Mediaboss Marketing

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch a reactionary who dresses up his cruel views in folksy charms. Above, Gorsuch in the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 1.

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

On Monday, Justice Neil Gorsuch revealed himself to be everything that liberals had most feared: pro-gun, protravel ban, anti-gay, antichurch/state separation. He is certainly more conservative than Justice Samuel Alito and possibly to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas. He is an uncompromising reactionary and an unmitigated disaster for the progressive constitutional project. And he will likely serve on the court for at least three more decades.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

Although Gorsuch has barely been on the bench for two months, he has already had an opportunity to weigh in on some of the most pressing constitutional issues of our time. In each case, he has chosen the most conservative position. On Monday, Gorsuch indicated that he opposes equal rights for same-sex couples, dissenting from a ruling that requires states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. (Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined his dissent.) That, alone, is startling: In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court held that the Constitution compels states to grant same-sex couples the constellation of rights, benefits, and responsibilities that the states have linked to marriage, including birth and death certificates. Obergefell, then, already settled this issue. Gorsuchs dissent suggests he may not accept Obergefell as settled law and may instead seek to undermine or reverse it.

Gorsuch also joined Thomas in dissenting from the courts refusal to review a challenge to Californias concealed carry laws. California grants concealed carry permits for good causenamely, a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. Gun advocates challenged this rule, alleging a violation of the Second Amendment. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California regime, and on Monday, the court declined to reconsider its decision. Thomas and Gorsuch dissented vociferously, essentially declaring that the Second Amendment grants individuals a right to carry loaded firearms in public. Not even the archconservative Alito joined their bizarre opinion. It appears Gorsuch is eager to strike down almost any law that limits the right to keep and bear arms in any way. If adopted by the court, Gorsuchs theory would effectively bar state and local governments from passing almost any kind of gun safety legislation.

Monday also revealed Gorsuchs deep hostility to the separation of church and state. He joined Chief Justice John Roberts opinion for the court in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, holding that a state may not constitutionally refuse to subsidize houses of worship. The court, joined by Gorsuch, held that, when a state declines to fund a churchs improvement project, it somehow violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her vehement and impressive dissent, Roberts opinion held for the first time that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Roberts decision is especially noteworthy for its complete rejection of originalism: As Sotomayor painstakingly proved, the United States has a rich history of laws preventing the government from directing taxpayer funds to houses of worship. Never before has the court found that these laws somehow interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Gorsuch joined Roberts opinion, although he parted ways with the chief justice when it came to a critical footnote that limited its holding. Trinity Lutheran involved playground resurfacing: The church wanted a state grant for a special rubber substance it wished to pour onto its play area. In a footnote, Roberts wrote that this case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination. (Emphasis mine.) Gorsuch, as well as Thomas, rejected this footnote; both justices wrote separately to declare that theyd go further, holding that any disparate treatment of religious organizations likely runs afoul of the Constitution. That seemingly benign statement implies that both justices would force states to funnel more taxpayer money to churches and religious groups. To their minds, the government discriminates against religion when it refuses to subsidize it.

Then, finally, theres the travel ban ruling. In a compromise decision, the justices allowed Trumps executive order to take effect but exempted foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The order gives the Trump administration most of what it wants, while ensuring that individuals with significant ties to the U.S. will not be turned away at the border. Yet Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito, opposed this compromise: He wouldve let the travel ban take effect in its entirety, as he believes it to be lawful. So much for the fantasy of Gorsuch standing up to Trump.

When Trump first nominated Gorsuch, I was relieved he hadnt picked an outright lunatic, and I felt cautiously optimistic that Gorsuch might be less of a hard-line conservative than liberals believed. I was wrong. Gorsuch is the worst kind of justice. He is a reactionary who dresses up his cruel, antediluvian views in folksy charm; who professes restraint while espousing extreme, sweeping views; who has no sympathy for vulnerable minorities but believes Christians are being oppressed. And he will guide the course of the law for the next 30 years or more. He is a catastrophe for proponents of civil rights and equal justice. And his influence over the court only stands to grow.

This country is in terrible trouble.

Follow this link:
Supreme Court Breakfast Table - Slate Magazine

OTTAWA The federal government's long-promised counter-radicalization centre is now open, but the appointment of a special adviser to shape a national strategy could be months away.

The government says the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence will provide national leadership, co-ordination and support to stop young people from heading down a dark path.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale says the new centre will help society do as much as humanly possible to prevent radicalization to violence before tragedy strikes.

The centre's community resilience fund will put money toward intervention programming and research.

Special adviser to be named in coming months

Officials are launching a call for proposals beginning July 6, and an initial 10 projects have already received money.

In the coming months, a special adviser will be appointed to meet with young people, community leaders and experts across Canada to identify priorities and shape a national strategy on countering radicalization to violence.

The 2016 budget provided $35 million over five years and $10 million annually thereafter to prevent extremism from taking root.

The resilience fund will have $1.4 million available for projects in 2018-19. For 2019-20 and beyond, it will have $7 million each year for existing and new projects.

Visit link:
Liberals Launch Anti-Radicalization Centre Without Special Adviser - Huffington Post Canada

Malcolm Turnbull has told Melbourne radio station 3AW there will be no legislation to legalise same-sex marriage until a plebiscite has been held. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAP

Malcolm Turnbull has killed a push to bring forward a new private members bill on same-sex marriage, saying legislation wont be brought on until there has been a vote of the Australian people.

The prime minister told 3AW on Tuesday the government would not allow a new private members bill to be considered until a plebiscite on the question had been held. That is our position. That is our policy.

There has been open talk around the government for months that moderates have been preparing another legislative sortie on marriage equality. That activity is the backdrop to covertly recorded comments made by Christopher Pyne over the weekend.

Pyne said at a Liberal party function that marriage equality would happen and, I think it might even be sooner than everyone thinks. And your friends in Canberra are working on that outcome.

Pynes indiscretion triggered a fierce backlash from conservatives, and prompted the prime ministerial shutdown on Tuesday.

Turnbull said MPs were entitled to bring forward any matter in the Coalition party room and marriage equality will be considered by the party room in the run-up to the next federal election.

But he said the government had no plans to change the current policy. Im just saying to you that the government has a policy, we have no plans to change it, full stop.

A recent Senate inquiry paved the way for a Coalition private members bill.

Government moderates who have been preparing new legislation believe the Coalitions position on marriage equality must now default to a free vote, because the plebiscite has been defeated, and Tony Abbott said publicly the 44th parliament would be the last to be bound to the plebiscite commitment.

That position is rejected by conservatives. Tasmanian Eric Abetz said on Tuesday morning the plebiscite policy stood, and it was particularly important that cabinet ministers defended party room policy.

Pynes bout of plain speaking on marriage equality, and his declaration that party moderates are in the winners circle has triggered another factional brawl within the government, and the public airing of hostilities.

Abetz took exception to Pyne undermining the governments policy on marriage and his statement of long time support for Turnbull. Pyne told his colleagues at the Liberal party function over the weekend he and the attorney general, George Brandis, had voted for Turnbull in every ballot he had stood in.

What Mr Pyne regrettably did was provide a verbal selfie to the Australian public and I dont think it was a very pretty picture, Abetz said, describing the outburst as divisive and hubristic.

Abetz said cabinet ministers who lost confidence in the party leader were duty bound to report their disloyalty to the leader, and then resign.

With his MPs in open dispute, Turnbull said on Tuesday the party room was very harmonious, very united.

The prime minister said unity was evidenced in the government dealing with difficult issues including schools funding and energy policy. We have come to very solid landings on that.

Asked whether there was bad blood inside the government, Turnbull said the government was united, although he conceded people could rub each other up the wrong way.

Look, people in politics, individuals, get scratchy with each other, and thats human nature. But the fact is the government is delivering.

Asked how he could combat voter disengagement, Turnbull said the antidote was truth-telling and delivery.

Asked by his host Neil Mitchell about impressions that he was a Labor lite prime minister who didnt believe in anything, Turnbull said: These are headlines written by clickbait journalists.

You are better than that, Neil. You are better than that.

Continued here:
Malcolm Turnbull kills off moderate Liberals' push for marriage equality bill - The Guardian

The records indicate that past Democratic primary voters turned out at nearly the same rate as past Republican primary voters (Primary vote history is the most readily available measure of partisanship in a state without party registration, like Georgia.)

Over all, 75 percent of voters who last voted in a Democratic primary turned out in the second round of voting, compared with 76 percent of those who last voted in a Republican primary. The turnout rate among voters who have never voted in a primary was 34 percent.

This might not sound like a great Democratic turnout, but it is pretty rare for the Democratic turnout rate to roughly match the Republican turnout rate, at least in a high-turnout election. Certainly, thats been true in Georgias Sixth: In 2014, Republican primary voters turned out at an eight-point higher rate than Democratic primary voters did, 77 percent to 69 percent. In the 2016 election, it was a three-point gap, 89 percent to 86 percent.

It has been true nationwide as well. According to an Upshot analysis of data from L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor, the Democratic turnout did not match the Republican turnout rate in any recent national election, including 2006, 2008 and 2012. Iowa has complete official turnout history dating to 1982, and Democrats havent exceeded the Republican turnout rate in any of the general elections over that period in the state.

The point is: This is about as good as it gets for Democrats, at least in a reasonably high-turnout election (unusual and imbalanced turnout patterns are more common in lower-turnout contests, when even a slight enthusiasm edge translates to a big change in the composition of the electorate).

The result is that the partisan makeup of the electorate past Republican primary voters outnumbering Democrats by 24.5 points was a lot more like the 2016 presidential election than the 2014 midterm electorate, or even our estimates for a more typical midterm electorate.

The bad news for Democrats is that the Republican turnout edge was larger than in the first round of voting in April, when Republican primary voters outnumbered Democrats by 23.7 points. Thats not because Democratic turnout was weaker in the first round than the second round; turnout was up across the board. Its just that the Republican turnout, which was particularly weak in the first round, increased by more than the Democratic turnout increased.

Mr. Ossoff countered the increased Republican turnout with an equal increase in turnout among voters who have never voted in a primary, who most likely backed him by a big margin. Its an inescapable conclusion: There isnt another way he could have received 48 percent of the vote in an electorate where Republican primary voters outnumbered Democrats, 49 percent to 25 percent. Demographics also offer clues that these voters backed Mr. Ossoff; the voters who havent voted in a primary are far younger and more diverse than those who have.

Over all, voters who had never voted in a primary represented 25 percent of the electorate, up from 18 percent in the first round.

The nonwhite and youth share of the electorate also increased. Over all, 18-to-29-year-old voters represented 10.6 percent of the electorate, up from 7.4 percent in Round 1, and more than halfway between the 6 percent in the 2014 midterm elections and 13.6 percent in the 2016 presidential election. It was also up from the 2016 presidential primary, when they represented 7.9 percent of voters in the district.

Similarly, the white non-Hispanic share of voters (as indicated on their voter registration form) fell to 74 percent of the electorate, down from 75.6 percent in the first round of voting. That, too, was about halfway between 2014, when white voters represented 79 percent of the electorate, and the 2016 presidential electorate, when 71.4 percent of voters were white. Turnout of Asian-American voters, in particular, was high basically matching their share of the 2016 electorate.

There was probably one big exception: Mr. Ossoff did not benefit from such a favorable turnout among black voters. They represented 9.3 percent of voters, the same percentage as in the first round of voting. It was also lower than the 9.4 percent from 2014 or 10.6 percent in 2016.

The stability of the black share of the electorate is pretty striking. In theory, higher turnout ought to have increased the black share of the electorate as a matter of course, just as it increased the share of other low-turnout young and nonwhite, nonblack voting groups. Our pre-election estimate was that black voters would represent 10 percent of the electorate in the second round of voting; our estimate before the first round was 9.5 percent.

From the perspective of campaign mechanics, this was a prime opportunity for Democrats: two elections for field organizing, millions of dollars, a high-profile national race, and great data (the same data used here makes it easy for campaigns to target black voters). Even so, black turnout lagged.

Taken together, these two factors higher Republican turnout and higher youth and nonwhite turnout roughly canceled out.

Democrats, unsurprisingly, are disappointed by losing in Georgia. The recriminations are already underway. There are, undoubtedly, things that Democrats can hope to do better next time. There always are.

But the turnout probably isnt the thing that should keep Democrats up at night. The strong Democratic turnout fits a longer-term pattern of Democrats matching G.O.P. turnout in midterm elections when the Republicans hold the White House, essentially yielding the same partisan breakdown as a presidential election. If the same thing happens in 2018, Democrats will be much better off than they were in 2014 or 2012.

The bad news for Democrats, of course, is that even this sort of turnout is no guarantee of victory. The battle for control of the House will be fought in large part in Republican-leaning districts like Georgias Sixth, and a strong Democratic turnout alone probably wont be enough to win a high-turnout election. In many districts, the Democrats will be burdened by the additional challenge of mobilizing young, nonwhite and perhaps especially black voters.

Even a very impressive turnout like the one in Georgias Sixth might still leave them with an electorate no more favorable than the one that elected Donald J. Trump in November.

Follow this link:
Democrats' Turnout in Georgia Blew Past Typical Off-Year Levels - New York Times

The House Ethics Committee said Monday it is reviewing charges lodged against two high-profile Democratic lawmakers and a senior Democratic aide.

The lawmakers facing an ethics review are Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving sitting House member, and Rep. Ben Ray Lujn (N.M.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The staffer is Michael E. Collins, chief of staff to Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.).

Statements released Monday by the Ethics Committee did not detail the allegations against the three men, which were forwarded to the committee by the independent Office of Congressional Ethics based on a substantial reason to believe a violation has occurred.

The cases will come up for further review on Aug. 9, at which point the Office of Congressional Ethicsreport in each case will be made public and the Ethics Committee can launch a more serious investigation, dismiss the allegations or extend its review.

The Committee notes that the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject of the matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee, the panel said in each case.

A spokesman for Lujn, who is in charge of electing Democrats to the House, said the investigation is linked to a complaint filed by a conservative watchdog group last year about the sit-in led by Democrats on the House floor in response to the Orlando nightclub shooting.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust said Lujn improperly used images of Democrats on the House floor in fundraising emails. Do you stand with us? one Lujn solicitation read. Chip in $24 toward our emergency fundraising goal $1 for every hour weve been in the well of the House chamber demanding action.

This announcement is the result of a frivolous complaint, filed by a highly partisan outside group about activities during the sit-in last year a complaint that is without merit, said spokesman Joe Shoemaker. Congressman Lujn is committed to abiding by House rules, is confident he has done so in this case, and looks forward to a timely resolution by the Ethics Committee.

The Conyers investigation appears to concern the departure of a former staffer to the 88-year-old congressman. On Feb. 8, the OCE found the aide, Cynthia Martin, received compensation from the House of Representatives at a time when she may no longer have been working for the House for several months last year a violation of House rules that could implicate Conyers if he approved or was aware of improper payments.

This is not a new controversy, but rather involves the same matter that the Office of Congressional Ethics released back in February, said a statement released Monday by a Conyers spokeswoman. Rep. Conyers office has worked diligently at all times to comply with the rules, is cooperating with the Ethics Committee, and is confident that this matter can be swiftly resolved.

Brenda Jones, a spokesman for Lewis, did not describe the nature of the allegations against Collins, but said that Collins respects the process of ethics review and is cooperating with the committee.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trustfiled a separate complaint against Collins in January, alleging that he improperly held dual roles on Lewiss official staff and his campaign and that in the latter role, he accepted an excessive salary of $27,495. Collins denied any wrongdoing at the time.

Read more:
House Ethics Committee is reviewing allegations against three Democrats - Washington Post