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
Justice Brett Kavanaugh seeks to dispel the notion that the Supreme Court is partisan
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the mixed U.S. Supreme Court decisions this term as he sought Thursday to dispel notions that it is partisan, even after conservatives brought about the end of affirmative action in college admissions and struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief program. “The court is an institution of law. It’s an institution of law, not of politics, not of partisanship,” Kavanaugh said at a judicial conference in Minnesota, in the first public remarks by a justice since the court recessed for the summer late last month. The Supreme Court has been reshaped by the three justices nominated by President Donald Trump, including Kavanaugh. Although Kavanaugh sided with the conservative majorities in the affirmative action and student loan rulings, as well as last summer’s ruling overturning the nationwide right to abortion, he was also part of the mixed conservative and liberal majorities this term that backed Black voters in Alabama and preserved a federal law aimed at keeping Native American children with Native families. And the term was marked by other notable surprises, rejecting conservative positions in a North Carolina redistricting case that could have reshaped elections across the country, while backing the Biden administration in a fight over deportation priorities. “We have lived up, in my estimation, to deciding cases based on law and not based on partisan affiliation and partisanship,” Kavanaugh said. “We don’t caucus in separate rooms. We don’t meet separately. We’re not sitting on different sides of the aisle at an oral argument. … We work as a group of nine.” Speaking to an audience of judges, attorneys, and court personnel from the 8th Circuit, which stretches from Minnesota and the Dakotas south to Arkansas, Kavanaugh said he didn’t fully appreciate until he joined the court how much time the nine justices spend alone with each other. He estimated that they eat lunch together around 65 times a year. “And the rule at lunch is you can’t talk about work,” he said. “It’s a good rule. … It builds relationships and friendships, and then when we have tough cases — and we only really have tough cases — you have a reservoir of goodwill toward each of the other people.” Kavanaugh said he was warmly welcomed in his first term in 2018 by then-Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, who were part of the court’s liberal wing. He also praised his working relationships with the two newest justices, conservative Amy Coney Barrett and liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kavanaugh, who was the justice most often in the majority this term in divided cases, said the Supreme Court hears 60 to 70 cases a term and that only a relative few might get most of the attention. But he said there are lots of 9-0 decisions, and there can also be a lot of 7-2 and 6-3 decisions. “All sorts of different lineups,” he said. “And so I might be working with Sonia Sotomayor on the Andy Warhol case, while we disagree on a case on the competition clause. We’re not going to let our relationship where we’re working together on one suffer just because we disagree on the other. And that’s going on with all nine of us on a daily basis.” Kavanaugh only briefly mentioned the ethics issues that have dogged some justices — including conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and the liberal Sotomayor — and potentially undermined public confidence in the court. He noted that Chief Justice John Roberts said in May that the justices were continuing to work on that as a group. “That’s accurate,” he said. “I’m not going to add anything to what the chief justice has said on that topic.” Roberts offered no specifics at the time, and the justices have not adopted an ethics code. Kavanaugh said people getting upset when the high court makes difficult decisions comes with the territory. He said the best the justices can do is try to be consistent, clearly explain their reasoning, and try to show that they actually are working as a team of nine on difficult cases instead of caucusing on a partisan basis. “You shouldn’t be in this line of work if you don’t like criticism,” he said. “Because you’re going to get it. And you’re going to get a lot of it.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Supreme Court keeps immigration limits in place indefinitely
The Supreme Court is keeping pandemic-era limits on immigration in place indefinitely, dashing hopes of immigration advocates who had been anticipating their end this week. In a ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court extended a temporary stay that Chief Justice John Roberts issued last week. Under the court’s order, the case will be argued in February, and the stay will be maintained until the justices decide the case. The limits, often referred to as Title 42 in reference to a 1944 public health law, were put in place under then-President Donald Trump at the beginning of the pandemic. Under the restrictions, officials have expelled asylum-seekers inside the United States 2.5 million times and turned away most people who requested asylum at the border on grounds of preventing the spread of COVID-19. Immigration advocates sued to end the policy, saying it goes against American and international obligations to people fleeing to the U.S. to escape persecution. They’ve also argued that the policy is outdated as coronavirus treatments improve. The Supreme Court’s decision comes as thousands of migrants have gathered on the Mexican side of the border, filling shelters and worrying advocates who are scrambling to figure out how to care for them. “We are deeply disappointed for all the desperate asylum seekers who will continue to suffer because of Title 42, but we will continue fighting to eventually end the policy,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been arguing to end Title 42′s use. The ruling Tuesday said specifically that the Supreme Court will review the issue of whether the states have the right to intervene in the legal fight over Title 42. Both the federal government and the immigration advocates have argued that the states waited too long to intervene and even if they hadn’t waited so long, that they don’t have sufficient standing to intervene. In a dissent, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson said that even if the court were to find the states have the right to intervene and Title 42 was lawfully adopted “…. the emergency on which those orders were premised has long since lapsed.” The judges said the “current border crisis is not a COVID crisis.” “And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort,” the justices wrote. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday that the Biden administration “will, of course, comply with the order and prepare for the Court’s review.” “At the same time, we are advancing our preparations to manage the border in a secure, orderly, and humane way when Title 42 eventually lifts and will continue expanding legal pathways for immigration,” Jean-Pierre added. “Title 42 is a public health measure, not an immigration enforcement measure, and it should not be extended indefinitely.” In November, a federal judge sided with advocates and set a December 21 deadline to end the policy. Conservative-leaning states appealed to the Supreme Court, warning that an increase in migration would take a toll on public services and cause an “unprecedented calamity” that they said the federal government had no plan to deal with. Roberts, who handles emergency matters that come from federal courts in the nation’s capital, issued a stay to give the court time to more fully consider both sides’ arguments. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to reject the states’ effort while also acknowledging that ending the restrictions abruptly would likely lead to “disruption and a temporary increase in unlawful border crossings.” The precise issue before the court is a complicated, largely procedural question of whether the states should be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit. A similar group of states won a lower court order in a different court district preventing the end of the restrictions after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced in April that it was ending use of the policy. Until the judge’s November order in the advocates’ lawsuit, the states had not sought to take part in that case. But they say that the administration has essentially abandoned its defense of the Title 42 policy and they should be able to step in. The administration has appealed the ruling, though it has not tried to keep Title 42 in place while the legal case plays out. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Raphael Warnock, Hershel Walker pivot to overtime in Georgia Senate contest
Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker pivoted to a decisive extra round of their Senate race Thursday, while party leaders and donors around the country geared up for a four-week campaign blitz that could determine control of the chamber for the next two years. With votes still being counted in Senate contests in Arizona and Nevada, the single December 6 runoff in Georgia could either decide majority control — as did the state’s twin runoffs in 2021 — or further pad one party’s advantage. But neither Republicans nor Democrats were waiting for the Western states’ results to begin scrambling for big money. The Democrats’ Senate campaign arm announced early plans for a $7 million investment in field operations, a sum certain to be dwarfed by what both parties’ various committees will eventually spend on the airwaves. Top Republicans in Washington began huddling with donors, urging their continued support after the party nationwide fell short of expectations in Tuesday’s midterm elections. Former President Donald Trump, who has endorsed Walker, sent out fundraising pitches based on the runoff. The White House offered assurances that President Joe Biden would do whatever was best to help Warnock — even if that means keeping his distance. Warnock sidestepped the national implications Thursday, going directly at Walker and characterizing the former football star as unqualified and unfit for the office. “This race is about competence, and it’s about character,” Warnock said in his first public appearance since his election night party. He went on to detail Walker’s exaggerations of his business and professional achievements and allegations of violence against women, including Walker’s first wife. And he called Walker, who is making his first bid for public office, “manifestly uninformed” on public policy. “The choice between me and Herschel Walker is clear,” Warnock said. “Some things in life are complicated. This ain’t one of them. This is not a math test.” Walker was scheduled to host his first runoff campaign rally later Thursday in the northern reaches of metro Atlanta, key territory for Republicans in Georgia. Warnock’s searing indictment of Walker stands in contrast to the more muted arguments the senator offered for much of the fall, when he focused on his own record in Washington, especially deals with Republicans on infrastructure and provisions in Democratic bills to cap insulin and other drug costs for Medicare recipients. Both approaches, his advisers say, are aimed at independents and moderate Republicans who are critical in a state that, until recently, was dominated by the GOP at all levels of government. Tuesday’s election results appeared to validate Warnock’s strategy and show Walker’s vulnerability after sustained scrutiny of his past, including allegations from two former girlfriends that he encouraged and paid for their abortions despite calling for a national ban on the procedure as a political candidate. Walker led Warnock by about 35,000 votes out of more than 3.9 million cast but failed to clear the 50% threshold needed to avoid a runoff. More critically for Walker, he ran well behind nearly every other GOP nominee for statewide office, including Gov. Brian Kemp, who got about 200,000 more votes on his way to winning a second term. Walker’s vote shares trailed Trump’s 2020 marks across the state, in rural areas, suburban counties, and metro centers — and Trump still lost the state to Biden by a razor-thin margin. Republicans have acknowledged Walker’s flaws throughout the campaign but have argued Warnock remains vulnerable because of broad voter dissatisfaction with generally high inflation and the direction of the country under Democratic control of the White House and Capitol Hill. Dan Eberhart, a GOP donor, called Walker “damaged goods,” saying the contest has to be about who’s running Washington, not just a Georgia senator. “You are voting for Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell” to lead the Senate, Eberhart said. Walker, who dismisses the focus on his past as “foolishness,” has fully embraced a nationalized attack on his opponent. “Raphael Warnock represents Joe Biden, not the people of Georgia,” he says at every campaign stop. Stephen Lawson, who is leading the 34N22 political action committee in support of Walker’s bid, said the same. “That’s still the message: Elect a check on Joe Biden,” said Lawson, whose PAC features Walker’s jersey number as a running back for the University of Georgia and later pro football. Lawson said his PAC will focus on three pools of voters: the GOP base that stuck with Walker, the 200,000 Kemp voters who didn’t, and the 350,000 voters who backed Trump two years ago but didn’t return to the polls for the January 2021 runoffs that Democrats won. The anti-Biden message, he said, can reach all three groups. Warnock, for his part, tacitly acknowledges that his party affiliation may be his biggest liability, even as Democrats exceeded expectations Tuesday by winning enough to potentially hold their Senate majority and limit Republicans to a slim House majority, at best. From the start of his campaign, Warnock has distanced himself from Biden, at least in his campaign speeches and television advertising. The senator alludes to his 2021 runoff victory alongside fellow Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff and links it to Democratic accomplishments, from the COVID-19 pandemic relief package to the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first Black woman on the nation’s highest judicial body. Biden’s approval ratings nationally hover in the low 40s and are even lower in Georgia. White House communications director Kate Bedingfield said it was up to Warnock to decide what is best for his campaign. “The president will do whatever is helpful to Sen. Warnock, whether that’s campaigning with him, whether that’s raising money,” she said Thursday on CNN. “Whatever Sen. Warnock would like, the president will do.” But regardless of either candidate’s difficulty navigating his liabilities, one thing is certain: A full-scale national fight is underway. “There’s going to be plenty of money,” said Eberhart. “It’s the only game in town, so everyone will still be there.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Justices mull latest challenge to landmark voting rights law
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared open Tuesday to making it harder to create majority Black electoral districts, in an Alabama case that could have far-reaching effects on minority voting power across the United States. The justices heard two hours of arguments in the latest showdown over the federal Voting Rights Act, with lawsuits seeking to force Alabama to create a second Black majority congressional district. About 27% of Alabamians are Black, but they form a majority in just one of the state’s seven congressional districts. The court’s conservatives, in a 5-4 vote in February, blocked a lower court ruling that would have required a second Black majority district in time for the November elections. A similar ruling to create an additional Black majority district in Louisiana also was put on hold. Conservative high-court majorities have made it harder for racial minorities to use the Voting Rights Act in ideologically divided rulings in 2013 and 2021. A ruling for Alabama in the new case could weaken a powerful tool that civil rights groups and minority voters have used to challenge racial discrimination in redistricting. Some conservative justices seemed sympathetic to Alabama’s arguments that the court should insist on a “race-neutral” approach to redistricting and should make it harder for people claiming racial discrimination in voting to clear an early legal hurdle. Against pushback from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the other liberal justices, Justice Samuel Alito said it’s too easy for people suing over discrimination in redistricting to win because the first bar in the legal test is too low — simply showing that another political district could be drawn in which minority residents make up a majority of voters. In practice, Alito said, “will not the plaintiffs always run the table?” The outcome appears to rest with Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. Their questions suggested they may be open to a more narrow win for Alabama than the broadest outcome the state is asking for, which might even allow states to dismantle existing districts where racial minorities make up more than half the voters. Even the state’s “least far-reaching argument,” as Alito put it, would result in many fewer districts drawn to give racial minorities the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice, the court’s three liberal justices said. Jackson, the court’s first Black female justice who was hearing her second day of arguments, disagreed with arguments made by Alabama’s lawyer, Edmund LaCour Jr., that redistricting has to be done without regard to race. Constitutional amendments adopted after the Civil War were intended to give a “constitutional foundation for a piece of legislation that was designed to make people who had less opportunity and less rights equal to white citizens,” Jackson said. The Voting Rights Act “by its plain text is doing that same thing.” Justice Elena Kagan referred to the Voting Rights Act as not only “an important statute” but “one of the great achievements of American democracy” while acknowledging that recent Supreme Court cases have cut back on the law. “Now, in recent years, the statute has fared not well in this court,” she said. “You’re asking us essentially to cut back substantially on our 40 years of precedent and to make this, too, extremely difficult to prevail on, so what’s left?” Kagan said to LaCour. Partisan politics underlies the case. Republicans who dominate elective office in Alabama have been resistant to creating a second district with a Democratic-leaning Black majority that could send another Democrat to Congress. Two appointees of President Donald Trump were on the three-judge panel that unanimously held that Alabama likely violated the landmark 1965 law by diluting Black voting strength. The judges found that Alabama has concentrated Black voters in one district, while spreading them out among the others to make it impossible for them to elect a candidate of their choice. Alabama’s Black population is large enough and geographically compact enough to create a second district, the judges found. Alabama argues that the lower court ruling would force it to sort voters by race and the state insists it is taking a “race neutral” approach to redistricting. That argument could resonate with conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts. He has opposed most consideration of race in voting both as a justice and in his time as a lawyer in Republican presidential administrations. Roberts said little Tuesday to telegraph his vote. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch also had little or nothing to say in court, but Thomas, in particular, has voted consistently to limit the reach of anti-discrimination laws. The arguments were the first Supreme Court case involving race for Jackson. A challenge to affirmative action in college admissions is set for arguments on October 31. A decision in Merrill v. Milligan is expected by late June. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
U.S. Supreme Court poised to keep marching to right in new term
With public confidence diminished and justices sparring openly over the institution’s legitimacy, the Supreme Court on Monday will begin a new term that could push American law to the right on issues of race, voting, and the environment. Following June’s momentous overturning of nearly 50 years of constitutional protections for abortion rights, the court is diving back in with an aggressive agenda that seems likely to split its six conservative justices from its three liberals. “It’s not going to be a sleepy term,” said Allison Orr Larsen, a William and Mary law professor. “Cases the court already has agreed to hear really have the potential to bring some pretty significant changes to the law.” Into this swirling mix steps new Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s first Black woman. Jackson took the seat of Justice Stephen Breyer, a member of the court’s liberal wing, who retired in June. She’s not expected to alter the liberal-conservative divide on the court, but for the first time the court has four women as justices, and white men no longer hold a majority. The court, with three appointees of President Donald Trump, could discard decades of decisions that allow colleges to take account of race in admissions and again weaken the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement. In a separate elections case, a Republican-led appeal could dramatically change the way elections for Congress and the presidency are conducted by handing more power to state legislatures and taking it away from state courts. Also on the agenda is a clash over the rights of a business owner with a religious objection to working with same-sex couples on their weddings. In the term’s first arguments Monday, the justices are being asked to limit the reach of the Clean Water Act, nation’s main law to combat water pollution. The case involves an Idaho couple who won an earlier high court round in their bid to build a house on property near a lake without getting a permit under that law. The outcome could change the rules for millions of acres of property that contain wetlands. A Supreme Court decision for the couple could strip environmental protections from 45 million acres and threaten water quality for millions of people, said Sam Sankar, senior vice president of the Earthjustice environmental group. “It’s going to help a lot of industries. It’s going to hurt real people,” Sankar said. But Damien Schiff, representing the couple, said a favorable court ruling could free ordinary property owners from worrying about large fines and years of delays. “You don’t have to be a large industrial company or large property owner to have a problem,” Schiff said. There’s little expectation that the outcomes in the highest-profile cases will be anything other than conservative victories, following last term’s outcomes. In their first full term together, the conservatives ruled not only on abortion, but expanded gun rights, enhanced religious rights, reined in the government’s ability to fight climate change and limited Biden administration efforts to combat COVID-19. Deborah Archer, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, underscored the long odds facing defenders of affirmative action in college admissions. “It is most certainly an uphill climb. We’re in a scary place where we are relying on Justice Roberts,” Archer said. Her assessment stems from Chief Justice John Roberts’ long-standing support, both as a judge and a White House lawyer in the 1980s, for limits on considerations of race in education and voting. “It’s a sordid business, this divvying us up by race,” Roberts wrote in a 2006 redistricting case from Texas. Last term’s epic decisions might have produced bruised feelings among the justices anyway. But the leak of the abortion decision in early May, seven weeks before it was released, exacerbated tensions on the court, several justices have said. The court has apparently not identified the source of the leak, Breyer said in a recent interview on CNN. Justice Elena Kagan delivered a series of talks over the summer in which she said the public’s view of the court can be damaged especially when changes in its membership lead to big changes in the law. “It just doesn’t look like law when some new judges appointed by a new president come in and start just tossing out the old stuff,” Kagan said in an appearance last month at Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito both took issue with Kagan, if obliquely. Roberts said it was wrong to equate disagreement with the court’s decisions with questions of legitimacy. In a comment Tuesday to The Wall Street Journal, Alito didn’t name Kagan. “But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line,” he said, according to the newspaper. Separately, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, was interviewed on Thursday by the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection. She stood by the false claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent, according to the committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. Ginni Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, texted with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and contacted lawmakers in Arizona and Wisconsin in the weeks after the election. In January, her husband was the only justice to vote to keep documents from the National Archives out of the committee’s hands. Polls have shown a dip in approval for the court and respect for it. The latest Gallup Poll, released last week, reflected Americans’ lowest level of trust in the court in 50 years and a record-tying low approval rating. In a talk to judges and lawyers in Colorado last month, Roberts reflected on the last year at the court, calling it an “unusual one and difficult in many respects.” Following the leak, the court was ringed with an 8-foot security fence, and Roberts called it “gut-wrenching” to drive to work past the barricades. He also said it was “unnatural” to hear arguments without the public present, a concession to the coronavirus pandemic. Now the barricades are down, and the public will be allowed inside the courtroom for arguments for the first time since March
Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in, becomes 1st Black woman on Supreme Court
Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in to the Supreme Court on Thursday, shattering a glass ceiling as the first Black woman on the nation’s highest court. The 51-year-old Jackson is the court’s 116th justice, and she took the place of the justice she once worked for. Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement was effective at noon. Moments later, joined by her family, Jackson recited the two oaths required of Supreme Court justices, one administered by Breyer and the other by Chief Justice John Roberts. “With a full heart, I accept the solemn responsibility of supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States and administering justice without fear or favor, so help me God,” Jackson said in a statement issued by the court. “I am truly grateful to be part of the promise of our great Nation. I extend my sincerest thanks to all of my new colleagues for their warm and gracious welcome.” Roberts welcomed Jackson “to the court and our common calling.” The ceremony was streamed live on the court’s website. All the justices except for Neil Gorsuch attended the swearing-in, the court said. There was no immediate explanation for Gorsuch’s absence. Jackson, a federal judge since 2013, is joining three other women — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett. It’s the first time four women will serve together on the nine-member court. Biden nominated Jackson in February, a month after Breyer, 83, announced he would retire at the end of the court’s term, assuming his successor had been confirmed. Breyer’s earlier-than-usual announcement and the condition he attached was a recognition of the Democrats’ tenuous hold on the Senate in an era of hyper-partisanship, especially surrounding federal judgeships. The Senate confirmed Jackson’s nomination in early April, by a 53-47 mostly party-line vote that included support from three Republicans. Jackson had been in a sort of judicial limbo since, remaining a judge on the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., but not hearing any cases. Biden elevated her to that court from the district judgeship to which she was appointed by President Barack Obama. Glynda Carr, president of Higher Heights for America, an organization that advocates for the growth of Black women’s political power, said the timing of Jackson’s swearing-in was bittersweet. “Although we celebrate her today, one Black woman or a cohort of Black women can’t save this democracy alone. We are a piece of it and we are doing our work, our part. She’s going to forever reshape and shape that court. But she’s just a piece of the work that needs to happen moving forward,” Carr said. Because of Jackson’s appointment, Judith Browne Dianis, a Black lawyer in Washington, said she intends to end her protest against joining the Supreme Court Bar. She started it when Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed in 1991. She said that even the series of conservative rulings from the court over the past week cannot take away from the significance of Thursday’s ceremony. “This is a momentous occasion and it’s still a beautiful moment,” said Dianis, executive director of the civil rights group Advancement Project. But, Dianis added, “she’s joining the court at a time when conservatives are holding the line and trying to actually take us back, because they see the progress that’s being made in our country. It’s like the Civil War that never ended. That’s the court that she’s joining.” Jackson will be able to begin work immediately, but the court will have just finished the bulk of its work until the fall, apart from emergency appeals that occasionally arise. That will give her time to settle in and familiarize herself with the roughly two dozen cases the court already has agreed to hear starting in October as well as hundreds of appeals that will pile up over the summer. She helps form the most diverse court in its 232-year history and is the first former public defender to be a justice. The court that Jackson is joining is the most conservative that it has been since the 1930s. She is likely to be on the losing end of important cases, which could include examinations of the role of race in college admissions, congressional redistricting and voting rights that the court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, will take up next term. Today’s court now is surrounded by fencing, and justices and their families have 24-hour protection by the U.S. Marshals, the result of a law passed days after a man carrying a gun, knife and zip ties was arrested near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland house after threatening to kill the justice. The bill was introduced in May shortly after the leak of a draft court opinion that would overrule Roe v. Wade and sharply curtail abortion rights in roughly half the states. The court issued final opinions earlier Thursday after a momentous and rancorous term that included overturning Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of the right to an abortion. One of Thursday’s decisions limited how the Environmental Protection Agency can use the nation’s main anti-air pollution law to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a blow to the fight against climate change. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama GOP voters decide secretary of state, other nominees
Republican voters in Alabama will decide their party’s nominees in four statewide races Tuesday after campaigns in which many of the candidates touted their devotion to faith, former President Donald Trump, and guns. A statewide constitutional amendment to fund park improvements also is on the ballot. Here are the key races to watch: SECRETARY OF STATE Four Republicans and one Democrat are on the primary ballot to succeed GOP incumbent John Merrill as Alabama’s top elections officer, secretary of state. Ed Packard, who worked in the secretary of state’s elections division for nearly 25 years, is seeking the Republican nomination in a field that includes Jim Zeigler, who was barred from running again as state auditor by term limits; state Rep. Wes Allen of Troy, who served nearly a decade as probate judge in Pike County; and Christian Horn, a GOP activist and business owner from Madison County. None of the four candidates has raised major complaints about election problems in Alabama, which is controlled by Republicans and voted heavily for President Donald Trump in 2020. But all have talked about measures needed to tighten election security, an issue popularized among conservatives by Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen by President Joe Biden. Merrill couldn’t seek the office again after serving two terms. The eventual Republican nominee will face Democrat Pamela J. Laffitte of Mobile in November. ATTORNEY GENERAL Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall faces a single primary challenger as he seeks a second four-year term as the state’s main law enforcement official. First appointed to the position in 2017, Marshall is opposed by Harry Bartlett Still III, an attorney from Daphne. Marshall, who previously served as district attorney in Marshall County, regularly opposes initiatives launched by Democratic President Joe Biden, including vaccination requirements for COVID-19 and federal policies along the border with Mexico, and he testified against the nomination of now-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court. Still contends corruption is rampant in state government and that the agency that oversees police standards and training in the state needs to be reorganized to increase public trust in law enforcement. He also supports replacing Alabama’s heavily amended constitution, passed in 1901 to ensure white supremacy. The winner will face Democratic nominee Wendell Major, police chief in the Birmingham-area city of Tarrant, in November. STATE AUDITOR Candidates for Alabama state auditor typically emphasize the importance of keeping track of state property, but three Republicans seeking the office this year added another talking point in the era of false claims about a stolen presidential vote — election security. Stan Cooke, a pastor from Kimberly; Rusty Glover, a former history teacher from Semmes who served in the state Senate; and state Rep. Andrew Sorrell of Muscle Shoals all are emphasizing the auditor’s role of selecting county registrar boards as they seek the office. Almost directly echoing false claims by former President Donald Trump, Cooke’s campaign website says the state must get ahead of Democrats before they “try and steal our elections as they did in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and even our neighbor to the east, Georgia.” The incumbent, Jim Zeigler, couldn’t seek reelection after serving two terms and is running for secretary of state. Winning the Republican nomination is tantamount to election because no Democrat qualified to run for auditor. SUPREME COURT One Republican candidate for the Alabama Supreme Court is trying to woo voters with a mix that includes his devotion to God and former President Donald Trump. The other is emphasizing her experience in the courtroom — and her gun. Greg Cook, an attorney from metro Birmingham, and Debra Jones, a circuit judge who hears cases in Calhoun and Cleburne, are seeking the Republican nomination for the Place 5 Supreme Court seat held by Justice Mike Bolin, who is retiring. Cook is portraying himself as a “Trump-tough” Republican who was a Trump delegate and represented conservative interests in the 2000 presidential recount contest in Florida between Al Gore and President George W. Bush. Aside from partisan and legal qualifications, Cook’s campaign resume features his longtime church membership and leadership. Jones released a commercial late in the campaign boasting of her support for Trump, her short stature — “She’s 5 feet of concrete” — and a case in which she sentenced a person convicted of child molestation to more than 1,000 years in prison. The spot shows her firing a handgun and saying the only reason she didn’t put the person “under the jail” was “the liberals” wouldn’t let her. All nine members of the court are Republicans, and the winner of the Place 5 race will be a heavy favorite over Democrat Anita L. Kelly, a judge in Montgomery, in the general election. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT Voters will decide whether to let the state go into debt for $85 million in bonds to spruce up Alabama’s state parks and historical sites. A statewide constitutional amendment on the ballot would provide $80 million in funding for state park projects that include adding and improving camping sites, adding wireless service, upgrading electrical and water service, replacing playgrounds, constructing swimming pools, and repairing parts of Gulf State Park damaged by Hurricane Sally. The remaining $5 million would go to the Alabama Historical Commission for acquiring, renovating, and maintaining historical parks around the state. The agency wouldn’t be allowed to use the money at Confederate Memorial Park in Marbury. The park is funded by a tax that was originally intended for needy Confederate veterans. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed as first Black female high court justice
The Senate confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court on Thursday, shattering a historic barrier by securing her place as the first Black female justice and giving President Joe Biden a bipartisan endorsement for his promised effort to diversify the high court. Cheers rang out in the Senate chamber as Jackson, a 51-year-old appeals court judge with nine years of experience on the federal bench, was confirmed 53-47, mostly along party lines but with three Republican votes. Presiding over the vote was Vice President Kamala Harris, also the first Black woman to reach her high office. Biden tweeted afterward that “we’ve taken another step toward making our highest court reflect the diversity of America.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer exulted that it was “a wonderful day, a joyous day, an inspiring day — for the Senate, for the Supreme Court, and for the United States of America.” Harris said as she left the Capitol that she was “overjoyed, deeply moved.” Jackson will take her seat when Justice Stephen Breyer retires this summer, solidifying the liberal wing of the 6-3 conservative-dominated court. She joined Biden at the White House to watch the vote, embracing as it came in. The two were expected to speak, along with Harris, at the White House Friday. During four days of Senate hearings last month, Jackson spoke of her parents’ struggles through racial segregation and said her “path was clearer” than theirs as a Black American after the enactment of civil rights laws. She attended Harvard University, served as a public defender, worked at a private law firm, and was appointed as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. She told senators she would apply the law “without fear or favor,” and pushed back on Republican attempts to portray her as too lenient on criminals she had sentenced. Jackson will be just the third Black justice, after Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and the sixth woman. She will join three other women, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett – meaning that four of the nine justices will be women for the first time in history. Her eventual elevation to the court will be a respite for Democrats who fought three bruising battles over former President Donald Trump’s nominees and watched Republicans cement a conservative majority in the final days of Trump’s term with Barrett’s confirmation. While Jackson won’t change the balance, she will secure a legacy on the court for Biden and fulfill his 2020 campaign pledge to nominate the first Black female justice. “This is a tremendously historic day in the White House and in the country,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki after the vote. “And this is a fulfillment of a promise the president made to the country.” The atmosphere was joyful, though the Senate was divided, as Thursday’s votes were cast. Senators of both parties sat at their desks and stood to vote, a tradition reserved for the most important matters. The upper galleries were almost full for the first time since the beginning of the pandemic two years ago, and about a dozen House members, part of the Congressional Black Caucus, stood at the back of the chamber. Harris called out the tally, pausing with emotion, and Democrats erupted in loud applause and cheers, Schumer pumping his fists. A handful of Republicans stayed and clapped, but most by then had left. Despite Republican criticism of her record, Jackson eventually won three GOP votes. The final tally was far from the overwhelming bipartisan confirmations for Breyer and other justices in decades past, but it was still a significant accomplishment for Biden in the 50-50 split Senate after GOP senators aggressively worked to paint Jackson as too liberal and soft on crime. Statements from Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah all said the same thing — they might not always agree with Jackson, but they found her to be enormously well qualified for the job. Collins and Murkowski both decried increasingly partisan confirmation fights, which only worsened during the battles over Trump’s three picks. Collins said the process was “broken,” and Murkowski called it “corrosive” and “more detached from reality by the year.” Biden, a veteran of a more bipartisan Senate, said from the day of Breyer’s retirement announcement in January that he wanted support from both parties for his history-making nominee, and he invited Republicans to the White House as he made his decision. It was an attempted reset from Trump’s presidency, when Democrats vociferously opposed the three nominees, and from the end of President Barack Obama’s when Republicans blocked nominee Merrick Garland from getting a vote. Once sworn in, Jackson will be the second-youngest member of the court after Barrett, 50. She will join a court on which no one is yet 75, the first time that has happened in nearly 30 years. Jackson’s first term will be marked by cases involving race, both in college admissions and voting rights. She has pledged to sit out the court’s consideration of Harvard’s admissions program since she is a member of its board of overseers. But the court could split off a second case involving a challenge to the University of North Carolina’s admissions process, which might allow her to weigh in on the issue. Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization, said Jackson will make the court more reflective of communities that are most impacted by the judiciary. “The highest court in the land now will have a firsthand perspective of how the law impacts communities of color — via voting rights, police misconduct, abortion access, housing discrimination, or the criminal legal system, among other issues,” she said. “This will ultimately benefit all Americans.” Jackson could wait as long as three months to be sworn in, as the court’s session generally ends in late June or early July. She remains a judge on the federal appeals court in Washington, but she stepped away from cases there when she was nominated in February. Republicans spent
Joe Biden finds no respite at home after returning from Europe
With the last nine unscripted words of an impassioned speech about Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, President Joe Biden created a troubling distraction, undermining his effectiveness as he returned home to face restive Americans who strongly disapprove of his performance on issues that matter most to them. His comment that Russia’s Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power” — an assertion that his aides were forced to quickly clean up — overshadowed his larger message of solidifying the Western coalition that’s confronting Moscow. It punctuated another frustrating moment for an administration that’s struggled to regain its footing — and the American electorate’s support — in the face of an ongoing pandemic, escalating inflation, and an increasingly complicated foreign policy crisis that raises the specter of nuclear conflict. Although he’s forged a united front to punish Russia with sanctions for the invasion of Ukraine, polls show Americans feel no better about his leadership as the bloody war continues. Meanwhile, Democrats are in danger of losing control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, leaving Biden with limited opportunities to advance a progressive domestic agenda that remains stalled. The president is on the verge of securing the confirmation of the first Black woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson, on the U.S. Supreme Court, yet there’s no clear path forward for him to fulfill other campaign promises around voting rights, criminal justice reform, and fighting climate change. While polls show that Jackson is broadly supported by Americans, it hasn’t helped improve Biden’s standing with voters less than eight months before the midterms, which Republicans hope to frame as a referendum on the president. The war in Russia has consumed much of the White House’s messaging bandwidth, but Biden is looking to turn the spotlight onto some of his domestic priorities this week. He is expected to unveil a new budget proposal on Monday, which includes a renewed focus on cutting the federal deficit and a populist proposal to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans. If approved by Congress — far from a certainty — households worth more than $100 million — a measurement of wealth, not income — would have to pay a minimum tax of 20% on their earnings. The added revenue could help keep the deficit in check and finance some of Biden’s domestic priorities, including expanded safety net programs. There are few if any signs of Republican support for the proposal so far, and even some Democrats have been lukewarm to the idea. Biden’s case isn’t helped by his approval ratings. A slim 34% of Americans think Biden is doing a good job handling the economy, which is normally the top issue for voters in an election year, according to a poll released Thursday by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. His contentious assertion about Putin in his Warsaw speech did little to help things. The White House rushed to clarify that Biden wasn’t actually calling for “regime change,” but by the next day, it became clear that the dramatic statement had produced some of the first overt cracks in unity among NATO nations that had just convened in Brussels for an emergency meeting. Some leading Western European allies, including France and Germany, tend to be more cautious than the U.S. about how to confront Russia. Until Saturday night, Biden had calibrated his words carefully. French President Emmanuel Macron said Biden’s remarks could make it harder to resolve the conflict. “I wouldn’t use those terms because I continue to speak to President Putin, because what do we want to do collectively?” he said. “We want to stop the war that Russia launched in Ukraine, without waging war and without escalation.” In Berlin, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Sunday that neither NATO nor Biden seek regime change in Russia. Asked about Biden’s remarks during an appearance on ARD television, Scholz also said Biden had not made a dangerous mistake. “We both agree completely that regime change is not an object and aim of policy that we pursue together,” the chancellor said. Biden has enjoyed some rare bipartisan support for his handling of the Ukraine crisis. But some Republicans who have been generally supportive of his approach to the crisis chided him for his comments. Sen. James Risch of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dryly noted on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, “Please, Mr. President, stay on script.” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Biden’s final comment “plays into the hands of the Russian propagandists and plays into the hands of Vladimir Putin.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken was forced to continue clarifying Biden’s speech during a trip through the Middle East, where he had intended to focus on solidifying American partnerships as the administration seeks a renewed nuclear agreement with Iran. Speaking at a news conference in Jerusalem, Blinken said Biden meant that “Putin cannot be empowered to wage war or engage in aggression against Ukraine or anyone else.” In case there was any doubt, Biden gave an emphatic “No!” when asked by a reporter outside of church Sunday if he was calling for regime change with the remark. Even as Biden seemed to go too far for some allies with his speech, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seemed to draw little comfort from it. He accused Western nations of lacking courage to confront Russia, and he said criticized their “ping-pong about who and how should hand over jets” and other weapons to the Ukrainian military. The speech in Warsaw was the third, and by far most consequential, of instances from the trip where Biden’s aides needed to clean up his comments. During a news conference in Brussels on Thursday, he said the U.S. would respond “in-kind” if Putin used chemical weapons in Ukraine. The next day, national security advisor Jake Sullivan said the president meant that “we’ll respond accordingly,” not that the U.S. would use chemical weapons of its own. And then, while speaking to members of the 82nd Airborne Division soldiers recently deployed to Poland, Biden seemed to suggest they would be going to Ukraine.
Ketanji Brown Jackson on track for confirmation, but GOP votes in doubt
After more than 30 hours of hearings, the Senate is on track to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. But Democrats seem unlikely to confirm her with a robust bipartisan vote, dashing President Joe Biden’s hopes for a grand reset after partisan battles over other high court nominees. On Thursday, just hours after the hearings came to a close, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced he will vote against Jackson’s confirmation. He said in a Senate floor speech that he “cannot and will not” support her for a lifetime appointment. McConnell slammed the liberal groups that have supported Jackson, and he criticized her for refusing to take a position on the size of the nine-member court, even though that decision is ultimately up to Congress. Some advocacy groups have pushed for enlarging the court after three justices nominated by former President Donald Trump cemented a 6-3 conservative majority. McConnell also cited concerns about her sentencing of criminal defendants — a subject that dominated much of the four days of hearings and was part of a coordinated GOP effort to portray her as soft on crime. His position was expected and does not affect Jackson’s trajectory to be confirmed by mid-April. But the leader’s quick declaration could prompt many of his fellow Republicans to follow suit, thwarting Biden’s efforts to bring back the overwhelming bipartisan votes that were commonplace for Supreme Court nominees when he first came to the Senate five decades ago. “I think whomever I pick will get a vote from Republican side,” Biden said after Justice Stephen Breyer announced he would step down from the court this summer. As he started his search for a replacement, the president made a point of inviting Republican senators to the White House to hear their advice. While many GOP senators have praised Jackson’s vast experience and qualifications, it was clear at the hearings that Biden’s outreach had little effect. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee interrogated Jackson about her nine-year record as a federal judge, frequently interrupting her answers. Jackson, supported by committee Democrats, pushed back aggressively on Republicans who said she gave light sentences to sex offenders, explaining her sentencing process in detail and telling them “nothing could be further from the truth.” The focus on crime dovetails with an emerging GOP theme for this year’s midterm elections and is likely to be decisive for many Republican senators. Others have brought up separate reasons to vote against her — from her support from liberal groups to her so-called “judicial philosophy.” One or more Republicans could still cast a vote for Jackson’s confirmation, but the contentious nature of the four-day hearings laid bare a familiar partisan dynamic, seen over years of pitched fighting over judicial nominations. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, who has been privately lobbying GOP colleagues to support Jackson, said after McConnell’s announcement that it will be “sad for our country and sad as a commentary on where the parties are today” if her historic nomination is approved on a strictly partisan vote. “The Republicans are testing their messages for the November election,” Durbin said. Durbin said he is “still hoping that several Republicans — I hope many more” will vote for her. If not, Democrats can confirm Jackson without any GOP support in the 50-50 Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie. As talk turned to the voting ahead, the Judiciary panel held its final day of Senate hearings Thursday with a top lawyers’ group, which said its review found Jackson has a “sterling” reputation and “exceptional” competence and is well qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. “Outstanding, excellent, superior, superb,” testified Ann Claire Williams, chair of the American Bar Association committee that makes recommendations on federal judges. “Those are the comments from virtually everyone we interviewed.” Williams said the group spoke to more than 250 judges and lawyers about Jackson. “The question we kept asking ourselves: How does one human being do so much so extraordinary well?” Jackson would be the third Black justice, after Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and the sixth woman. She would also be the first former public defender on the court, and the first justice with experience representing indigent criminal defendants since Marshall. Her confirmation would not alter the current 6-3 conservative majority on the court. Durbin noted at Thursday’s hearing that some Republican senators argued that Jackson was out of the mainstream when it comes to sentencing, and he asked the ABA whether such a concern would have surfaced in their interviews with the judges and lawyers who worked with her. “It never came up in any of these interviews,” Williams said. During questioning Tuesday and Wednesday, GOP senators aggressively queried Jackson on the sentences she handed down to child pornography offenders in her nine years as a federal judge, her legal advocacy on behalf of suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, her thoughts on critical race theory, and even her religious views. Many of the hours of questioning were spent on the specifics of the child pornography cases, with the discussion led by several GOP senators who are eyeing the presidency. Pushing back, Jackson said she bases sentences on many factors, not just federal guidelines. Sentencing is not a “numbers game,” she said, noting that there are no mandatory sentences for sex offenders and that there has been significant debate on the subject. Democratic senators cited outside experts who said her sentences were within the norm. Some of those cases have given her nightmares, Jackson said, and were “among the worst that I have seen.” The GOP criticism was countered by effusive praise from Democrats and by reflections on the historic nature of her nomination. The most riveting came from New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who used his time Wednesday not to ask questions but to tearfully speak and draw tears from Jackson as well. Booker, who is Black, said he sees “my ancestors and yours” when he looks at Jackson. “I know what it’s taken
AG Steve Marshall mum on whether Joe Biden is ‘duly elected’ president
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, testifying against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, declined repeatedly Thursday to express an opinion on whether President Joe Biden is serving in the office legally. The exchange came as the Republican Marshall was questioned by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, about Marshall’s ties to a group that promoted the rally that occurred in Washington before the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump. “Is Joseph R. Biden of Delaware the duly elected and lawfully serving president of the United States of America?” Whitehouse asked. “He is the president of this country,” replied Marshall, who was invited by the Judiciary Committee’s Republican minority and questioned in his testimony whether Jackson stands up for crime victims.ADVERTISEMENT “Is he the duly elected and lawfully serving president of the United States?” Whitehouse pressed. “He is the president of our country,” Marshall answered. “Are you answering that omitting the language ‘duly elected and lawfully serving’ purposefully?” Whitehouse responded. “I am answering the question. He is president of the United States,” Marshall said. “And you have no view as to whether he was duly elected or is lawfully serving?” the senator asked. “I am telling you he is the president of the United States,” Marshall replied. Afterward, Whitehouse said, “I have no further questions.” A spokesman for the state attorney general’s office didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the remarks by Marshall, who was among a group of attorneys general who joined in a 2020 legal brief challenging voting results in four battleground states lost by Trump, who falsely claims the election was stolen. Marshall is a former county prosecutor who was first appointed to the state’s top legal position in 2017, won a full term in 2018, and is seeking reelection this year. Marshall also is a member of the executive committee of the Republican Attorneys General Association, a branch of which promoted the pro-Trump rally that preceded the Capitol riot. Under questioning from Whitehouse, Marshall denied that the group had anything to do with the violent attack and declined the senator’s invitation to address U.S. Capitol Police officers who were injured. “We’ve denounced that violence before and as I’ve done with you here today,” Marshall said. Marshall previously said staff members with the GOP association made unauthorized decisions ahead of robocalls that went out promoting the rally. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
