Archive for the ‘Republican’ Category

Judge to rule on Congress’ subpoena in Trump case ‘promptly’ – Reuters

NEW YORK, April 19 (Reuters) - A former prosecutor who once led the Manhattan district attorney's criminal investigation into former U.S. President Donald Trump must testify before a congressional committee, a U.S. judge held on Wednesday.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat who got Trump indicted in the first ever criminal charges against a former president, last week sued Republican Representative Jim Jordan to block a subpoena for testimony from Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor who once led the office's Trump probe.

The subpoena came from the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, which Jordan chairs. Pomerantz's deposition is scheduled for Thursday.

After hearing arguments in federal court in Manhattan on whether to block the subpoena, U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued a written ruling approving the subpoena but encouraging the parties to reach a compromise as to how the subpoena of Pomerantz would proceed.

"Mr. Pomerantz must appear for the congressional deposition," Vyskocil wrote, adding in a reference to a phrase frequently used by Trump's critics, "No one is above the law."

In a statement, a spokesperson for Jordan said the decision shows "Congress has the ability to conduct oversight."

Bragg's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Bragg, argued that Jordan was seeking to interfere in a local prosecution and "intimidate" the district attorney's office.

Matthew Berry, the House general counsel, countered that the subpoena was covered by constitutional protection for "speech or debate" in Congress, and that the committee needed Pomerantz's testimony to weigh legislation restricting what he called "politically motivated prosecutions" of presidents.

Trump, the Republican front-runner in the 2024 presidential campaign, pleaded not guilty on April 4 to 34 felony charges over a hush money payment made before the 2016 election to porn star Stormy Daniels, to prevent her from discussing a sexual encounter she said they had. He denies the liaison took place.

Vyskocil, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, said she did not endorse either side's "agenda." She said she presumed Bragg was acting in good faith, but some of his constituents wish to see Trump prosecuted. She said Jordan had also "initiated a political response" to Bragg's charges.

"The sole question before the Court at this time is whether Bragg has a legal basis to quash a congressional subpoena that was issued with a valid legislative purpose," she wrote. "He does not."

Reporting by Luc Cohen in New YorkEditing by Marguerita Choy

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Thomson Reuters

Reports on the New York federal courts. Previously worked as a correspondent in Venezuela and Argentina.

Link:
Judge to rule on Congress' subpoena in Trump case 'promptly' - Reuters

No Labels ‘Would Serve as a Spoiler Benefiting the Republican Ticket’ – The Bulwark

[The organization No Labels is leading an effort to put a third-party presidential candidate on the ballot in every state in 2024, and Democrats are concerned that such a candidate could act as a spoiler. On the April 14, 2023 episode of the Bulwarks Beg to Differ podcast, Third Way cofounder Matt Bennett discussed the issue with host Mona Charen and our panelistsincluding William Galston, who was a cofounder of No Labels back in 2010 but has now broken with the group.]

Mona Charen: There is an effort by a group calling itself No Labels that is attempting to grease the skids for a third-party candidate. They have a $70 million war chest. Theyve already achieved ballot access in a number of statesArizona, Colorado, Alaska, and Oregon. It has signature-gathering efforts underway in other states, and the idea is to present a third option beyond Democrat and Republicana moderate political choice for those who dislike both Trump and Biden. So, Matt, fill us in on this: Whos behind it and why are you so exercised about it?

Matt Bennett: . . . No Labels started and has done quite a bit of good work in the center trying to bring Republicans and Democrats together, especially in Congress. However, in the last year or so, they have been aggressively fundraising and then doing work on the ground, as youve noted, to gain ballot access to run candidates for president and vice president in 2024. In fact, exactly a year from now, theyre planning a convention in Dallas to nominate their ticket to run as third-party candidates.

And the reason that were so worried about this is not because we think that their ticket, no matter whos on it, could actually win the electionthey absolutely, positively cannot win the election. No third-party candidate has won a single electoral vote in fifty years, and no third-party candidate, including one who is chiseled into Mount Rushmore, has ever come close to winning an election.

Charen: Youre referring to Teddy Roosevelt?

Bennett: Exactly. So, our concern is not that they will win. Our concern is that they will serve as a spoiler. And what has us most concerned is that theres all kinds of evidence that they would serve as a spoiler benefiting the Republican ticket, which at the moment looks like its going to be Trump, and hurt the Democratic ticket, which is almost certain to be Biden and Harris. So thats why were so worried about this. . . .

William A. Galston: I agree with the fundamental analysis suggesting that an independent bipartisan candidacy would hurt the Democratic nominee more than the Republican nominee. It is because of that that I protested against the decision to proceed down this road internallyuntil it became clear to me that my internal advocacy would not succeed, at which point I thought that I had no choice but to publicly distance myself from the organization.

The No Labels effort, I think, responds to a genuine problem. That is that the polarization of the two political parties that has occurred over the past two generations has left a lot of people in the middle of feeling quite dissatisfiedbut, as Matt points out, not symmetrically dissatisfied. And theres a very simple reason for that: If you look at standard analyses of the ideological composition of the two political parties, 75 percent of Republicans call themselves either conservative or very conservative, but only 50 percent of Democrats call themselves liberal or very liberal. The space for moderates is substantially greater inside the Democratic party than it is inside the Republican party. . . .

A lot of Americans arent thrilled with the two political parties for reasons that I can not only understand, but assent to. But in my judgment, there is a profound asymmetry between the two political parties. You can disagree with a lot of Democratic policies, but I think its pretty clear that they dont represent the same sort of threat to constitutional institutions that the Republican party in thrall to Donald Trump does, and so it is difficult for me or anyone like me to be neutral.

Read more here:
No Labels 'Would Serve as a Spoiler Benefiting the Republican Ticket' - The Bulwark

Nebraska Republican: Abortion Ban Needed to Ensure Dominance … – Truthout

The lawmakers remarks make explicit the deep ties between white nationalism and abortion bans.

As lawmakers in the Nebraska legislature debated and advanced a near-total abortion ban last week, one Republican took to the floor and delivered an argument undergirded by a white supremacist conspiracy theory in support of the ban.

In a speech last Wednesday, Republican State Sen. Steve Erdman said that an abortion ban is necessary because there are too many of those foreigners and refugees in the state coded language for non-white people.

Our state population has not grown except by those foreigners who have moved here or refugees who have been placed here, he said, adding his untrue and racist claim about a lack of population growth among white people due to abortion. Video of his arguments was posted online by Heartland Signal.

Erdman also said that the absence of an abortion ban in the state, where the procedure is currently banned after 21 weeks and six days, is part of whats fueling a labor shortage in the state, revealing what Republicans view as the value of their constituents. The aborted fetuses are people that could be working and filling some of those positions that we have vacancies, he said. (Republicans arguments about a labor shortage are also untrue Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that unemployment is lower in Nebraska than it has been in the past decade.)

The Republicans argument invokes white nationalists great replacement theory, a conspiracy theory that global elites are trying to replace white people with people of color. It is a completely debunked idea that has nonetheless gained hold among the right and the Republican Party, especially as it has been used to supposedly justify antisemitic and racist violence.

The highly unusual move is the latest in far right judges current streak of judicial activism.

The great replacement theory was invoked by the shooter who killed 10 people and injured three in a supermarket in a majority-Black neighborhood in Buffalo, and the man who killed Jewish worshippers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018. It has also increasingly been referenced by Republicans opposed to humane immigration regulations.

In his argument, Erdman invoked the theory to justify another type of violence: forced birth. Experts have said that the growth of white supremacist rhetoric on the right and the rise of abortion bans and attacks on trans people are deeply linked.

Bans on trans and abortion rights are both about taking away the publics bodily autonomy specifically, the bodily autonomy of already marginalized populations. Black people already suffer from higher rates of parental mortality than their white counterparts, and experts have said that abortion bans will exacerbate that problem.

Meanwhile, as misogyny becomes more prevalent on the right, and abortion bans aid in far right white supremacist groups missions to increase the population of white people by forcing white women to give birth, some especially abhorrent groups advocate for doing this via sexual assault. Since abortion bans largely affect cis women and since right wingers refuse to acknowledge that some trans people can also become pregnant abortion bans also serve these groups desire to control women.

This is perhaps evidenced by Erdmans own arguments for abortion bans. During the debate on the abortion ban last week, the Republican state senator also openly said that the life of a pregnant person is less important than the bundle of cells growing in their body.

Those who we should care for are the babies. Its not the mother. Its not those who are choosing to have an abortion, he said. Its the babies. Its the babies.

As the world changes at an unprecedented pace, we need ethical, independent news more than ever before. We need journalists who can investigate, report, and analyze complex issues with honesty and integrity. We need journalists who can hold those in power accountable, shine a light on injustices, and give voice to the voiceless.

Truthout relies on reader donations to maintain this sanctuary for honest, justice-driven journalism. We have just 8 days left in our fundraiser and $46,500 still to raise we need all our friends to help us reach this goal. It takes less than 30 seconds to give, so if you value a free and independent press, please make a tax-deductible donation today!

Continued here:
Nebraska Republican: Abortion Ban Needed to Ensure Dominance ... - Truthout

The modern Republican party is hurtling towards fascism – The Guardian

Opinion

We are witnessing the logical culmination of win-at-any-cost politics and Donald Trump has encouraged it

Sat 15 Apr 2023 06.00 EDT

America no longer has two parties devoted to a democratic system of self-government.

We have a Democratic party, which notwithstanding a few glaring counter-examples, such as what the Democratic National Committee did to Bernie Sanders in 2016 is still largely committed to democracy.

And we have a Republican party, which is careening at high velocity toward authoritarianism. OK, fascism.

What occurred in Nashville last week is a frightening reminder of the fragility of American democracy when Republicans obtain supermajorities and no longer need to work with Democratic lawmakers.

The two Tennessee Democrats who Republicans expelled from the Tennessee house have been restored to their seats until special elections are held, but the damage to democracy cannot be easily undone.

The two were not accused of criminal wrongdoing or even immoral conduct. Their putative offense was to protest against Tennessees failure to enact stronger gun controls after a shooting at a Christian school in Nashville left three nine-year-old students and three adults dead.

They were technically in violation of house rules, but the state legislature has never imposed so severe a penalty for rules violations. In fact, over the past few years, several Tennessee legislators have kept their posts even after being charged with serious sexual misconduct. And the two who were expelled last week are Black people, while a third legislator who demonstrated in the same manner but was not expelled is white.

We are witnessing the logical culmination of win-at-any-cost Trump Republican politics scorched-earth tactics used by Republicans to entrench their power, with no justification other than that they can.

Democracy is about means. Under it, citizens dont have to agree on ends (abortion, healthcare, guns or whatever else we disagree about) as long as we agree on democratic means for handling our disagreements.

But for Trump Republicans, the ends justify whatever means they choose including expelling lawmakers, rigging elections through gerrymandering, refusing to raise the debt ceiling and denying the outcome of a legitimate presidential election.

Wisconsin may soon offer an even more chilling example. While liberals celebrated the election last Tuesday of Janet Protasiewicz to the Wisconsin supreme court because she will tip the court against the states extreme gerrymandering (the most extreme in the nation) and its fierce laws against abortion (among the most stringent in America), something else occurred in Wisconsin on election day that may well negate Protasiewiczs victory.

Voters in Wisconsins eighth senatorial district decided (by a small margin) to send Republican Dan Knodl to the state senate. This gives the Wisconsin Republican party a supermajority and with it, the power to remove key state officials, including judges, through impeachment.

Several weeks ago, Knodl said he would certainly consider impeaching Protasiewicz. Although he was then talking about her role as a county judge, his interest in impeaching her presumably has increased now that shes able to tip the states highest court.

As in Tennessee, this could be done without any necessity for a public justification. Under Republican authoritarianism, power is its own justification.

Recall that in 2018, after Wisconsin voters elected a Democratic governor and attorney general, the Republican legislature and the lame duck Republican governor responded by significantly cutting back the power of both offices.

Meanwhile, a newly installed Republican supermajority in Florida has given Ron DeSantis unbridled control with total authority over the board governing Disney, the theme park giant he has fought over his anti-LGBTQ dont say gay law; permission to fly migrants from anywhere in the US to destinations of his own choosing, for political purposes, and then send the bill to Floridas taxpayers; and unprecedented prosecutorial power in the form of his newly created, hand-picked office of election integrity, pursuing supposed cases of voter fraud.

Without two parties committed to democratic means to resolve differences in ends, the party committed to democracy is at a tactical disadvantage. If it is to survive, eventually it, too, will sacrifice democratic means to its own ends.

In these circumstances, partisanship turns to enmity and political divisions morph into hatred. In warfare there are no principles, only wins and losses. America experienced this 160 years ago, when the civil war tore us apart.

Donald Trump is not singularly responsible for this dangerous trend, but he has legitimized and encouraged the ends-justify-the-means viciousness now pushing the GOP toward becoming the American fascist party.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Read this article:
The modern Republican party is hurtling towards fascism - The Guardian

Texas Legislature debating Republican bills to create new courts – The Texas Tribune

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Bills being debated in the Texas Legislature would create two new statewide courts, which supporters say would be more efficient and lead to fairer decisions but opponents deride as unnecessary, politically motivated and potentially unconstitutional.

Senate Bill 1045 would create a 15th state appeals court with jurisdiction specifically in cases brought by or against the state of Texas; agencies, departments or boards of the executive branch; or state universities, including any of these entities officers. It would have five justices, elected statewide.

Senate Bill 27, with its companion, House Bill 19, would create a new state district court to hear business cases involving transactions larger than $10 million. It would have seven judges appointed by the governor every two years, and appeals would be heard by the new appeals court.

Texas has never had a specialized business court, though 26 states have some form of one. The Legislature last created a new appeals court in 1967, when it added a second court to the Houston area to manage caseloads in the states most populous region.

SB 1045 passed the Senate at the end of March, 25-6, and now sits in the House judiciary committee. SB 27 and HB 19 a priority for House Speaker Dade Phelan have not yet passed their respective chambers.

Corporate attorneys who testified in favor of the business courts idea at a Senate hearing March 29 said their clients value consistent, timely rulings. They said a court reserved for complex cases and run by judges with specific expertise in business law would provide both.

Under the existing system of district courts with general jurisdiction, large business cases often languish for years and soak up resources that are better used elsewhere, said lawyer Mike Tankersley of the nonprofit Texas Business Law Foundation.

I think our judges are doing an amazing job, having been given a difficult, almost impossible task of having to manage these battleship-sized cases among the normal cases that the rest of the public has to see their rights adjudicated in, Tankersley said. Only a small fraction of cases will end up in this [new] court.

Samuel Hardy, head of litigation for Dallas-based Energy Transfer, said some of the pipeline companys cases have taken more than six years to resolve in Texas courts. Having a court that exclusively handles specific areas of business law would let judges with expertise make decisions more quickly.

It is important that big commercial cases have a venue and a forum where their unique needs are met, where they dont take away from family court and criminal proceedings, and they can be heard in a forum that will have the case resolved efficiently, Hardy said.

Bryan Blevins of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, which represents defense and plaintiffs attorneys, said the group opposes a business court because it would create two systems of justice. Because large companies can expect to have cases there frequently, opposing parties who are new to the court would likely be at a disadvantage.

My clients expressed to me a concern predominantly of why is there one set of justice for big companies and big claims versus my claim? Blevins said. How am I going to be treated in a court where the predominant players are large businesses and law firms?

Lawyer Michael Smith of the Texas chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates said the organization opposes the bill in part because members believe it would make cases more complex, not less, as parties fight over which court a case belongs in. And he warned that allowing the governor to appoint judges every two years would leave the system susceptible to political pressure, as parties with cases before the court could seek to influence the governors selections.

This doesnt give us an independent judiciary, Smith said. It gives us employees of the executive branch which are serving two-year terms.

Texas needs a new court of appeals because issues impacting the state deserve to be heard by judges elected statewide, rather than the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals, said Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican and author of SB 1045.

These types of cases, she said, contain complex and nuanced legal issues, and the heavy workload has prompted the 3rd Court to transfer many cases elsewhere. A new court would help alleviate that problem.

Creating a 15th intermediate court of appeals with statewide jurisdiction in civil cases brought by or against the state will allow judges to apply specialized precedent in subject areas important to the entire state, Huffman told the Senate Jurisprudence Committee on March 22. These are not regional issues; they are issues of statewide concern. Judges selected statewide should be deciding them, and they should be experts in these types of cases.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform general counsel Lee Parsley, the only witness at the hearing to testify in favor of the bill, echoed Huffmans argument about how voters statewide should be able to select the judges who vet the constitutionality of state laws.

Four Democratic appeals court justices testified against the bill, arguing that it is a solution in search of a problem.

Justice Gisela Triana of the 3rd Court of Appeals said the Legislature has published no studies justifying why a new court is needed, which has typically been the case with past judicial reforms. Her own research found that only about 10% of cases before the 3rd Court would have been transferred to the proposed court, or about 130 cases annually.

Right now, the 80 (appeals court) justices we have statewide carry a load of about 130 cases each, Triana said. This court of five would basically be doing the work of one justice.

Justice Cory Carlyle of the Dallas-based 5th Court of Appeals said a new statewide appeals court would be contrary to the Texas tradition of allowing citizens to appeal their cases to locally elected judges. He said it would also take power away from rural areas of the state, noting that of the 18 justices on the current statewide courts, the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals, 15 are from Dallas or Harris counties.

Its been that way for a long time, and I think we can accurately forecast where it will go from here with this court, Carlyle said.

Several opponents argue that the proposed courts would be illegal.

The Texas Constitution requires appeals courts to have appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with the limits of their respective districts, which has been understood to mean each court must represent a particular geographic area of the state.

For district courts like the proposed statewide business court, it says the State shall be divided into judicial districts.

Amy Befeld, a lawyer with Texans for Lawsuit Reform, which supports the bill, noted the constitution also states the Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof.

The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly given deference to state lawmakers in reshaping the courts as they see fit, Befeld said.

In other words, the effect of the language is to place the subject at the complete disposal of the Legislature, she said at the March 29 Senate committee hearing.

Opponents of both bills also see them as another attempt by Republicans to usurp power from Democrats, who have come to dominate elections in the states largest urban areas. Other bills proposed by Republicans this session would limit the ordinance-making power of cities and allow the state to take over local elections offices.

Most Texans recall the 2018 midterm elections as the time Democrat Beto ORourke came within 3 points of unseating U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. But down the states notoriously long ballot, a Democratic wave swept through the judiciary. Democrats won 31 of the 32 contested elections for state appeals court seats. They became the majority on half of the 14 state appeals courts, when previously they had held seats on only three courts.

Between 2018 and 2022, the 3rd Court of Appeals switched from all Republican to all Democratic justices. Because the judicial district includes Austin, the seat of state government, most cases involving state laws, agencies or officials are filed there..

While the all-Republican Supreme Court can overrule appeals courts and reversed the 3rd Court 10 times between 2016 and 2022, according to Triana the high court hears fewer than 10% of filed appeals.

A new appeals court with justices elected statewide would likely result in an all-Republican bench. Democrats have not won a statewide office since 1994, and the two courts currently with statewide jurisdiction consist solely of Republicans.

Given how adamantly Republicans have opposed court-packing at the federal level in recent years, the hypocrisy is more than a little galling, Steve Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, wrote of the legislative proposals in a recent op-ed.

Huffman in 2021 authored a bill that would consolidate the 14 appeals courts into seven, a move Democrats said would allow Republicans to take control of at least five. She later withdrew the bill in the face of opposition.

In the March 22 hearing, Dallas Democratic Sen. Nathan Johnson asked Huffman if the new appeals court would result in a dramatic shift in partisan affiliation among the judges hearing cases involving the state. She downplayed the impact.

As of today, but maybe not in five years, Huffman said. I cant predict.

Disclosure: Energy Transfer, Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Texas Trial Lawyers Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

We cant wait to welcome you Sept. 21-23 to the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the days news all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Originally posted here:
Texas Legislature debating Republican bills to create new courts - The Texas Tribune