Tommy Tuberville demands State Department rescind pronouns mandate
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama), Sen. Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), and nine of their colleagues sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanding that he rescind the State Department’s latest guidance which threatens termination if an employee refuses to use another employee’s chosen gender pronoun instead of the one that biology correctly assigned to them at birth. In the letter, the Senators highlight that the State Department guidance is potentially illegal because it “infringes upon the First Amendment rights of State Department employees, as recognized by the Supreme Court, to speak openly on matters of public concern.” The letter details how the guidance violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) “by forcing employees to choose between facing disciplinary action and complying.” The letter was also signed by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), JD Vance (R-Ohio), and Roger Marshall (R-Kansas). Budd, Tuberville, and the other Senators wrote, “We write to demand that you rescind the recent State Department guidance for employees titled “Updated Department Guidance Regarding Transgender Employees in the Workplace” (“Guidance”). We understand that you personally approved and signed the Guidance and authorized its electronic transmission via the attached, unclassified cable on your behalf to all State Department employees.” “The Guidance forces every State Department employee—without exception—to comply with any demand by another employee to use that employee’s choice of name, pronouns, or honorific. According to the Guidance, failure to comply may “contribute to a hostile work environment allegation, and constitute misconduct subject to disciplinary action, up to and including separation or removal.” This is potentially illegal for multiple reasons.” The letter continues, “First, Congress never authorized the State Department to impose such restrictions on employee speech. But even if Congress did so, this Guidance would be arguably unconstitutional. Specifically, this Guidance infringes upon the First Amendment rights of State Department employees, as recognized by the Supreme Court, to speak openly on matters of public concern and to be free from government-compelled speech, including government-compelled affirmation of contested political, social, and religious ideas. Accordingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently recognized that “the use of gender-specific titles and pronouns” constitutes such a matter of public concern; thus, government employees have the right to speak openly on this subject, or not to speak at all.“ “Moreover, this Guidance creates a hostile work environment for dissenting employees, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for failing to provide a religious accommodation for dissenters. Several State Department employees have voiced their concerns with this Guidance to Senators, stating that they cannot comply with this Guidance without violating their religious beliefs. Indeed, by forcing employees to choose between facing disciplinary action and complying with this Guidance, the Guidance violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was enacted “to provide very broad protection for religious liberty.” It may even constitute a violation of the “No Religious Test Clause” of the Constitution by discriminating against those with certain religious views from holding a position within the State Department. Lastly, we understand that the State Department adopted this major policy change behind closed doors, thus preventing it from receiving any scrutiny by the press or the broader public. Such a major policy change, which threatens severe consequences against State Department employees for noncompliance, deserves rigorous, public scrutiny.” “Secretary Blinken, you have declared that “[dissent] should be and it will be welcomed” at the State Department. You have also warned that “[w]hen religious liberty is at risk” then “other freedoms are jeopardized as well.” Therefore, we call on you to adhere to your oath to uphold the Constitution and federal law, and to live up to your own public commitments, by formally and publicly rescinding this Guidance immediately.” The Senators ask for Blinken to answer a number of questions about this policy, including identifying the specific legal authority relied upon to issue this guidance. Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and HELP Committees. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville objects to combining aid to Israel in spending package with aid for Ukraine
On Monday, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) joined Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) in writing a letter to Senate Leadership requesting that any federal assistance to Israel not be leveraged for more Ukraine funding. President Joe Biden recently requested $61.4 billion more for Ukraine paired with $14.3 billion for Israel. Sen. Tuberville said that he stands unequivocally with Israel but does not support one more dime in assistance for Ukraine. “We write today in the wake of over 1,400 Israeli civilians and at least 30 American citizens having been killed over the last week after brutal Hamas terrorists invaded Israel,” the Senators wrote. “In response to these developments, it is critical we give prompt consideration to any request for financial aid or other material support requested by Israel. Based on the breadth of responses from members of Congress, there is a shared urgency to consider such a request.” “That being said, we know there will no doubt be efforts to attach any funding to Israel to more aid to Ukraine, in excess of the already $113 billion Congress has provided to Ukraine,” the Senators continued. “These are two separate and unrelated conflicts, and it would be wrong to leverage support of aid to Israel in attempt to get additional aid for Ukraine across the finish line.” “Furthermore, it would be irresponsible, and we should not risk a government shutdown by bundling these priorities together and thus complicating the process and lessening the likelihood of a funding package,” the Senators wrote. “We urge you to keep separate attempts to provide military aid to Israel from additional funds to Ukraine or other matters.” The letter was also signed by Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), Rick Scott (R-Florida), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Because neither House of Congress has passed a budget, the federal government is operating on a continuing resolution (CR) to give the parties time to finish their work and negotiate a bipartisan budget that can pass both Houses. Little work has been accomplished on that, though, and the current CR will run out on November 14 at midnight. The Hamas attack on Israel, a longtime American ally, has created a need not anticipated in the CR or any budget package. The Ukrainian offensive has broken through some Russian lines, but at significant cost to the Ukrainians, both in men and material costs. Tuberville has long urged a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine war and has not supported past Ukraine aid packages. “The war in Ukraine is a disaster for the United States,” Tuberville told Alabama Today in April. “We jumped in all four feet, knowing that we didn’t have enough munitions to help Ukraine. We don’t want to put boots on the ground. I am all for Ukraine, but you have got to have an opportunity to win, and we don’t have one person that has any insight in terms of diplomacy from this White House or this administration. Secretary [Antony] Blinken has done zero.” In his address to the nation on Thursday, the President tied the two emergency appropriation requests together. “American leadership is what holds the world together,” Biden said. “American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with. To put all that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it’s just not worth it. That’s why, tomorrow, I’m going to send to Congress an urgent budget request to fund America’s national security needs, to support our critical partners, including Israel and Ukraine. It’s a smart investment that’s going to pay dividends for American security for generations, help us keep American troops out of harm’s way, help us build a world that is safer, more peaceful, and more prosperous for our children and grandchildren.” U.S. arms stockpiles are low due to 32 months of supplying the Ukrainian army with weapons and munitions. Arms manufacturers are struggling to keep up with the demand. Hamas has started a war with Israel – a U.S. ally- so they will be buying arms and munitions. Iran appears to be behind the Hamas and Hezbollah attacks and appears to be promoting a wider Middle East war – which could potentially lead to U.S. involvement, and the U.S. pullout from Afghanistan means that the U.S. lacks that foothold on the Iran border to threaten Tehran. Meanwhile, Taiwan – which the U.S. has promised to defend – is trying to build up its armed forces due to a heightened risk of a Chinese invasion. A Russian attack on any NATO border, whether that be Romania, Poland, Finland, or the Baltic States, would require an American troop response. Meanwhile, the U.S. is struggling to keep up with the Russians and Chinese in hypersonic missile and anti-satellite warfare technology, China has surpassed the U.S. in naval ships and intercontinental ballistic missile launchers, and the all-volunteer force is not meeting its recruiting goals. And with $33 trillion in debt, the U.S. is not fiscally in a place where it could fight a prolonged war without severe changes to the economy and U.S. entitlement programs. Tuberville is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, and HELP Committees. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com
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. Senator Katie Britt joins colleagues to support ban on mask mandates
On Thursday, U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Alabama) joined her Republican colleagues on the Senate floor in support of legislation authored by Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) that would ban future federal mask mandates. Sen. Britt is a cosponsor of Senator J.D. Vance’s Freedom to Breathe Act. It would prohibit any federal official, including the President, from issuing mask mandates applying to domestic air travel, public transit systems, or primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools. The legislation would also prohibit air carriers, transit authorities, and educational institutions from refusing service to individuals who choose not to wear a mask. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, draconian shutdowns and mask mandates inflicted immense damage across our nation,” said Britt. “Just look at the consequences our children faced, from devastating learning loss that put students years behind to deteriorating mental health in kids and teenagers. Enough is enough. More than three years later, it’s clear we need to embrace individual liberty and facts rather than a society gripped by fear. Democrats have claimed that mask mandates and lockdowns are not coming back – however, their objection to this legislation reveals their true intentions.” “We cannot repeat the anxiety, the stress, and the nonstop panic of the last couple of years,” said Sen. Vance. “That’s what this legislation is about. End the mandates, end the panic, and let’s get back to some common sense.” The Senate considered the legislation on Thursday under unanimous consent, which allows for a measure to be considered passed and sent to the House of Representatives unless another senator raises an objection. During consideration of the Freedom to Breathe Act, Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) objected to the passage, meaning that the bill would have to go through the regular order to get out of the Senate. COVID-19 is making a small resurgence in some parts of the country. Earlier this week, an elementary school in Montgomery County, Maryland, reimposed a mask mandate for students. In addition to Senators Britt and Vance, this legislation is cosponsored by Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) and Senators Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee). Mask mandates were widely adopted during the COVID-19 global pandemic at the urging of public health officials. The effectiveness of a piece of cloth stopping an airborne virus has been widely debated. Some see the masks as sensible precautions, while others object to them being required by the government. Over 6.9 million people have died from COVID-19, including 1,174,588 Americans – though that is fewer than some of the projections were showing early in the global pandemic. There have been 52,803 American deaths credited to COVID-19 in 2023. Katie Britt was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022. She previously worked as an attorney, the President and CEO of the Business Council of Alabama, and as former Senator Richard Shelby’s chief of staff. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Mitch McConnell tries to reassure colleagues about his health, vows to serve out term as Senate GOP leader
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell declared again Wednesday that he plans to finish his term as leader despite freezing up at two news conferences over the summer, brushing off questions about his health as he sought to reassure colleagues he’s still up to the job. At a weekly, closed-door lunch with fellow GOP senators on Wednesday, McConnell pointed to the statement released a day earlier by attending physician Brian P. Monahan about his health. He said he was ready to move forward with the Senate’s busy fall agenda. Monahan’s statement, released by McConnell’s office, said there was no evidence that the 81-year-old McConnell had a stroke or was suffering from a seizure disorder after he froze up and appeared unable to speak for 20-30 seconds at two different news conferences. The episodes came after the GOP leader fell and suffered from a concussion earlier this year. “I’m going to finish my term as leader, and I’m going to finish my Senate term,” McConnell told reporters, dismissing questions and requests for more detail about his medical condition. “I have nothing to add” to Monahan’s statement, he said. McConnell’s words to the press and his colleagues were his latest efforts to assuage growing concerns about his health and silence questions about whether he can continue to lead his party in the Senate. The famously private Kentucky senator has faced some criticism from colleagues for remaining quiet about the incidents and his health, which has visibly declined since the concussion. Behind closed doors, McConnell told other Republicans that his health issues are linked to his concussion. He believes that is a “plausible answer” to the questions, Texas Sen. John Cornyn said. Cornyn said McConnell “hasn’t missed a step” in terms of his cognitive abilities or ability to lead. But “physically, it’s been tougher.” “He was more transparent, which I’m glad he did,” Cornyn said of McConnell’s comments at the private lunch. “This is not his style. But I don’t think keeping things close to the vest serves his interests, and it created a lot of speculation. So I think this is a positive development.” Other Republican senators also said they were satisfied with McConnell’s explanation for the two incidents, the first in Washington in July just before the August recess and the second in Kentucky last week. “I feel really good; I’m behind Mitch, and let’s move forward,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said McConnell has ”broad support, and I think that’s known by the majority of the conference.” North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer, who had called for more transparency from McConnell, said the leader’s remarks were “a strong message. It was confident on his part. It was very direct.” Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville said that as part of his remarks to the GOP conference, McConnell touted that he’d raised $49 million for Republican Senate candidates in August. “He convinced me” of his ability to lead, Tuberville said. Still, Tuberville said the circumstances could change. “I don’t think there will be anything else said about it unless there’s another incident,” Tuberville said. “And that’s what we’re hoping.” The letter from Monahan that McConnell released Tuesday said there is “no evidence that you have a seizure disorder or that you experienced a stroke, TIA or movement disorder such as Parkinson’s disease.” TIA is an acronym for a transient ischemic attack, a brief stroke. But there was no elaboration as to what did cause McConnell’s episodes. The doctor said the assessments entailed several medical evaluations including a brain MRI scan and “consultations with several neurologists for a comprehensive neurology assessment.” “There are no changes recommended in treatment protocols as you continue recovery from your March 2023 fall,” Monahan said. Even though the majority of GOP senators have supported McConnell, some have raised questions. Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a doctor, and McConnell’s Kentucky colleague, has questioned whether the episodes were really caused by dehydration, as McConnell’s aides and the Capitol doctor have implied. After attending the lunch, Paul said he had no comment. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said he’s concerned about the leader’s health, adding that his health issues could undermine Republican arguments that President Joe Biden, 80, is too old for another term in office. “I mean, if you’re concerned about the president’s ability to do his job, and I am, and a lot of Republicans say they are, then you’ve got to be concerned when it’s somebody from your own party,” Hawley said. The top potential successors to McConnell as leader — Cornyn, South Dakota Sen. John Thune and Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso — have stood by him. “He was very strong, sharp in the lunch today,” said Thune, the No. 2 Republican leader. “He talked a lot about not just (his health) but the other issues we’re dealing with here in the Senate. I think everybody left feeling very good about where he’s at.” First elected to the Senate in 1984 and as leader in 2007, McConnell became the longest-serving Senate party leader in January. He would have to run again for leader after next year’s elections, and his next reelection to the Senate would be in 2026. McConnell will be a central figure as Congress returns from an extended summer break to a flurry of activity, most notably the need to approve funding to prevent any interruption in federal operations by Sept. 30, which is the end of the fiscal year. Some House Republicans are willing to shut down the government at the end of the month if they are unable to enact steep spending restrictions that go beyond the agreement Biden reached with Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy earlier this summer. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Nashville school shooter’s writings reignite debate over releasing material written by mass killers
In Tennessee, a request for police to release a school shooter’s private writings has morphed into a complex multiparty fight that pits the parents of traumatized students against a coalition of local news outlets, nonprofits, and a Republican lawmaker — with both sides claiming their position is in the public interest. The person who killed three 9-year-old children and three adults at a private Christian elementary school in Nashville on March 27 left behind at least 20 journals, a suicide note, and a memoir, according to court filings. But there is no national standard governing if, or how, such writings are made public. Shooters sometimes release their writings themselves over the internet, prompting a race to suppress their spread. In 2019, the white supremacist who killed 51 worshippers at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, posted his anti-immigrant screed online. Five months later, a man who killed 23 at a Texas Walmart published a racist diatribe on the same message board. In other cases, killers have sent documents directly to news outlets, leaving them the decision of what to publish. NBC was criticized by victims’ families in 2007 for airing videos the Virginia Tech shooter mailed to the network in the midst of his killing spree. Where a killer’s writings are seized as part of a search warrant — as is the case in The Covenant School shooting — the decision of what to release and when often rests with a local police chief or sheriff and is ultimately governed by state-specific public records laws. After a supervisor at a Virginia Walmart fatally shot six co-workers last November, police took only a few days to release his rambling last note. Michigan State University campus police waited less than a month to release a grievance-filled note from the person who killed three students there in February. Nashville police said they will release the Covenant shooter’s writings but not until they close the investigation, which could take a year. In the face of this delay, multiple groups have sued for access, including a state senator, The Tennessean newspaper, and a gun-rights organization. On the other side, The Covenant School, the church that shares its building, and many of the school’s parents want to keep the records private. Such a fight is unusual but not unprecedented. A similar legal battle in the 2000s led to the eventual release of most of the Columbine killers’ writings, audiotapes, and videotapes. In that case, Columbine parents fought for access to the records, believing they would show a cover-up by the local sheriff. In the Covenant shooting, it’s the parents who want the shooter’s writings kept secret. Erin Kinney, mother of one of the slain children, filed a declaration with the court stating she has not seen the shooter’s writings but believes there are no answers to be found in them. “I do not believe there was any motivation other than a desire for death, and there is nothing that could ever make the horrible act of killing children make sense,” Kinney writes. “The public release of these writings will not prevent the next attack. There is nothing in the journals to satisfy the yearning, overactive minds of the conspiracy theorists.” The Covenant case is complicated by the fact that the shooter, who police say was “assigned female at birth,” seems to have identified as a transgender man. U.S. Sen Josh Hawley, of Missouri, is among those promoting a theory that the shooting was a hate crime against Christians. The refusal to release the writings has fueled speculation — particularly in conservative circles — regarding what they might contain and conspiracy theories about why the police won’t release them. In the legal battle over the writings, both sides argue their position will prevent future shootings. The coalition seeking the writings says their public release will help experts better understand mass shootings and develop policies to thwart them. A group of more than 60 Tennessee House Republicans said in an open letter that the Covenant writings will be critical for their debate of school safety legislation at an August special session called by the governor. But the parents say releasing the writings is dangerous and will inspire copycats. There is a growing movement to deny mass killers notoriety after their deaths, limiting the use of their names and images, so posthumous fame won’t be a motivating factor for future killings. Whether their writings should also be suppressed is a subject of some disagreement, even among mass shooting experts. “Perpetrators are looking to make headlines,” said Jillian Peterson, a criminology professor at Hamline University and president of The Violence Project. “Perpetrators are looking to be famous for that. And so when we spread their videos, and their words, and their pictures, and their writings — we’ve seen that before, that it does inspire copycats.” Adam Lankford, a professor of criminology at the University of Alabama who studies mass shootings, said he thinks there is a way to make a killer’s writings public without inspiring copycats. The biggest problem is killers are sometimes made into celebrities, with their names and photos splashed across news reports for weeks, he said. “I don’t think a manifesto in isolation is likely to inspire an attack if you can’t see who that person is and start to identify with them,” he said. “But if you’re already obsessed with that individual, then, you know, that obsession can extend to obsessing about that person’s words.” Beyond the debate over the public good, however, lies the issue of Tennessee’s open records law, which has no special exception for the writings of mass shooters. Richard Hollow, who represents The Tennessean and state Sen. Todd Gardenhire, said the parents should try to change the law if they don’t want the records released. That’s what happened after the Sandy Hook shooting, where parents successfully pushed Connecticut lawmakers to bar the release of certain homicide victim photos and delay the release of some audio recordings. In the Covenant case, the families are making the novel claim that they have rights as victims under the Tennessee Constitution
Katie Britt and Senate colleagues introduce a bipartisan bill to cut compensations from failed bank executives
U.S. Senator Katie Britt on Friday joined Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), and a bipartisan group of colleagues in introducing the Failed Bank Executives Clawback Act. This legislation would enable federal regulators to claw back compensation from bank executives who are responsible for the reckless decisions that resulted in their institution’s failures. “When executives drive financial institutions into failure with reckless business practices, they shouldn’t be allowed to use their golden parachutes to escape responsibility while their customers, their employees, and hardworking American families are left footing the bill for the failure of their bank,” said Sen. Britt. “This commonsense legislation will dissuade risky bank mismanagement and ensure that bad actors are held accountable.” “The executives responsible for running their banks into the ground are sitting on millions of dollars in compensation and bonuses. Meanwhile, the American people are bearing the financial burden for their excessive risk-taking and gross mismanagement,” said Sen. Vance. “This legislation would right that wrong and ensure that failed bank executives are held accountable for the collapse of their institutions – not the American taxpayer.” “Nearly three months after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, a bipartisan group of Senators is demonstrating a serious commitment to pass legislation requiring financial regulators to claw back pay from executives when they implode their bank,” said Sen. Warren. “Congress must answer the President’s call for stronger laws to hold failed bank executives accountable, and I’m determined to work with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee to deliver change.” The bill would expand the existing authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to claw back the compensation of bank executives when they are found to have substantially contributed to the collapse of a financial institution by engaging in reckless business practices. Any funding that is clawed back will be directed to the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund. This legislation was introduced in light of the recent collapses of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in California and Signature Bank in New York. Sponsors claim that considering the cost of the institutions’ collapse to the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund and impact to the broader banking sector, this legislation is needed to deter future bad actors. Sen. Britt questioned former SVB CEO Greg Becker at a recent Banking Committee hearing, demanding answers about his responsibility in the bank’s collapse and his plans to give back the $1.5 million bonus he received. “If the team would have known it was going to be the fastest rate in history, I believe they would have considered different decisions,” Becker testified. “Senator, I was the CEO of Silicon Valley Bank. I take responsibility for what ultimately happened.” Co-sponsors of the bill also include U.S. Senators Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), Mark Warner (D-Virginia), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), Tina Smith (D-Minnesota), Raphael Warnock (D-Georgia), John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri.), and Mike Braun (R-Indiana). To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Katie Britt, Eric Schmitt, and colleagues introduce legislation to reduce federal regulations
On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Katie Britt joined U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) in introducing the Expediting Reform and Stopping Excess Regulations Act, or ERASER Act, which sponsors hope will rein in the administrative state. Britt said the legislation is necessary to protect Alabamians and Americans from overbearing federal regulations. “Time and time again, when I meet with Alabamians, one of their top concerns is the sheer number of burdensome regulations that the Biden Administration continues to churn out without congressional approval, all for the sake of increasing governmental control and power,” Britt said. “These needless restrictions are hamstringing hardworking Americans and making their lives harder, not easier, at a time when the nation is facing persistently high inflation and economic uncertainty. It’s clear that Alabamians and Americans know best how to manage our own households, businesses, and properties, and slashing regulatory red tape will ensure that bureaucratic overreach is kept in check so families can thrive and achieve their American Dream.” “The administrative state is comprised of thousands of unelected bureaucrats at alphabet agencies that have immense power over the lives of Missourians and Americans,” explained Sen. Schmitt. “To reduce the burden on Missourians and Americans and to claw that power away from unelected bureaucrats, I introduced the ERASER Act to ensure that burdensome and outdated regulations are repealed before any new regulations are put forward,” stated Senator Eric Schmitt. “This is an important step in reducing the regulatory burden on Missourians and Americans and affecting much-needed structural reform. I will continue to fight to get government off of the backs of Missourians and Americans and ensure that power is returned to where it belongs: the people.” The ERASER Act provides the framework to ensure government bureaucrats think more critically about new rules and regulations. The bill would require administrative agencies that issue a new regulation to repeal three existing regulations before the new regulation takes effect. The sponsors say that this bill will build upon the Trump Administration executive order issued in 2017 (E.O. 13771) that required agencies to remove two regulations when issuing a new one. Through 2019, those efforts saved small businesses $733 million in regulation costs during the Trump administration. One of President Biden’s first actions was to repeal this policy. The ERASER Act prohibits agencies from issuing a major rule unless the agency has repealed three (3) or more rules, and the cost of the new major rule is less than or equal to the cost of the rules repealed, as certified by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Major rules are defined under this legislation as any rules that (a) cost $100 million or more, (b) cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries, or (c) have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, or innovation of U.S. businesses. The ERASER Act provides minimal exceptions for internal governance of an agency and for rules that would make the requirements less burdensome. It also requires the GAO to conduct a study on all rules currently in effect as of the date of the bill’s enactment. Senators Britt and Schmitt were joined in cosponsoring the ERASER Act are Senators Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), Sen. Mike Braun (R-Indiana), and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida). The ERASER Act has been endorsed by Heritage Action, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Foundation for Government Accountability. With the Democratic Party in control of the Senate, it will take broad bipartisan support for the ERASER Act to even make it to the floor of the Senate. It is doubtful that that legislation will pass the Senate. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Katie Britt and colleagues introduce the Back the Blue Act
On Monday. U.S. Senator Katie Britt joined U.S. Senator John Cornyn, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville, and 37 Republican colleagues to introduce the Back the Blue Act. The announcement coincided with the annual observance of Peace Officers Memorial Day and National Police Week. This legislation will strengthen existing laws that protect police officers, increase the criminal penalties for individuals who target law enforcement, and expand the tools that police can use to protect themselves. “Today, we honor the courageous law enforcement officers who have valiantly made the ultimate sacrifice,” Sen. Britt said. “Every single day, the brave men and women of law enforcement go above and beyond to serve and protect our communities. It is essential that we not only support our police, but we respect the rule of law in our country. I’m proud to join Senator Cornyn and my colleagues in introducing the Back the Blue Act, and I will always stand with our police officers in Alabama and across the country.” “The Back the Blue Act adds stiff, mandatory penalties and makes it a federal crime to kill – or attempt to kill – a law enforcement officer, a federal judge, or a federally funded public safety officer,” Sen. Cornyn said. “We must make it absolutely clear that violence against them will not be tolerated. In honor of National Police Week, we honor the brave men and women who protect us, we pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and we commit to doing everything in our power to ensure that they have all the resources they need to keep our people safe.” “Today marks the start of National Police Week,” Sen. Tuberville said on Twitter. “America’s brave men and women in blue wake up every day prepared to sacrifice their own safety in service to their fellow Americans. It is more important than ever that we show our support. To all who protect and serve, thank you.” In addition to Senators Britt, Tuberville, and Cornyn, this legislation is cosponsored by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), and Senators Ted Cruz, Thom Tillis, Rick Scott, Jerry Moran, Mike Braun, Kevin Cramer, Marsha Blackburn, John Boozman, Deb Fischer, Shelley Moore Capito, Mike Crapo, Marco Rubio, Jim Risch, Pete Ricketts, Steve Daines, John Barrasso, James Lankford, Cindy Hyde-Smith, John Kennedy, Tom Cotton, John Thune, John Hoeven, Ted Budd, Josh Hawley, Tim Scott, Bill Hagerty, Roger Marshall, Bill Cassidy, Joni Ernst, Chuck Grassley, Todd Young, Eric Schmitt, Cynthia Lummis, and Roger Wicker. The Back the Blue Act has been introduced in Congress multiple times since 2017. Senator Britt is also a cosponsor of Senator Braun’s Thin Blue Line Act, which expands the list of statutory aggravating factors in capital punishment determinations to also include killing or targeting a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responders. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com
Katie Britt cosponsors legislation to protect Supreme Court Justices
On Monday, U.S. Senator Katie Britt joined Senator Marsha Blackburn and a group of nine additional Republican senators in introducing the Protect Our Supreme Court Justices Act, a bill to further protect Supreme Court Justices from intimidation and threats of violence. The legislation is partially in response to threats and intimidation that the Justices received following the leaking of the Dobbs versus Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning the controversial Roe versus Wade decision. “Protesters attempting to influence judicial decisions through harassment, intimidation, or violence outside the homes of Justices and judges need to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law,” Sen. Britt stated. “The rule of law cannot be replaced with mob rule in the United States. The integrity and effectiveness of our judicial system hinges on the ability of judges to impartially interpret the law and rule on the legal merits of cases without fearing retribution to themselves or their families. I’m proud to co-sponsor the Protecting Our Supreme Court Justices Act to ensure we have a strong deterrent that can keep our Justices, judges, and their families safe while safeguarding the rule of law.” “As we saw last summer, the woke liberal mob will go to great lengths to target those they disagree with – even illegally intimidating Supreme Court Justices at their private residences,” said Sen. Blackburn. “It’s extremely concerning that none of these protesters have been arrested for breaking the law, and the DOJ has not issued any guidance on enforcing this statute. The Protecting Our Supreme Court Justices Act will deter intimidation of our Justices and send a message that the Biden administration has refused to send: Justices must be allowed to do their jobs without fearing for the safety of themselves or their families.” The legislation will raise the maximum term of imprisonment for individuals who attempt to unlawfully influence the decision-making of a federal judge from one year to five years, creating a stronger deterrent amid increased threats against the Court. Senators Britt and Blackburn were joined by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), and John Boozman (R-Arkansas) in introducing the bill. “Conservative Supreme Court justices are facing increasing protests from far-left extremists trying to intimidate or punish the justices for their decisions,” said Sen. Cotton. “This legislation will help protect all Supreme Court justices from threats of violence so they can do their jobs as impartial interpreters of the law.” “Justices must be able to rule without fear of retribution or intimidation, and the politicization of our judicial branch is unacceptable and downright dangerous,” said Sen. Cornyn. “By increasing the maximum term of imprisonment for those attempting to influence judicial decision making, we can ensure Supreme Court justices can operate with impartiality and uphold the Constitution without worrying about their safety or that of their family.” “I’ve been a passionate proponent of protecting our Supreme Court justices and their families from the coordinated campaign of harassment and intimidation following the Dobbs decision last year,” said Sen. Cruz. “Not a single one of those protestors have been prosecuted because President Biden’s attorney general disagrees with the Dobbs decision. I’m proud to join Sen. Blackburn and my colleagues in working to expand the consequences of breaking the law and trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices.” “Protesting at the homes of Supreme Court justices and their families is an unlawful and dangerous intimidation tactic, as we’ve witnessed over the last year,” said Sen. Hagerty. “I’m pleased to join Senator Blackburn in working to stop this indefensible conduct.” “The Biden administration has weaponized the judicial system for two years already,” said Sen. Hawley. “Making matters worse, when Republican-appointed Justices are under attack, this Department of Justice won’t defend them. It’s time for Congress to step into the breach.” “Last summer, in an attempt to intimidate U.S. Supreme Court Justices from doing their job, progressive activists protested outside of their homes,” said Sen. Rubio. “We must ensure that Justices are able to carry out their duties without fear for their safety or that of their families. The Protecting Our Supreme Court Justices Act is a necessary step to deter intimidation and ensure that those who seek to influence the decision-making process of our Justices face the full force of the law.” “There is no other way to view the threats and protests we’ve witnessed recently against Supreme Court justices and other federal jurists as anything other than attempts to influence their decisions through fear and intimidation,” said Sen. Hyde-Smith. “This legislation should not be needed to protect the judiciary, but it is. Enacting this bill will make it crystal clear to everyone that these threatening activities are illegal and will be punished.” “Supreme Court justices should be able to carry out their duties without fear of intimidation,” said Sen. Wicker. “This legislation would help ensure their safety and protect our highest court.” “Intimidating members of the judicial branch into ruling a certain way goes against everything our justice system and democracy were founded on,” said Sen. Boozman. “We cannot continue to let this behavior go unchecked or tolerate further targeted acts of violence and harassment. Our legislation prioritizes the safety of Supreme Court justices and their families and ensures accountability for those responsible for adopting such disturbing, lawless tactics.” Federal law already explicitly prohibits protesting at the residence of a judge with the intent of influencing the decision-making process of a judge in a case. The protestors against the Dobbs decision outside of the Justices’ homes could have all been arrested and prosecuted, facing criminal monetary penalties or a maximum of one year of imprisonment, or both. But since they were political allies, the Biden administration ignored the law. The U.S. Department of Justice, under the leadership of Attorney General Merrick Garland, has refused to arrest, charge, or prosecute any individuals who illegally protested outside of the homes of Supreme Court Justices in 2022. The Protecting Our Supreme
Tommy Tuberville opposes biological males competing in women’s sports
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville authored an op-ed in National Review outlining his reintroduction of the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act to preserve Title IX protections and keep biological males from competing in female sports. The reintroduction of this legislation comes as the U.S. Department of Education is moving forward to implement new rules in May that would allow biological males to compete in girls’ and women’s sports beginning in the 2023-2024 school year. “50 years ago, we discovered a winning strategy for all of America’s female athletes: Title IX. Signed into law in 1972, the 37 words of this relatively simple legislation empowered women to win by leveling the playing field and providing them access to the same athletic opportunities that their male counterparts enjoyed,” Tuberville wrote. “That level playing field is now under attack by activists who care more about politics than what’s best for female athletes.” “We must protect women’s sports. That is why I reintroduced the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act yesterday to push back against the far left’s attempts to destroy women’s sports and preserve the opportunities they have provided female athletes for half a century,” Tuberville explained.” My legislation would require institutions to recognize an athlete’s gender as what it was at birth and stop giving federal funding to any program or institution that allows biological males in women’s sports.” “Last year, on the 50th anniversary of Title IX, the Department of Education proposed a new rule to allow biological males to compete in women’s sports, citing the change as more ‘inclusive.’” Tuberville continued. “I submitted a public comment to the proposed rule change and discussed seeing the positive impacts of Title IX firsthand, four years after its enactment, while coaching girls’ basketball at Hermitage High School in Arkansas. But like those of many other athletes, coaches, educators, and parents, my concerns were ignored by Secretary Miguel Cardona as the Department of Education charged ahead with plans to finalize this change in May.” “There is nothing inclusive about forcing female athletes who train all their lives in hopes of achieving first place to instead compete for second, third, and fourth place because the top spot is invariably taken by athletes who have obvious physical advantages associated with their gender,” Tuberville said. “Biological men have won 28 women’s sports titles since 2003. This number will only increase when the boundaries are completely removed.” Tuberville appeared on Fox and Friends to defend women’s sports. Specifically, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act will: Ensure Title IX provisions treat gender as “recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” Ban recipients of federal funding from operating, sponsoring, or facilitating athletic programs that permit a male to participate in a women’s sporting event. The legislation is endorsed by Independent Women’s Voice, Concerned Women for America, and Heritage Action for America. Carrie Lukas is the vice president of Independent Women’s Voice. “More than 50 years ago, Congress enacted Title IX to ensure equal opportunity in all aspects of education, including athletics,” said Lukas. “But without single-sex teams and single-sex competition, equal athletic opportunity is but a farce. Forcing female athletes to compete against biological males is unfair. But it’s also discriminatory. Allowing biological males to take awards, roster spots, scholarships, or spots at a school from female athletes violates Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination ‘on the basis of sex.’ The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act will help preserve equal athletic opportunity for both sexes. IWV is thankful for Senator Tuberville’s leadership on this important issue.” Penny Nance is the CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee – the largest women’s policy organization. “We have championed the cause of a fair playing field for female athletes for years,” said Nance. “Understanding the importance of sports, Coach Tommy Tuberville has proven to be a leader on the issue. It’s time for Congress to stop injustice and discrimination against female student-athletes in their own sports. Our Young Women for America leaders have experienced the embarrassment of competing against men and are fighting this battle on their college campuses. Passing the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act is a top priority. Never again should female athletes lose their trophies, their scholarships, and their dignity to males.” Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action for America, stated. “By ignoring the biological differences between men and women and forcing women to compete against men in sports, the Left is threatening to limit women’s opportunities on and off the field. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act protects women’s physical safety and scholarship opportunities by making it illegal for a recipient of federal funds who operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs to allow men to participate in women’s athletic teams or programs. Heritage Action supports the passage of this essential legislation and thanks Senator Tuberville for leading the fight in the Senate to protect women’s safety, privacy, and opportunities.” Joining Tuberville as original cosponsors are U.S. Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Rick Scott (R-Florida), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Steve Daines (R-Montana), and Josh Hawley (R-Missouri). Tommy Tuberville spent decades as a teacher and coach prior to his election to the Senate in 2020. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville wants answers about Afghanistan withdrawal
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville joined Senator Rick Scott and five Republican colleagues – Senators Bill Cassidy, Kevin Cramer, Thom Tillis, Mike Braun, Josh Hawley, and John Hoeven in introducing legislation to establish a bipartisan, bicameral Joint Select Committee on Afghanistan to demand answers from the Biden administration to questions surrounding the deadly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in 2021. “President [Joe] Biden wants the country to forget about his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that cost 13 American lives and squandered two decades of American blood and treasure,” Tuberville said in a press release. “There is no way I am going to let that happen. To date, not a single military or federal official has been held accountable. We need a committee to finally deliver the answers the American people, our allies, and veterans of Afghanistan deserve.” Sen. Scott called the withdrawal “careless.” “President Biden’s misguided and dangerous decisions in his botched withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan led to the United States’ most stunning, unforced, and humiliating defeat in decades,” Sen. Scott said. “Due to President Biden’s carelessness and failed leadership, 13 U.S. service members were lost, billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment were left for the Taliban, hundreds of American citizens were stranded behind enemy lines, and Afghanistan has been returned to the Taliban and now rests in the hands of the same terrorist-coddling extremists who ruled it on September 11, 2001. The world is now a more dangerous place and the American people are rightfully demanding answers. For over a year, I have called for a bipartisan and bicameral investigation into the Biden administration’s failed withdrawal of American forces and my calls have been met with silence. That’s why today, I am reintroducing my bill to establish a bipartisan and bicameral Joint Select Committee on Afghanistan to conduct a full investigation and compile a joint report on the United States’ tragically failed withdrawal from Afghanistan. It’s time to put partisan politics aside and demand accountability.” This joint select committee would follow the precedent set in the aftermath of the Iran-Contra affair. Since the withdrawal, Senator Scott has been calling on Congress to launch a bicameral, bipartisan investigation. “Not long ago, we saw Afghanistan fall and 20 years of work collapse with it. 13 U.S. service members were lost in President Biden’s botched withdrawal,” Sen. Cassidy said. “The country deserves answers.” “The botched withdrawal from Afghanistan cost 13 service members their lives and stranded hundreds of Americans with no way out and left vulnerable to the Taliban,” Sen Cramer said. “A bipartisan, comprehensive investigation into this event strengthens our national security strategy and further ensures the safety of all Americans. The American people deserve to know what happened in Afghanistan so we can prevent similar failures in the future.” “When the Biden Administration disastrously withdrew out of Afghanistan, they left thousands of our Afghan allies behind and severely damaged U.S. credibility on the world stage,” Sen. Tillis said. “Nearly a year and a half later, the American people, especially our brave veterans of the War in Afghanistan, are still owed answers. I am proud to join my colleagues in establishing this bipartisan committee to investigate this colossal failure.” “There has been no accountability for President Biden’s calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan which resulted in the tragic death of 13 U.S. service members,” Sen. Braun said. “The American people deserve answers and transparency which is why I am joining my colleagues in calling for a Joint Select Committee to investigate the Afghanistan withdrawal.” “We continue pressing for answers and accountability from the Biden administration for their failed withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan,” Hoeven said. “This bipartisan, bicameral Joint Select Committee on Afghanistan would focus on the outstanding issues and concerns that need to be addressed, while outlining our commitment to rescue those left behind, defend the United States’ national security interests and preserve our credibility to the rest of the world.” Donald Trump had pledged to withdraw from Afghanistan when he entered the White House in 2017 but was persuaded not only to stay but to add several thousand U.S. troops and escalate attacks on the Taliban. In 2019, the Trump administration began looking for a deal with the Taliban, and in February 2020, the two sides signed an agreement that called for a complete U.S. withdrawal by May 2021. In exchange, the Taliban made a number of promises, including a pledge not to attack U.S. troops. Biden weighed advice from members of his national security team who argued for retaining the 2,500 troops who were in Afghanistan by the time he took office in January. But in mid-April, he announced his decision to fully withdraw and set September as a deadline for getting out. Biden argued that he had to choose between sticking to a previously negotiated agreement to withdraw U.S. troops this year or sending thousands more service members back into Afghanistan to fight a “third decade” of war. To this point, not a single military or Biden administration official has been held accountable for the military pullout. The War in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 was the longest war in American history. Sen. Tuberville is in his first term representing Alabama in the United States Senate. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
