U.S. Supreme Court unveils new ethics code, but critics say it doesn’t go far enough
by Ashley Murray, Alabama Reflector WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court released a new ethics code Monday, just days before the Democrat-led U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary again attempts to subpoena two high-profile GOP donors following revelations that justices accepted undisclosed luxury trips and engaged in other potential conflicts of interest. Despite the headlines and the committee’s springtime request that Chief Justice John Roberts appear before the panel, Roberts has maintained that the court already followed its own ethics guidelines. But Monday’s 15-page code of conduct, co-signed by all nine justices, is a new maneuver by the court to publicize its standards. The document states in its opening that the rules are “not new” and that the court has “long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules.” “The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,” the document states. “To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.” The five “canons” outlined over eight pages include that: A justice should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. A justice should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. A justice should perform the duties of office fairly, impartially, and diligently. A justice may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with obligations of the judicial office. And, a justice should refrain from political activity. Durbin: Code falls short Sen. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the new rules “fall short of what we could and should expect when a Supreme Court issues a code of conduct.” The court’s new code “does not appear to contain any meaningful enforcement mechanism to hold justices accountable for any violations of code. It also leaves a wide range of decisions up to the discretion of individual justices, including decisions on recusal from sitting on cases,” the Illinois Democrat said on the Senate floor Monday. “I’m still reviewing the court’s new code of conduct for now. I will note that the court’s adoption of this code marks a step in the right direction.” Durbin and fellow Democrats on the Judiciary panel had planned to vote last week to subpoena high-profile Republican donors Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo, who bankrolled luxury travel for conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The vote to subpoena Crow and Leo, who Durbin claims have been uncooperative, was called off due to “scheduling issues,” Durbin said last week. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who sits on the committee, attributed the delay Thursday to the panel’s Republicans introducing dozens of amendments that “jammed the gears of the committee.” Whitehouse, whose Supreme Court ethics bill was passed favorably out of committee in July, called the court’s release Monday “long overdue” and lacking. “The honor system has not worked for members of the Roberts Court. My ethics bill would create a transparent process for complaints and allow a panel of chief judges from the lower courts to investigate and make recommendations based on those complaints,” Whitehouse said in a statement Monday. The committee is again scheduled to vote on the subpoenas this coming Thursday. Ethics questions In April, ProPublica chronicled years of private jet and yacht excursions paid for by Crow that Thomas never disclosed. The nonprofit investigative outfit also revealed that Thomas did not disclose a real estate transaction with Crow. Following the ProPublica revelations, Politico reported that Justice Neil Gorsuch did not identify the purchaser who bought a 40-acre plot in Colorado co-owned by the justice — a sale from which he made between $250,001 and $500,000, according to federal disclosure forms. The purchaser turned out to be attorney Brian Duffy of the law firm Greenberg Traurig who has since argued numerous cases in front of the court. The spring revelations set in motion a series of hearings by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and its subcommittees. Roberts was invited to but declined to attend the first of the hearings in early May. In June, ProPublica revealed that Alito attended a fishing expedition in Alaska paid for and organized by Republican donors, including Leo. In July, The Associated Press uncovered that Justice Sonia Sotomayor allegedly directed taxpayer-funded court staff to schedule speaking engagements related to her literary work and pitch sales of the justice’s books, according to the AP’s reporting. Through more than 100 public records requests, the AP uncovered details about the court staff’s involvement in promoting Sotomayor’s memoir and children’s books — from which the justice has earned roughly $3.7 million. Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Follow Alabama Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.
Shutdown inches closer as U.S. House GOP fails to pass defense bill, lawmakers exit D.C.
by Jennifer Shutt, Alabama Reflector September 21, 2023 WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans were unable for a third time Thursday to begin debate on the Defense funding bill, throwing another wrench into Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s leadership tenure. The 212-216 vote that rejected the rule for the $826 billion Defense spending measure was unexpected, coming less than a day after House GOP lawmakers gathered in a room in the Capitol basement to broker a path forward. Arizona Rep. Eli Crane and Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene switched their votes to oppose the rule, after voting on Tuesday to adopt it. Colorado Rep. Ken Buck and South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman both supported adoption of the rule on Thursday after opposing it earlier in the week. Other Republicans voting no included Andy Biggs of Arizona, Dan Bishop of North Carolina, and Matt Rosendale of Montana. The rule would have allowed the House to begin officially debating the bill and voting on nearly 200 amendments. The failed vote led McCarthy to reverse course on the schedule, with many lawmakers heading home for the weekend on Thursday instead of sticking around for votes throughout the weekend. McCarthy had said exactly one week ago, “When we come back, we’re not going to leave. We’re going to get this done.” The update to the House schedule sent around Thursday afternoon said ”ample notice will be given ahead of any potential votes tomorrow or this weekend.” The stalemate and change of plans does not bode well for efforts to approve the short-term spending bill that’s needed to stave off a partial government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. McCarthy has yet to unify his members amid deep disagreements about how much the federal government should spend and what policy restrictions should be included in full-year bills as well as the stopgap measure. The ongoing dispute has ground the House chamber to a halt as McCarthy searches for a way to unify his razor-thin majority without turning to Democrats to pass a bipartisan bill. Arkansas Republican Rep. Steve Womack, a senior appropriator, said Thursday that his fellow lawmakers need to accept the Senate will re-work any partisan bills the House sends over. “Remember, this is all going to go to the Senate, so people don’t need to get real hot and bothered over where we are today,” Womack said. “It’s going to be based on what comes back and whether or not it can get to the floor.” Discussions among House Republicans, he said, are likely to become “heated” once the Senate re-works a short-term spending bill and sends it back to the House for a final approval vote. Infighting and political differences within the House Republican Conference have so far prevented GOP lawmakers from reaching agreement on their opening offer on a short-term spending bill, which is also called a continuing resolution or CR. Defense spending bill falters Before the Thursday vote, McCarthy had been somewhat optimistic the House could finally approve the rule and begin debate on the full-year Defense spending measure. Greene wrote on X that she switched her vote “because they refused to take the war money for Ukraine out and put it in a separate bill.” The rule approved 184 amendments for floor debate and votes, including one from Florida’s Matt Gaetz that would have prohibited “security assistance for Ukraine.” Crane wrote on X on Thursday that he believes votes “on CRs, omnibus bills and raising the debt ceiling should never take place.” “I’m going to do whatever I can to change the way this place works,” he wrote. Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole, chair of the Rules Committee, switched his vote on Thursday to a no vote after voting yes a few minutes earlier. The procedural maneuver allows him to bring the rule back up for a vote at a later time. The whip count error appeared to be a surprise for Defense Appropriations Chair Ken Calvert, a California Republican; ranking member Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat; and staff — all of whom were seated at the tables on the House floor ready to lead debate on the measure. The Republican table held thick white binders as well as a large accordion folder, all filled with paperwork, and the Democratic table was stacked with paperwork as well. It’s highly unlikely that staff would have brought all the materials needed to debate the bill and amendments if they knew the rule vote was going to fail. ‘At least a short-term shutdown’ In addition to strong disagreement among House Republicans about the full-year spending bills, the House GOP Conference has yet to solidify a plan to pass the short-term stopgap spending bill that’s needed to hold off a funding lapse. Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson, chair of the Interior-Environment spending subcommittee, said he expects there will be “at least a short-term shutdown” as the House and Senate try to reach agreement on a short-term spending bill. “That’s a lot of work to do in a very short time,” Simpson said. House Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, said Thursday that he hasn’t seen details on any new short-term spending bills that might come to the floor. “I haven’t seen the language of any additional CR,” he said. Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, the top Republican on the Commerce-Justice-Science spending panel, said he’s “hoping the House chaos is set aside.” “I keep saying I’m not voting for another CR again, but I keep voting for them because the outcome is worse with a shutdown,” Moran said. “But this just needs to be resolved in the House. I don’t think there’s a problem in the Senate that would cause a shutdown.” Any short-term spending bill will have to be bipartisan in order to get through the Democratically controlled Senate, where at least 60 votes are needed to limit debate on legislation. That could take more time than lawmakers have before Oct. 1, he said. “Nothing about this is conducive to getting
Democrats’ letter urges amendment to National Defense Authorization Act
Vetting human rights security cooperation programs is the focus of a letter sent to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees by a pair of Democrats. California Congresswoman Sara Jacobs, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, and 13 other federal legislators are urging the committees to include their amendment that would require vetting of human rights in cooperation programs within the fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act conference pact. According to the letter sent to Chairman Jack Reed, D-RI; Chairman Adam Smith, D-WA; Ranking Member Jim Inhofe, R-OK; and Ranking Member Mike Rogers, R-AL, members are pushing for House-ratified provisions of the Upholding Human Rights Abroad Act that would, if enacted, close loopholes in the Leahy Laws that would “guarantee human rights vetting” of U.S. security assistance that would prevent taxpayer funds from aiding human rights abusers. “This provision would strengthen the U.S. commitment to human rights by increasing vetting measures to ensure that recipients of U.S. support have not committed human rights violations or violations of international humanitarian law,” the members wrote in the letter. “Consistent with the Department of Defense Leahy Law, this provision allows for the use of a national security waiver.” The members wrote that the provisions would give the flexibility that would “continue to address U.S. national security priorities” that would allow the State Department to “undertake this additional vetting.” “This provision would help prevent civilian harm, ensure partner compliance with human rights, and improve intended long-term outcomes toward good governance, rule of law, peace, and human rights promotion,” the members wrote. The letter was also signed by Senators Dick Durbin, D-Ill; Patrick Leahy, D-VT; and Richard Blumenthal, D-CT; and Representatives Jason Crow, D-CO; Chrissy Houlahan, D-PA; Tom Malinowski, D-NJ; Joaquin Castro, D-TX; Albio Sires, D-NJ; Dina Titus, D-NV; Ted Lieu, D-CA; Colin Allred, D-TX-32; Gerry Connolly, D-VA; and Dean Phillips, D-MN. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Ketanji Brown Jackson on track for confirmation, but GOP votes in doubt
After more than 30 hours of hearings, the Senate is on track to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. But Democrats seem unlikely to confirm her with a robust bipartisan vote, dashing President Joe Biden’s hopes for a grand reset after partisan battles over other high court nominees. On Thursday, just hours after the hearings came to a close, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced he will vote against Jackson’s confirmation. He said in a Senate floor speech that he “cannot and will not” support her for a lifetime appointment. McConnell slammed the liberal groups that have supported Jackson, and he criticized her for refusing to take a position on the size of the nine-member court, even though that decision is ultimately up to Congress. Some advocacy groups have pushed for enlarging the court after three justices nominated by former President Donald Trump cemented a 6-3 conservative majority. McConnell also cited concerns about her sentencing of criminal defendants — a subject that dominated much of the four days of hearings and was part of a coordinated GOP effort to portray her as soft on crime. His position was expected and does not affect Jackson’s trajectory to be confirmed by mid-April. But the leader’s quick declaration could prompt many of his fellow Republicans to follow suit, thwarting Biden’s efforts to bring back the overwhelming bipartisan votes that were commonplace for Supreme Court nominees when he first came to the Senate five decades ago. “I think whomever I pick will get a vote from Republican side,” Biden said after Justice Stephen Breyer announced he would step down from the court this summer. As he started his search for a replacement, the president made a point of inviting Republican senators to the White House to hear their advice. While many GOP senators have praised Jackson’s vast experience and qualifications, it was clear at the hearings that Biden’s outreach had little effect. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee interrogated Jackson about her nine-year record as a federal judge, frequently interrupting her answers. Jackson, supported by committee Democrats, pushed back aggressively on Republicans who said she gave light sentences to sex offenders, explaining her sentencing process in detail and telling them “nothing could be further from the truth.” The focus on crime dovetails with an emerging GOP theme for this year’s midterm elections and is likely to be decisive for many Republican senators. Others have brought up separate reasons to vote against her — from her support from liberal groups to her so-called “judicial philosophy.” One or more Republicans could still cast a vote for Jackson’s confirmation, but the contentious nature of the four-day hearings laid bare a familiar partisan dynamic, seen over years of pitched fighting over judicial nominations. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, who has been privately lobbying GOP colleagues to support Jackson, said after McConnell’s announcement that it will be “sad for our country and sad as a commentary on where the parties are today” if her historic nomination is approved on a strictly partisan vote. “The Republicans are testing their messages for the November election,” Durbin said. Durbin said he is “still hoping that several Republicans — I hope many more” will vote for her. If not, Democrats can confirm Jackson without any GOP support in the 50-50 Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie. As talk turned to the voting ahead, the Judiciary panel held its final day of Senate hearings Thursday with a top lawyers’ group, which said its review found Jackson has a “sterling” reputation and “exceptional” competence and is well qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. “Outstanding, excellent, superior, superb,” testified Ann Claire Williams, chair of the American Bar Association committee that makes recommendations on federal judges. “Those are the comments from virtually everyone we interviewed.” Williams said the group spoke to more than 250 judges and lawyers about Jackson. “The question we kept asking ourselves: How does one human being do so much so extraordinary well?” Jackson would be the third Black justice, after Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and the sixth woman. She would also be the first former public defender on the court, and the first justice with experience representing indigent criminal defendants since Marshall. Her confirmation would not alter the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court. Durbin noted at Thursday’s hearing that some Republican senators argued that Jackson was out of the mainstream when it comes to sentencing, and he asked the ABA whether such a concern would have surfaced in their interviews with the judges and lawyers who worked with her. “It never came up in any of these interviews,” Williams said. During questioning Tuesday and Wednesday, GOP senators aggressively queried Jackson on the sentences she handed down to child pornography offenders in her nine years as a federal judge, her legal advocacy on behalf of suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, her thoughts on critical race theory, and even her religious views. Many of the hours of questioning were spent on the specifics of the child pornography cases, with the discussion led by several GOP senators who are eyeing the presidency. Pushing back, Jackson said she bases sentences on many factors, not just federal guidelines. Sentencing is not a “numbers game,” she said, noting that there are no mandatory sentences for sex offenders and that there has been significant debate on the subject. Democratic senators cited outside experts who said her sentences were within the norm. Some of those cases have given her nightmares, Jackson said, and were “among the worst that I have seen.” The GOP criticism was countered by effusive praise from Democrats and by reflections on the historic nature of her nomination. The most riveting came from New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who used his time Wednesday not to ask questions but to tearfully speak and draw tears from Jackson as well. Booker, who is Black, said he sees “my ancestors and yours” when he looks at Jackson. “I know what it’s taken
Ketanji Brown Jackson seems headed for confirmation, says no ‘agendas’
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson faced a barrage of Republican questioning Wednesday about her sentencing of criminal defendants, as her history-making bid to join the Supreme Court veered from lofty constitutional questions to attacks on her motivations as a judge. She declared she would rule “without any agendas” as the high court’s first Black female justice, rejecting Republican efforts to paint her as soft on crime in her decade on the federal bench. Democrats defended her and heralded the historic nature of her nomination. “America is ready for the Supreme Court glass ceiling to shatter,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in Jackson’s second and last day answering questions at her confirmation hearings. Though her approval seems all but sure — Democrats are aiming for a vote before Easter — Republicans keep trying to chip away at her record. In more than 12 hours of testimony on Tuesday, and long into the day on Wednesday, GOP senators aggressively questioned her on the sentences she has handed down to child pornography offenders, her legal advocacy on behalf of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, her thoughts on critical race theory and even her religious views. In response to questioning about a case over affirmative action at Harvard University, her alma mater where she now serves on the Board of Overseers, Jackson said she would recuse herself. “That’s my plan,” she responded when Texas Sen. Ted Cruz asked her about it. The court will, in the fall, take up challenges to the consideration of race in college admissions in lawsuits filed by Asian American applicants to Harvard, a private institution, and the University of North Carolina, a state school. The court currently plans to hear the suits against the two schools together but could separate them and give Jackson a chance to take part in what will be one of next term’s biggest issues. Tempers rose at Wednesday’s hearing as the day wore on, with Durbin slamming down his gavel at one point when Cruz refused to yield after his time expired while he was grilling Jackson on the specifics of cases. “You can bang it as long as you want,” Cruz snapped, shouting that he just wanted Jackson to answer his question. “At some point, you have to follow the rules,” Durbin shot back. In another round of tense questioning, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham interrogated Jackson on the punishment she believes appropriate for people convicted of child pornography. Like Cruz and others on the committee, Graham said she had been too lenient on those criminals. Graham frequently interrupted her as she tried to speak; at one point, he said judges should simply “put their a— in jail!” The focus on her sentencing was part of a larger effort by the committee’s Republicans — several of whom are potential presidential candidates — to characterize Jackson’s record and her judicial philosophy as too empathetic and soft on criminals who commit the worst offenses. It was also part of an emerging emphasis on crime in GOP midterm election campaigns. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said she seemed like “a very kind person” — but “there’s at least a level of empathy that enters into your treatment of a defendant that some could view as maybe beyond what some of us would be comfortable with, with respect to administering justice.” The sustained focus on her record suggested that, contrary to Democratic hopes, Jackson’s confirmation vote in the full Senate is unlikely to garner much, if any, Republican support. Still, several Republicans acknowledged that she is likely to be on the court. Democrats can confirm her without any bipartisan support in the 50-50 Senate as Vice President Kamala Harris can cast the tie-breaking vote. Jackson, backed by committee Democrats, forcefully defended her record and said that the Republicans were mischaracterizing her decisions. Asked if her rulings were endangering children, she told the committee on Tuesday: “Nothing could be further from the truth.” She said she bases sentences on many factors, not just federal guidelines. Sentencing is not a “numbers game,” she said, noting that there are no mandatory sentences for sex offenders and that there has been significant debate on the subject. Some of the cases have given her nightmares, she said, and were “among the worst that I have seen.” Jackson said that if she is confirmed, she will do what she has done as a federal judge, “which is to rule from a position of neutrality, to look carefully at the facts and the circumstances of every case without any agendas, without any attempt to push the law in one direction or the other.” She reminded the committee that her brother and two uncles served as police officers and that “crime and the effect on the community, and the need for law enforcement — those are not abstract concepts or political slogans to me.” Defending her, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware told Jackson that the Republican lines of questioning are “an attempt to distract from your broad support, your deep record, your outstanding intellectual and legal credentials.” President Joe Biden chose Jackson in February, fulfilling a campaign pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court for the first time in American history. She would take the seat of Justice Stephen Breyer, who announced in January that he would retire this summer after 28 years on the court. Jackson would be the third Black justice, after Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and the sixth woman. Her confirmation would maintain the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court. Democrats have been full of praise for Jackson, noting that she would not only be the first Black woman but also the first public defender on the court and the first with experience representing indigent criminal defendants since Marshall. Jackson said that having a diverse judicial branch is important because it “bolsters public confidence in our system” and “lends confidence that the rulings that the court is handing down are fair and just.” She spoke of her parents often
Ketanji Brown Jackson pledges to decide cases ‘without fear or favor’
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson pledged Monday to decide cases “without fear or favor” if the Senate confirms her historic nomination as the first Black woman on the high court. Jackson, 51, thanked God and professed love for “our country and the Constitution” in a 12-minute statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee at the end of her first day of confirmation hearings, nearly four hours almost entirely consumed by remarks from the panel’s 22 members. Republicans promised pointed questions over the coming two days, with a special focus on her record on criminal matters. Democrats were full of praise for President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee. With her family sitting behind her, her husband in socks bearing George Washington’s likeness, Jackson stressed that she has been independent, deciding cases “from a neutral posture” in her nine years as a judge, and that she is ever mindful of the importance of that role. “I have dedicated my career to ensuring that the words engraved on the front of the Supreme Court building — equal justice under law — are a reality and not just an ideal,” she declared. Barring a significant misstep, Democrats who control the Senate by the slimmest of margins intend to wrap up her confirmation before Easter. She would be the third Black justice, after Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, as well as the first Black woman on the high court. Jackson’s sternest Republican critics, as well as her Democratic defenders, all acknowledged the historic, barrier-breaking nature of her presence. There were frequent reminders that no Black woman had been nominated to the high court before her and repeated references to another unique aspect of her nomination: Jackson is the first former public defender nominated to be a justice. “It’s not easy being the first. Often, you have to be the best, in some ways the bravest,” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the committee chairman, said in support. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., spoke of the “joy” in the room and acknowledged her family’s pride as Jackson’s parents beamed behind her. Booker repeated a story Jackson has frequently told about a letter her youngest daughter wrote to President Barack Obama several years ago touting her mother’s experience. “We are going to see a new generation of children talking about their mamas and daring to write the president of the United States that my mom should be on the Supreme Court,” Booker said. “I want to tell your daughter right now, that dream of hers is so close to being a reality.” In their opening statements, Democrats sought to preemptively rebut Republican criticism of her record on criminal matters as a judge and before that as a federal public defender and a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Jackson “is not anti-law enforcement” and is not “soft on crime,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said, noting that members of Jackson’s family have worked in law enforcement and that she has support from some national law enforcement organizations. ”Judge Jackson is no judicial activist.” The committee’s senior Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, promised Republicans would “ask tough questions about Jackson’s judicial philosophy” without turning the hearings into a ”spectacle.” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., noted that Democrats had opposed some past Republican judicial nominees who were Black or Hispanic, and he said that he and his GOP colleagues wouldn’t be deterred by Jackson’s race from asking probing questions. He said of some criticism from the left: “It’s about, ‘We’re all racist if we ask hard questions.’ That’s not going to fly with us.” Graham was one of three Republicans to support Jackson’s confirmation, 53-44, as an appellate judge last year. But he has indicated over the past several weeks that he is unlikely to vote for her again. While few Republicans are likely to vote for her, most GOP senators did not aggressively criticize Jackson, whose confirmation would not change the court’s 6-3 conservative majority. Several Republicans used their time to denounce Senate Democrats instead of Jackson’s record. The Republicans are trying to use her nomination to brand Democrats as soft on crime, an emerging theme in GOP midterm election campaigns. Biden has chosen several former public defenders for life-tenured judicial posts. In addition, Jackson served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent agency created by Congress to reduce disparity in federal prison sentences. With Jackson silently taking notes, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said in his opening statement that his research showed that she had a pattern of issuing lower sentences in child pornography cases, repeating comments he wrote in a Twitter thread last week. The Republican National Committee echoed his claims, which Hawley did not raise when he questioned Jackson last year before voting against her appeals court confirmation. The White House, along with several Democrats at the hearing, has rejected Hawley’s criticism as “toxic and weakly presented misinformation.” Former Alabama Sen. Doug Jones, who is guiding Jackson as she navigates the Senate process, told reporters afterward that “she will be the one to counter many of those questions” from Hawley and others on Tuesday and Wednesday. Hawley is one of several committee Republicans, along with Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who are potential 2024 presidential candidates, and their aspirations may collide with other Republicans who would prefer not to pursue a scorched-earth approach to Jackson’s nomination. Her testimony will give most Americans, as well as the Senate, their most extensive look yet at the Harvard-trained lawyer with a broader resume than many nominees. She would be the first justice with significant criminal defense experience since Marshall. Jackson appeared before the same committee last year, after Biden chose her to fill an opening on the federal appeals court in Washington, just down the hill from the Supreme Court. The American Bar Association, which evaluates judicial nominees, has given her its highest rating, “well qualified.” Biden chose Jackson in February, fulfilling a campaign pledge to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court for the first time in American history. She would take the seat of Justice
U.S. ends asylum restrictions for children traveling alone
Unaccompanied child migrants trying to enter the United States will no longer be denied a chance to seek asylum under new guidance announced by U.S. health authorities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in announcing the change late Friday night, said: “that expulsion of unaccompanied non-citizen children is not warranted to protect the public health.” The change was announced shortly before a court order was to take effect that would have allowed the Biden administration to expel unaccompanied children seeking asylum under Title 42 authority, which was introduced in March 2020 to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The order remains in place for adults and families traveling with children. Testing and other preventive measures allow children traveling alone to be released to sponsors in the United States, the CDC said. Sponsors are typically family or other close relatives. A federal judge ruled in a lawsuit by the state of Texas that the CDC failed to explain why children traveling alone were exempted from Title 42 and gave the administration a week to appeal. Instead, the CDC lifted the order — but only for unaccompanied children. The Associated Press left a phone message with the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and also sent an email. There was no immediate response. Migrants have been expelled more than 1.6 million times under Title 42, named for a 1944 public health law. Biden has kept the order in place but exempted unaccompanied children during his first days in office. Prominent Democrats and advocacy groups have been pressing to end Title 42 for all migrants. “It is not a humane or effective solution to securing our border,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, tweeted on Friday. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Tommy Tuberville introduces legislation to fix vulnerabilities in visa programs
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville joined Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin to introduce the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act, which aims to reduce fraud and abuse, provide protections for American workers and visa holders, and require more transparency in the recruitment of foreign workers. According to Tuberville’s press release, the overhaul of the H-1B and L-1 visa programs will protect American workers and crack down on foreign outsourcing companies, which exploit these visa programs to deprive qualified Americans of high-skilled jobs. “For too long, loopholes in our immigration system have been exploited to find cheap labor at the expense of the American worker. That must change. This legislation will crack down on the manipulation of existing vulnerabilities to ensure employers prioritize the American worker before considering any high-skilled foreign applicants. If we are going to get our economy back up and running, we need to do it correctly and that begins with utilizing the talent we have here at home first and foremost,” stated Tuberville. First introduced in 2007, the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act will require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to prioritize for the first time the annual allocation of H-1B visas. The new system would ensure that the best and brightest STEM advanced degree students educated in the United States receive preference for an H-1B visa, and also prioritize other U.S. advanced degree holders, those being paid a high wage, and those with valuable skills. The legislation will prohibit the replacement of American workers by H-1B or L-1 visa holders and clarifies that the working conditions of similarly employed American workers may not be adversely affected by the hiring of an H-1B worker, including H-1B workers who have been placed by another employer at the American worker’s worksite. The legislation will crack down on outsourcing companies that import large numbers of H-1B and L-1 workers for temporary training purposes only to send the workers back to their home countries to do the same job. Specifically, the bill would prohibit companies with more than 50 employees, of which at least half are H-1B or L-1 holders, from hiring additional H-1B employees. The bill gives the U.S. Department of Labor enhanced authority to review, investigate, and audit employer compliance with program requirements, as well as to penalize fraudulent or abusive conduct. It requires the production of extensive statistical data about the H-1B and L-1 programs, including wage data, worker education levels, place of employment, and gender. “Congress created the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to complement America’s high-skilled workforce, not replace it. Unfortunately, some companies are trying to exploit the programs by cutting American workers for cheaper labor. We need programs dedicated to putting American workers first. When skilled foreign workers are needed to meet the demands of our labor market, we must also ensure that visa applicants who honed their skills at American colleges and universities are a priority over the importation of more foreign workers. Our bill takes steps to ensure that the programs work for Americans and skilled foreign workers alike,” Grassley stated.
High court’s Alabama ruling sparks alarm over voting rights
The Supreme Court’s decision to halt efforts to create a second mostly Black congressional district in Alabama for the 2022 election sparked fresh warnings Tuesday that the court is becoming too politicized, eroding the Voting Rights Act and reviving the need for Congress to intervene. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority put on hold a lower court ruling that Alabama must draw new congressional districts to increase Black voting power. Civil rights groups had argued that the state, with its “sordid record” of racial discrimination, drew new maps by “packing” Black voters into one single district and “cracking” Black voters from other districts in ways that dilute their electoral power. Black voters are 26% of Alabama’s electorate. In its 5-4 decision late Monday, the Supreme Court said it would review the case in full, a future legal showdown in the months to come that voting advocates fear could further gut the protections in the landmark Civil Rights-era law. It’s “the latest example of the Supreme Court hacking away at the protections of the voting rights act of 1965,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “Congress must act. We must restore the Voting Rights Act.” The outcome all but ensures Alabama will continue to send mostly white Republicans to Washington after this fall’s midterm elections and applies new pressure on Congress to shore up voter protections after a broader elections bill collapsed last month. And the decision shows the growing power of the high court’s conservative majority as President Joe Biden is under his own pressures to name a liberal nominee to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. Rep. Terri Sewell, the only Black representative from Alabama, said the court’s decision underscores the need for Congress to pass her bill, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, to update and ensure the law’s historic protections. “Black Alabamians deserve nothing less,” Sewell said in a statement. The case out of Alabama is one of the most important legal tests of the new congressional maps stemming from the 2020 census count. It comes in the aftermath of court decisions that have widely been viewed as chiseling away at race-based protections of the Voting Rights Act. Alabama and other states with a known history of voting rights violations were no longer under federal oversight, or “preclearance,” from the Justice Department for changes to their election practices after the court, in its 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision, struck down the bill’s formula as outdated. As states nationwide adjust their congressional districts to fit population and demographic data, Alabama’s Republican-led Legislature drew up new maps last fall that were immediately challenged by civil rights groups on behalf of Black voters in the state. Late last month, a three-judge lower court, which includes two judges appointed by former President Donald Trump, had ruled that the state had probably violated the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. This finding was rooted, in part, in the fact that the state did not create a second district in which Black voters made up a majority or close to it. Given that more than one person in four in Alabama is Black, the plaintiffs had argued the single Black district is far less than one person, one vote. “Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress,” the three-judge panel wrote in the 225-page ruling. The lower court gave the Alabama legislature until Friday to come up with a remedial plan. Late Monday, the Supreme Court, after an appeal from Alabama, issued a stay. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, part of the conservative majority, said the lower court’s order for a new map came too close to the 2022 election. Chief Justice John Roberts joined his three more liberal colleagues in dissent. “It’s just a really disturbing ruling,” said Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., a member of the Judiciary Committee, who called the Supreme Court’s decision “a setback to racial equity, to ideals of one person, one vote.” Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, and the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus said the decision “hits at the guts of voting rights.” She told The Associated Press: “We’re afraid of what will happen from Alabama to Texas to Florida and even to the great state of Ohio.” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the court decision exposes the need for Congress to legislate to protect voting rights. The erosion of those rights is “exactly what the Voting Rights Act is in place to prevent.” Critics went beyond assailing the decision at hand to assert that the court has become political. “I know the court likes to say it’s not partisan, that it’s apolitical, but this seems to be a very political decision,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., tweeted that the court majority has “zero legitimacy.” Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., tweeted that the court’s action was “Jim Crow 2.0.” Alabama Republicans welcomed the court’s decision. “It is great news,” said Rep. Mo Brooks, who is running for the GOP nomination for Senate. He called the lower court ruling an effort to “usurp” the decisions made by the state’s legislature. The justices will, at some later date, decide whether the map produced by the state violates the voting rights law, a case that could call into question “decades of this Court’s precedent” about Section 2 of the act, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent. Section 2 prohibits racial and other discrimination in voting procedures. Voting advocates see the arguments ahead as a showdown over voting rights they say are being slowly but methodically altered by the Roberts court. The Supreme Court in the Shelby decision did away with the preclearance formula under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. And last summer, the conservative majority in Bronvich vs. the Democratic National Committee upheld voting limits in an Arizona case concerning early ballots that a lower court had found discriminatory under Section 2. With the Alabama case, the court
GOP poised to block bipartisan probe of January 6 insurrection
Senate Republicans are poised to block the creation of a special commission to study the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, dashing hopes for a bipartisan panel amid a GOP push to put the violent insurrection by Donald Trump’s supporters behind them. Broad Republican opposition was expected in what would be the first successful Senate filibuster of the Biden presidency, even as the family of a Capitol Police officer who died that day and other officers who battled rioters went office to office asking GOP senators to support the commission. The siege was the worst attack on the Capitol in 200 years and interrupted the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s win over Trump. Though the bill passed the House earlier this month with the support of almost three dozen Republicans, GOP senators said they believe the commission would eventually be used against them politically. And former President Trump, who still has a firm hold on the party, has called it a “Democrat trap.” The expected vote is emblematic of the profound mistrust between the two parties since the siege, which has sowed deeper divisions on Capitol Hill even though lawmakers in the two parties fled together from the rioters that day. The events of Jan. 6 have become an increasingly fraught topic among Republicans as some in the party have downplayed the violence and defended the rioters who supported Trump and his false insistence that the election was stolen from him. While initially saying he was open to the idea of the commission, which would be modeled after an investigation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell turned firmly against it in recent days. He has said he believes the panel’s investigation would be partisan despite the even split among party members. McConnell, who once said Trump was responsible for “provoking” the mob attack on the Capitol, said of Democrats: “They’d like to continue to litigate the former president, into the future.” Biden, asked about the commission at a stop in Cleveland, said Thursday, “I can’t imagine anyone voting against” it. The Republican opposition to the bipartisan panel has revived Democratic pressure to do away with the filibuster, a time-honored Senate tradition that requires a vote by 60 of the 100 senators to cut off debate and advance a bill. With the Senate evenly split 50-50, Democrats need the support of 10 Republicans to move to the commission bill, sparking fresh debate over whether the time has come to change the rules and lower the threshold to 51 votes to take up legislation. The Republicans’ political arguments over the violent siege — which is still raw for many in the Capitol, almost five months later — have frustrated not only Democrats but also those who fought off the rioters. Michael Fanone, a Metropolitan Police Department officer who responded to the attack, said between meetings with Republican senators that a commission is “necessary for us to heal as a nation from the trauma that we all experienced that day.” Fanone has described being dragged down the Capitol steps by rioters who shocked him with a stun gun and beat him. Sandra Garza, the girlfriend of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who collapsed and died after battling the rioters, said of the Republican senators: “You know they are here today and with their families and comfortable because of the actions of law enforcement that day.” “So I don’t understand why they would resist getting to the bottom of what happened that day and fully understanding how to prevent it. Just boggles my mind,” she said. Video of the rioting shows two men spraying Sicknick and another officer with a chemical, but the Washington medical examiner said he suffered a stroke and died from natural causes. Garza attended the meetings with Sicknick’s mother, Gladys Sicknick. In a statement on Wednesday, Mrs. Sicknick suggested the opponents of the commission “visit my son’s grave in Arlington National Cemetery and, while there, think about what their hurtful decisions will do to those officers who will be there for them going forward.” Dozens of other police officers were injured as the rioters pushed past them, breaking through windows and doors and hunting for lawmakers. The protesters constructed a mock gallows in front of the Capitol and called for the hanging of Vice President Mike Pence, who was overseeing the certification of the presidential vote. Four protesters died, including a woman who was shot and killed by police as she tried to break into the House chamber with lawmakers still inside. More than 400 people among the protesters have been arrested. “We have a mob overtake the Capitol, and we can’t get the Republicans to join us in making historic record of that event? That is sad,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “That tells you what’s wrong with the Senate and what’s wrong with the filibuster.” Many Democrats are warning that if Republicans are willing to use the filibuster to stop an arguably popular measure, it shows the limits of trying to broker compromises, particularly on bills related to election reforms or other aspects of the Democrats’ agenda. For now, though, Democrats don’t have the votes to change the rule. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, both moderate Democrats, have said they want to preserve the filibuster. Manchin said Thursday that there is “no excuse” for Republicans to vote against the commission, but that he is “not ready to destroy our government” by doing away with the procedural tactic. The commission has received support from government officials outside of Congress, as well. On Thursday, four former secretaries of Homeland Security who served under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama — Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano, and Jeh Johnson — issued a statement saying a commission is necessary to “ensure the peaceful transfer of power in our country is never so threatened again.” In a last-ditch effort to convince some of her Republican colleagues to save
Tommy Tuberville joins other leaders to change sexual assault investigations in the military
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville has joined a bipartisan group of senators to support a bill that will change the way the military conducts sexual assault investigations and prosecutions. Tuberville, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Personnel, joined U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and 28 other Senators to introduce the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act. According to the press release, the legislation “keeps the prosecution of sexual assault crimes within the military but moves the decision to prosecute to independent, trained, professional military prosecutors, and provides for several new prevention provisions such as better training for commanders and increased physical security measures, while ensuring that commanders still have the ability to provide strong leadership and ensure a successful command climate.” Tuberville stated, “Our men and women in uniform sacrifice every day to keep us safe, often working in some pretty unsafe places around the world. The last thing they should be worrying about is whether they’re unsafe within their ranks, and they certainly shouldn’t have to fear retaliation if they report a sexual assault. This bill is what happens when a bipartisan group of senators come together to get something done. I’m thankful that Senator Gillibrand and Senator Ernst have led the charge, and I’m glad to join my colleagues in support of this bill that will help improve the way the military handles sexual assaults so survivors can get the justice they deserve.” The bill was introduced in 2019, but did not receive a vote. Specifically, the legislation would: Move the decision on whether to prosecute serious crimes to independent, trained, and professional military prosecutors, while leaving misdemeanors and uniquely military crimes within the chain of command. Ensure the Department of Defense supports criminal investigators and military prosecutors through the development of unique skills needed to properly handle investigations and cases related to sexual assault and domestic violence. Require the Secretary of Defense to survey and improve the physical security of military installations– including locks, security cameras, and other passive security measures – to increase safety in lodging and living spaces for service members. Increase, and improve training and education on military sexual assault throughout our armed services. Kirsten Gillibrand stated on Twitter, “Here’s a bipartisan mission we can all support: Survivors of military sexual assault deserve justice. I’m proud to have @JoniErnst join me this week to introduce our new, improved bill to reform the military justice system and invest in prevention.” Here’s a bipartisan mission we can all support: Survivors of military sexual assault deserve justice. I’m proud to have @joniernst join me this week to introduce our new, improved bill to reform the military justice system and invest in prevention. https://t.co/pYYUL6IRyA — Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) April 27, 2021 The legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Angus King (I-ME), Michael Braun (R-IN), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Rand Paul (R-KY), Chris Coons (D-DE), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Patrick Leahy (D-VT),Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Gary C. Peters (D-MI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM).
Donald Trump, on tape, presses Ga. official to ‘find’ him votes
President Donald Trump pressured Georgia’s Republican secretary of state to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden’s win in the state’s presidential election, repeatedly citing disproven claims of fraud and raising the prospect of “criminal offense” if officials did not change the vote count, according to a recording of the conversation. The phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Saturday was the latest step in an unprecedented effort by a sitting president to pressure a state official to reverse the outcome of a free and fair election that he lost. The president, who has refused to accept his loss to Democratic president-elect Biden, repeatedly argued that Raffensperger could change the certified results. “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump said. “Because we won the state.” Georgia counted its votes three times before certifying Biden’s win by a 11,779 margin, Raffensperger noted: “President Trump, we’ve had several lawsuits, and we’ve had to respond in court to the lawsuits and the contentions. We don’t agree that you have won.” Audio snippets of the conversation were first posted online by The Washington Post. The Associated Press obtained the full audio of Trump’s conversation with Georgia officials from a person on the call. The AP has a policy of not amplifying disinformation and unproven allegations. The AP will be posting the full audio as it annotates a transcript with fact check material. Trump’s renewed intervention and the persistent and unfounded claims of fraud come nearly two weeks before he leaves office and two days before twin runoff elections in Georgia that will determine political control of the U.S. Senate. The president used the hour-long conversation to tick through a list of claims about the election in Georgia, including that hundreds of thousands of ballots mysteriously appeared in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta. Officials have said there is no evidence of that happening. The Georgia officials on the call are heard repeatedly pushing back against the president’s assertions, telling him that he’s relying on debunked theories and, in one case, selectively edited video. At another point in the conversation, Trump appeared to threaten Raffensperger and Ryan Germany, the secretary of state’s legal counsel, by suggesting both could be criminally liable if they failed to find that thousands of ballots in Fulton County had been illegally destroyed. There is no evidence to support Trump’s claim. “That’s a criminal offense,” Trump says. “And you can’t let that happen.” Others on the call included Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, and attorneys assisting Trump, including Washington lawyer Cleta Mitchell. Democrats and a few Republicans condemned Trump’s actions, while at least one Democrat urged a criminal investigation. Legal experts said Trump’s behavior raised questions about possible election law violations. Biden senior adviser Bob Bauer called the recording “irrefutable proof” of Trump pressuring and threatening an official in his own party to “rescind a state’s lawful, certified vote count and fabricate another in its place.” “It captures the whole, disgraceful story about Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy,” Bauer said. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in that chamber, said Trump’s conduct “merits nothing less than a criminal investigation.” Trump confirmed in a tweet Sunday that he had spoken with Raffensperger. The White House referred questions to Trump’s reelection campaign, which did not respond Sunday to an emailed request for comment. Raffensperger’s office did not respond to a request for comment. Trump has repeatedly attacked how Raffensperger conducted Georgia’s elections, claiming without evidence that the state’s 16 electoral votes were wrongly given to Biden. “He has no clue!” Trump tweeted of Raffensperger, saying the state official “was unwilling, or unable” to answer questions. Raffensperger’s Twitter response: “Respectfully, President Trump: What you’re saying is not true. The truth will come out.” Various election officials across the country and Trump’s former attorney general, William Barr, have said there was no widespread fraud in the election. Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia, key battleground states crucial to Biden’s victory, have also vouched for the integrity of their state elections. Nearly all the legal challenges from Trump and his allies have been dismissed by judges, including two tossed by the Supreme Court, which includes three Trump-nominated justices. In Georgia, the ballots were counted three times, including a mandatory hand count and a Trump-requested recount. Still, Trump has publicly disparaged the election, worrying Republicans that may discourage GOP voters from participating in Tuesday’s runoffs pitting Sen. Kelly Loeffler against Democrat Raphael Warnock and Republican David Perdue against Democrat Jon Ossoff. Rebecca Green, who helps direct the election law program at William and Mary Law School, said that while it is appropriate for a candidate to question the outcome of an election, the processes for doing so for the presidential election have run their course. States have certified their votes. Green said Trump had raised “lots of questions” about whether he violated any election laws. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said Trump is guilty of “reprehensible and, possibly illegal, conduct.” Trump noted on the call that he intended to repeat his claims about fraud at a Monday night rally in Dalton, a heavily Republican area in north Georgia. “The people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry,” he says on the recording. Biden is also due to campaign in Georgia on Monday, and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris stumped in Garden City, Georgia, on Sunday, slamming Trump for the call. “It was a bald, bald-faced, bold abuse of power by the president of the United States,” she said. Loeffler and Perdue have largely backed Trump in his attempts to overturn election results. But on Sunday, Loeffler said she hadn’t decided whether to join Republican colleagues in challenging the legitimacy of Biden’s victory over Trump when Congress meets Wednesday to affirm Biden’s 306-232 vote win in the Electoral College. Perdue, who was quarantining after being exposed
