Archive for February, 2017

Malcolm Turnbull targeted by GetUp ad accusing Liberals of failing to oppose racism – The Guardian

Malcolm Turnbull is depicted on a GetUp billboard with Pauline Hanson that asks why the Liberal party wont stand up to racism. Photograph: Saeed Khan/AFP/Getty Images

GetUp has taken aim at Malcolm Turnbull, depicting him on a poster with Pauline Hanson asking why the Liberals wont stand up to racism.

The billboard, to be rolled out in multicultural electorates in western Sydney and Melbourne from Thursday, is part of the activist groups racial justice campaign, including its efforts to retain prohibitions on speech that insults, offends, humiliates or intimidates based on a persons race.

But despite the majority of formal submissions opposing the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the freedom of speech inquiry considering the provision has been inundated with 7,775 form letters in favour of repeal.

GetUps human rights director, Shen Narayanasamy, criticised the prime minister on his weak response to Donald Trumps executive order temporarily banning travel from a group of majority-Muslim countries and accused him of cosying up to One Nation.

The Coalition is trying to make short-term gains from Trump-style divisiveness but we are determined to show that there are long-term electoral costs associated with victimising minorities.

At the National Press Club on Wednesday, Turnbull was asked why the Liberals in Western Australia appeared to be preparing to swap preferences with One Nation and whether the party would preference the rightwing nationalists at the federal level.

He said WA preferences were a matter for the state division and the federal Liberal party was prepared to work with all parties in the parliament, including One Nation.

But it is the freedom of speech inquiry, which held public hearings this week, that is the explicit focus of Get Ups billboards with the messages Why wont the Liberals stand up to racism? and #HandsOff18C.

The Australian newspaper, the Institute of Public Affairs and the far right of the Liberal-National party have worked themselves into a lather to defend peoples right to be racist, Narayanasamy said.

She said watering down or removing section 18C would be outright permission for racial abuse. This is a country where almost a third of the population are from a non-Anglocentric background. For most Australians, theres little demand for the right to be a bigot.

However, if you are a person of colour or one of Australias first peoples, this is a serious issue which impacts your quality of life.

The freedom of speech inquiry received 11,500 items from the public, including about 9,100 form letters, 1,300 pieces of correspondence and at least 200 formal submissions.

According to the committees website, 7,775 of the 9,100 form letters were for 18C to be repealed in its entirety, a campaign orchestrated by the Australian Taxpayers Alliance.

The letter claims 18C restricts an individuals ability to engage in lively and forthright debate. It notes that, since it was introduced in 1995, 2,109 complaints have been made and almost 100 have ended up in federal courts.

The process chills speech by requiring defendants to spend time, energy and money defending themselves for their speech and the potential exists for lives to be ruined even if they are ultimately vindicated in the courts, it said.

In its submission to the inquiry, the Institute of Public Affairs called for repeal of section 18C, arguing it infringed freedom of speech and there is no right not to be offended.

The IPA suggested that section 18C harmed social cohesion because people with racist attitudes were more likely to feel better if allowed to be wrong and then corrected by the words and example of others, than if silenced and left to stew in resentment.

It said while humiliation and intimidation are arguably justifiable restrictions on freedom of expression, those were prohibited by other laws.

Amnesty International, academics and the journalists union told the inquiry that laws restricting information about national security and immigration detention were a greater threat to freedom than race-speech laws.

Many organisations supported retaining 18C on the basis it struck the right balance between freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination.

These included the Victorian government, the Refugee Council, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Reconciliation Australia, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, the Arab Council of Australia and the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia.

A popular compromise position was to replacing the terms offend and insult with vilify, which was backed by Monash Universitys Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the Australian Industry Group.

Continue reading here:
Malcolm Turnbull targeted by GetUp ad accusing Liberals of failing to oppose racism - The Guardian

Democrats ready for Neil Gorsuch battle in Capitol …

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer immediately said he had "serious doubts" about Gorsuch and hinted at a Democratic filibuster, saying the nominee would need to the support of 60 senators to be confirmed, but stopped short of committing to the tactic.

"Make no mistake, Senate Democrats will not simply allow but require an exhaustive, robust, and comprehensive debate on Judge Gorsuch's fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice," Schumer said Tuesday night.

On the surface, Senate Democrats stuck to a firm but somewhat noncommittal message that hinted at the behind-the-scenes debate at the Capitol over whether Democrats will filibuster.

If they choose to hold up his nomination unless he can win 60 votes, Democrats risk spurring Republicans to use the "nuclear option" to rewrite the rules to only require 51 votes for confirmation.

Republicans hold a 52-48 majority in the Senate, meaning they would still need to find the support of eight Democrats without the nuclear option.

It's possible moderate Democrats facing tough re-election battles could be plucked away by Republicans to support Gorsuch. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, and Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, issued muted statements Tuesday night.

"I look forward to meeting with Judge Gorsuch, examining his record, and making a determination of whether to provide my consent. Just as I have all along, I urge my colleagues to put partisan politics aside and allow the vetting process to proceed," Manchin said.

And Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who votes with Democrats, hesitated to go after Gorsuch, saying he wants the nominee to go through a thorough vetting before making a decision.

Democrats, meanwhile, are already facing intense pressure from a liberal base fired up after Trump's inauguration, the immigration ban and a perception that some senators, including Schumer, have been soft on Trump's Cabinet picks.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, a veteran liberal from San Francisco, laid out her opposition in stark terms at a CNN town hall Tuesday night.

"If you breathe air, drink water or eat food, take medicine or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision -- well outside the mainstream of American legal thought," Pelosi said.

Top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who will spend the coming months vetting (and potentially blocking) Gorsuch announced "deep concerns" with his selection.

"I have deep, serious concerns about Judge Gorsuch," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat. "An extreme ideologue on the court will threaten privacy rights including women's health care, worker and consumer protections, and public health and safety."

And Sen. Patrick Leahy, the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who shepherded President Barack Obama's two nominees on to the high court, sought to hang Trump's immigration ban around Gorsuch's neck immediately.

"In light of the unconstitutional actions of our new President in just his first week, the Senate owes the American people a thorough and unsparing examination of this nomination," Leahy said.

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz hinted at the idea of cracking open the "nuclear option" if Democrats when asked how Republicans should respond to a filibuster.

"The Democrats will not succeed in filibustering Judge Gorsuch," Cruz told CNN's Jim Acosta.

See the rest here:
Democrats ready for Neil Gorsuch battle in Capitol ...

Senate Democrats bash Trump’s immigration ban; emotional …

Senate Democrats on Sunday attacked President Trumps recently imposed ban on immigration from several mostly-Muslim countries -- calling the order unconstitutional and seizing on some refugees and green card holders being detained this weekend at U.S. airports to fuel their political outrage.

He has established a target of refugees, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senates second-ranking Democrat, told Fox News Sunday.

Trump on Friday issued an executive order that includes a 120-day suspension of the U.S. refugee program and a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

Durbin spoke after a hectic Saturday at New Yorks John. F. Kennedy International Airport and other airports across the country -- where dozens of refugees or people with green cards were detained or stopped for additional vetting.

They just sprung this on us, Durbin said about the executive order. Refugees are the most carefully vetted visitors who come into this country.

Durbin also thanked a Brooklyn judge (the first of several federal judges across the country) who late Saturday issued emergency orders to temporarily bar the administration from deporting people from the seven countries.

Top White House officials late Saturday and early Sunday rushed to defend the program and pointed out that President Obama identified the seven countries from which immigration has been banned.

These are countries that have a history of training, harboring, exporting terrorists, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, said twice on Fox News Sunday.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said on NBCs Meet the Press that 75 to 80 percent of Americans agree with the policy change, amid terror attacks in the United States and elsewhere around the world in which the perpetrators have been linked to such countries.

We don't want people that are traveling back and forth to one of these seven countries that harbor terrorists to be traveling freely back and forth between the United States and those countries, Priebus said.

Hours after Durbin spoke, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, at a press conference, vowed to fight the executive order with every fiber of my being.

The New York lawmaker also argued that Trumps order was unconstitutional and vowed Senate Democrats would try, in the GOP-controlled Congress, to reverse the order.

Mr. President, Im here to tell you that I will fight this, said Schumer, who sniffled back tears as he stood alongside several children and adult immigrants impacted by the ban.

Trump also faces public opposition from at least a handful of congressional Republicans including Sens. Jeff Flake, of Arizona; Ben Sasse, of Nebraska, and Rob Portman, of Ohio.

"This was an extreme vetting program that wasn't properly vetted," Portman said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

Read the original post:
Senate Democrats bash Trump's immigration ban; emotional ...

Democrats are in real danger of overplaying their hand right now – Washington Post

President Trump on Feb. 1 endorsed the option for the Republican leadership in the Senate to change rules if necessary to confirm his Supreme Court nominee. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

President Trump's first 12 days in office have been marked by controversy, division (even among Republicans) and uncertainty.

His nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on Tuesday night was the antithesis of all that. In the 49-year-old Gorsuch, Trump picked a man who by all previous standards checks the boxes of a Supreme Court nominee and would be tough for Democrats to block. (I emphasize by all previous standards, for reasons we'll get to.)

And yet, Democrats are girding for perhaps their biggest fight yet one that has no guarantee of measurable success and plenty of downside. Put plainly: Democrats don't have much of a hand in Washington right now, and going hard at Gorsuch risks overplaying it.

The problem Democrats have is twofold: 1) They are incensed that Republicans managed to avoid even holding hearings for President Obama's nominee for the same seat, Merrick Garland, last year, and 2) They have a base just itching for a fight with Trump.

Gorsuch presents a fight on perhaps the grandest stage possible over the future of the Supreme Court for decades to come. Given Democrats' righteous indignation and their base's virulent anti-Trumpism, the emotional and immediate temptation has to be to dig in and not give an inch.

Outside groups are already applying such pressure. Moments before Trump made Gorsuch's pick official, the liberal group CREDO Action sent an email assuring that Democrats who dont fight will face the wrath of their constituents a veiled threat of primary challenges, perhaps.

Democrats cannot allow the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice picked by a racist, fascist, sexual predator who lost the majority vote by almost three million votes, CREDO political director Murshed Zaheed said.

And here are Michael Moore's thoughts:

These pretty well sums up how the Democratic base feels, and that base is emboldened after having its voice registered in the form of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries. The base is also emboldened by Hillary Clinton's popular-vote win. And Senate Democrats have responded by putting up roadblocks on Trump's Cabinet nominees and signaling a possible filibuster of Gorsuch.

But the emotional and immediate temptation isn't always the more prudent political one.

Speaking more practically, Democrats are in the Senate minority and don't have an obvious and immediate path back. Trump is unpopular, and midterms are historically good to the opposition party, yes. But to win back the Senate in 2018, they'll have to defend seats in 10 states that Trump won in 2016 and also will have to win three seats out of only eight pickup opportunities with only two of them presenting obvious targets.

Look at this map:

Basically, they have to hold everything (including North Dakota, Indiana and Missouri) and also win in a state like Texas, Nebraska or Tennessee. That's hugely difficult, no matter how unpopular Trump is 21 months from now.

Why is that important? Well, if Democrats block Gorsuch's nomination, there is the very real possibility that Republicans will do what then-Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)started back in 2013 and continue to dismantle the filibuster which for now is Democrats' only real vestige of power in Washington. Getting rid of the filibuster is known as the nuclear option.

Reid invoked the nuclear option for non-Supreme Court nominations when he viewed Republicans as unduly blocking Democratic nominees, but it remains in place for other votes, including for Gorsuch. And there is a real possibility that if Democrats block a box-checker such as Gorsuch, they'll tempt Republicans to do away with the filibuster.

Trump has already urged the GOP to do just that. He was asked last week by Sean Hannity whether he would support invoking it if Democrats block his nominee. I would, Trump responded twice.

A few important caveats here: First, there remains the question of whether the GOP with just 52 senators in its majority would actually have the votes to go nuclear; it's not an easy decision to undo such long-standing rules. Second is that the filibuster may be doomed in the long run anyway, given the increasingly partisan, win-at-all-costs environment in Washington. And third is that Republicans going nuclear could backfire more than Reid's did, given the stakes of a Supreme Court nomination and given that Republicans decried Reid's resorting to the nuclear option. Some Democrats argue it's the GOP that could overreach.

"It is both what the base demands and a real strategy," said longtime Democratic aide Scott Mulhauser, adding: "Beyond the policy, political and rhetorical rationale, Senate Democrats force [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell and the Republicans into a box: either upend years of tradition on Court picks to ram through the Justice they want, or lose and be forced into a second or even third option."

Former Bill Clinton counsel Ronald A. Klain also argued that invoking the nuclear option could also affect Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's decision on whether to retire which, unlike replacing the conservative late Justice Antonin Scalia (which is what Gorsuch would be doing), could really shift the balance of the nation's highest court:

For Senate Republicans, keeping the prospect of a Kennedy resignation in mind would counsel resisting the temptation to end the right to filibuster Supreme Court nominations. Eliminating any power of the minority to stop the most extreme possible nominee would probably be a red flag to Kennedy an indication that the way was clear for a balance-shifting nominee who rejected Kennedys views and moved the court in a radical new direction.

Beyond that, Democrats may simply feel that there is a new paradigm in Washington, with Trump having thrown many or most of the political norms out the window and that his presidency is such a unique threat that everything must be attempted to stop him.

Theres also the that-was-then-and-this-is-now argument, former top Reid aide Jim Manley said. Given the threat I think Trump poses to the core values that this country holds dearly, I think many of those Democrats are going to have to think pretty hard about that.

But others think the threat of a filibuster has been too easily telegraphed and mishandled. One Democratic operative who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment candidly said it made zero sense for Democrats to have telegraphed a filibuster of Gorsuch before he was even named.

Even if you think you're going to do it, it is disappointing that they were so eager to play to the base and be the first name in the national fundraising email, because it played right into Trump's hands of casting Democrats as the obstructionists, the operative said. It was a selfish move about promoting themselves with the base at the expense of our positioning in the fight.

That same temptation will loom large as we now move into Gorsuch's confirmation process. The question iswhether they can resist the pressure to do what their anti-Trump base demands and play this one right, in the name of fighting for another day -- or another four years.

Excerpt from:
Democrats are in real danger of overplaying their hand right now - Washington Post

Trump Says ‘Bad People’ Will Be Kept Out, Whether It’s Called a Ban or Not – New York Times


New York Times
Trump Says 'Bad People' Will Be Kept Out, Whether It's Called a Ban or Not
New York Times
Democrats had tried to delay the finance committee votes, demanding answers from both nominees about recent news reports of insider-trading allegations involving Mr. Price and roughshod treatment of homeowners by Mr. Mnuchin's Southern California ...
Senate Republicans Defy Democrats' Boycott To Advance Trump NomineesNPR
How Progressives Are Forcing Senate Democrats Into ActionThe Atlantic
Democrats boycott controversial EPA nominee Scott Pruitt's committee confirmation voteWashington Post
CNN -Bloomberg -CNBC -Wall Street Journal
all 548 news articles »

See more here:
Trump Says 'Bad People' Will Be Kept Out, Whether It's Called a Ban or Not - New York Times