Mediaboss Marketing

Twenty House Republicans voted against a package on Wednesday that includes provisions aimed at addressing mental health and substance abuse.

The legislation, dubbed the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act, cleared the House in a 402-20 vote. Six Republicans and one Democrat did not cast votes.

The lawmakers who voted against it were: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Tim Burchett (Tenn.), Michael Cloud (Texas), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Bob Good (Va.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Michael Guest (Miss.), Clay Higgins (La.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Mary Miller (Ill.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Chip Roy (Texas), Greg Steube (Fla.) and Van Taylor (Texas).

The package seeks to set up a Behavior Health Crisis Coordinating Office within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) that would strengthen access to crisis care.

Additionally, it reauthorizes grants for community mental health services supporting adults with mental illnesses and children with emotional disturbances, and calls for more research into the effects smartphone and social media use have on adolescents when it comes to health and development.

In a video posted on Twitter, Biggs said he opposed the legislation because the federal government does not have the authority to get involved in the matter.

I want to talk to you about a bill that I voted no on today, H.R. 7666, which is Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022. Now that sounds good, but there really is no constitutional authority for the federal government to get involved in that, he said.

He argued that the U.S. has seen greatest efficacy when these matters are overseen by state and local government for local churches, community clinics and associations.

The problem is the federal government getting involved in something it has no expertise in, and its gonna spend more money on administrative costs ultimately than actually providing services, he said.

Thats why it need to be left at the local level, he added.

In a separate video posted on Twitter, Burchett said the measure allegedly deals with mental health, and described it as woke.

He also argued that the measure is taking away what the states have the right to do and just furthers more federal programs.

See the original post:
The 20 House Republicans who voted against the package to address substance abuse, mental health - The Hill

Washington Post Watergate journalist Bob Woodward said Thursday on CNN that dramatic hearings by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection are having such a significant impact that at least 20% of Republicans would now like to figuratively push Donald Trump off the cliff.

Whether Republicans are watching the hearings or not, a lot of them know that the earth is shaking, Woodwards Watergate partner Carl Bernstein added in a panel interview with Anderson Cooper.

Why is the earth shaking? Because both the committee and the Justice Department know that before, during and after Jan. 6, there was a massive obstruction and conspiracy from the president down ... to not allow the transition of power, Bernstein said. What we do know, factually, is the Justice Department has the evidence of this massive conspiracy and cover-up, he added

John Dean, a Richard Nixon White House counsel who flipped on him, said the insurrection proceedings are working much better than the Watergate hearings, with very effective ... presentations. Theyre probably getting to Trump because they are so effective. He appreciates good media.

We forget how protracted the Watergate hearings were, Dean noted. They were seven months. I didnt testify for a few hours; I testified for five days, eight hours a day. They were grinding.

Woodward agreed that the House select committees hearings are very dramatic.

I think if you can step back, whats going on here right now in the Republican Party ... 50% roughly of the Republicans would walk off the cliff for Donald Trump, said Woodward. Now I think at least 20% want to push him off the cliff.

And 30% are fixated on simply winning, Woodward noted.

If theres one lesson from writing three books about Trump, spending hours interviewing him, there is the lexicon: Win. You have to win. And they want to win, he added.

Voters can make the calculation: Is this a winning hand with Donald Trump or not? And its eroding. Whether significant, we will see.

The hearings are uncovering meaty, dramatic information, Woodward said.

Check out the full interview here:

Original post:
Bob Woodward: 20% Of Republicans Would Now Like To 'Push Trump Off The Cliff' - HuffPost

The Republican Party in Texas made a series of far-right declarations as part of its official party platform over the weekend, claiming that President Biden was not legitimately elected, issuing a rebuke to Senator John Cornyn for his work on bipartisan gun legislation and referring to homosexuality as an abnormal lifestyle choice.

The platform was voted on in Houston at the state partys convention, which concluded on Saturday.

The resolutions about Mr. Biden and Mr. Cornyn were approved by a voice vote of the delegates, according to James Wesolek, the communications director for the Republican Party of Texas. The statements about homosexuality as well as additional stances on abortion that called for students to learn about the Humanity of the Preborn Child were among more than 270 planks that were approved by a platform committee and voted on by the larger group of convention delegates using paper ballots. The results of those votes were still pending on Sunday, but Mr. Wesolek said it was rare for a plank to be voted down by the full convention after being approved by the committee.

The resolutions adopting the false claims that former President Donald J. Trump was the victim of a stolen election in 2020 as well as the other declarations were the latest examples of Texas Republicans moving further to the right in recent months. Republicans control both chambers of the legislature, the governors mansion and every statewide office, and have used their dominance to push tough anti-abortion legislation, create supply-chain problems by temporarily adding additional state inspections at the border and renominate the Trump-backed state attorney general over a member of the Bush family in a primary runoff in May.

Mr. Wesolek disputed the notion that the declarations were tied to the state partys rightward tilt. That was the will of the body, Mr. Wesolek said on Sunday. We pride ourselves on being a grass-roots party.

State party conventions in Texas have at times been venues for publicly airing internal rifts. In 2012, Gov. Rick Perry was loudly booed at the state Republican convention when he said he was backing the powerful lieutenant governor over Ted Cruz in a contested primary for Senate. On Friday, Mr. Cornyn a key negotiator in the gun talks with Democrats was booed by convention goers during a speech in which he tried to assure Republicans that the new legislation would not infringe on the rights of gun owners.

The state partys resolution embracing the baseless 2020 stolen-election claims stated that substantial election fraud in key metropolitan areas significantly affected the results in five key states in favor of Mr. Biden. The state party, the resolution continued, rejected the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States.

The resolution encouraged Republicans to show up to vote in November, and to bring your friends and family, volunteer for your local Republicans and overwhelm any possible fraud.

State Representative Steve Toth, a Republican who represents part of Montgomery County, a Houston suburb, said he left the convention before voting on the resolutions, but he expressed support for them. He said he hoped the Biden resolution would encourage Republicans and Democrats to come together and to call for a forensic audit of the 2020 election.

Jason Vaughn, 38, a Republican delegate from Houston, claimed credit for adding the show up to vote language in the Biden resolution. My fear is that if we keep telling people the election was stolen, theyre going to not go and vote, Mr. Vaughn said.

Mary Lowe, a delegate from the Fort Worth suburbs who was focused on education issues at the convention, said she was surprised the 2020 election results were a focus of attention by her Republican colleagues. But, she added, I dont know too many people that felt that Biden won.

Ms. Lowe, the chairwoman of the Tarrant County chapter of a group known as Moms for Liberty, said she was among those delegates openly critical of Mr. Cornyn. But she added that she was embarrassed by the booing and did not participate in it.

I dont believe that booing is polite, Ms. Lowe said. I feel elected officials should be treated with proper decorum.

Jamie Haynes, 47, a Republican delegate who lives in the Texas Panhandle with her husband and who says that, together, they own a lot of guns, said the boos directed at Mr. Cornyn showed there was a resounding strong opinion that Republicans do not want their gun rights shaved not just taken away but even just shaved in any form.

The resolution rebuking Mr. Cornyn that passed at the convention opposed red flag laws, which allow guns to be seized from people deemed to be dangerous. Those laws, according to the resolution, violate ones right to due process and are a pre-crime punishment of people not adjudicated guilty.

The homosexuality plank passed the platform committee by a vote of 17 to 14, according to Mr. Vaughn, an openly gay member of the committee who voted against it.

It does nothing to move us forward as a party and gain voters, he said in a video of the committee meeting. In an interview, Mr. Vaughn said the shift at the convention was the result of a small number of people who make the process miserable because they want to do all this extreme, far-right stuff.

Mr. Toth disagreed, saying that on abortion, gay rights and the 2020 election, the Republican Party has been consistent in sticking to its conservative principles. Defense of marriage? Abortion? Second Amendment? Where have we moved to the right? he asked. The Republicans have always been strong defenders of constitutional family values.

One Texas congressman and Democrat, Representative Colin Allred, called the Republican Partys actions regressive.

The Texas Republican Party is trying to take us back to a time when women couldnt make decisions about their own bodies and when Americans lived in fear that they would be punished for being themselves, Mr. Allred said in a statement.

Excerpt from:
Texas Republicans Approve Far-Right Platform Declaring Bidens Election Illegitimate - The New York Times

William Barrs testimony before the Jan. 6 committee forms part of the former attorney generals strategy for saving his reputation in the history books. Thats a heavy lift, given Barrs distinguished service to Donald Trumps presidency via distortion of the conclusions of special counsel Robert Muellers report and his politicization of the Department of Justice.

But Barrs depiction of Trump as being detached from reality after the election does have independent significance. It demonstrates that it is possible to have been a loyal Trump supporter nay, an enabler through the investigation of the possible collusion with Russia and the Ukraine-related first impeachment, yet still draw the line at Trumps efforts to overturn the results of a presidential election.

This in turn matters for what it might mean for the future of Republican politics. Maybe, just maybe, Barrs position can help signal to Republicans that election denialism shouldnt be the future of the party and that Trump can be left behind.

In this admittedly idealized scenario, it is not precisely that Republicans at all levels of government could be expected affirmatively to deny the existence of fraud in the 2020 elections. Rather, they would just gradually stop talking about it.

And because Trump himself clearly cannot and will not acknowledge his defeat, changing the subject would be a sign for Republicans, including his current supporters, to get over Trump himself. They could transfer their attention to would-be Trumps like Ron DeSantis and J.D. Vance.

Listening to Barrs testimony was a reminder of just how convincing the lawyer can be and why he demonstrates a kind of evil genius for bureaucratic self-preservation. To hear Barr tell it, before the election he found it possible to deliver hard truths to Trump. There was sometimes wrangling, but Barr said he felt able to get his message across.

Weekly

The week's top opinion content and an opportunity to participate in a weekly question on a topic that affects our region.

The idea that Barr could, before the election, somehow speak truth to power to Trump sounds pretty far-fetched at best. Trump badly needed his attorney general to help get through the Mueller investigation debacle. Barr joined the administration knowing full well that the president needed him. If Trump listened to Barr or appeared to, it was no doubt because Barr had leverage over his boss while his administration was at its most vulnerable juncture.

After the election defeat, Trump no longer needed the nearly unique legal and political skills that Barr deployed in saving the president from the consequences of his actions. He needed lawyers who would take affirmative steps to overturn the election. Once he understood that Barr wasnt going to do that, he was able to dismiss Barrs advice that the claims of election fraud were bull----.

The thing is, the plausibility of Barrs assertion about his relationship with Trump before the election is irrelevant to the deeper issue of whether Barr can help the Republican Party free itself of Trump now. Barr is no popular (or populist) politician, to be sure. Hes a D.C. insider, the political appointees political appointee.

Barrs testimony provides a useful, usable story Republicans might be able to accept, albeit quietly. Simply: Trump was a great president. There was no Russia collusion. The first impeachment was illegitimate. Then Trump lost the election. What followed was regrettable and should now be repudiated or at least forgotten.

So far, the would-be post-Trump Trumpists are too worried about alienating his followers to do so. But that could change if politicians like DeSantis and Vance sense that there is room for them to say, Trump is dead, long live Trumpism. To the extent Barrs testimony contributes to that possibility, thats something everyone should welcome.

The Democrats who not so secretly hope Trump runs for president again, gambling that he would be far less electable than another Republican, have to consider whats good for the country. Even if a clear majority of voters reject him, we have come too close to seeing how one man could pave the way for the eventual democratic failure in the United States.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of The Broken Constitution: Lincoln, Slavery and the Refounding of America.

See the original post:
Opinion: William Barr is handing Republicans a Trump exit strategy - The Virginian-Pilot

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court seems poised to take on a new elections case being pressed by Republicans that could increase the power of state lawmakers over races for Congress and the presidency, as well as redistricting, and cut state courts out of the equation.

The issue has arisen repeatedly in cases from North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where Democratic majorities on the states highest courts have invoked voting protections in their state constitutions to frustrate the plans of Republican-dominated legislatures.

Already, four conservative Supreme Court justices have noted their interest in deciding whether state courts, finding violations of their state constitutions, can order changes to federal elections and the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional districts. The Supreme Court has never invoked what is known as the independent state legislature doctrine, although three justices advanced it in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the 2000 presidential election.

The issue is almost certain to keep arising until the Court definitively resolves it, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in March.

It only takes four of the nine justices to agree to hear a case. A majority of five is needed for an eventual decision.

Many election law experts are alarmed by the prospect that the justices might seek to reduce state courts powers over elections.

A ruling endorsing a strong or muscular reading of the independent state legislature theory would potentially give state legislatures even more power to curtail voting rights and provide a pathway for litigation to subvert the election outcomes expressing the will of the people, law professor Richard Hasen wrote in an email.

But if the justices are going to get involved, Hasen said, it does make sense for the Court to do it outside the context of an election with national implications.

The court could say as early as Tuesday, or perhaps the following week, whether it will hear an appeal filed by North Carolina Republicans. The appeal challenges a state court ruling that threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly that made GOP candidates likely victors in 10 of the states 14 congressional districts.

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the boundaries violated state constitution provisions protecting free elections and freedoms of speech and association by handicapping voters who support Democrats.

The new map that eventually emerged and is being used this year gives Democrats a good chance to win six seats, and possibly a seventh in a new toss-up district.

Pennsylvanias top court also selected a map that Republicans say probably will lead to the election of more Democrats, as the two parties battle for control of the U.S. House in the midterm elections in November. An appeal from Pennsylvania also is waiting, if the court for some reason passes on the North Carolina case.

Nationally, the parties fought to a draw in redistricting, which leaves Republicans positioned to win control of the House even if they come up just short of winning a majority of the national vote.

If the GOP does well in November, the party also could capture seats on state supreme courts, including in North Carolina, that might allow for the drawing of more slanted maps that previous courts rejected. Two court seats held by North Carolina Democrats are on the ballot this year and Republicans need to win just one to take control of the court for the first time since 2017.

In their appeal to the nations high court, North Carolina Republicans wrote that it is time for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the elections clause in the U.S. Constitution, which gives each states legislature the responsibility to determine the times, places and manner of holding congressional elections.

Activist judges and allied plaintiffs have proved time and time again that they believe state courts have the ultimate say over congressional maps, no matter what the U.S. Constitution says, North Carolina Senate leader Phil Berger said when the appeal was filed in March.

The Supreme Court generally does not disturb state court rulings that are rooted in state law.

But four Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have said the court should step in to decide whether state courts had improperly taken powers given by the U.S. Constitution to state lawmakers.

That was the argument that Thomas and two other conservative justices put forward in Bush v. Gore, although that case was decided on other grounds.

If the court takes up the North Carolina case and rules in the GOPs favor, North Carolina Republicans could draw new maps for 2024 elections with less worry that the state Supreme Court would strike them down.

Defenders of state court involvement argue that state lawmakers would also gain the power to pass provisions that would suppress voting, subject only to challenge in federal courts. Delegating power to election boards and secretaries of state to manage federal elections in emergencies also could be questioned legally, some scholars said.

Its adoption would radically change our elections, Ethan Herenstein and Tom Wolf, both with the Brennan Centers Democracy Program at the New York University Law School, wrote earlier this month.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

See more here:
Justices seem poised to hear elections case pressed by Republicans - Press Herald