Sandra Day O’Connor, who made history as the first woman on the Supreme Court, dies at 93
Ashley Murray, Alabama Reflector WASHINGTON — The first woman to serve on the nation’s highest court is dead at 93. Sandra Day O’Connor, a groundbreaking justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, died Friday in Phoenix, Arizona of complications related to advanced dementia, probably Alzheimer’s, and a respiratory illness, according to an announcement from the court. President Ronald Reagan nominated O’Connor in 1981, and she was confirmed by the full Senate, 99-0, in September of that year. The moderate O’Connor, who served on the bench until her retirement in 2006, was often the decisive vote in major cases that reached the Supreme Court in her nearly quarter-century as associate justice. The justices issued rulings in high-profile cases during O’Connor’s tenure, including Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential contest in George W. Bush’s favor, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a 5-4 decision that affirmed the constitutional right to an abortion but with leeway for states to impose some restrictions. O’Connor sided with the majority in both cases. “She was consequential,” journalist and historian Evan Thomas told the National Archives in 2019 while promoting his biography “First: Sandra Day O’Connor.” She cast the so-called “swing vote” 330 times in 24 years, Thomas said. “And where it really mattered was in abortion rights and affirmative action,” he said, referring to several cases, including Grutter v. Bullinger, which upheld the consideration of race in the University of Michigan’s law school admissions. In 2022, O’Connor’s successor, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote the majority opinion overturning Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, striking down abortion rights at the federal level. A ‘true public servant’ and ‘trailblazer’ Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement Friday that O’Connor “blazed a historic trail as our Nation’s first female Justice.” “She met that challenge with undaunted determination, indisputable ability, and engaging candor. We at the Supreme Court mourn the loss of a beloved colleague, a fiercely independent defender of the rule of law, and an eloquent advocate for civics education. And we celebrate her enduring legacy as a true public servant and patriot,” he said. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a statement that the “nation mourns the passing of a towering figure in the history of American law.” “… From her election as the first female Majority Leader in the history of American legislatures to her confirmation as the first female Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor led with a brilliance and conviction that disarmed resistance. Her vote on the court frequently determined the majority in landmark cases, and the legacy of her role in landmark decisions reviving federalism during her first several terms on the Court continues to resound in Constitutional jurisprudence,” McConnell said. In the mid-1990s and 2000, O’Connor provided decisive votes in two 5-4 decisions that found federal laws unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, including sections of the Violence Against Women Act and a federal law that criminalized carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of schools. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said O’Connor was the “conscience of the Court.” Schumer said in a statement issued Friday that O’Connor “was one of the true historic figures of the 20th century. In decision after decision, Sandra Day O’Connor was often the key vote in defending the rights of Americans—in protecting clean air, in protecting women’s rights, in protecting against discrimination, in protecting voting rights. I join Americans all across the country in mourning her passing today.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson of Louisiana described O’Connor as a “trailblazer” and “legal giant” in a Friday morning post on X. “As the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor inspired a generation of women — including the five female Justices that succeeded her — to chart a path that previously seemed unattainable,” he said. “Despite never serving as Chief Justice, she was widely regarded as the most powerful Justice on the bench during her tenure.” The women who followed O’Connor’s appointment to the court included Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by former President Bill Clinton in 1993; Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in 2009 and 2010, both nominated by former President Barack Obama; Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by former President Donald Trump in 2020; and Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022. Obama released a statement Friday recounting the well-known story of O’Connor’s challenges finding a job in the legal field as a woman in the 1950s, when she was asked about her typing skills and offered work as a legal secretary. “Fortunately for us, she set her sights a little higher – becoming the first woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice,” Obama said. “As a judge and Arizona legislator, a cancer survivor and child of the Texas plains, Sandra Day O’Connor was like the pilgrim in the poem she sometimes quoted – forging a new path and building a bridge behind her for all young women to follow. Michelle and I send our thoughts to Sandra’s family and everyone who learned from and admired her.” From the Southwest to the nation’s capital O’Connor was born on March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas, and grew up on a ranch in Arizona. She graduated near the top of her law school class at Stanford University in 1952. O’Connor began her law career as deputy county attorney of San Mateo County, California, followed by a position as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center, Frankfurt, Germany, from 1954 to 1957. O’Connor practiced law in Maryvale, Arizona, until 1960 and went on to serve as assistant attorney general of Arizona from 1965 to 1969. She followed her time in the attorney general’s office with multiple terms in the Arizona State Senate beginning in 1969 and eventually serving as the body’s majority leader. In 1975, she was elected as a Maricopa County Superior Court judge and served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court
John Hendrickson: Is former Vice President Mike Pence’s view on conservatism correct?
Former Vice President Mike Pence, in a speech before the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College and in an article in The Wall Street Journal, warned Republicans and conservatives about the danger of populism. The former Vice President argues, in echoing Ronald Reagan’s 1964 address, that it is “a time for choosing” for Republicans whether to continue to follow the “siren song” of populism or return to true conservatism. It is clear that Pence is not only drawing a line in the sand and forcing a debate over conservatism, but also distancing himself from former President Donald Trump and those who support his policies. Nevertheless, Pence fails to understand that the conservative populism he is denouncing is actually rooted within the American conservative tradition. Debates within and amongst conservatives is nothing new. The conservative movement contains various “schools of intellectual thought” over what conservatism means and how conservatives should shape public policy. Vice President Pence argues that the Republican Party must return to traditional conservatism. “If we are to defeat Joe Biden and turn America around, the GOP must be the party of limited government, free enterprise, fiscal responsibility and traditional values,” wrote Pence. Pence is defining traditional conservatism based upon the principles of limited government, free enterprise, fiscal responsibility, and traditional values. Further, he correctly notes that individual “rights come from God and nature, not from the state.” In addition, Pence argues that just “like our founders, we know the imperfect nature of men and women and that granting them unlimited power imperils liberty.” This is an important pillar of conservatism, that is, that human nature is flawed because of original sin. Pence is also correct in referencing the need for conservatives to uphold and defend constitutional principles such as federalism. Conservatives would largely agree with Pence’s definition of conservatism, but he only offers a surface view of conservatism. Pence warns about the danger of populism, and he argues that this is a political tool of progressives and he references William Jennings Bryan and the “Kingfish” Huey Long as examples. Further, Pence argues that populists within the Republican Party are a threat to limited government, traditional values, and even the Constitution. Further, these Republican populists favor abandoning “American leadership on the world stage” and “embracing a posture of appeasement in the face of rising threats to freedom.” Pence’s other indictment is that Republican populists are abandoning free enterprise. Is Pence correct that populism is not only wrong, but also rooted in liberalism and progressivism and that these Republican populists are not conservative? First, Pence needs to define what policies of the Trump administration were not conservative. Pence acknowledges that the Trump administration governed as conservatives, but now Trump has abandoned conservatism. Does this mean that the Trump America First agenda was conservative according to Pence? In 2016, President Trump campaigned on what was considered to be a new approach to conservatism. He called for restrictions on immigration, building a border wall to secure the border, a restrained foreign policy, and he was highly critical of free trade and openly called for tariffs to protect manufacturing. This agenda has been referred to as America First, conservative nationalism, and conservative populism. It also fits within the framework of the paleoconservative tradition. Nevertheless, the ideas that shaped President Trump were not new, nor were they a departure from conservatism as former Vice President Pence would suggest. In fact, President Trump was rediscovering an older conservative Republican tradition. As an example, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote that “in leading Republicans away from globalism to economic nationalism, Trump is not writing a new gospel. He is leading a lost party away from a modernist heresy – back to the Old-Time Religion.” Buchanan, during the 1990s, campaigned for the Republican nomination championing similar ideas as Trump. The conservative nationalist tradition can be traced back to the American founding. Specifically, Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. President Calvin Coolidge even credited Hamilton and the Federalists and later the Whigs as the source of the Republican Party’s heritage. Former Vice President Pence should consider the conservatism of the 1920s. Conservatives such as Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge not only challenged progressives, but their policy agenda was based on conservative nationalism. Harding and Coolidge not only supported a restrained foreign policy, but also protective tariffs and restricting immigration. They also placed an emphasis on limiting government by reducing spending, paying down the national debt, and reducing tax rates. Harding and Coolidge actually reduced government. Vice President Pence appears to be fighting against conservative nationalism and embracing the neoconservative agenda that was embraced by President George W. Bush’s administration. Neoconservatism and the Pence-style of conservatism dominated the Republican Party before Trump. What were the results: a full retreat on the cultural war and traditional values, engaging in costly wars to promote democracy, free trade agreements which led to the devastation of manufacturing, middle-class jobs, and massive trade deficits which led to the rise of China, and uncontrolled immigration. Plus, the federal government, along with the national debt, continued to grow. It was this “traditional” conservatism that idolized and worshiped at the golden alter of democracy and free trade. Is this the conservatism that we want to return to as a nation or a movement? In fact, during the first Republican presidential candidate debate Vice President Pence resembled former President George W. Bush more than President Ronald Reagan, especially in his advocacy of sending more dollars and support to Ukraine. This foreign policy approach, along with free trade, has more in common with progressives such as Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pence’s approach to Ukraine is Wilsonian. Pence is attempting to proclaim himself as the true heir to Reagan. When examining the legacy of President Reagan too many conservatives forget that Reagan, even with all of the free market and liberty rhetoric, often practiced a restrained foreign policy and implemented trade policies that were considered protectionist. Some even argued that Reagan was the most
U.S. marks 22nd anniversary of 9/11
Today is the 22nd anniversary of 9/11. On that day in 2001, Al Qaeda terrorists seized four massive airliners filled with passengers by force and flew two of them into the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The third crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. After learning of the plights of the first three jets by cell phone, the passengers of the fourth airliner attacked their terrorist captors and took control of the plane by force. They all died, but their heroism likely saved the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of their fellow countrymen that day. The War on Terror that began that day would last for twenty years in Afghanistan. U.S. forces are battling ISIL (an offshoot of Al Qaeda) in Syria today, and U.S. forces in Niger are involved in anti-terror actions there. Nine days after the crushing terrorist attack, then-President George W. Bush said, “Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We’ll remember the moment the news came — where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever. And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others.” Congressman Mike Rogers (R-AL03), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, released a statement on the 22nd anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks. “Twenty-two years ago, our world was forever changed by the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,” Rep. Rogers said. “Today, we remember the thousands of innocent lives that were lost and honor the many heroes who selflessly risked their lives to save others.” “Over two decades later, the threat our nation faces from terrorism has not subsided,” Rogers continued. “Every day, brave men and women in our armed forces continue to fight against those who seek to harm our nation. It is only because of their service and sacrifice that the United States remains unbowed in the fight against evil.” “Our nation was forever changed on September 11, 2001,” said U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) on X. “Today, we pause to remember the thousands of American lives lost. #NeverForget.” “Today we mark 22 years since the September 11 attacks on our nation,” said U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Alabama). “We will never forget the innocent lives lost and the heroes who displayed extraordinary courage in the face of terrible evil. “These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.”” In last year’s remembrance ceremony, President Joe Biden said we will never forget 9/11. “Never Forget. We’ll keep the memory of all those precious lives stolen from — from us: 2,977 — at Ground Zero in New York; in Shanksville, where my wife is speaking now — in Pennsylvania; 184 of them here at the Pentagon. And I know, for all those of you who lost someone, 21 years is both a lifetime and no time at all. It’s good to remember. These memories help us heal, but they can also open up the hurt and take us back to that moment when the grief was so raw.” To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Ex-Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson launches GOP 2024 bid, calls on Donald Trump to drop out
Asa Hutchinson, who spent two terms as governor of Arkansas, will seek the Republican presidential nomination, positioning himself as an alternative to Donald Trump just days after the former president was indicted by a grand jury in New York. In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Hutchinson said Trump should drop out of the race, arguing “the office is more important than any individual person.” “I’m running because I believe that I am the right time for America, the right candidate for our country and its future,” he said. “I’m convinced that people want leaders that appeal to the best of America and not simply appeal to our worst instincts.” Hutchinson is the first Republican to announce a campaign after Trump became the first former U.S. president to face criminal charges. His candidacy will test the GOP’s appetite for those who speak out against Trump. Others who have criticized Trump, including former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, have opted against a campaign, sensing the difficulty of prevailing in a primary. And in a sign of Trump’s continued grip on the Republican base, most in the party — even those considering challenging him for the nomination — have defended him against the New York indictment. That, at least for now, leaves Hutchinson as a distinct outlier among Republicans. In addition to Trump, Hutchinson joins a Republican field that also includes former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to jump into the race in the summer, while U.S. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former Vice President Mike Pence are among those considering bids. Hutchinson, 72, left office in January after eight years as governor. He has ramped up his criticism of the former president in recent months, calling another Trump presidential nomination the “worst scenario” for Republicans and saying it will likely benefit President Joe Biden’s chances in 2024. The former governor, who was term-limited, has been a fixture in Arkansas politics since the 1980s when the state was predominantly Democratic. A former congressman, he was one of the House managers prosecuting the impeachment case against President Bill Clinton. Hutchinson served as President George W. Bush’s head of the Drug Enforcement Administration and was an undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security. As governor, Hutchinson championed a series of income tax cuts as the state’s budget surpluses grew. He signed several abortion restrictions into law, including a ban on the procedure that took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade last year. Hutchinson, however, has said he regretted that the measure did not include exceptions for rape or incest. Hutchinson earned the ire of Trump and social conservatives last year when he vetoed legislation banning gender-affirming medical care for children. Arkansas’ majority-Republican Legislature overrode Hutchinson’s veto and enacted the ban, which has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. Trump called Hutchinson a “RINO” — a Republican In Name Only — for the veto. Hutchinson’s successor, former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has said she would have signed the legislation. Hutchinson, who signed other restrictions on transgender youth into law, said the Arkansas ban went too far and that he would have signed the measure if it had focused only on surgery. Hutchinson endorsed Sanders’ bid for governor. Sanders hasn’t publicly endorsed Trump or anyone else yet in the 2024 presidential race. She has avoided direct criticism of her predecessor, even as she split from him on several policies. Among the bills she’s signed since taking office is legislation intended to reinstate the ban on gender-affirming care for minors that Hutchinson opposed by making it easier to sue providers of such care. She’s also dissolved five panels Hutchinson had formed to advise him on the state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying she wanted the state to focus on other health challenges. Although he has supported Trump’s policies, Hutchinson has become increasingly critical of the former president’s rhetoric and lies about the 2020 presidential election. He said Trump’s call to terminate parts of the Constitution to overturn the election hurt the country. Hutchinson also criticized Trump for meeting with white nationalist leader Nick Fuentes and the rapper Ye, who has praised Adolf Hitler and spewed antisemitic conspiracy theories. Hutchinson has contrasted that meeting to his own background as a U.S. attorney who prosecuted white supremacists in Arkansas in the 1980s. An opponent of the federal health care law, Hutchinson, after taking office, supported keeping Arkansas’ version of Medicaid expansion. But he championed a work requirement for the law that was blocked by a federal judge. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Hutchinson tried to push back against misinformation about the virus with daily news conferences and a series of town halls he held around the state aimed at encouraging people to get vaccinated. Hutchinson infuriated death penalty opponents in 2017 when he ordered eight executions over a two-week period, scheduling them before one of the state’s lethal injection drugs was set to expire. The state ultimately carried out four of the executions. The former governor is known more for talking policy than for fiery speeches, often flanked by charts and graphs at his news conferences at the state Capitol. Instead of picking fights on Twitter, he tweets out Bible verses every Sunday morning. Hutchinson, who graduated from the evangelical college Bob Jones University in South Carolina, said in the ABC interview that he considers himself part of the evangelical community. “I believe that the evangelical community understands that we need to have a leader that can distance themselves from some of the bad instincts that drive Mr. Trump,” he said. “And I hope that we can do that in the future.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Nikki Haley faces ‘high-wire act’ in 2024 bid against Donald Trump
Few have navigated the turbulent politics of the Trump era like Nikki Haley. In early 2016, the then-South Carolina governor said she was “embarrassed” by candidate Donald Trump and decried his reluctance to condemn white supremacists. Nine months later, she agreed to join his Cabinet, serving as a key validator as Trump sought to win over skeptical world leaders and voters at home. And shortly after Trump left the White House, Haley, whose resume by then included an ambassadorship to the United Nations, vowed not to step in the way if he ran for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Yet on Wednesday, she is poised to become the first major Republican candidate to enter the race against him. “It’s going to be quite the high-wire act,” said veteran Republican strategist Terry Sullivan. “She says she’s always been an underdog. She will be again.” The 51-year-old Haley may be the first to take on Trump, but a half-dozen or more high-profile Republicans are expected to join the GOP’s 2024 presidential nomination contest over the coming months. Some would-be competitors may be more popular than Haley, even in South Carolina, where she lives and has established a campaign headquarters. Likely rivals include Sen. Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian and perhaps the most celebrated elected official in a state where Trump has already locked up endorsements from the governor and its senior senator, Lindsey Graham. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former Vice President Mike Pence could also be formidable foes should they run, as widely expected. Indeed, on the eve of this week’s announcement, there is broad agreement that Haley — the only Republican woman of color expected in the 2024 contest, a politician who loves to remind people that she has never lost an election — is about to be tested as never before. Trump, for instance, has already stepped up his attacks on Haley. But allies describe the former governor, who is the daughter of Indian immigrants, as a savvy executive uniquely positioned to lead a new generation of Republicans. They understand that the fight ahead could get ugly. “She took the bull by the horns and said, ‘That doesn’t matter to me, I’m going to run,’” said longtime supporter Gavin J. Smith. “She did that when she ran for governor, and that’s what you’re going to see when she runs for president.” Perhaps more than anyone this young presidential primary season, Haley personifies the Republican Party’s shifting views on Trump. Her reversal on whether to challenge the former president was based less on concerns about his divisive leadership or policy disagreements than the growing belief within the GOP that Trump is losing political strength. New York-based Republican donor Eric Levine says he’s convinced that another Trump Republican nomination would lead to his party’s destruction. Haley, he said, is among the three favorite Trump alternatives. “I think as a woman of color and a daughter of legal immigrants from India, she’d give the Democratic Party no reason to exist. All their woke crap goes out the window,” Levine said. “I think she’s a spectacular candidate.” Haley’s announcement will take place Wednesday in Charleston, the historic coastal city where her campaign will be based. Almost immediately, she’ll travel to meet voters in New Hampshire and Iowa. She’s entrusted her campaign to a collection of senior staff led by longtime aides. Betsy Ankney, who heads up Haley’s PAC, will manage the campaign, with the PAC’s development director, Mary Kate Johnson, as finance director, Haley’s team told The Associated Press. Longtime Haley adviser Chaney Denton and Nachama Soloveichik, who was a spokeswoman for recently retired Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, will head up communications. Strategist Jon Lerner will serve as senior adviser, and Barney Keller of Jamestown Associates will be Haley’s media consultant. For Haley, this week’s launch marks a significant step on a long road that began in South Carolina’s “Good Old Boys Club,” she wrote in a Friday fundraising appeal. “People thought I was too brown … too female … too young … too conservative … too principled,” she wrote. Born in 1972 in rural South Carolina, Haley has long spoken of a Southern rural childhood in which she felt she didn’t fit. She was raised in the Sikh faith with a mother who wore traditional saris and a father clad in a turban. “Nikki has been regularly underestimated,” said Catherine Templeton, a Republican who served Haley in two roles, leading South Carolina’s labor and public health agencies. “But it makes her work harder.” In her first campaign in 2004, Haley, formerly an accountant, defeated the longest-serving member of South Carolina’s House. After six years in the Legislature, she was considered a longshot when she mounted her 2010 gubernatorial campaign. The GOP field was filled with more experienced politicians, and at times, she faced blatant racism. Then-state Sen. Jake Knotts appeared on a talk show and used a racial slur in reference to Haley. He apologized, saying it was meant as a joke. Still, Haley became the first woman and person of color elected South Carolina’s governor — and the nation’s youngest state executive. After winning reelection in 2014, her second term was marred by crisis. She spent weeks attending funerals of Black parishioners gunned down by a self-avowed white supremacist at a Charleston church in 2015. Later that year, she pushed for and signed legislation to remove the Confederate flag from the Statehouse grounds, where it had flown for more than 50 years. Haley’s political skills were tested in a different way in 2016, as Trump went from late-night television punchline to serious Republican presidential contender. She endorsed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio ahead of South Carolina’s high-stakes Republican primary, then backed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz once Rubio was knocked out. Then, Haley described Trump as “everything a governor doesn’t want in a president.” She also said she was “embarrassed” by his attacks against former President George W. Bush and condemned Trump’s reluctance to disavow the KKK. But shortly after Trump won the presidency, she agreed to serve as the new administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, a Cabinet-level position.
Past U.S. presidents, VPs asked to recheck for classified docs
The National Archives has asked former U.S. presidents and vice presidents to recheck their personal records for any classified documents following the news that President Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence had such documents in their possession, two people familiar with the matter said Thursday. The Archives sent a letter Thursday to representatives of former presidents and vice presidents extending back to Ronald Reagan to ensure compliance with the Presidential Records Act, according to the two people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about investigations. The act states that any records created or received by the president are the property of the U.S. government and will be managed by the archives at the end of the administration. The Archives sent the letter to representatives of former Presidents Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan, and former Vice Presidents Pence, Biden, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, and Dan Quayle, they said. The letter was first reported by CNN. Spokespeople for former presidents Trump, Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton and former vice presidents Pence, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, and Dan Quayle did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Biden’s lawyers came across classified documents from his time as vice president in a locked cabinet as they were packing up an office he no longer uses in November. Since then, subsequent searches by the FBI and Biden’s lawyers have turned up more documents. Former Vice President Pence, too, this week, discovered documents and turned them in after saying previously he did not believe he had any. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the searches by Biden’s attorneys and the FBI appear to fulfill the Archives’ request. The Archives had no comment. Handling of classified documents has been a problem off and on for decades, from presidents to Cabinet members and staff across multiple administrations stretching as far back as Jimmy Carter. But the issue has taken on greater significance since former President Donald Trump willfully retained classified material at his Florida estate, prompting the unprecedented FBI seizure of thousands of pages of records last year. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to investigate Trump’s handling of the documents and also Biden’s. It turns out that officials from all levels of government discover they are in possession of classified material and turn it over to authorities at least several times a year, according to another person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of classified documents. Current and former officials involved in the handling of classified information say that while there are clear policies for how such information should be reviewed and stored, those policies are sometimes pushed aside at the highest levels. Teams of national security officials, secretaries, and military aides who share responsibility for keeping top-level executives informed — and the executives themselves — may bend the rules for convenience, expediency or sometimes simple carelessness. While much of the attention has been on classified information, the Presidential Records Act actually requires that, from the Reagan administration onward, all records must be transferred to the Archives regardless of classification. It’s against federal law to have classified documents at an unauthorized location, but it’s only a crime if it was done intentionally. Speaking Thursday at an unrelated news conference, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that though he could not discuss any specific ongoing investigation, “We have had for quite a number of years any number of mishandling investigations. That is, unfortunately, a regular part of our counterintelligence division’s and counterintelligence program’s work.” He said there was a need for people to be conscious of laws and rules governing the handling of classified information. “Those rules,” he said, “are there for a reason.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Nathaniel Ledbetter announces a second round of House committee chairs
State Rep. Nathaniel Ledbetter announced his second round of committee chairs on Monday. Ledbetter is the Alabama House Republican Caucus choice to be the next Speaker of the House in the Alabama House of Representatives, and under the rules of the Legislature, the Speaker appoints most of the committee chairs. Ledbetter announced the appointment of Rep. Jim Carns to serve as Chair of the House Commerce and Small Business Committee, a role he previously held under outgoing Speaker Mac McCutcheon. Carns served in the state legislature from 1990 to 2006. From 2006 to 2010, he served on the Jefferson County Commission. He returned to the House in 2011. Carns is a businessman with experience in manufacturing. Ledbetter announced the appointment of State Rep. Margie Wilcox to chair the Boards, Agencies, and Commissions Committee. Wilcox returns for her third consecutive term in the Legislature. During the last quadrennium, Wilcox chaired the Alabama Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee and the Joint License Plate Oversight Committee. Wilcox owns and operates a taxicab company in Mobile. She has previously served as vice chair of the House County and Municipal Government Committee. Rep. Danny Crawford returns as the Agriculture and Forestry Committee chair. Crawford was elected to the Alabama House in a 2016 special election. He served on the Athens City Council from 1993-2005 and was employed with the Farm Service Agency for 33 years. He was appointed state director by President George W. Bush in 2001. State Rep. Reed Ingram will return as the chair of the County and Municipal Government Committee. Ingram served in the House since 2014 and was the chair of the County and Municipal Government Committee since 2018. Ingram is a well-known businessman and restauranter from Montgomery. He previously served on the Montgomery County Commission from 2004 to 2014. Ledbetter is appointing State Rep. Randall Shedd to chair the Transportation, Utilities, and Infrastructure Committee. Shedd has served in the House since 2013. He previously served as the chairman of the Cullman County Commission and as the mayor of Fairview. He worked as the director of the Cullman County Commission on Aging. Shedd previously chaired the House Urban and Rural Development Committee and was vice chair of the House Children and Senior Advocacy Committee. “From rural to urban areas, from employers to employees, and from tradesmen to consumers, the collective decisions made by these committees affect every Alabamian in some manner,” Ledbetter said. “All of these individuals have my full faith and confidence, and I am certain they will always work on behalf of the citizens each of us seek to serve.” Ledbetter has previously announced his first round of appointments. All of these appointments are conditional on Ledbetter being selected as Speaker in the organizational session of the House of Representatives in January. Since Republicans hold a 77-member supermajority in the 105-member Alabama House, it is highly likely that Ledbetter will be selected as Speaker, so will then be able to make these appointments officially. Ledbetter has served in the House since 2014. He previously was the Mayor of Rainsville and has served on the town council. He has worked for the Sand Mountain Electric Cooperative as accounts manager. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Nancy Pelosi to step aside from Dem leadership, remain in Congress
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she will not seek a leadership position in the new Congress, making way for a new generation to steer the party after Democrats lost control of the House to Republicans in the midterm elections. Pelosi announced in a spirited speech on the House floor that she will step aside after leading Democrats for nearly 20 years and in the aftermath of the brutal attack on her husband, Paul, last month in their San Francisco home. The California Democrat, who rose to become the nation’s only woman to wield the speaker’s gavel, said she would remain in Congress as the representative from San Francisco, a position she has held for 35 years when the new Congress convenes in January. “I will not seek reelection to Democratic leadership in the next Congress,” she said. “For me, the hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic caucus that I so deeply respect.” Now, she said, “we must move boldly into the future.” Pelosi received a standing ovation after her remarks, and lawmakers and guests, one by one, went up to offer her hugs, many taking selfies of a moment in history. President Joe Biden spoke with Pelosi in the morning and congratulated her on her historic tenure as speaker of the House. “History will note she is the most consequential Speaker of the House of Representatives in our history,” Biden said in a statement, noting her ability to win unity from her caucus and her “absolute dignity.” It’s an unusual choice for a party leader to stay on after withdrawing from congressional leadership, but Pelosi has long defied convention in pursuing power in Washington. In an interview with reporters after her announcement, Pelosi said she won’t endorse anyone in the race to succeed her, and she won’t sit on any committees as a rank-and-file lawmaker. She said the attack on her husband “made me think again about staying.” But in the end, after the election, she decided to step down. “I quite frankly, personally, have been ready to leave for a while,” she said. “Because there are things I want to do. I like to dance, I like to sing. There’s a life out there, right?” During her remarks on the House floor, Pelosi recapped her career, from seeing the Capitol the first time as a young girl with her father — a former congressman and mayor — to serving as speaker alongside U.S. presidents and doing “the people’s work.” “Every day, I am in awe of the majestic miracle that is American democracy,” she said. Democrats cheered Pelosi as she arrived in the chamber at noon. On short notice, lawmakers filled the House, at least on the Democratic side, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer joined. He later joined a throng of lawmakers and hugged and kissed Pelosi on the cheek. The Speaker’s Gallery filled with Pelosi staff and guests. Some Republicans, including some newly elected members, also attended, though House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, who’s seeking the speakership in the new Congress, did not, telling reporters afterward that he was “busy, unfortunately.” Earlier, Pelosi noted in a statement after The Associated Press called control of the chamber that, in the next Congress, House Democrats will have “strong leverage over a scant Republican majority.” Pelosi was twice elected to the speakership and has led Democrats through consequential moments, including the passage of the Affordable Care Act with President Barack Obama and the impeachments of President Donald Trump. Her decision Thursday paves the way for House Democratic leadership elections next month when Democrats reorganize as the minority party for the new Congress. Pelosi’s leadership team, with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Democratic Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, has long moved as a triumvirate. All now in their 80s, the three House Democratic leaders have faced restless colleagues eager for them to step aside and allow a new generation to take charge. Hoyer said after Pelosi’s remarks that “it is the time for a new generation of leaders” and that he will also step down from leadership but stay in Congress. Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black American in Congress, has said he expects to stay in Congress next year and hopes to remain at the leadership table. Democratic Reps. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, and Pete Aguilar of California have similarly moved as a trio, all working toward becoming the next generation of leaders. Jeffries could make history if he enters the race to become the nation’s first Black speaker of the House. After Pelosi spoke, Clyburn released a statement saying he looks forward “to doing whatever I can to assist our new generation of Democratic Leaders, which I hope to be Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar.” One idea circulating on Capitol Hill was that Pelosi and the others could emerge as emeritus leaders as they pass the baton to new Democrats. First elected in 1987, Pelosi has been a pivotal figure in American politics, long ridiculed by Republicans as a San Francisco liberal while steadily rising as a skilled legislator and fundraising powerhouse. Her own Democratic colleagues have intermittently appreciated but also feared her powerful brand of leadership. Pelosi first became speaker in 2007, saying she had cracked the “marble ceiling” after Democrats swept to power in the 2006 midterm elections in a backlash to then-President George W. Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When she was poised in 2018 to return as speaker in the Trump era, she vowed: “to show the power of the gavel.” Pelosi has repeatedly withstood leadership challenges over the years and had suggested in 2018 she would serve four more years as leader. But she had not discussed those plans more recently. Typically unsentimental, Pelosi let show a rare moment of emotion on the eve of the midterm elections as she held back tears discussing the grave assault on her husband of nearly 60 years. Paul Pelosi suffered a fractured skull after an intruder broke into their home
Voters in some key swing states to decide on voting access
All but lost in the shadow of major contests for U.S. Senate and governor, voters in some battleground states will be deciding ballot proposals this November that could reshape the way they vote in the next presidential election. In Arizona, scene of the closest presidential contest in 2020, the question is whether to require more identification to vote in the future. In Michigan, another swing state, voters will consider whether to make it easier to cast early ballots. Voting-related proposals will be on the ballot in several other states, including a measure to adopt ranked-choice voting in Nevada that — if approved this year — would need a second vote in 2024 to take effect.” Most of the measures are garnering little attention but could have profound effects on voting in some of the most politically competitive states for years to come. They mark an escalation of what voting expert Jon Sherman describes as “the voting wars” — battles between Democrats, Republicans, and activist groups over laws specifying how people register, obtain mail-in ballots, prove their identity, and cast ballots. “The parties and their allies are fighting over every last voting rule and trying to make predictions about how they think it will help or hurt their chances of winning, particularly in closely competitive states,” said Sherman, litigation director and senior counsel at the Fair Elections Center, a nonprofit that advocates for voting access. Efforts to change voting laws ramped up after the 2000 presidential election when a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Florida’s exceptionally close race gave Republican George W. Bush the victory over Democrat Al Gore. It intensified after the 2020 election, as Republican President Donald Trump refused to acknowledge his loss to Democrat Joe Biden while pressing false claims of widespread fraud, and some Republican-led states responded by passing restrictive voting laws. Arizona, which Biden won by about 10,500 votes, was one center of controversy. After a six-month review focused on Arizona’s largest county, a Trump-friendly firm hired by Republican state lawmakers ended up with vote results confirming Democrat Biden’s victory. Republicans who control the Legislature subsequently placed a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would strengthen voter identification laws. It would require people voting in person to show a photo ID, and eliminate a current alternative of providing two documents bearing a person’s name and address, such as a recent utility bill and bank statement. People voting with mailed ballots — the vast majority in Arizona — would have to list their date of birth and either their driver’s license number, a state identification number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number. Republican state Sen. J.D. Mesnard, who sponsored the measure, said the intent is to “make the election as secure as possible” while addressing “a growing crisis in confidence” that could discourage some people from voting. But rather than reassuring voters, tougher ID requirements could dissuade some from voting at all and actually lead to fraud by exposing personal information, said Darrell Hill, policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which opposes the measure. “You’re opening people up to greater potential identity theft,” Hill said. Only a few states — Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio — have similar proof-of-identity measures for mailed ballots, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Arkansas requires voters to provide a copy of a photo ID when returning a mailed ballot. In Michigan next month, a ballot initiative would pre-empt Republican attempts to tighten photo identification laws by amending the state Constitution to include the current alternative of signing an affidavit. It also would expand early voting options, require state-funded return postage and drop boxes for absentee ballots, and specify that the Board of State Canvassers has only a “clerical, nondiscretionary” duty to certify election results. Trump allies had tried to persuade canvassers to delay certifying the 2020 results. The goal of the new initiative is to “enhance the integrity and security of the elections by sort of modernizing how they’re administered and making them more accessible,” said Khalilah Spencer, president of Promote the Vote, which backs the measure. On the other side, Michigan Republican Party spokesman Gustavo Portela said the initiative “opens the door up for fraud” through the combination of early voting and a constitutional exception to showing photo ID. Just four states — Alabama, Connecticut, Mississippi, and New Hampshire — lack an in-person early voting option for all voters. Connecticut’s November ballot will feature a proposed constitutional amendment authorizing the Democratic-led General Assembly to create an early voting law. A similar ballot proposal failed in 2014. Supporters in Connecticut hope this time is different — both because the new version is more clearly written and because the vote comes after the coronavirus pandemic heightened awareness about early voting. “The idea that everybody has free time on a Tuesday between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. — and that’s their only opportunity to participate in our democracy — is a little dated,” said Democratic state Sen. Mae Flexer, co-chair of the Connecticut legislative committee that sponsored the measure. In Nebraska, Republicans haven’t been able to get a voter photo ID bill through the nonpartisan Legislature. But it will appear on the November ballot, thanks to an initiative petition drive bankrolled by Marlene Ricketts, the mother of term-limited Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts. Civic Nebraska, a voting rights group opposed to the measure, describes it as “a solution in search of a problem.” “There’s not an iota of evidence in Nebraska that says we would need this extra step” to vote, said Civic Nebraska spokesman Steve Smith. Gov. Ricketts acknowledged during a recent radio call-in show that there hasn’t been much election fraud. But he said, “one of the things that came out of the 2020 election is that people had concern about the integrity of our voting systems.” There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. Judges have turned away dozens of challenges by Trump and his allies, multiple state reviews have confirmed the results, and Trump’s own Department of Justice concluded the election outcome was accurate. Nevada’s proposed constitutional amendment would advance the top
Joe Guzzardi: Hispanic voters trending red
For the last several presidential election cycles, media messaging has been consistent: candidates who capture the Hispanic vote will win. The suggestion, often unstated, was that GOP candidates need to promote an illegal alien amnesty, pledge to curtail interior enforcement, and promote expanded immigration. In 2022, however, Hispanics could indeed hold the key to a GOP victory, but not because they endorse amnesty. Hispanics, realizing that an open border creates job competition, classroom chaos, and disrupts their communities, oppose President Joe Biden’s immigration agenda. The Hispanic shift toward Republicans has been slowly but steadily building. In 2004 and 2016, Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump scored well among Hispanics, 40 percent and 38 percent, respectively. Trump’s 2020 total was almost 10 points higher than his 2016 tally. But in the 20 months since Biden’s inauguration, the White House’s open borders agenda has accelerated the Hispanic shift to the GOP. Remember that Hispanics who vote are U.S. citizens, and their hopes and concerns are largely identical to other Americans. In his new book, “Political Migrants: Hispanic Voters on the Move,” Jim Robb wrote that Biden’s refusal to enforce border laws and instead to opt for catch-and-release has been disastrous for all Americans, but especially legal immigrants and the 40-plus million American-born Hispanics. This fall, indications are that Hispanics will vote Republican at a higher rate than they did in 2020: 41 percent plan to vote Republican against 45 percent who will support Democrats, with others undecided. Since only 29 percent of Hispanics voted Republican in the 2018 mid-term election, 41 percent would be a significant GOP move toward capturing an important demographic. In fact, 41 percent would be the highest mid-term election share Republicans have ever received from Hispanics. On important life-affecting issues, Hispanics side with the GOP. Among likely Hispanic voters, 52 percent believe the government is doing “too little to reduce illegal border crossings and visitor overstays.” Only 15 percent believe the government is doing “too much.” Hispanic voters overwhelmingly agree that chain migration should be limited to spouses and minor children, that Congress should mandate E-Verify, which helps assure that only citizens and lawfully present foreign nationals can hold jobs, that businesses should raise wages to attract American workers before hiring foreign nationals, and that legal immigration should be reduced from its current one million-plus annually inflow. Other poll findings may vary, but tangible evidence exists that the Hispanic shift to the GOP is real and may represent the difference in November. In a special June election to determine who would represent Texas’ 34th congressional district in the illegal immigration-besieged Rio Grande Valley, Mayra Flores defeated Democrat Dan Sanchez. A citizen since age 14 and married to a border patrol officer, Flores represents a burgeoning breed of Hispanic officeholders who promote strict border enforcement. Flores is the first Republican to represent her historically blue district in 150 years and the first woman born in Mexico ever elected to Congress. Just weeks after her victory, Flores called on her colleagues to impeach Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his abject failures to enforce immigration laws which have caused the ongoing border crisis. Texas gubernatorial challenger Robert O’Rourke, trailing Republican incumbent Greg Abbott, explained why Hispanics have abandoned Democrats. O’Rourke, harkening back to 2020, blamed Biden, who “…didn’t spend a dime or day in the Rio Grande Valley or really anywhere in Texas….” Flores will be on the November ballot when she faces Democrat Vicente Gonzales, who has consistently voted to support Biden’s open borders policy. Political forecasters maintain that the 34th still leans blue. But a Flores victory would confirm that the Hispanic trend to red is real. Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Progressives for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Revival sought for pastor’s lawsuit over COVID restrictions
An outspoken Christian conservative attorney from Alabama has asked a federal appeals court to revive a Louisiana pastor’s damage claims against state officials over long-expired COVID-19 restrictions. A federal judge this year dismissed minister Tony Spell’s lawsuit against Gov. John Bel Edwards and others over enforcement of the ban. Spell drew national attention for his flouting of the restrictions early in the pandemic at his church in Central, near Baton Rouge. One of Spell’s attorneys is Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court justice and Senate candidate. Moore insisted in arguments this week before a panel of judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the state had no authority whatsoever to restrict church gatherings. Panel members appeared skeptical of that claim in arguments recorded as they were held Monday in Fort Worth, Texas. But they raised the question of whether Spell’s church was unfairly restricted, compared with other public gathering places, such as shopping mall food courts. “They have treated us differently,” Moore said. “But the basis of our argument is there is no jurisdiction to limit a church attendance.” Spell has had legal victories in his fight with the state. Louisiana’s Supreme Court, in May, threw out state charges against him, ruling 5-2 that Edwards’ restrictions in place at the time violated Spell’s freedom of religion. But his lawsuit that includes claims for damages over the gathering restrictions was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson in Baton Rouge. Jackson ruled in January that the lawsuit was moot because the restrictions expired long ago. And Jackson rejected Spell’s request for damages from state and local officials, ruling that “there is not now, and never has been, a ‘clearly established’ right to unrestricted religious assembly, and at all relevant times Defendants reasonably believed that they were acting within the constitutional limits set by the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit.” The appellate judges on Monday closely questioned Josh Force, an attorney arguing for the Edwards administration, on whether church assemblies were treated unfairly when compared with other public gatherings, including crowds at shopping malls and Black Lives Matter protests. “Isn’t the food court at the mall at least as dangerous as the worship center?” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod asked. Force argued that Edwards was acting under the best advice of public health officials at the time as to what types of gatherings were safe. Hearing the case was Elrod and 5th Circuit Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, both nominated to the circuit by President George W. Bush, and Judge Andrew Oldham, nominated by President Donald Trump. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
GOP targets for Dem bill: Inflation, taxes, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema
Republicans see inflation, taxes, and immigration as Democratic weak spots worth attacking, and two opposition senators as prime targets in the upcoming battle over an economic package the Democrats want to push through the Senate. The measure embodies some of the top environment, energy, health care, and tax policy aspirations that President Joe Biden and party leaders want to enact as voters start tuning in to this fall’s congressional elections. The GOP would like to derail or weaken the measure, or at least force Democrats to take votes that would be painful to defend in reelection campaigns. Republicans are already aiming fire at Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who crafted the measure with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and unexpectedly pumped life into an effort most Democrats considered moribund. Manchin is a conservative Democrat from a deep red state who has scuttled his party’s priorities before, and Republicans have savaged him in recent days, an unsubtle signal that they’ll be coming for him should he seek reelection in 2024. “He made a terrible deal,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters this week. “How he can defend this from a West Virginia point of view, or think of it as a centrist type of agreement, is astonishing. This is an agreement only Bernie Sanders would love.” Even Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., who has a strong relationship with Manchin and seldom clashes with him publicly, lambasted the legislation for imposing a minimum tax on huge, profitable corporations that she said would hinder investments. “Like many West Virginians, I’m concerned that this tax increase will delay closing the digital divide” in rural communities, she said. Republicans are taking a softer approach with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who has been coy about the legislation and has shown concerns about tax increases. She’s her party’s biggest question mark on this bill in the 50-50 chamber, where all Republicans seem certain to vote “no,” and she’s held several discussions with GOP senators during votes this week. Sinema has opposed past proposals to raise taxes on wealthy equity firm executives, which this time would raise around $14 billion of this legislation’s $739 billion in revenue. She met with Arizona manufacturers who oppose boosting the corporate minimum tax and thanked her afterward in a tweet for her “thoughtful approach & willingness to listen to AZ job creators.” “I don’t know what she thinks,” Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters. “‘We are making our case’ is the best we can say.” The 10-year measure includes hundreds of billions in spending and tax breaks to encourage alternative energy production and to bolster fossil fuels with steps like tax breaks for technology that reduces carbon emissions. There’s also money to help people buy private health coverage and provisions giving Medicare the power to negotiate prices on some drugs with pharmaceutical makers. The bill “will lower costs, fight inflation, and secure historic wins in the fight against climate change,” Schumer said. The GOP seems certain to try stripping or toning down the corporate minimum tax and language raising taxes on wealthy equity firm executives as well and has hopes of winning over Sinema as the decisive vote for that. After she opposed Democrats’ proposed tax rate increases last year on corporations and high earners, they switched to a corporate minimum tax that she supported, but it is uncertain if she will do so now. Republicans could fashion amendments aimed at particular Democratic senators — such as one exempting coal producers from certain taxes in a play for Manchin. To buttress its argument, the GOP released an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that Republicans said showed tax boosts for people earning below $400,000. That would violate Biden’s pledge to not boost levies on that income group. “Ordinary Americans would bear a substantial part of the burden of this tax increase,” said No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Thune of South Dakota. Democrats dismissed that attack, noting that the study omitted the effect of the bill’s health care and energy tax breaks for individuals. It also counted lower salaries, stock prices, and dividends it believes will occur as part of the effect the bill would have on people. Overall, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday the measure could trim federal deficits by around $305 billion. But $204 billion of that would come from improving IRS tax collections, which will be real if it occurs, but the nonpartisan agency does not count in its formal scoring of the bill’s impact. In a bow to dominant voter concerns about gasoline prices and overall consumer costs, Democrats call the bill the Inflation Reduction Act. Yet its impact on the nation’s worst bout with inflation in four decades seems likely to be limited. The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated the measure would “very slightly increase inflation until 2024 and decrease inflation thereafter,” though the changes would be “statistically indistinguishable from zero.” McConnell said that study showed the Democrats’ bill would “actually increase inflation in the short term and do nothing for inflation in the long term.” Democrats have cited a Moody’s Analytics report saying the bill would “nudge the economy and inflation in the right direction.” And they distributed a letter by five former Treasury secretaries, including Henry Paulson Jr., who served under GOP President George W. Bush, saying the measure would strengthen the economy, “lower costs for families, and fight inflation.” That battlefield suggests Republican amendments are likely on the subject of prices. One could imagine a proposal preventing the bill from taking effect unless inflation, or gasoline prices, fall to certain levels. Democratic leaders are trying this week to unify rank-and-file senators against such plans. The GOP could also try to renew immigration restrictions imposed by President Donald Trump that cited the pandemic as a reason to exclude migrants, an issue that sharply divides Democrats. And they might seek to delete tax credits aimed at encouraging alternative energy and that favor companies that pay union-scale wages. Republished with
