases on which the court will hear oral arguments this term:

    After the Supreme Court issued a major decision last year expanding gun rights nationwide, lower courts began reconsidering hundreds of firearms regulations across the country under the new standard crafted by Justice Clarence Thomas that a gun law passes legal muster only if it is rooted in history and tradition.

    On the heels of that decision, a federal appeals court invalidated a federal law that bars an individual who is subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. That law, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “is an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

    The Biden administration has appealed, saying the ruling “threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”

    In 2019, nearly two-thirds of domestic homicides in the United States were committed with a gun, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

    Lawyers for Zackey Rahimi, a man who was prosecuted under the law in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend, have urged the justices to let the lower court opinion stand, arguing in part that there is no law from the founding era comparable to the statute at hand.

    Racial gerrymandering: South Carolina congressional maps

    Justices will consider a congressional redistricting plan drawn by South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature in the wake of the 2020 census. Critics say it was designed with discriminatory purpose and amounts to an illegal racial gerrymander.

    The case focuses the court’s attention once again on the issue of race and map drawing and comes after the court ordered Alabama to redraw the state’s congressional map last term to account for the fact that the state is 27% black. The decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, surprised liberals who feared the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    In the latest case, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott, are challenging the state’s congressional District 1 that is located along the southeastern coast and is anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset, though a Republican recaptured the seat in 2020.

    The person who devised the map has testified that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting age population of the district was likely viewed during the drafting process.

    A three-judge district court panel struck down the plan in January, saying that race had been the predominant motivating factor. “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.”

    Expert explains why Justice Thomas’ gifts from wealthy friends are problematic

    In the latest attack against the so-called administrative state, the justices are considering whether to overturn decades old precedent to scale back the power of federal agencies, impacting how the government tackles issues such as climate change, immigration, labor conditions and public health.

    At issue is an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.

    In agreeing to hear the case, the justices signaled they will reconsider a 1984 decision – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law. First, they examine a statute to see if Congress’ intent is clear. It if is – then the matter is settled. But if there is ambiguity – the court defers to the agency’s expertise.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that the agency was acting within the scope of its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and said the fishermen are not responsible for all the costs. The regulation was put in place to combat overfishing of the fisheries off the coasts of the US.

    Representing the fishermen, former Solicitor General Paul Clement argues that the government exceeded its authority and needs direct and clear congressional authorization to make such a demand. “The ‘net effect’ of Chevron,” Clement said, is that it “incentives a dynamic where Congress does far less than the Framers anticipated, and the executive branch is left to do far more by deciding controversial issues via regulatory fiat”

    For the second time in recent years, the court is taking aim at a watchdog agency created to combat unfair and deceptive practices against consumers, in a case that could deal a fatal blow to the future of the agency and send reverberations throughout the financial services industry.

    At the center of the case at hand is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an independent agency set up in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown that works to monitor the practices of lenders, debt collectors and credit rating agencies.

    Congress chose to fund the CFPB from outside the annual appropriations process to ensure its independence. As such, the agency receives its funding each year from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System. But the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that the funding scheme violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, that, the court said “ensures Congress’ “exclusive power over the federal purse.”

    According to the CFPB, the agency has obtained more than $18.9 billion in ordered relief, including restitution and canceled debts, for more than 195 million consumers, and more than $4.1 billion in penalties, in actions brought by the agency against financial institutions and individuals that have broken federal consumer financial protection laws.

    A handful of other agencies have similar funding schemes including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Three years ago, the Supreme Court limited the independence of the CFPB by invalidating its leadership structure. A 5-4 court held that the structure violated the separation of powers because the president was restricted from removing the director, even if they had policy disagreements.

    Agency regulatory authority: Securities and Exchange Commission

    The justices are looking at the in-house enforcement proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission in another case that invites the conservative majority to pare back the regulatory authority of federal agencies.

    The court’s decision could impact whether the SEC and other agencies can conduct enforcement proceedings in-house, using administrative courts staffed with agency employees, or whether such actions must be brought in federal court.

    On one side are critics of such agency courts who argue that they allow federal employees to serve as prosecutors, judges and jury, issuing rulings that could particularly hurt small businesses. On the other side are those who point out that several agencies, including the Social Security Administration, have such internal proceedings because the topics are often complex and the agency has more expertise than a federal judge.

    The case arose in 2013 after the SEC brought an enforcement action against George Jarkesy, who had established two hedge funds with his advisory firm, Patriot28, for securities fraud.

    The 5th Circuit ruled that the SEC’s proceedings deprive individuals of their Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury. In addition, the court said that Congress had improperly delegated legislative power to the SEC, which gave the agency unconstrained authority at times to choose the in-house administrative proceeding rather than filing suit in district court.

    In December, the court will examine the historic multibillion-dollar Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement with several states that would ultimately offer the Sackler family broad protection from OxyContin-related civil claims.

    Until recently, Purdue was controlled by the Sackler family, who withdrew billions of dollars from the company before it filed for bankruptcy. The family has now agreed to contribute up to $6 billion to Purdue’s reorganization fund on the condition that the Sacklers receive a release from civil liability.

    The Biden administration, representing the US Trustee, the executive branch agency that monitors the administration of bankruptcy cases, has called the plan “exceptional and unprecedented” in court papers, noting that lower courts have divided on when parties can be released from liability for actions that caused societal harm.

    “The plan’s release ‘absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, fully, finally, forever and permanently releases’ the Sacklers from every conceivable type of opioid-related civil claim – even claims based on fraud and other forms of willful misconduct that could not be discharged if the Sacklers filed for bankruptcy in their individual capacities,” Prelogar argued in court papers.

    For the second year running, the justices will leap into the online moderation debate and decide whether states can essentially control how social media companies operate.

    If upheld, laws from Florida and Texas could open the door to more state legislation requiring platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to treat content in specific ways within certain jurisdictions – and potentially expose the companies to more content moderation lawsuits.

    It could also make it harder for platforms to remove what they determine is misinformation, hate speech or other offensive material.

    “These cases could completely reshape the digital public sphere. The question of what limits the First Amendment imposes on legislatures’ ability to regulate social media is immensely important – for speech, and for democracy as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement.

    “It’s difficult to think of any other recent First Amendment cases in which the stakes were so high,” Jaffer added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gun rights organizations sue New Mexico governor over gun violence order | CNN Politics

    Gun rights organizations sue New Mexico governor over gun violence order | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The National Association for Gun Rights filed a lawsuit against New Mexico’s Democratic governor and health secretary Saturday over orders declaring gun violence a public health emergency and suspending open and concealed carry laws in cities and counties based on crime statistics.

    Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham issued the emergency order after the shooting deaths of three children from July through September, as well as a pair of mass shootings in the state.

    The lawsuit, filed in the US district court for New Mexico on Saturday, lists Lujan Grisham and New Mexico Department of Health Secretary Patrick Allen as defendants.

    The National Association for Gun Rights argues in the lawsuit that the orders violate the Second Amendment.

    “The State must justify the Carry Prohibition by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. But it is impossible for the State to meet this burden, because there is no such historical tradition of firearms regulation in this Nation,” the lawsuit reads.

    Throughout the suit, the plaintiffs cite a 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York gun law that restricted the right to concealed carry outside the home.

    The lawsuit also lists Albuquerque resident Foster Allen Haines as a plaintiff. Haines intended to partake in the state’s open carry law, according to the complaint.

    “Haines is precluded from doing so by the Carry Prohibition, which deprives him of his fundamental right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment,” the lawsuit reads.

    The plaintiffs ask the court to grant an injunction prohibiting the emergency order from being enforced, the lawsuit states.

    A second lawsuit was also filed Saturday against Lujan Grisham; Allen; Department of Public Safety Secretary Jason Bowie; and State Police Chief W. Troy Weisler by Bernalillo County resident Randy Donk and the Gun Owners of America. The suit likens the executive order and public health emergency declaration to “martial law” and argues that it is a suspension of constitutional rights.

    This lawsuit also asks the court for an immediate temporary restraining order and later a preliminary and permanent injunction to be granted.

    Caroline Sweeney, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham, said in a statement Sunday that the governor “is prepared to fight challenges to her decision.”

    “Gun violence is a public health emergency in the state and extraordinary measures are required to prevent more innocent New Mexicans from being killed by guns,” the statement said.

    CNN has reached out to the Department of Health for comment on the lawsuits.

    Lujan Grisham last week also issued a statewide enforcement plan that includes a 30-day suspension of open and concealed carry laws in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County, CNN previously reported.

    The order, which went into immediate effect, temporarily bans the carrying of guns on public property in those counties with certain exceptions, according to the governor’s office. Citizens with carry permits will still be allowed to possess their weapons on private property such as gun ranges and gun stores if the firearm is transported in a locked box, or if a trigger lock or other mechanism is used to render the gun incapable of being fired.

    The order also prohibits firearms on state property, including state buildings and schools, as well as at parks and other places where children gather. Under the order, licensed firearm dealers will be inspected monthly by New Mexico’s Regulation and Licensing Division to ensure compliance with sales and storage laws.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House speaker crisis is a symptom of historic Republican divisions | CNN Politics

    House speaker crisis is a symptom of historic Republican divisions | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    You might have thought it was a Democrat who recently said that House Republicans were in the “same stupid clown car with a different driver.” And while I’m sure many Democrats feel that way, it was Republican Rep. Dusty Johnson who uttered that memorable phrase.

    The South Dakota congressman was referring to the current House mess after eight Republicans voted (with Democrats) to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker.

    But whether or not the House Republican majority elects a new speaker anytime soon is irrelevant. What we’re seeing now is something we haven’t seen in modern times.

    This episode is symptomatic of a historic Republican divide in the House: It’s not just over ideology but also over trust in their leaders to compromise in a way that makes the party happy.

    Much of the recent discussion over House Republican divisions tries to frame it along the right-left ideological spectrum. Those who voted against McCarthy are more conservative, on average, than the GOP at large – and this is a very conservative House majority. But there are plenty of Republicans who are quite conservative and didn’t vote McCarthy out (think Texas Rep. Chip Roy, for example).

    What’s also going on is a split over whether Republicans should try to govern by way of compromise. Are people willing to line up behind the compromises House GOP leaders have made with Democrats to keep the government going?

    Analyzing roll call votes in Congress can offer some answers. Not surprisingly, the Republican representative who has been the least friendly to party leadership this Congress is Florida’s Matt Gaetz, according to a metric produced by the academics at Voteview.

    More importantly, the difference on this score between those House Republicans most open to compromise and friendly to party leadership and those most opposed (i.e., the top fifth and bottom fifth percentiles) is wider than it has been in the past 80 years. These lawmakers on the edges of the conference are so important because of how narrow the current GOP majority is – all it takes is a few members to topple the speaker, as we saw earlier this month.

    Representatives like Gaetz didn’t pop out of nowhere. They are in the Congress because people elected them.

    Specifically, many of the same people who really like former President Donald Trump.

    Take a look at a question asked in our latest CNN/SSRS survey published on Thursday. We asked whether Republicans in Congress should “stand firm on beliefs without compromise, even if not much gets done in Washington, or work across the aisle to get things done in Washington, even if it means losing out on some high-priority policies?”

    A majority of voters who are behind Trump in the 2024 GOP primary contest (52%) wanted Republicans in Congress to stand firm. Among Republicans not behind Trump, just 23% preferred lawmakers who didn’t compromise. Most (77%) yearned for congressional Republicans who worked across the aisle.

    Of course, most Republicans (58%) are backing Trump in the primary, the CNN poll found. Part of Trump’s appeal is that he isn’t a conventional Republican who does business as usual.

    Therefore, it shouldn’t be surprising that a majority of Trump supporters (56%) approve of McCarthy being removed as speaker after he made a deal with Democrats to avoid a government shutdown.

    Among all other Republicans, only 37% approved of McCarthy’s ousting.

    I should note that among Republican voters, the idea of compromising to avert a government shutdown isn’t terribly different than it was a decade ago. What does seem to have changed, to some degree, is the people in Congress.

    GOP lawmakers who were seen as anti-establishment a decade ago – like Kentucky’s Thomas Massie, who voted to retain McCarthy as speaker – are apparently not anti-establishment enough these days.

    Folks like Massie have been pushed aside for folks like Gaetz. For at least some Republicans in Congress, this now is the party of Trump.

    Another key difference is that the current size of the House GOP majority is more reminiscent of the late 1990s and early 2000s than the tea party era of a decade ago.

    Some 25 years ago, NBC polling found that Republicans were far more open to compromise than they were to standing on principle. When it came to negotiations with Democratic President Bill Clinton, 63% of Republicans wanted compromise and only 28% wanted to stand on principles when forced to pick between the two choices.

    Today, Republicans again have a slim majority in the House – but with a party electorate willing to tolerate a lot in the name of principle. It’s no surprise then that we’re dealing with a House GOP leadership fight that seems more fitting of an Aaron Sorkin script than the real world.

    [ad_2]

    Source link