ReportWire

Tag: Supreme courts

  • Red States Are Rolling Back the Rights Revolution

    Red States Are Rolling Back the Rights Revolution

    [ad_1]

    The struggle over the sweeping red-state drive to roll back civil rights and liberties has primarily moved to the courts.

    Since 2021, Republican-controlled states have passed a swarm of laws to restrict voting rights, increase penalties for public protest, impose new restrictions on transgender youth, ban books, and limit what teachers, college professors, and employers can say about race, gender, and sexual orientation. Some states are even exploring options to potentially prosecute people who help women travel out of state to obtain an abortion.

    In the early legal skirmishing over this agenda, opponents including the federal Justice Department have won a surprising number of decisions, mostly in federal courts, blocking states from implementing the new laws.

    But eventually most of these issues are likely to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court’s six-member Republican-appointed majority has generally ruled in ways that favor the conservative social-policy priorities reflected in the red-state actions. That inclination was most dramatically demonstrated in last year’s Dobbs decision, when the Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion.

    In the coming years, the Court will face a series of decisions on the new red-state agenda that may determine whether the U.S. maintains a strong baseline of civil rights available in all states or reverts back toward a pre-1960s world where people’s rights varied much more depending on where they lived.

    “The idea of the Bill of Rights was that we would have a floor of civil rights and civil liberties that the states could not go below,” David Cole, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, told me. “But for that floor to be meaningful, it has to be enforced by the Supreme Court ultimately.

    “In our history, the courts have sometimes done that courageously and bravely, and other times they have fallen down on the job,” Cole continued. “And when they have fallen down on the job, you get a two-tier system in this country.”

    Since President Joe Biden’s election, the 22 states where Republicans hold unified control of the governorship and the state legislature have moved with remarkable speed to create a two-tier system on issues including abortion, classroom censorship, and the treatment of LGBTQ people. “The fact that all of this is happening on so many different fronts simultaneously is unprecedented,” Donald Kettl, a former dean and professor emeritus of the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, told me.

    This broad red-state push to retrench rights, as I’ve written, is reversing the general trend since the 1960s of nationalizing more rights, a process often called “the rights revolution.”

    Civil-rights advocates have limited options for reversing this tide of red-state legislation. So long as the Senate filibuster exists, Democrats have virtually no chance of passing national legislation to override the red-state actions on issues such as abortion and voting rights, even if the party regains unified control of the federal government after the 2024 elections.

    Read: Why Biden just can’t shake Trump in the polls

    In some states, opponents can try to rescind these measures directly through ballot initiatives, like the Ohio referendum that, if passed in November, would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban. But not all states permit such referendums, and even in those that do, ballot measures to reverse many of the key red-state restrictions would face an uncertain fate given the underlying conservative lean of their electorates.

    Opponents are challenging some of the new statutes in state courts. The Center for Reproductive Rights, a group that supports legal abortion, has cases pending in six states, including Ohio, Wyoming, Iowa, and Florida, arguing that abortion restrictions adopted since the Dobbs decision violate provisions in those states’ constitutions. But recent rulings by state supreme courts—in South Carolina, upholding the state’s six-week abortion ban, and in Texas, dismissing an injunction against the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors—show the limitations of relying on red-state courts to undo the work of red-state political leaders.

    “Sometimes the state courts provide a sympathetic venue,” Cole said. “But oftentimes in the red states, precisely because the courts have been appointed by red-state governors and legislatures, they are not especially open to challenges to their legislature’s laws.”

    That leaves federal courts as the principal arena for those hoping to overturn the restrictive red-state laws.

    These federal cases raise a range of legal arguments. Mostly they revolve around the claim that the state laws violate the U.S. Constitution’s protection of free speech in the First Amendment and the due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. As courts consider these claims, the key early federal rulings have covered cases involving a variety of issues.

    Freedom of speech: In a striking victory for critics, a federal district judge in Florida issued two decisions blocking enforcement of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s signature Stop WOKE Act, which restricts how private employers and college and university professors talk about racial inequity. In one ruling, Judge Mark Walker called the law “positively dystopian.” He wrote: “The powers in charge of Florida’s public university system have declared the state has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of ‘freedom.’”  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has denied DeSantis’s request to lift Walker’s injunction against the law while the case proceeds.

    Federal courts have also blocked enforcement of the Florida law DeSantis signed increasing the penalties for public protest. But another federal judge has twice dismissed a case attempting to block DeSantis’s “Don’t Say Gay” law restricting discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in K–12 classrooms. (Opponents of the law are appealing that decision.)

    Litigation against the multiple red-state measures making it easier for critics to ban books in school libraries has not advanced as far. But in May, PEN America, a free-speech group, together with Penguin Random House and several authors filed a suit against Florida’s Escambia County school district over the removal of titles about people of color and LGBTQ people that could become the bellwether case.

    Abortion: Though the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision preempted any frontal federal legal challenge to the state laws restricting or banning the procedure, abortion-rights supporters continue to fight elements of the new statutes.

    In late July, a federal district judge blocked guidance from Raúl Labrador, the Republican attorney general of Idaho, a state that has banned abortion, warning doctors that they could be prosecuted for helping patients travel out of state to obtain the procedure. A separate federal lawsuit filed in July is challenging Idaho’s law imposing criminal penalties on adults who transport a minor out of state to obtain an abortion. The Justice Department won an injunction last year preventing Idaho from enforcing another portion of its abortion ban on the grounds that it violates federal law requiring treatment of people needing emergency care in hospitals.

    “Dobbs overturned 50 years of precedent and got rid of the fundamental liberty right to abortion, but it definitely didn’t answer every question,” Amy Myrick, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told me. “And federal courts are now being faced with a public-health crisis of enormous magnitude, so at some point they will have to decide whether a ban becomes irrational if it forces patients to get sick or even die based on what a state says.”

    Immigration: Another front in the red-state offensive is an increasing effort to seize control of immigration policy from the federal government. The Biden administration last week won a federal-district-court decision requiring Texas to remove a flotilla of buoys it has placed in the Rio Grande River to repel undocumented migrants (though the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals put that ruling on hold just one day later). A coalition of civil-rights groups is suing Florida in federal court over a DeSantis law making it a crime to transport an undocumented migrant in the state.

    Voting: As with abortion, critics have found a legal basis to challenge only provisions at the periphery of the voting restrictions approved in most red states since 2021. Last month, the Justice Department won a federal court ruling blocking a measure that Texas had passed making it easier for officials to reject absentee ballots. In July, a federal-district-court judge upheld key components of Georgia’s 2021 law making voting more difficult, but did partially overturn that law’s most controversial element: a ban on providing food and water to people waiting in line to vote.

    LGBTQ rights: Federal litigation has probably progressed most against the intertwined red-state moves to impose new restrictions on transgender people. The Biden Justice Department has joined cases seeking to overturn the red-state actions on each of the major issues.

    Two federal appellate courts have blocked policies requiring transgender students to use the bathroom (or locker room) of their gender assigned at birth, while the Eleventh Circuit late last year upheld such a law in Florida. Two federal circuit courts have also blocked the enforcement of laws in Idaho and West Virginia barring transgender girls from participating on female sports teams in high school, though a lower federal court has subsequently upheld the West Virginia law.

    Of all the issues affecting transgender people, litigation against the statutes passed in 22 Republican-controlled states barring gender-affirming care for minor children, even with their parents’ approval, may reach the Supreme Court first. In a flurry of decisions made mostly this summer, multiple federal district courts have issued injunctions blocking the implementation of such laws in several states. One federal appellate court has upheld such an injunction, but two others recently overturned lower-court rulings and allowed Tennessee and Alabama to put their laws into effect. (After those decisions, a federal district court last week also allowed Georgia to enforce its ban.) Such a split among circuit courts could encourage the Supreme Court to step in, as do the momentous and timely stakes for families facing choices about medical care. “For families who have adolescents who need this care, some of whom have been receiving this care, it’s a matter of family urgency,” Jennifer Pizer, the chief legal officer at Lambda Legal, a group that advocates for LGBTQ rights, told me.

    Although liberal groups and the Biden administration have been heartened by many of these early rulings, they recognize that the most significant legal fights are all rolling toward the same foreboding terminus: the Supreme Court.

    Over recent years, the Court has restricted the ability of blue states to impinge on rights that conservatives prize while mostly allowing red states to constrain rights that liberals prioritize. The Court has displayed the former instinct in its rulings striking down gun-control laws in blue jurisdictions, allowing religious-freedom exemptions to state civil-rights statutes, and barring public universities from using affirmative action. Conversely, the Court has loosened restrictions on red states with the Dobbs decision and the 2013 Shelby County ruling effectively revoking the Justice Department’s authority to preemptively block changes in state voting laws.

    Those who see this past as prologue believe that the current Supreme Court majority may provide the red states great leeway to establish a legal regime that defines rights much more narrowly than in the rest of the country. At various points in American history, the Supreme Court has certainly done that before, most notoriously in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, when the justices approved the system of “separate but equal” Jim Crow segregation across the South that persisted for nearly the next 70 years.

    But several legal experts I spoke with said it was premature to assume that these recent rulings ensure that the Supreme Court will reflexively uphold the contemporary wave of red-state measures. Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, told me that the Court’s decisions in recent years have advanced “what’s been the conservative Republican agenda for decades: Overrule Roe v. Wade; eliminate affirmative action; protect gun rights.” It’s less clear, Chemerinsky believes, what the Court will do with this “new conservative agenda” rising from the red states. Although the six Republican-appointed justices are clearly sympathetic to conservative goals, he said, “some of what the [states] are doing is so radical, I don’t know that the Supreme Court will go along.”

    The ACLU’s Cole notes that the Court appeared to move more cautiously in the term that ended in June than it did in the 2021–22 session, which concluded with the cannon shot overruling Roe. With a few prominent exceptions headlined by the decision banning affirmative action in higher education, “civil rights and civil liberties did pretty well in the Supreme Court this term,” Cole maintained. “Much is still to be determined, but I think this term showed us that you can’t just assume that this Court is going to impose right-wing results regardless of precedent.”

    Conservatives remain confident that this Supreme Court majority will not reject many of these new red-state laws. They see an early signal of how some of these fights may play out in the August decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals allowing Alabama to enforce its law banning gender-affirming care for minors.

    Written by Barbara Lagoa, who was appointed by Donald Trump, that ruling specifically cited the Supreme Court’s logic in the Dobbs case to argue that Alabama’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors would likely survive legal scrutiny. In Dobbs, the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito said the Fourteenth Amendment did not encompass the right to abortion because there was no evidence that such a right was “deeply rooted” in American history. Likewise, Lagoa wrote of gender-affirming care that “the use of these medications in general—let alone for children—almost certainly is not ‘deeply rooted’ in our nation’s history and tradition.”

    Sarah Parshall Perry, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, predicted that such logic would ultimately persuade the conservative Supreme Court majority. “What we are seeing now is the use of the Dobbs framework in actual action,” she told me. “I think the Supreme Court quite frankly is going to be very wary of expanding Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence to rubber-stamp an experimental new treatment, especially when minor children are involved.”

    The one point both sides can agree on is that the Supreme Court’s rulings on the red-state measures will represent a crossroads for the country. One path preserves the broadly consistent floor of civil rights across state lines that Americans have known since the 1960s; the other leads to a widening divergence reminiscent of earlier periods of intense separation among the states.

    Kettl believes that if the Supreme Court doesn’t constrain the red states, they almost certainly will push much further in undoing the rights revolution. “We haven’t seen what the boundary of that effort will be yet,” he told me, pointing to the ordinances some Texas localities have passed attempting to bar women from driving through them to obtain an abortion out of state.

    If the Supreme Court allows the red states a largely free hand to continue devising their own system of civil rights and liberties, Chemerinsky said, it will present Americans with a “profound” question:

    “Will the county accept being two different countries with regard to so many of these important things, as it did with regard to other important things such as slavery and civil rights?” he said. “Or will there be a point that people will say, ‘What divides us as a country is much greater than what unites us.’ And will we start hearing the first serious calls to rethink the United States?”

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Tough Oregon gun law faces legal challenge, could be delayed

    Tough Oregon gun law faces legal challenge, could be delayed

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Ore. — Midterm voters in Oregon narrowly passed one of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, buoying the hopes of gun control supporters, but the new permit-to-purchase mandate and ban on high-capacity magazines now faces a lawsuit that could put it on ice just days before it’s set to take effect.

    A federal judge in Portland will hear oral arguments Friday on whether Measure 114, which is scheduled to go into law Dec. 8, violates Americans’ constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Depending on the outcome, the groundbreaking law could be delayed for months or longer as it works its way through the courts, legal experts said.

    The Oregon ballot measure is part of a national trend of gun policy being decided by voters because “significant reform is stalled and that has put all the battles over gun control and gun safety at the state level,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor and expert in gun policy at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

    “Ballot measures are one way for people to seize the reins of policy-making. People can act for themselves to change the law and on an issue like gun safety there is a really growing and active gun safety movement in America,” he said. “That’s not something we probably would have said 20 years ago.”

    Measure 114, which passed by a slim majority in November, was born out of concern about the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida and gained public momentum last spring following massacres at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y. and at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, said Mark Knutson, chairman of the interfaith Lift Every Voice Oregon campaign and pastor at Portland’s Augustana Lutheran Church.

    “The arc of the moral universe is bending towards justice, and justice today is going to be ending gun violence in this country,” he said. “That’s why I trust this process will work … and a year and a half, two years from now, it’ll be 70% of the population saying this was the right thing to do — not the 51% that passed it.”

    The biggest legal flash point is a ban on magazines over 10 rounds unless they are owned by law enforcement or a military member or were owned before the measure’s passage. Those who already own high-capacity magazines can only possess them in their homes or use them at a firing range, in shooting competitions or for hunting as allowed by state law after the measure takes effect.

    The law also requires gun buyers to obtain a permit to purchase a new gun. Permit applicants must take a state-approved, hands-on gun safety training course with live or dry rounds, submit a photo ID and undergo fingerprinting and a criminal background check. The state will keep a list of permit-holders that’s exempt from public disclosure; the $65 permits will be good for five years and can be used to buy multiple guns in that five-year period with a fresh background check.

    The lawsuit filed by the Oregon Firearms Federation, a local sheriff and a gun store owner asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue an injunction to prevent it from going into effect next week. Alternatively, the plaintiffs seek a partial order on the high-capacity magazine ban.

    John Kaempf, attorney for the plaintiffs, declined to comment before Friday’s hearing.

    His filing cites a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June which struck down a New York law that placed limits on carrying guns outside the home. That 6-3 ruling indicated a shift in the way the nation’s high court will evaluate Second Amendment infringement claims and resulted in the court sending a similar ban on high-capacity magazines in California back to a lower court for review.

    Legal experts say Oregon’s ban on high-capacity magazines will face the same scrutiny and the court will also take a close look at Oregon’s “permit to purchase” mandate to determine if the additional steps now required to gain access to firearms are also a Second Amendment violation, said Norman Williams, a constitutional law professor at Willamette University College of Law in Salem, Oregon.

    While supporters of Measure 114 have cited the recent mass shootings in Colorado and Virginia as further evidence the law is needed and timely, Williams says that likely won’t have much bearing on the courts’ rulings in this case.

    “It’s going to take the federal courts months, if not years, to sort out what parts of Measure 114 are constitutional and what parts, if any, aren’t … and I think this is the type of measure that the U.S. Supreme Court itself might have some interest in reviewing,” he said.

    “Proponents of gun safety regulations, in emphasizing the continuing gun violence in our society, are in some sense making an argument that doesn’t resonate with the federal judges considering the constitutionality of these measures.”

    Details about the permit process and hands-on training are still being worked out and some local agencies have complained they don’t have the budget or staff necessary to enforce the law’s provisions. Several local sheriffs have said publicly they won’t enforce the law in their jurisdictions.

    State lawmakers are likely to advance legislation to aid the law’s implementation and provide funding in the upcoming session, said Elizabeth McKanna, chair of the Measure 114 legislative committee.

    The uncertainty around Measure 114’s future has driven a surge in firearms sales that began after it passed as gun owners worry they might not be able to obtain a new permit for weeks or months if some or all of it goes into effect.

    As of this week, Oregon State Police had more than 35,000 pending background check transactions for gun purchases and was averaging 3,000 requests a day compared to less than 900 a day the week before Measure 114 passed, according to agency data. On Black Friday, the agency received 6,000 background check requests alone, OSP Capt. Kyle Kennedy said in an email.

    Shaun Lacasse, vice president of The Gun Room Inc., said the increase in background checks reflects the increase in gun sales he’s seen at his store in response to anxiety about the impacts of the new law.

    “How long is it going to take for all of that system to get started and be implemented? It’s going to be months — many many months — before the first permits are even going to be able to be issued,” said Lacasse, who said sales at his Portland business have at least quadrupled since the law passed.

    “We don’t how long we’re going to have to be in purgatory until this is all sorted out.”

    Meanwhile, OSP is “working diligently” with local law enforcement agencies to implement the law next week, Kennedy said.

    ————

    Follow Gillian Flaccus on Twitter here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brazilian protests intensify; Bolsonaro stays silent

    Brazilian protests intensify; Bolsonaro stays silent

    [ad_1]

    RIO DE JANEIRO — The two men were sitting at a bar on Nov. 21, sipping drinks for relief from the scorching heat of Brazil’s Mato Grosso state, when police officers barged in and arrested them for allegedly torching trucks and an ambulance with Molotov cocktails.

    One man attempted to flee and ditch his illegal firearm. Inside their pickup truck, officers found jugs of gasoline, knives, a pistol, slingshots and hundreds of stones — as well as 9,999 reais (nearly $1,900) in cash.

    A federal judge ordered their preventive detention, noting that their apparent motive for the violence was “dissatisfaction with the result of the last presidential election and pursuit of its undemocratic reversal,” according to court documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

    For more than three weeks, supporters of incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro who refuse to accept his narrow defeat in October’s election have blocked roads and camped outside military buildings in Mato Grosso, Brazil’s soy-producing powerhouse. They also have protested in other states across the nation, while pleading for intervention from the armed forces or marching orders from their commander in chief.

    Since his election loss, Bolsonaro has only addressed the nation twice, to say that the protests are legitimate and encourage them to continue, as long as they don’t prevent people from coming and going.

    Bolsonaro has not disavowed the recent emergence of violence, either. He has, however, challenged the election results — which the electoral authority’s president said appears aimed at stoking protests.

    While most demonstrations are peaceful, tactics deployed by hardcore participants have begun concerning authorities. José Antônio Borges, chief state prosecutor in Mato Grosso, compared their actions to that of guerrilla fighters, militia groups and domestic terrorists.

    Mato Grosso is one of the nation’s hotbeds for unrest. The chief targets, Borges says, are soy trucks from Grupo Maggi, owned by a tycoon who declared support for President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. There are also indications that people and companies from the state may be fueling protests elsewhere.

    Road blockades and acts of violence have been reported in the states of Rondonia, Para, Parana and Santa Catarina. In the latter, federal highway police said protesters blocking highways have employed “terrorist” methods including homemade bombs, fireworks, nails, stones and barricades made of burnt tires.

    Police also noted that roadblocks over the weekend were different from those carried out immediately after the Oct. 30 runoff election, when truckers blocked more than 1,000 roads and highways across the country, with only isolated incidents.

    Now, most acts of resistance are taking place at night, carried out by “extremely violent and coordinated hooded men,” acting in different regions of the state at the same time, federal highway police said.

    “The situation is getting very critical” in Mato Grosso state, chief state prosecutor Borges told the AP. Among other examples, he noted that protesters in Sinop, the state’s second most populous city, this week ordered shops and businesses to close in support of the movement. “Whoever doesn’t shut down suffers reprisals,” he said.

    Since the vote, Bolsonaro has dropped out of public view and his daily agenda has been largely vacant, prompting speculation as to whether he is stewing or scheming.

    Government transition duties have been led by his chief of staff, while Vice President Hamilton Mourão has stepped in to preside over official ceremonies. In an interview with newspaper O Globo, Mourão chalked up Bolsonaro’s absence to erysipelas, a skin infection on his legs that he said prevents the president from wearing pants.

    But even Bolsonaro’s social media accounts have gone silent – aside from generic posts about his administration, apparently from his communications team. And the live social media broadcasts that, with rare exception, he conducted every Thursday night during his administration have ceased. The silence marks an abrupt about-face for the bombastic Brazilian leader whose legions of supporters hang on his every word.

    Still, demonstrators, who have camped outside military barracks across Brazil for weeks, are certain they have his tacit support.

    “We understand perfectly well why he doesn’t want to talk: They (the news media) distort his words,” said a 49-year-old woman who identified herself only as Joelma during a protest outside the monumental regional military command center in Rio de Janeiro. She declined to give her full name, claiming the protest had been infiltrated by informants.

    Joelma and others say they are outraged with Bolsonaro’s loss and claim the election was rigged, echoing the incumbent president’s claims — made without evidence — that the electronic voting system is prone to fraud.

    Scenes of large barbecues with free food and portable bathrooms at several protests, plus reports of free bus rides bringing demonstrators to the capital, Brasilia, have prompted investigations into the people and companies financing and organizing the gatherings and roadblocks.

    The Supreme Court has frozen at least 43 bank accounts for suspicion of involvement, news site G1 reported, saying most are from Mato Grosso. Borges cited the involvement of agribusiness players in the protests, many of whom support Bolsonaro’s push for development of the Amazon rainforest and his authorization of previously banned pesticides. By contrast, President-elect da Silva has pledged to rebuild environmental protections.

    Most recently, protesters have been emboldened by the president’s decision to officially contest the election results.

    On Tuesday, Bolsonaro and his party filed a request for the electoral authority to annul votes cast on nearly 60% of electronic voting machines, citing a software bug in older models. Independent experts have said the bug, while newly discovered, doesn’t affect the results and the electoral authority’s president, Alexandre de Moraes swiftly rejected the “bizarre and illicit” request.

    De Moraes, who is also a Supreme Court justice, called it “an attack on the Democratic Rule of Law … with the purpose of encouraging criminal and anti-democratic movements.”

    On Nov. 21, Prosecutor-general Augusto Aras summoned federal prosecutors from states where roadblocks and violence have become more intense for a crisis meeting. Aras, who is widely seen as a Bolsonaro stalwart, said he received intelligence reports from local prosecutors and instructed Mato Grosso’s governor to request federal backup to clear its blocked highways.

    Ultimately that wasn’t necessary, as local law enforcement managed to break up demonstrations and, by Monday night, roads in Mato Grosso and elsewhere were all liberated, according to the federal highway police. It was unclear how long this would last, however, amid Bolsonaro’s continued silence, said Guilherme Casarões, a political science professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation university.

    “With his silence, he keeps people in the streets,” Casarões said. “This is the great advantage he has today: a very mobilized, and very radical base.”

    ———

    Associated Press reporter Carla Bridi in Brasilia, Brazil, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prayers go on, sometimes out of sight, in prep football

    Prayers go on, sometimes out of sight, in prep football

    [ad_1]

    WEST BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, Mich. — Surrounded by a slew of players with their arms draped over shoulders, West Bloomfield High School assistant coach Justin Ibe bowed his head and led a Christian prayer before a recent Friday night game.

    Forty yards down the sideline, three Muslim young men were having a quiet moment of their own.

    “Ameen,” the players quietly said, using the Arabic word for amen.

    Across America, most high school football seasons are winding down. Thousands of games, the first since the Supreme Court in June ruled it was OK for a public school coach near Seattle to pray on the field. The decision prompted speculation that prayer would become an even bigger part of the game-day fabric, though that hasn’t seemed to be the case.

    Fouad Zaban, the head coach at Fordson High in Dearborn, calls the area just outside Detroit the “Middle East of America” and it is indeed home to thousands of people of Arab descent. After the court ruling, Zaban said, he was flooded with requests to use his platform and constitutional right to pray publicly. After thinking about it, he chose to keep his team’s prayers behind closed doors to avoid potential anti-Islamic jeers from fans in other communities.

    “That was a concern that they were going to get backlash,” Zaban said.

    With the nation’s culture wars spilling into education, it is challenging to have teachable moments about big news — like a precedent-setting court ruling — and coaches such as Zaban would rather punt than pray publicly.

    “It’s harder, whether you’re a coach, librarian, teacher or counselor,” said Lara Schwartz, an American University professor whose specialties include campus speech and constitutional law. “There are activist groups targeting books and ideas, saying you can lose your license if you have these conversations. That to me is a threat to people having good constructive dialogue in classrooms, or with coaches.”

    In Michigan, some teams with multiple religions represented on their rosters have found ways for everyone who wants to participate to do so if they wish.

    “We don’t force anybody to do that,” said Ibe, the defensive line coach in West Bloomfield. “We just take that moment to really just come together and give glory to God at that moment.”

    At Crestwood High School in Dearborn Heights, where most of the football team is Muslim, the entire team gathers before practices and games to pray on one knee. First, most of the players recite Al-Fatiha. Then, a player says a Christian prayer to the attentive group.

    “Between those two prayers, they’re pretty much all the same,” said Adam Berry, a senior and a team captain. “Asking God for protection, asking God for forgiveness, and asking God for any way to help us through our game.”

    According to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, a majority of Americans think a coach leading a team in prayer (60%), a player leading a team in prayer (64%) and a coach praying on the field without asking the team to join in (71%) should all be allowed in public high school sports.

    Still, the team plays it safe at Fordson High, where coaches clear the locker room and leave players to pray if they wish.

    “No one can ever say that we were involved in it,” Zaban said, adding he just wants to coach instead of drawing attention.

    Hassan Shinawah, a senior and team captain at Fordson, said players supported keeping their prayers in the locker room and away from the public.

    “We don’t know if people are comfortable,” he said. “We don’t know what their opinions are about it. We just don’t want any conflict with anybody else.”

    In the South, at least three high schools, two in Alabama and another in North Carolina, received letters in recent months from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The nonprofit that advocates for atheists and agnostics said it fielded complaints about the promotion of religion surrounding football games. Jefferson County (Ala.) officials were asked to “ensure that its schools are no longer scheduling prayer at school-sponsored events, including football games.”

    The Associated Press left multiple messages for athletic directors and principals at the schools in both North Carolina and Alabama that were not returned.

    Outside Detroit, coaches gave time and space for their players to pray, showing the teenagers that accomdations can be made for different faiths as well as the right to decline.

    At West Bloomfield High, an assistant football coach once walked miles with a Jewish player — whose faith would not allow him to ride in a car one particular day — to make sure he got to his hotel after a road game. The unique nature of having Christians, Muslims and Jews playing on the same team was not lost on one of the players who participates in a pregame Islamic prayer.

    “Some other teams, they probably don’t have the same thing,” said Mohamed Menisy, a 16-year-old junior offensive tackle. “We’re one team, one family. We just respect each other.”

    ———

    Follow Larry Lage at https://twitter.com/larrylage

    ———

    Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court OKs handover of Trump tax returns to Congress

    Supreme Court OKs handover of Trump tax returns to Congress

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for the imminent handover of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns to a congressional committee after a three-year legal fight.

    The court, with no noted dissents, rejected Trump’s plea for an order that would have prevented the Treasury Department from giving six years of tax returns for Trump and some of his businesses to the Democratic-controlled House Ways and Means Committee.

    Alone among recent presidents, Trump refused to release his tax returns either during his successful 2016 campaign or his four years in the White House, citing what he said was an ongoing audit by the IRS. Last week, Trump announced he would run again in 2024.

    It was the former president’s second loss at the Supreme Court in as many months, and third this year. In October, the court refused to step into the legal fight surrounding the FBI search of Trump’s Florida estate that turned up classified documents.

    In January, the court refused to stop the National Archives from turning over documents to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. Justice Clarence Thomas was the only vote in Trump’s favor.

    In the dispute over his tax returns, the Treasury Department had refused to provide the records during Trump’s presidency. But the Biden administration said federal law is clear that the committee has the right to examine any taxpayer’s return, including the president’s.

    Lower courts agreed that the committee has broad authority to obtain tax returns and rejected Trump’s claims that it was overstepping and only wanted the documents so they could be made public.

    Chief Justice John Roberts imposed a temporary freeze on Nov. 1 to allow the court to weigh the legal issues raised by Trump’s lawyers and the counter arguments of the administration and the House of Representatives.

    Just over three weeks later, the court lifted Roberts’ order without comment.

    The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The House contended an order preventing the IRS from providing the tax returns would leave lawmakers “little or no time to complete their legislative work during this Congress, which is quickly approaching its end.”

    Had Trump persuaded the nation’s highest court to intervene, he could have run out the clock on the committee, with Republicans ready to take control of the House in January. They almost certainly would have dropped the records request if the issue had not been resolved by then.

    The House Ways and Means panel and its chairman, Democrat Richard Neal of Massachusetts, first requested Trump’s tax returns in 2019 as part of an investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s audit program and tax law compliance by the former president. A federal law says the Internal Revenue Service “shall furnish” the returns of any taxpayer to a handful of top lawmakers.

    The Justice Department under the Trump administration had defended a decision by then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to withhold the tax returns from Congress. Mnuchin argued that he could withhold the documents because he concluded they were being sought by Democrats for partisan reasons. A lawsuit ensued.

    After President Joe Biden took office, the committee renewed the request, seeking Trump’s tax returns and additional information from 2015-2020. The White House took the position that the request was a valid one and that the Treasury Department had no choice but to comply. Trump then attempted to halt the handover in court.

    Then-Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. obtained copies of Trump’s personal and business tax records as part of a criminal investigation. That case, too, went to the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s argument that he had broad immunity as president.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know if you’ve applied for student loan forgiveness

    What to know if you’ve applied for student loan forgiveness

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — President Joe Biden’s plan to provide up to $20,000 in federal student loan forgiveness has been blocked by two federal courts, leaving millions of borrowers wondering what happens next. The administration plans to appeal. Here’s what to know if you’ve applied for relief:

    WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

    While the application for relief has been taken down from the Federal Student Aid website, applications that have already been filed are on hold while the appeal works its way through the courts.

    “Courts have issued orders blocking our student debt relief program,” the Education Department said on its site. “As a result, at this time, we are not accepting applications. We are seeking to overturn those orders.”

    A federal judge in Texas ruled that the plan overstepped the White House’s authority. Before that, a federal appeals court in St. Louis put the plan on temporary hold while it considers a challenge from six Republican-led states.

    Still, advocates believe the administration will succeed in court.

    “We’re really confident they’re going to find a way forward to cancel people’s debt,” said Katherine Welbeck at the Student Borrower Protection Center.

    Experts say student loan forgiveness has the potential to end up before the Supreme Court, meaning this could be a lengthy process.

    WHEN DO PAYMENTS RESUME?

    Most people with student loan debt have not been required to make payments during the coronavirus pandemic, but payments are set to resume, along with the accrual of interest, in January.

    Biden previously said the payment pause will not be extended again, but that was before the courts halted his plan. He’s now facing mounting pressure to continue the pause while the legal challenges to the program play out.

    WHAT IF I ALREADY APPLIED FOR RELIEF?

    More than 26 million people applied for cancellation over the course of less than a month, according to the Education Department. If you’re one of them, there’s nothing more you need to do right now.

    About 16 million people already had their applications approved, according to the Biden administration. Yet because of court actions, none of the relief has actually been delivered.

    The Education Department will “quickly process their relief once we prevail in court,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said.

    WHAT IF I HAVEN’T YET APPLIED FOR RELIEF?

    For those who have not yet applied, the application for debt cancellation is no longer online. But there are still steps people can take to make sure their debt is canceled, should the appeal be successful, according to Welbeck.

    “People should still check their eligibility,” she said. “As news changes, people should look out for updates from the Department of Education.”

    You can sign up to receive the latest from the Federal Student Aid website here.

    WHO QUALIFIES, SHOULD THE APPEAL SUCCEED?

    The debt forgiveness plan announced in August would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, would get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven, for a total of $20,000.

    Borrowers qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1.

    About 43 million student loan borrowers are eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could have their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.

    ARE THERE OTHER PATHWAYS TO CANCELLATION?

    For those who have worked for a government agency or a nonprofit organization, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program offers cancellation after 10 years of regular payments, and some income-driven repayment plans cancel the remainder of a borrower’s debt after 20 to 25 years, according to Welbeck.

    “Borrowers should make sure they’re signed up for the best income-driven repayment plan possible,” Welbeck said. In July, the administration will be reviewing and adjusting some of the accounts enrolled in these plans. You can find out more about those plans here.

    Borrowers who have been defrauded by for-profit schools may also apply for borrower defense and receive relief on that account, Welbeck said.

    SHOULD I RESUME PAYMENTS WHEN THE PAYMENT PAUSE IS LIFTED?

    Advocates, including the Student Borrower Protection Center, are still urging the president to extend the pandemic-era payment freeze, arguing that students are entitled to the promised cancellation before the January repayment date arrives.

    That said, Welbeck recommends logging on to your account, making sure you know who your servicer is, your due date, and whether you’re enrolled in the best income-driven repayment plan, as you resume making payments.

    The Student Borrower Protection Center is holding regular webinars on how to follow the changing policy in the coming months. You can sign up for those here.

    If your budget doesn’t allow you to resume payments, it’s important to know how to navigate the possibility of default and delinquency on a student loan. You can read more about those here. Both can hurt your credit rating, which would make you ineligible for additional aid.

    If you’re in a short-term financial bind, you may qualify for a deferment or a forbearance. With either of these options, you can talk to your servicer about ways to temporarily suspend your payments. You can learn more about those options here.

    WHAT ELSE SHOULD I KNOW?

    Watch out for scams and get information only from trusted sources such as the Federal Student Aid site of the Department of Education.

    IS IT POSSIBLE THE DEBT WON’T BE CANCELLED?

    Yes. The issue of debt forgiveness is now before the courts.

    The administration is not saying whether or not it’s exploring other options for canceling debt if it loses its appeals. But advocates point to other ways the debt might be forgiven, including through the Higher Education Act.

    HOW DO I PREPARE FOR STUDENT LOAN PAYMENTS TO RESTART?

    Betsy Mayotte, President of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, encourages people not to make any payments until the pause has ended.

    “I’ve been telling people to pretend they’re paying their student loan, but to put it into an interest-bearing account for now if you’re able,” she said. “Then you’ve maintained the habit of making the payment, but earning a little bit of interest as well. There’s no reason to send that money to the student loans until the last minute of the zero percent interest rate.”

    Mayotte recommends that borrowers use the loan simulator tool at StudentAid.gov or the one on TISLA’s website to find the repayment course that best fits their needs. Once you plug in your information, it tells you what your monthly payment would be under each available plan, as well as what the long-term costs amount to.

    “I really want to emphasize the long-term,” Mayotte said. “Oftentimes I see people who might be having a financial struggle. They’ll find a lower monthly repayment option, and then, ‘Set it and forget it.’”

    Mayotte encourages people to switch to higher payments if their financial situation stabilizes, so the loan doesn’t end up costing more in the long run.

    Other useful tips that can shave costs for borrowers:

    — If you sign up for automatic payments, the servicer takes a quarter of a percent off your interest rate, according to Mayotte.

    — Income-driven repayment plans aren’t right for everyone. That said, if you know you will eventually qualify for forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, it makes sense to make the lowest monthly payments possible, as the remainder of your debt will be cancelled once that decade of payments is complete.

    — Re-evaluate your monthly student loan repayment at tax time, when you already have all your financial information in front of you. “Can you afford to increase it? Or do you need to decrease it?” Mayotte said. “Always look at your long-term student loan management strategy.”

    — Break up payments into whatever ways work best for you, whether that means two installments during the month, so it’s not a large lump sum at the end or the beginning, or setting aside cash in envelopes for designated purposes.

    “Even if it’s an extra $5 or $20 a month, that’s a good strategy,” Mayotte said. “If they can afford to pay a little more per month — the more you pay and faster you pay, the less you’ll pay in the long run.”

    Mayotte gave one example of a borrower with debt from higher education in the six figures. She was recently married, and she and her husband and kids decided to save every five dollar bill in a cookie jar to go towards the loans.

    “That added up to a few more hundred dollars each quarter,” Mayotte said. “Everybody has a different financial personality. There are those who are really good at budgets. There are people who need to play games and trick themselves. And people shouldn’t judge each other people’s financial personalities.”

    —-

    The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Today in History: November 11, World War I armistice signed

    Today in History: November 11, World War I armistice signed

    [ad_1]

    Today in History

    Today is Friday, Nov. 11, the 315th day of 2022. There are 50 days left in the year. Today is Veterans Day.

    Today’s Highlight in History:

    On Nov. 11, 1918, fighting in World War I ended as the Allies and Germany signed an armistice in the Forest of Compiegne (kohm-PYEHN’-yeh).

    On this date:

    In 1620, 41 Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower, anchored off Massachusetts, signed a compact calling for a “body politick.”

    In 1831, former slave Nat Turner, who’d led a slave uprising, was executed in Jerusalem, Virginia.

    In 1921, the remains of an unidentified American service member were interred in a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery in a ceremony presided over by President Warren G. Harding.

    In 1938, Irish-born cook Mary Mallon, who’d gained notoriety as the disease-carrying “Typhoid Mary” blamed for the deaths of three people, died on North Brother Island in New York’s East River at age 69 after 23 years of mandatory quarantine.

    In 1942, during World War II, Germany completed its occupation of France.

    In 1966, Gemini 12 blasted off on a four-day mission with astronauts James A. Lovell and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin Jr. aboard; it was the tenth and final flight of NASA’s Gemini program.

    In 1972, the U.S. Army turned over its base at Long Binh to the South Vietnamese, symbolizing the end of direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War.

    In 1987, following the failure of two Supreme Court nominations, President Ronald Reagan announced his choice of Judge Anthony M. Kennedy, who went on to win confirmation.

    In 1992, the Church of England voted to ordain women as priests.

    In 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered warships, planes and troops to the Persian Gulf as he laid out his case for a possible attack on Iraq. Iraq, meanwhile, showed no sign of backing down from its refusal to deal with U.N. weapons inspectors.

    In 2004, Palestinians at home and abroad wept, waved flags and burned tires in an eruption of grief at news of the death of Yasser Arafat in Paris at age 75.

    In 2020, Georgia’s secretary of state announced an audit of presidential election results that he said would be done with a full hand tally of ballots because the margin was so tight; President-elect Joe Biden led President Donald Trump by about 14,000 votes out of nearly 5 million votes counted in the state. (The audit would affirm Biden’s win.) Texas became the first state with more than 1 million confirmed COVID-19 cases.

    Ten years ago: President Barack Obama laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery and said the Sept. 11 generation had “written one of the greatest chapters” in the country’s military service, toppling a dictator and battling an insurgency in Iraq, pushing back the Taliban in Afghanistan and decimating al-Qaida’s leadership.

    Five years ago: The annual Pacific Rim summit stuck to its tradition of promoting free trade and closer regional ties, shrugging off the “America First” approach that was brought to the summit by President Donald Trump. After talking with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the summit, Trump told reporters that Putin had again insisted that Moscow had not interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections, and Trump said he believed Putin was sincere in making that claim; he accused Democrats of trying to sabotage relations between Washington and Moscow.

    One year ago: Facing a surge in coronavirus infections that threatened to overwhelm Colorado hospitals, Gov. Jared Polis defied federal guidance on COVID-19 booster shots by issuing an order allowing all state residents 18 and older to get them. President Joe Biden saluted the nation’s military veterans as “the spine of America” as he marked his first Veterans Day as president in a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. A spokesman for his foundation confirmed that F.W. de Klerk, South Africa’s last apartheid leader, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Nelson Mandela and oversaw the end of the country’s white minority rule, had died at 85.

    Today’s Birthdays: Country singer Narvel Felts is 84. Former Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is 82. Americana roots singer/songwriter Chris Smither is 78. Rock singer-musician Vince Martell (Vanilla Fudge) is 77. The president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, is 77. Rock singer Jim Peterik (PEE’-ter-ihk) (Ides of March, Survivor) is 72. Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is 71. Pop singer-musician Paul Cowsill (The Cowsills) is 71. Rock singer-musician Andy Partridge (XTC) is 69. Singer Marshall Crenshaw is 69. Rock singer Dave Alvin is 67. Rock musician Ian Craig Marsh (Human League; Heaven 17) is 66. Actor Stanley Tucci is 62. Actor Demi Moore is 60. Actor Calista Flockhart is 58. Actor Frank John Hughes is 55. TV personality Carson Kressley is 53. Actor David DeLuise is 51. Actor Adam Beach is 50. Actor Tyler Christopher is 50. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is 48. Actor Scoot McNairy is 45. Rock musician Jonathan Pretus (formerly with Cowboy Mouth) is 41. Actor Frankie Shaw is 41. Musician Jon Batiste is 36. Actor Christa B. Allen is 31. Actor Tye Sheridan is 26. Actor Ian Patrick is 20.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas to execute man for killing mother nearly 20 years ago

    Texas to execute man for killing mother nearly 20 years ago

    [ad_1]

    HOUSTON — A Texas inmate whose lawyers say has a history of mental illness is set to be executed Wednesday for killing his mother and burying her body in her backyard nearly 20 years ago.

    Tracy Beatty, 61, is scheduled to receive a lethal injection Wednesday evening at the state penitentiary in Huntsville. He was sentenced to death for strangling his mother, Carolyn Click, after they argued in her East Texas home in November 2003.

    Authorities say Beatty buried his 62-year-old mother’s body beside her mobile home in Whitehouse, about 115 miles (180 km) southeast of Dallas, and then spent her money on drugs and alcohol.

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday morning declined an appeal from Beatty’s lawyers to halt the execution. On Monday, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles unanimously declined to commute Beatty’s death sentence to a lesser penalty or to grant a six-month reprieve. Beatty has had three prior execution dates.

    His attorneys had argued he was being prevented from receiving a full examination to determine if he is intellectually disabled and possibly ineligible to be put to death. They had requested that state prison officials allow Beatty to be uncuffed during mental health evaluations by experts. The experts argue that having Beatty uncuffed during neurological and other tests is crucial to making an informed decision about intellectual disability and evaluating his mental health.

    In their Supreme Court petition, Beatty’s lawyers said one expert who examined the inmate determined that he was “clearly psychotic and has a complex paranoid delusional belief system” and that he lives in a “complex delusional world” where he believes there is a “vast conspiracy of correctional officers who … ‘torture’ him via a device in his ear so he can hear their menacing voices.”

    Citing security and liability concerns, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice put in place an informal policy last year that would require a court order to allow an inmate to be unshackled during an expert evaluation.

    Federal judges in East Texas and Houston and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans previously ruled against Beatty’s request for an evaluation without handcuffs. The federal appeals court called Beatty’s request a “delay tactic.”

    U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge in Houston last week questioned why Beatty’s lawyers had not raised any claim relating to his mental health during years of appeals, and said requiring handcuffs during such an evaluation is “quite simply, a rational security concern.”

    While the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited the death penalty for individuals who are intellectually disabled, it has not barred such punishment for those with serious mental illness, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that provides analysis and information on capital punishment.

    The Texas Legislature considered but did not pass a bill in 2019 that would have prohibited the death penalty for someone with severe mental illness.

    Beatty had a “volatile and combative relationship” with his mother, according to prosecutors. One neighbor, Lieanna Wilkerson, testified that Click told her Beatty had assaulted her several times before, including once when he had “beaten her so severely that he had left her for dead.” But Wilkerson said Click had still been excited to have Beatty move back in with her in October 2003 so they could mend their relationship.

    Mother and son argued daily, however, and Click asked Beatty twice to move out, including just before she was killed, according to testimony from Beatty’s 2004 trial.

    “Several times (Beatty) had said he just wanted to shut her up, that he just wanted to choke her and shut her up,” Wilkerson testified.

    If Beatty is executed, he would be the fourth inmate put to death this year in Texas and the 13th in the U.S. Texas’ last execution for this year is scheduled to take place next week.

    ———

    Follow Juan A. Lozano on Twitter: https://twitter.com/juanlozano70

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jackson, in dissent, issues first Supreme Court opinion

    Jackson, in dissent, issues first Supreme Court opinion

    [ad_1]

    FILE – Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stands as she and members of the Supreme Court pose for a new group portrait following her addition, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File )DCSA122

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California governor pardons abortion activist from 1940s

    California governor pardons abortion activist from 1940s

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday posthumously pardoned an abortion activist from the 1930s and 1940s, acting days before Californians finish voting on whether to enshrine increased protections in the state Constitution in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

    Laura Miner was convicted in 1949 of abortion and conspiracy to commit abortion. She was sentenced to four years in prison on the twin felonies, and died in 1976.

    “I can still hold my head up, and I respect myself because my conscience is clear,” she wrote while serving her prison sentence. “I have helped humanity — someday it will be legal for a doctor to help a woman who will then have a right to decide for herself how many children she shall have, and when.”

    Her statement proved prescient, for a time. The U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision ruled in 1973 that protections under the U.S. Constitution included the right to have an abortion.

    But a majority of the high court earlier this year said that is up to individual states. Increased protections also are before voters next week in Michigan and Vermont, and restrictions in Kentucky and Montana.

    Newsom, a Democrat who is actively supporting the proposed constitutional change, in a statement called Miner “a powerful reminder of the generations of people who fought for reproductive freedom in this country, and the risks that so many Americans now face in a post-Roe world.”

    The No on Prop 1 campaign did not directly comment on Newsom’s pardon, but said in a statement that the governor hopes the measure “will work for him politically, ” while expanding abortion rights would “ultimately be dangerous for California women.”

    California’s original 1850 Constitution criminalized abortions, but Miner was among those who provided them at a time when abortion was still illegal in California except when necessary to protect a woman’s life. She did so in San Diego from 1934 to 1948, until she and her staff were arrested.

    She was convicted in San Diego Superior Court in 1949 and starting at age 50 served 19 months in prison and 27 months on parole.

    Miner provided health care to patients on a sliding fee scale, using payments from her wealthy and sometimes famous clients to cover the indigent. She was a licensed chiropractor, according to an online account by her granddaughter, who called her “eccentric, stubborn and always independent.”

    The Journal of American History said she ran a nine-room abortion clinic and was part of the Pacific Coast Abortion Ring in 1935 and 1936.

    Miner was arrested after an investigator for the district attorney’s office kept her clinic under surveillance for nearly three months, according to her unsuccessful appeal of her conviction. He even attempted an early wiretap, entering the clinic at night with the intent to install a dictaphone.

    When she was young, she saw her mother nearly die from a botched illegal abortion. Her mother then died when she was 9, according to Newsom’s office, leaving behind Miner and seven siblings. She had four children herself, two of whom died of illness as infants.

    “Ms. Miner gave women a safe alternative in a dark era for reproductive rights,” Alicia Gutierrez-Romine, a professor of history at La Sierra University in Riverside, California and a historian on the history of medicine, said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • With Bolsonaro tamed in defeat, Brazil steps back from brink

    With Bolsonaro tamed in defeat, Brazil steps back from brink

    [ad_1]

    RIO DE JANEIRO — In the run-up to Brazil’s presidential election, many feared a narrow result would spell the death knell for Latin America’s largest democracy.

    So far, however, the worst has been averted, despite a nail-biting victory for former leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva over far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro, and ongoing protests by Bolsonaro’s supporters across the country.

    The conservative leader’s allies quickly recognized da Silva’s victory, the military stayed in the barracks and vigilant world leaders swooped in to offer support for da Silva and nip in the bud even the thought of anything resembling the Jan. 6 insurrection that overtook the U.S. Capitol.

    “All of Bolsonaro’s escape valves were shut off,” said Brian Winter, a longtime Brazil expert and vice president of the New York-based Council of the Americas. “He was prevailed upon from all sides not to contest the results and burn down the house on his way out.”

    Although Bolsonaro has refused to congratulate da Silva or disavow die-hard protesters who remained on the streets Wednesday, Brazil’s institutions generally seem to have held up.

    That leaves a more vexing challenge: how the 77-year-old da Silva, universally known as Lula, unites a deeply divided country, rights a wobbly economy and delivers on the outsize expectations spurred by his return to power.

    One thing is clear, if anyone can do it, it’s the charismatic da Silva — whose political skills are admired even by his detractors.

    “That’s what we need, someone not only who can address inequality but also inspire our emotions and ideas,” said Marcelo Neri, director of the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s social policy center, who led the Ministry of Strategic Affairs in the Cabinet of da Silva’s handpicked successor, Dilma Rousseff.

    In many ways, the conservative movement Bolsonaro helped ignite — if not the politician himself — has emerged stronger from the vote, Winter said. His allies were elected as governors in several key states and his Liberal Party has become the largest in Congress, curtailing da Silva’s ability to advance his own agenda after a decadelong malaise that has left millions of Brazilians hungrier than when da Silva last held office in 2010.

    What’s more, Brazil’s demographics seem to favor Bolsonaro’s aggressive brand of identity politics — including an anti-LGBTQ agenda and hostility to environmentalists — that have earned him the moniker “Trump of the Tropics.”

    The country’s own statistics institute forecasts that the number of Brazilians identifying as evangelical Christians — who preelection polls show overwhelmingly favored Bolsonaro and skew right — will overtake Roman Catholics within a decade.

    Thousands of Bolsonaro’s supporters thronged a regional army headquarters in Rio on Wednesday, demanding that the military step in and keep him in power. Outside a military building in the state of Santa Catarina, hundreds of protesters gave the Nazi salute while chanting the national anthem. Meanwhile, truckers maintained about 150 roadblocks across the country to protest Bolsonaro’s loss, despite the Supreme Court’s orders to law enforcement to dismantle them.

    Since the return of democracy in the 1980s, all Brazilian leaders have been guided to varying degrees by a common belief in strong state-led enterprises, high taxes and aggressive wealth redistribution policies.

    Bolsonaro initially attempted to run a more austere, business-friendly government, that is, until the social devastation wreaked by COVID-19 and his own sinking electoral prospects ultimately led him to loosen spending controls and emulate the policies he once attacked.

    How da Silva will govern is less clear. He squeaked out a narrow victory of barely 2 million votes after forming a broad coalition of players. And with promises to maintain a generous welfare program in place through 2023, he will have limited fiscal space to spend on other priorities.

    His running mate from another party, former Sao Paulo Governor Geraldo Alckim, was a nod to centrist, fiscally conservative policies that made da Silva the darling of Wall Street during his early years in power. This week, da Silva tapped Alckim to lead his transition team.

    Also standing alongside him on the victory stage Sunday night, however, were several stalwarts of the left who have been implicated in numerous corruption scandals that have plagued his Workers’ Party and paved the way for Bolsonaro’s rise.

    Although da Silva’s supporters have downplayed the concerns about corruption — the Supreme Court annulled the convictions that kept him behind bars for nearly two years — for many Brazilians he is a symbol of the culture of graft that has long permeated politics. As a result, he’s likely to be held to a higher ethical standard in a country where political support is often obtained in exchange for Cabinet appointments and budgets.

    “This wasn’t just a fever dream by his opponents,” Winter said of the corruption allegations that have long dogged da Silva’s party.

    Da Silva’s victory coincides with a string of recent victories by the left in South America, including in Chile and Colombia, whose leaders revere the former union boss. During his first stint in power, da Silva led a so-called pink wave that promoted regional integration, rivaled U.S. dominance and put the rights of overlooked minorities and Indigenous groups at the center of the political agenda.

    Under Bolsonaro, Brazil largely retreated from that leadership role, even if the sheer size of its economy alone means a return to leadership is never far off.

    Scott Hamilton, a former U.S. diplomat, said that da Silva will have to make a tough choice on whether to use Brazil’s considerable leverage to pursue an ambitious foreign policy to tackle entrenched problems or simply use his star power on the world stage to shore up support at home.

    “Basking in not being Bolsonaro will get him lots of positive attention in itself,” said Hamilton, whose last post, until April, was as consul general in Rio. “The more ambitious path would involve trying to help resolve some of the toughest political issues where democratic governments in the region are in trouble or extinguished.”

    ———

    Goodman reported from Miami.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Today in History: November 1, Thomas joins Supreme Court

    Today in History: November 1, Thomas joins Supreme Court

    [ad_1]

    Today in History

    Today is Tuesday, Nov. 1, the 305th day of 2022. There are 60 days left in the year.

    Today’s Highlight in History:

    On Nov. 1, 1991, Clarence Thomas took his place as the newest justice on the Supreme Court.

    On this date:

    In 1478, the Spanish Inquisition was established.

    In 1512, Michelangelo’s just-completed paintings on the ceiling of the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel were publicly unveiled by the artist’s patron, Pope Julius II.

    In 1604, William Shakespeare’s tragedy “Othello” was first presented at Whitehall Palace in London.

    In 1765, the Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament, went into effect, prompting stiff resistance from American colonists.

    In 1861, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln named Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan General-in-Chief of the Union armies, succeeding Lt. Gen. Winfield Scott.

    In 1870, the United States Weather Bureau made its first meteorological observations.

    In 1936, in a speech in Milan, Italy, Benito Mussolini described the alliance between his country and Nazi Germany as an “axis” running between Rome and Berlin.

    In 1950, two Puerto Rican nationalists tried to force their way into Blair House in Washington, D.C., in a failed attempt to assassinate President Harry S. Truman. (One of the pair was killed, along with a White House police officer.)

    In 1952, the United States exploded the first hydrogen bomb, code-named “Ivy Mike,” at Enewetak (en-ih-WEE’-tahk) Atoll in the Marshall Islands.

    In 1989, East Germany reopened its border with Czechoslovakia, prompting tens of thousands of refugees to flee to the West.

    In 1995, Bosnia peace talks opened in Dayton, Ohio, with the leaders of Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia present.

    In 2007, less than a week after workers ratified a new contract, Chrysler announced 12,000 job cuts, or about 15 percent of its work force.

    Ten years ago: Israel, lifting a nearly 25-year veil of secrecy, acknowledged it had killed Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s deputy in a 1988 raid in Tunisia. (Khalil al-Wazir, who was better known by his nom de guerre Abu Jihad, founded Fatah, the dominant faction in the Palestine Liberation Organization.)

    Five years ago: Federal prosecutors brought terrorism charges against the man accused in the Manhattan truck rampage a day earlier that left eight people dead; prosecutors said Sayfullo Saipov had asked to display the Islamic State group’s flag in the hospital room where he was recovering from police gunfire. President Donald Trump tweeted that the suspect in the truck attack should get the death penalty. Prompting celebrations in a city still recovering from Hurricane Harvey, the Houston Astros won their first World Series championship, beating the Dodgers 5-1 in Game 7 in Los Angeles.

    One year ago: The global death toll from COVID-19 topped 5 million, as tallied by Johns Hopkins University. About 9,000 New York City municipal workers were put on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with a new COVID-19 vaccine mandate, and thousands of city firefighters called out sick in an apparent protest over the requirement. Real estate scion Robert Durst was indicted on a murder charge in the disappearance of his first wife nearly four decades earlier; he was already serving a life sentence for killing a confidante who helped cover up that slaying. (Durst died in January 2022.) At a U.N. summit in Scotland, President Joe Biden apologized for former President Donald Trump’s decision to leave the Paris climate change agreement, and for the role that the U.S. and other wealthy countries played in contributing to climate change.

    Today’s Birthdays: World Golf Hall of Famer Gary Player is 87. Country singer Bill Anderson is 85. Actor Barbara Bosson is 83. Actor Robert Foxworth is 81. Country singer-humorist Kinky Friedman is 78. Actor Jeannie Berlin is 73. Music producer David Foster is 73. Actor Belita Moreno is 73. Country singer-songwriter-producer Keith Stegall is 68. Country singer Lyle Lovett is 65. Actor Rachel Ticotin is 64. Apple CEO Tim Cook is 62. Actor Helene Udy is 61. Pop singer-musician Mags Furuholmen (a-ha) 60. Rock singer Anthony Kiedis (Red Hot Chili Peppers) is 60. Rock musician Rick Allen (Def Leppard) is 59. Country singer “Big Kenny” Alphin (Big and Rich) is 59. Singer Sophie B. Hawkins is 58. Rapper Willie D (Geto Boys) is 56. Country musician Dale Wallace (Emerson Drive) is 53. Actor Toni Collette is 50. Actor-talk show host Jenny McCarthy is 50. Actor David Berman is 49. Actor Aishwarya Rai (ash-WAHR’-ee-ah reye) is 49. Rock singer Bo Bice is 47. Actor Matt Jones is 41. Actor Natalia Tena is 38. Actor Penn Badgley is 36. Actor Max Burkholder is 25. Actor-musician Alex Wolff is 25.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Today in History: October 31, Indira Gandhi assassinated

    Today in History: October 31, Indira Gandhi assassinated

    [ad_1]

    Today in History

    Today is Monday, Oct. 31, the 304th day of 2022. There are 61 days left in the year. This is Halloween.

    Today’s Highlight in History:

    On Oct. 31, 1984, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two Sikh (sihk) security guards.

    On this date:

    In 1864, Nevada became the 36th state as President Abraham Lincoln signed a proclamation.

    In 1941, work was completed on the Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota, begun in 1927.

    In 1961, the body of Josef Stalin was removed from Lenin’s Tomb as part of the Soviet Union’s “de-Stalinization” drive.

    In 1964, Theodore C. Freeman, 34, became the first member of NASA’s astronaut corps to die when his T-38 jet crashed while approaching Ellington Air Force Base in Houston.

    In 1967, Nguyen Van Thieu (nwen van too) took the oath of office as the first president of South Vietnam’s second republic.

    In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a halt to all U.S. bombing of North Vietnam, saying he hoped for fruitful peace negotiations.

    In 1992, Pope John Paul II formally proclaimed that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning the astronomer Galileo for holding that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

    In 1999, EgyptAir Flight 990, bound from New York to Cairo, crashed off the Massachusetts coast, killing all 217 people aboard.

    In 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito (ah-LEE’-toh) to the Supreme Court. Civil rights icon Rosa Parks was honored during a memorial service in Washington, D.C.

    In 2015, a Russian passenger airliner crashed in a remote part of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula 23 minutes after taking off from a popular Red Sea resort, killing all 224 people on board.

    In 2019, President Donald Trump announced that he would be making Palm Beach, Florida, his permanent residence after leaving the White House rather than returning to Trump Tower in New York.

    In 2020, actor Sean Connery, who rose to international stardom as the suave secret agent James Bond and then carved out an Oscar-winning career in other rugged roles, died at his home in the Bahamas at the age of 90.

    Ten years ago: President Barack Obama joined New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for a tour of damage along the Jersey coast from Superstorm Sandy; Wall Street was back in business after a two-day shutdown caused by the storm. (Stocks finished mixed).

    Five years ago: Eight people were killed when a man drove a truck along a bike path in New York City in an attack that authorities immediately labeled terrorism; the driver, identified by authorities as Uzbek immigrant Sayfullo Saipov, was shot and wounded by police. Netflix said it was suspending production on “House of Cards” following sexual harassment allegations against its star, Kevin Spacey. (Spacey would later be fired from the show, and production resumed without him.)

    One year ago: Southwest Airlines said it was investigating after a pilot greeted passengers over the plane’s public address system using a phrase that had become a stand-in for insulting President Joe Biden. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said she had contracted COVID-19 and was experiencing mild symptoms. American Airlines canceled hundreds of flights for a third straight day as it struggled with staffing shortages.

    Today’s Birthdays: Actor Lee Grant is 97. Former CBS anchorman Dan Rather is 91. Folk singer Tom Paxton is 85. Actor Ron Rifkin is 84. Actor Sally Kirkland is 81. Actor Brian Doyle-Murray is 77. Actor Stephen Rea is 76. Olympic gold medal long-distance runner Frank Shorter is 75. Actor Deidre Hall is 75. TV show host Jane Pauley is 72. Actor Brian Stokes Mitchell is 65. Movie director Peter Jackson is 61. Rock musician Larry Mullen is 61. Actor Dermot Mulroney is 59. Rock musician Mikkey Dee is 59. Rock singer-musician Johnny Marr is 59. Actor Rob Schneider is 59. Country singer Darryl Worley is 58. Actor-comedian Mike O’Malley is 57. Rap musician Adrock is 56. Rap performer Vanilla Ice (aka Rob Van Winkle) is 55. Rock musician Rogers Stevens (Blind Melon) is 53. Rock singer Linn Berggren (Ace of Base) is 52. Reality TV host Troy Hartman is 51. Gospel singer Smokie Norful is 49. Actor Piper Perabo (PEER’-uh-boh) is 46. Actor Brian Hallisay is 44. Actor Samaire (SAH’-mee-rah) Armstrong is 42. Actor Eddie Kaye Thomas is 42. Rock musician Frank Iero (My Chemical Romance) is 41. Actor Justin Chatwin is 40. Actor Scott Clifton is 38. Actor Vanessa Marano is 30. Actor Holly Taylor is 25. Actor Danielle Rose Russell is 23. Actor-singer Willow Smith is 22.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

    Lula defeats Bolsonaro to again become Brazil’s president

    [ad_1]

    SAO PAULO — Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has done it again: Twenty years after first winning the Brazilian presidency, the leftist defeated incumbent Jair Bolsonaro Sunday in an extremely tight election that marks an about-face for the country after four years of far-right politics.

    With more than 99% of the votes tallied in the runoff vote, da Silva had 50.9% and Bolsonaro 49.1%, and the election authority said da Silva’s victory was a mathematical certainty.

    It is a stunning reversal for da Silva, 77, whose 2018 imprisonment over a corruption scandal sidelined him from the 2018 election that brought Bolsonaro, a defender of conservative social values, to power.

    Da Silva is promising to govern beyond his leftist Workers’s Party. He wants to bring in centrists and even some leaning to the right who voted for him for the first time, and to restore the country’s more prosperous past. Yet he faces headwinds in a politically polarized society where economic growth is slowing and inflation is soaring.

    His victory marks the first time since Brazil’s 1985 return to democracy that the sitting president has failed to win reelection. The highly polarized election in Latin America’s biggest economy extended a wave of recent leftist victories in the region, including Chile, Colombia and Argentina.

    Da Silva’s inauguration is scheduled to take place on Jan. 1. He last served as president from 2003-2010.

    It was the country’s closest election in over three decades. Just over 2 million votes separated the two candidates with 99.5% of the vote counted. The previous closest race, in 2014, was decided by a margin of 3.46 million votes.

    Thomas Traumann, an independent political analyst, compared the results to U.S. President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, saying da Silva is inheriting an extremely divided nation.

    “The huge challenge that Lula has will be to pacify the country,” he said. “People are not only polarized on political matters, but also have different values, identity and opinions. What’s more, they don’t care what the other side’s values, identities and opinions are.”

    Bolsonaro had been leading throughout the first half of the count and, as soon as da Silva overtook him, cars in the streets of downtown Sao Paulo began honking their horns. People in the streets of Rio de Janeiro’s Ipanema neighborhood could be heard shouting, “It turned!”

    Da Silva’s headquarters in downtown Sao Paulo hotel only erupted once the final result was announced, underscoring the tension that was a hallmark of this race.

    “Four years waiting for this,” said Gabriela Souto, one of the few supporters allowed in due to heavy security.

    Outside Bolsonaro’s home in Rio de Janeiro, ground-zero for his support base, a woman atop a truck delivered a prayer over a speaker, then sang excitedly, trying to generate some energy. But supporters decked out in the green and yellow of the flag barely responded. Many perked up when the national anthem played, singing along loudly with hands over their hearts.

    Most opinion polls before the election gave a lead to da Silva, universally known as Lula, though political analysts agreed the race grew increasingly tight in recent weeks.

    For months, it appeared that da Silva was headed for easy victory as he kindled nostalgia for his presidency, when Brazil’s economy was booming and welfare helped tens of millions join the middle class.

    But while da Silva topped the Oct. 2 first-round elections with 48% of the vote, Bolsonaro was a strong second at 43%, showing opinion polls significantly underestimated his popularity. Many Brazilians support Bolsonaro’s defense of conservative social values and he shored up support in an election year with vast government spending.

    Bolsonaro’s administration has been marked by incendiary speech, his testing of democratic institutions, his widely criticized handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the worst deforestation in the Amazon rainforest in 15 years. But he has built a devoted base by defending conservative values and presenting himself as protection from leftist policies that he says infringe on personal liberties and produce economic turmoil.

    Da Silva is credited with building an extensive social welfare program during his 2003-2010 tenure that helped lift tens of millions into the middle class as well as presiding over an economic boom. The man universally known as Lula left office with an approval rating above 80%; then U.S. President Barack Obama called him “the most popular politician on Earth.”

    But he is also remembered for his administration’s involvement in vast corruption revealed by sprawling investigations. Da Silva’s arrest in 2018 kept him out of that year’s race against Bolsonaro, a fringe lawmaker at the time who was an outspoken fan of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

    Da Silva was jailed for for 580 days for corruption and money laundering. His convictions were later annulled by Brazil’s top court, which ruled the presiding judge had been biased and colluded with prosecutors. That enabled da Silva to run for the nation’s highest office for the sixth time.

    For months, it appeared that he was headed for easy victory as he kindled nostalgia for his presidency, when the economy was booming and welfare helped tens of millions join the middle class. But results from an Oct. 2 first-round vote — da Silva got 48% and Bolsonaro 43% — showed opinion polls had significantly underestimated Bolsonaro’s resilience and popularity. He shored up support, in part, with vast government spending.

    Da Silva has pledged to boost spending on the poor, reestablish relationships with foreign governments and take bold action to eliminate illegal clear-cutting in the Amazon rainforest.

    He hasn’t provided specific plans on how he will achieve those goals, and faces many challenges. The president-elect will be confronted by strong opposition from conservative lawmakers likely to take their cues from Bolsonaro.

    Carlos Melo, a political science professor at Insper University in Sao Paulo, compared the likely political climate to that experienced by former President Dilma Rousseff, da Silva’s hand-picked successor after his second term.

    “Lula’s victory means Brazil is trying to overcome years of turbulence since the reelection of President Dilma Rousseff in 2014. That election never ended; the opposition asked for a recount, she governed under pressure and was impeached two years later,” said Melo. “The divide became huge and then made Bolsonaro.”

    Unemployment this year has fallen to its lowest level since 2015 and, although overall inflation has slowed during the campaign, food prices are increasing at a double-digit rate. Bolsonaro’s welfare payments helped many Brazilians get by, but da Silva has been presenting himself as the candidate more willing to sustain aid going forward and raise the minimum wage.

    Da Silva has also pledged to put a halt to illegal deforestation in the Amazon, and once again has prominent environmentalalist Marina Silva by his side, years after a public falling out when she was his environment minister. The president-elect has already pledged to install a ministry for Brazil’s orginal peoples, which will be run by an Indigenous person.

    In April, he tapped center-right Geraldo Alckmin, a former rival, to be his running mate. It was another key part of an effort to create a broad, pro-democracy front to not just unseat Bolsonaro, but to make it easier to govern. Da Silva mended also has drawn support from Sen. Simone Tebet, a moderate who finished in third place in the election’s first round.

    “If Lula manages to talk to voters who didn’t vote for him, which Bolsonaro never tried, and seeks negotiated solutions to the economic, social and political crisis we have, and links with other nations that were lost, then he could reconnect Brazil to a time in which people could disagree and still get some things done,” Melo said.

    ———

    Carla Bridi contributed to this report from Brasilia.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Today in History: October 27, Sadat and Begin win Nobel

    Today in History: October 27, Sadat and Begin win Nobel

    [ad_1]

    Today in History

    Today is Thursday, Oct. 27, the 300th day of 2022. There are 65 days left in the year.

    Today’s Highlight in History:

    On Oct. 27, 2018, a gunman shot and killed 11 congregants and wounded six others at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue in the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S. history; authorities said the suspect, Robert Bowers, raged against Jews during and after the rampage. (Bowers, whose trial is now set for April 2023, has pleaded not guilty; prosecutors are seeking a death sentence.)

    On this date:

    In 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays calling for ratification of the United States Constitution, was published.

    In 1904, the first rapid transit subway, the IRT, was inaugurated in New York City.

    In 1914, author-poet Dylan Thomas was born in Swansea, Wales.

    In 1941, the Chicago Daily Tribune dismissed the possibility of war with Japan, editorializing, “She cannot attack us. That is a military impossibility. Even our base at Hawaii is beyond the effective striking power of her fleet.”

    In 1954, U.S. Air Force Col. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. was promoted to brigadier general, the first Black officer to achieve that rank in the USAF.

    In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a U-2 reconnaissance aircraft was shot down while flying over Cuba, killing the pilot, U.S. Air Force Maj. Rudolf Anderson Jr.

    In 1971, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was renamed the Republic of Zaire (but it went back to its previous name in 1997).

    In 1978, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin (men-AH’-kem BAY’-gihn) were named winners of the Nobel Peace Prize for their progress toward achieving a Middle East accord.

    In 1995, a sniper killed one soldier and wounded 18 others at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. (Paratrooper William J. Kreutzer was convicted in the shootings, and condemned to death; the sentence was later commuted to life in prison.)

    In 1998, Hurricane Mitch cut through the western Caribbean, pummeling coastal Honduras and Belize; the storm caused several thousand deaths in Central America in the days that followed.

    In 2004, the Boston Red Sox won their first World Series since 1918, sweeping the St. Louis Cardinals in Game 4, 3-0.

    In 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was formally sworn as the Supreme Court’s ninth justice, her oath administered in private by Chief Justice John Roberts.

    Ten years ago: The eastern United States braced for high winds, torrential rains, power outages and even snow from Hurricane Sandy, which was headed north from the Caribbean toward a merger with two wintry weather systems.

    Five years ago: Spain fired Catalonia’s regional government and dissolved its parliament, after a Catalan declaration of independence that flouted the country’s constitution. Golfer Tiger Woods pleaded guilty to reckless driving, resolving charges from an arrest in which he was found passed out in his car with prescription drugs and marijuana in his system. The White House said federal officials had played no role in selecting a tiny Montana company from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s hometown for a $300 million contract to help restore Puerto Rico’s power grid.

    One year ago: The Department of Homeland Security said U.S. immigration authorities would no longer make routine immigration arrests at schools, hospitals or a range of other “protected” areas. Investigators in New Mexico said there was “some complacency” in how weapons were handled on a movie set where Alec Baldwin accidentally shot and killed a cinematographer and wounded another person. The State Department said the United States had issued its first passport with an ‘X’ gender designation for a person who does not identify as male or female. Starbucks said it would raise its U.S. employees’ pay and making other changes to improve working conditions in its stores; the company said all of its U.S. workers would earn at least $15 —— and up to $23 —— per hour by the following summer.

    Today’s Birthdays: Actor-comedian John Cleese is 83. Author Maxine Hong Kingston is 82. Country singer Lee Greenwood is 80. Rock musician Garry Tallent (Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band) is 73. Author Fran Lebowitz is 72. Rock musician K.K. Downing is 71. TV personality Jayne Kennedy is 71. Actor-director Roberto Benigni is 70. Actor Peter Firth is 69. Actor Robert Picardo is 69. World Golf Hall of Famer Patty Sheehan is 66. Singer Simon Le Bon is 64. Country musician Jerry Dale McFadden (The Mavericks) is 58. Internet news editor Matt Drudge is 56. Rock musician Jason Finn (Presidents of the United States of America) is 55. Actor Sean Holland is 54. Actor Channon Roe is 53. Author Anthony Doerr is 49. Actor Sheeri Rappaport is 45. Actor David Walton is 44. Violinist Vanessa-Mae is 44. Actor-singer Kelly Osbourne is 38. Actor Christine Evangelista is 36. Actor Bryan Craig is 31. Actor Troy Gentile is 29.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Same-sex marriage is now legal in all of Mexico’s states

    Same-sex marriage is now legal in all of Mexico’s states

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Lawmakers in the border state of Tamaulipas voted Wednesday night to legalize same-sex marriages, becoming the last of Mexico’s 32 states to authorize such unions.

    The measure to amend the state’s Civil Code passed with 23 votes in favor, 12 against and two abstentions, setting off cheers of “Yes, we can!” from supporters of the change.

    The session took place as groups both for and against the measure chanted and shouted from the balcony, and legislators eventually moved to another room to finish their debate and vote.

    The president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Arturo Zaldívar, welcomed the vote. “The whole country shines with a huge rainbow. Live the dignity and rights of all people. Love is love,” he said on Twitter.

    A day earlier, lawmakers in the southern state of Guerrero approved similar legislation allowing same-sex marriages.

    In 2015, the Supreme Court declared state laws preventing same-sex marriage unconstitutional, but some states took several years to adopt laws conforming with the ruling.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Western states propose deal over beleaguered Rio Grande

    Western states propose deal over beleaguered Rio Grande

    [ad_1]

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — New Mexico, Texas and Colorado have negotiated a proposed settlement that they say will end a yearslong battle over management of one of the longest rivers in North America, but the federal government and two irrigation districts that depend on the Rio Grande are objecting.

    New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas on Tuesday announced that the states had brokered a deal following months of negotiations. While the terms remain confidential, his office called it “a comprehensive resolution of all the claims in the case.”

    “Extreme drought and erratic climate events necessitate that states must work together to protect the Rio Grande, which is the lifeblood of our New Mexico farmers and communities,” Balderas said in a statement. “And I’m very disappointed that the U.S. is exerting federal overreach and standing in the way of the states’ historic water agreement.”

    Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice and irrigation districts that serve farmers downstream of Elephant Butte reservoir argued that the proposal would not be a workable solution. The river is managed through a system of federal dams and canals under provisions of a water-sharing agreement that also involves Mexico.

    The case has been pending before the U.S. Supreme Court for nearly a decade. Texas has argued that groundwater pumping in southern New Mexico has reduced river flows, limiting how much water makes it across the border. New Mexico argues that it has been shorted on its share of the river.

    New Mexico and the other states plan in the coming weeks to submit their motion to move the proposed settlement forward, opening the door for federal officials and the irrigation districts to respond.

    Another hearing has been scheduled for January.

    The battle over the Rio Grande has become a multimillion-dollar case in a region where water supplies are dwindling due to increased demand along with drought and warmer temperatures brought on by climate change.

    So far, New Mexico has spent roughly $21 million on lawyers and scientists over the last nine years.

    Last fall, the special master overseeing the case presided over the first phase of trial, which included testimony from farmers, hydrologists, irrigation managers and others. More technical testimony was expected to be part of the next phase, which has now been put off.

    Earlier this year, some of the river’s stretches in New Mexico marked record low flows, resulting in some farmers voluntarily fallowing fields to help the state meet downstream water-sharing obligations.

    In the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, officials recently warned farmers that they can likely expect another late start to the irrigation season in 2023 and that allotments will be low again since the system depends less on summer rains and more on spring runoff from snowmelt in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Western states propose deal over beleaguered Rio Grande

    Western states propose deal over beleaguered Rio Grande

    [ad_1]

    ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — New Mexico, Texas and Colorado have negotiated a proposed settlement that they say will end a yearslong battle over management of one of the longest rivers in North America, but the federal government and two irrigation districts that depend on the Rio Grande are objecting.

    New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas on Tuesday announced that the states had brokered a deal following months of negotiations. While the terms remain confidential, his office called it “a comprehensive resolution of all the claims in the case.”

    “Extreme drought and erratic climate events necessitate that states must work together to protect the Rio Grande, which is the lifeblood of our New Mexico farmers and communities,” Balderas said in a statement. “And I’m very disappointed that the U.S. is exerting federal overreach and standing in the way of the states’ historic water agreement.”

    Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice and irrigation districts that serve farmers downstream of Elephant Butte reservoir argued that the proposal would not be a workable solution. The river is managed through a system of federal dams and canals under provisions of a water-sharing agreement that also involves Mexico.

    The case has been pending before the U.S. Supreme Court for nearly a decade. Texas has argued that groundwater pumping in southern New Mexico has reduced river flows, limiting how much water makes it across the border. New Mexico argues that it has been shorted on its share of the river.

    New Mexico and the other states plan in the coming weeks to submit their motion to move the proposed settlement forward, opening the door for federal officials and the irrigation districts to respond.

    Another hearing has been scheduled for January.

    The battle over the Rio Grande has become a multimillion-dollar case in a region where water supplies are dwindling due to increased demand along with drought and warmer temperatures brought on by climate change.

    So far, New Mexico has spent roughly $21 million on lawyers and scientists over the last nine years.

    Last fall, the special master overseeing the case presided over the first phase of trial, which included testimony from farmers, hydrologists, irrigation managers and others. More technical testimony was expected to be part of the next phase, which has now been put off.

    Earlier this year, some of the river’s stretches in New Mexico marked record low flows, resulting in some farmers voluntarily fallowing fields to help the state meet downstream water-sharing obligations.

    In the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, officials recently warned farmers that they can likely expect another late start to the irrigation season in 2023 and that allotments will be low again since the system depends less on summer rains and more on spring runoff from snowmelt in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brazil pol and Bolsonaro ally refuses arrest, injures police

    Brazil pol and Bolsonaro ally refuses arrest, injures police

    [ad_1]

    COMENDADOR LEVY GASPARIAN, Brazil — A Brazilian politician attacked federal police officers seeking to arrest him in his home on Sunday, prompting an hours-long siege that caused alarm and a scramble for a response at the highest level of government.

    Roberto Jefferson, a former lawmaker and an ally of President Jair Bolsonaro, fired a rifle at police and threw grenades, wounding two officers in the rural municipality Comendador Levy Gasparian, in Rio de Janeiro state. He said in a video message sent to supporters on WhatsApp that he refused to surrender, though by early evening he was in custody.

    The events were stunning even for Brazilians who have grown increasingly accustomed to far-right politicians and activists thumbing their noses at Supreme Court justices, and comes just days before Brazilians go to the polls to vote for president.

    The Supreme Court has sought to rein in the spread of disinformation and anti-democratic rhetoric ahead of the Oct. 30 vote, often inviting the ire of Bolsonaro’s base that decries such actions as censorship. As part of those efforts, Jefferson was jailed preventatively for making threats against the court’s justices.

    Jefferson in January received permission to serve his preventative arrest under house arrest, provided he complies with certain conditions. Justice Alexandre de Moraes said in a decision published Sunday that Jefferson has repeatedly violated those terms — most recently by using social media to compare one female justice to a prostitute — and ordered he be returned to prison.

    “I didn’t shoot anyone to hit them. No one. I shot their car and near them. There were four of them, they ran, I said, ’Get out, because I’m going get you,’” Jefferson said in the video. “I’m setting my example, I’m leaving my seed planted: resist oppression, resist tyranny. God bless Brazil.”

    Later, Brazil’s federal police said in another statement that Jefferson was also arrested for attempted murder.

    Bolsonaro was quick to criticize his ally in a live broadcast on social media. He denounced Jefferson’s statements against Supreme Court justices, including the threats and insults that led to his initial arrest, and Sunday’s attack. He also sought to distance himself from the former lawmaker.

    “There’s not a single picture of him and me,” Brazil’s president said. His opponents promptly posted several pictures of the two together on social media.

    Bolsonaro also said he dispatched Justice Minister Anderson Torres to the scene, without providing details on what his role would be.

    Bolsonaro’s base had mixed reactions, with some on social media hailing Jefferson as a hero for standing up to the top court. Dozens flocked to his house to show support as he remained holed up inside. They chanted, with one group holding a banner that read: “FREEDOM FOR ROBERTO JEFFERSON”.

    Former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who is campaigning to return to his former job, told reporters in Sao Paulo that Jefferson “does not have adequate behavior. It is not normal behavior.”

    Earlier this year, the Supreme Court convicted lawmaker Daniel Silveira for inciting physical attacks on the court’s justices as well as other authorities. Bolsonaro quickly issued a pardon for Silveira, who appeared beside the president after he cast his vote in the election’s first round on Oct. 2.

    The runoff vote between Bolsonaro and da Silva is set for Oct. 30

    “Brazil is terrified watching events that, this Sunday, reach the peak of the absurd,” Arthur Lira, the president of Congress’ Lower House and a Bolsonaro ally, wrote on Twitter. “We will not tolerate setbacks or attacks against our democracy.”

    ————

    Savarese reported from Sao Paulo.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP-led states appealing dismissal of suit over loan relief

    GOP-led states appealing dismissal of suit over loan relief

    [ad_1]

    ST. LOUIS — Attorneys for six Republican-led states are asking a federal appeals court to reconsider their effort to block the Biden administration’s program to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loan debt.

    A notice of appeal to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was filed late Thursday, hours after U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey in St. Louis ruled that since the states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina failed to establish standing, “the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.”

    Separately, the six states also asked the district court for an injunction prohibiting the administration from implementing the debt cancellation plan until the appeals process plays out.

    President Joe Biden on Monday officially launched the application process for the debt cancellation program and announced that 8 million borrowers had already applied for loan relief during the federal government’s soft launch period last weekend. Biden was scheduled to discuss the program Friday in a speech at Delaware State University.

    The plan, announced in August, would cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, will get an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

    The Congressional Budget Office has said the program will cost about $400 billion over the next three decades. James Campbell, an attorney for the Nebraska attorney general’s office, told Autrey at an Oct. 12 hearing that the administration is acting outside its authorities in a way that will cost states millions of dollars.

    The cancellation applies to federal student loans used to attend undergraduate and graduate school, along with Parent Plus loans. Current college students qualify if their loans were disbursed before July 1. The plan makes 43 million borrowers eligible for some debt forgiveness, with 20 million who could get their debt erased entirely, according to the administration.

    The announcement immediately became a major political issue ahead of the November midterm elections.

    Conservative attorneys, Republican lawmakers and business-oriented groups have asserted that Biden overstepped his authority in taking such sweeping action without the assent of Congress. They called it an unfair government giveaway for relatively affluent people at the expense of taxpayers who didn’t pursue higher education.

    Many Democratic lawmakers facing tough reelection contests have distanced themselves from the plan.

    The six states sued in September. Lawyers for the administration countered that the Department of Education has “broad authority to manage the federal student financial aid programs.” A court filing stated that the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency.

    “COVID-19 is such an emergency,” the filing stated.

    The HEROES Act was enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to help members of the military. The Justice Department says the law allows Biden to reduce or erase student loan debt during a national emergency. Republicans argue the administration is misinterpreting the law, in part because the pandemic no longer qualifies as a national emergency.

    Justice Department attorney Brian Netter told Autrey at the Oct. 12 hearing that fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is still rippling. He said student loan defaults have skyrocketed over the past 2 1/2 years.

    Other lawsuits also have sought to stop the program. Earlier Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an appeal from a Wisconsin taxpayers group seeking to stop the debt cancellation program.

    Barrett, who oversees emergency appeals from Wisconsin and neighboring states, did not comment in turning away the appeal from the Brown County Taxpayers Association. The group wrote in its Supreme Court filing that it needed an emergency order because the administration could begin canceling outstanding student debt as soon as Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link