Mediaboss Marketing

Minnesotas top coronavirus official met with the states top Republican for the first time Friday afternoon in a Zoom call that could have ramifications for the states COVID response.

The ultimate impact remained unclear of the private meeting between Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm and Senate Majority Leader Jeremy Miller, R-Winona. Miller came into the leadership post in September and can wield heavy influence in determining if the Republican controlled Senate will allow Malcolm to keep her job.

Miller described the meeting as productive, and a Malcolm spokesman said the pair discussed a range of COVID-related matters.

Malcolm was appointed by Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, three years ago. As the pandemic response has become politically polarized, Malcolms tenure or a potential end to it at the hands of Republicans has become a central obstacle to progress in a series of changes to state laws and regulations generally agreed upon by member of both parties.

Those changes include a suite of waivers that would allow flexibility to bring on more staff for hospitals, long term care centers, home health care programs and day care centers. In addition to having the support of Walz, Miller and other elected officials, leaders from those sectors have asked state officials for the changes. Little has happened, though, since Walz proposed them Oct. 6.

Miller and several other top Republicans have declined to say whether they favor sacking Malcolm, whose recommendations throughout the pandemic have generally been in lockstep with public health and infectious disease leaders worldwide. Leading into the meeting, Miller said one of his goals with Malcolm was to relate the concerns of constituents of his and other lawmakers, especially Republicans, whose residents have become increasingly opposed to the top-down feel of edicts from Walz, Malcolm and other leaders.

Miller issued the following statement Friday:

I appreciated the opportunity to meet with Commissioner Malcolm this afternoon. The conversation was productive, and its my hope this will be a starting point for improved collaboration with the Governor and his administration.

A spokesman for the Minnesota Department of Health released the following statement:

Minnesota Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm shared with Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Jeremy Miller an update today on the status of the pandemic in MN and the extraordinary actions the Department of Health is taking to slow the spread of COVID-19, support our significantly strained hospital and long term care systems and make it as easy as possible for Minnesotans to get vaccinated or get their booster shots as quickly as possible. The two also discussed her extensive public health experience and expertise,and the Commissioner talked with the Majority Leader about the importance of working together on a number of legislative items that would help address hospital and long-term care capacity concerns.

Commissioner Malcolm provides all 201 legislators regular briefings on the COVID pandemic and the response and looks forward to continuing to work with the Majority Leader and Legislature to address the current state of the pandemic.

Read the original here:
MN health commissioner and top Republican have productive meeting - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

(CNN) -- Two challengers to the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for large employers are trying to ensure that their case is decided as quickly as possible by a majority of judges appointed by Republican presidents.

They are asking that the challenges be heard by the full federal appeals court where Republican-appointed judges outnumber those nominated by Democrats nearly 2-to-1, bypassing the possibility of a liberal-leaning three-judge panel hearing the case.

Such a move to leapfrog usual procedures would speed up resolution of the appeal by cutting out the customary step of the three-judge panel but also could have strategic benefits for the challengers who argue that the administration exceeded its authority in issuing the mandate that employers of 100 or more workers require them to get vaccinated against Covid-19.

That's because the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals -- which was chosen by ping-pong ball lottery to hear the cases -- is composed of 10 active judges nominated by Republican presidents and six by Democratic presidents.

The thinking goes that a full panel of judges on the conservative-leaning court is more likely to rule against the government than three randomly selected judges. Under most circumstances, a dispute is assigned to a three-judge panel, and then there is an opportunity to ask the full court "en banc" to hear an appeal after the panel rules.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which falls under the US Labor Department, unveiled the new rules on November 4, citing its authority to issue an emergency temporary standard to protect employees if they are exposed to a "grave danger." It requires employers with 100 or more employees to ensure that their employees are fully vaccinated or undergo regular testing and wear a face covering at work.

Eighty-four million workers at-large employers would be covered by the rules, scheduled to fully take effect on January 4.

The mandate came under immediate challenge from Republican-led states and some private employers who charge that OSHA exceeded its power. Liberal-leaning unions joined in too, arguing in some cases that OSHA has the authority to go further and issue a more stringent mandate.

The conservative Buckeye Institute, representing Phillips Manufacturing & Tower Company and Sixarp LLC, is one of the groups asking for "en banc" review. Notably, it is working with a conservative boutique law firm -- Consovoy McCarthy -- that also represented former President Donald Trump's lawyers during his battle to shield his tax returns. The firm is also behind a major affirmative action case heading to the Supreme Court.

In court papers, the Institute's lawyers argue that review by more judges on the court is necessary because the mandate presents issues of "exceptional public importance." They say that if OSAH prevails, it will raise "fundamental questions about the relationship between citizen and the government," and it will mean "there is no limit to the federal government's authority in pandemics."

A second challenger making the request is the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, representing businesses opposed to the mandate. In court papers, its lawyers argue that it is necessary to resolve the dispute quickly because the mandate is based on a "rarely used law of questionable applicability" and was issued without following the necessary procedural protocols.

According to Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, all of the active judges will vote on the so-called "en banc" petition. It will take a majority of the active judges on the court to grant review. It is rare on the 6th Circuit to agree to such a request, particularly before a three-judge panel has had the opportunity to rule.

"The challengers are seeking en banc review because they think this ensures them of a more favorable panel, and it's better than taking their chances on a random draw of three judges," Adler said.

At the moment, OSHA is complying with a directive from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals and is no longer reaching out to large private companies to help them comply with the emergency rule that mandates vaccinations or weekly testing for employees, according to the agency website.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misidentified the Buckeye Institute's role in the case.

The-CNN-Wire & 2021 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Visit link:
Opponents of Biden's vaccine mandate seek to ensure a majority of Republican-appointed judges hear case - WDJT

The Congress of the United States is not Arkham Asylum, the psychiatric hospital and prison in Batmans Gotham City.

Though if you watched the mad ranting of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who spoke on the House floor for eight and a half hours from Thursday night until early Friday morning, you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. For most of his speech there was almost no audience. For all of his speech he made no sense. His marathon babblefest achieved nothing whatsoever. But he blatherbustered on and on, full of, as Shakespeare would say, sound and fury, signifying nothing.

For a few hours during the address, McCarthy was surrounded by some other notable characters who seemed to wander in from a summer stock production of One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest. There was Louie Gohmert, who once suggested we consider moving the moon as a way of controlling rising sea levels. Also there for a bit was North Carolina nitwit and serial liar Madison Cawthorn, the man who once said James Madison signed the Declaration of Independence and who urged conservative mothers to raise their boys to be monsters, spitting his chaw juice into a paper cup. Andrew Clyde of Georgia, who once compared the Jan. 6 riot to a normal tourist visit, sat next to Greg Pence, the MAGA-loving brother of the vice president Trumps mob of normal tourists sought to hang.

Days earlier, McCarthy had been talkifying from that same lectern in an effort to protect Paul Gosar from consequences for posting an anime video depicting him killing congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Biden. Gosar is also noted for his ties to extreme right-wing groups, his support of insane conspiracy theories, and the fact that his siblings banded together to campaign against him because they felt he was unfit for office. Gosar is also a dentist, which makes things clearer. And worse.

Gosar, despite McCarthy chin-wagging, was ultimately censured by the members of the House who are actually willing to take a stand against murdering each other. Notably, that included only two Republicans. Similarly, hours after McCarthys nocturnal emissions came to an end, the bill he stood in opposition toBidens Build Back Better initiativewas approved by the House of Representatives. (Yes, thats right, McCarthy made the calculation that he should break the House record for the longest speech ever delivered from its floor by standing in opposition to providing hearing aids for the elderly, pre-K for children, home care for those who needed it, help for the environment, and more jobs for Americans.)

These House shenanigans will come as no surprise to those who have watched the body over the past several years. We have seen one congressman sue a fictional cow that was making fun of him. We saw another, cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs congresswoman kicked off committees for endorsing political violence. McCarthy says both Marjorie Taylor Greene and Gosar will be put back on committees should Republicans retake the house, where they would work alongside the likes of Lauren Boebert, an extremist-supporting high school drop-out whose restaurant once managed to poison 80 people at a local fair, even as all three are being investigated by the House Select Committee to determine whether or not they provided aid and comfort to the insurrectionists who invaded the Capitol on Jan. 6.

There is no question that Gosar and Greene and Boebert cheered on the mob that interfered with the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in U.S. history. And these three are far from the only Republican lawmakers who are actively anti-democratic, have supported the Big Lie about the last election, and are continuing to try to put an end to the principles on which the institution in which they serve was founded.

Do not for a minute assume the insanity is limited to the House. Pro-coup senators like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley not only have paid no price for their active support of an assault on the Capitol, they now have, thanks to Senate rules, the power to undermine U.S. national security purely on the basis of their own individual, demonstrably bad, judgement.

You see Senate rules permit any U.S. senator to block the confirmation of presidential nominees for top jobs. They dont have to have a reason. They dont have to defend their decision. They can simply phone in a nope to the Senate cloakroom and the nominee will not come up for a vote until they relent. Using this technique, these two guys have blocked scores of nominees for critical national security positions from ambassadors to senior departmental officials, put the U.S. at risk by doing so, and theres nothing any of us can do about it. Cruz alone blocked over 50 such nominees.

Again, theyre not alone. Just this week, Marco Rubio blocked the nomination of Ambassador Nicholas Burns as envoy to China. Rubio argued he was worried Burns would be too soft on China. There is no evidence to support this argument. In fact, Burns, one of the most distinguished professional diplomats in the modern history of the U.S. State Department, once served in the No. 3 job in the George W. Bush State Department working with noted pro-communists like Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Bush himself. Even Cruz, who seemed intent to indiscriminately block Biden State Department nominees, had expressed his satisfaction with Burns. But given Senate rules, Rubio can do whatever he wants for as long as he wants whether his action is based on facts or wholesale ignorance or pure pettiness.

Not only is the Congress full of loons now, many of whom are grossly unfit for office, but even those who are qualified on paper are now behaving in grossly irrational or unethical ways. And all this is compounded by the fact that the rules of this particular nuthouse are broken. You know, like the filibuster rule that allows a minority of senators elected by an even small minority of Americans to block progress including essential steps that may provide the only path we have to preserving our democracy.

For now, at least, the inmates arent running the asylum, just gumming up the works while delivering long speeches. But if Republicans retake the House and the Senate next year, things can get much, much worse.

Read the original post:
The Republicans Have Turned Congress Into Arkham Asylum - The Daily Beast

Chris Christie has been cosplaying the respectable Republican for a while now, but we here in his home state of New Jersey remember. We remember the screaming at teachers, we remember the government shutdowns, we remember the beach vacation he took during that shutdown and we remember his shameless groveling over the four years of the Trump administration during which he gladly humiliated himself and enabled a man who actively tried to overthrow Democracy. He just wrote a book about how to save the Republican party, which is the moral equivalent of breaking someones legs and standing outside the emergency room to sell them crutches.

Christie was a loyal member of team Trump until it became convenient for him not to be. If Trump rang he came running. COVID-laden Supreme court nominee reception? Thank you, Sir, may I have another. Debate prep? My pleasure Mr. President. Now, he happily tells anyone with a camera that the GOP must move on from Trump, and wouldnt you know it, hes available for the job.

I have no doubt in my mind that if it becomes advantageous for Christie to rejoin team Trump a year or six months from now he would disavow everything he wrote or said that cast aspersions on the fearless leader and fall in line. Maybe this time Trump will actually make Christie Attorney General instead of stringing him along for four years. Or maybe the former president will just drag him on stage at a rally to mock him again. I remember that. I wonder if he does.

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.coms newsletters.

Continue reading here:
Chris Christie is here to rescue the Republican Party | Sheneman - nj.com

When a much-feared mad moms revolt against Gov. Gavin Newsom failed to materialize during the recall campaign this summer, that might have given backers of proposed initiatives to underwrite private and religious school tuition in California second thoughts as to their prospects for success. Thats because deep discontent among parents over the state of public schools, especially among Democrats and independents, will be essential if these initiatives are to have any chance of getting voter approval.

But supporters of the Republican-led initiatives apparently believe there is enough unhappiness in California with public schools, exacerbated by a brew of pandemic-related issues, to press ahead.

In recent weeks, two competing groups have received the go-ahead from California Attorney General Rob Bonta to collect signatures to put their initiatives on the November 2022 ballot. Both initiatives would divert billions that would normally go to public schools into private education savings accounts for parents. These savings accounts are a variation on taxpayer-funded school voucher plans in place in several other states.

At first glance, it seems far-fetched that either initiative could pass. But the recent election results on the East Coast suggest that there can be no room for complacency about the outcome of what will inevitably be a fierce and expensive campaign. In Virginia, in particular, unhappiness with schools during the pandemic was a significant factor in the upset victory of the Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin over Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

While there are some minor differences between the initiatives, both represent a full-scale attack on Californias public school system. Were either one to get on the ballot and get voter approval, it would give California the most comprehensive and arguably the most radical program of its kind anywhere in the country.

One proposed initiative, called the Education Savings Account Act, comes from a group called Fix California. It is led by Ric Grenell, who was acting director of national intelligence in the Trump administration and ambassador to Germany, where he served a tumultuous term. He was a featured speaker at the Republican National Convention that renominated Trump last year.

The other initiative, titled the Educational Freedom Act, is promoted by an organization called Californians for School Choice. Its president is Mike Alexander, a Republican who runs a private trust management company in Southern California.

If approved, the state would be required to divvy up the approximately $80 billion in funds now designated for public schools under Proposition 98 and deposit $13,000 or $14,000 each year (depending on the initiative) in a savings account that parents could spend on tuition for private or parochial schools.

It could cost California an extra $4 billion to $6 billion annually just to provide funds to parents whose children are already in private or parochial schools. Depending on the initiative, some funds could also go to students who are currently being homeschooled.

And, to a greater extent than any other state, funds that California parents didnt use for kindergarten through 12th-grade education could be saved to pay for college or vocational training in any private or public college university, in or outside California until a student turned 30. (The Fix California initiative would limit the amount to $60,000.)

Every student, regardless of income, would qualify for the funds (although the Fix California initiative would limit eligibility based on family income for the first four years it would be in effect). That contrasts with most other states where school choice plans have been restricted to certain children, based on family income, special education status and other factors.

It is an audacious attempt, considering Californias status as one of the bluest states in the nation, and that two previous, and far more modest, school choice initiatives failed to get close to the majority of voters support.

But the last time the issue was presented to voters was over two decades ago. This time, backers of the initiatives are counting on Democratic voters, and especially parents, to respond differently.

They are hoping that many parents who couldnt bring themselves to vote to replace Newsom with a right-wing radio talk show host will be more likely to support their initiative out of pure self-interest compounded by frustration about the pace of school reopening during the pandemic and other school-related grievances.

On top of that, Democrats cant be counted on to vote in predictable ways. That was powerfully demonstrated last November when California rejected initiatives to drastically reform Proposition 13 by increasing commercial property taxes and to overturn the decades-long ban on affirmative action in the state.

And getting the approval of California on a school choice initiative may not be not far-fetched at all, especially in the current climate. The last time the Public Policy Institute of California surveyed Californians on the issue was in 2017, when two-thirds of public school parents backed the idea of tax payer funded vouchers. And that was long before the pandemic upended education.

Whats impossible to anticipate just how unhappy parents, especially those registered as Democrats and independents, will be with their schools next November.

Also unknown is the extent to which brewing controversies around race and ethnicity, including critiques of critical race theory, will affect the outcome. Its possible, for example, that Californias recently adopted law mandating high school students take an ethnic studies class could become a flash point during the campaign, especially among suburban and rural voters.

Proponents of the initiatives are aware that they are throwing down the gauntlet before California voters.

Is this a radical proposal, in the sense that it will shake up the system? asked Lance Christensen, the chief strategist for the Fix California campaign.

I hope so, he said. Otherwise, what is the point of having a school choice initiative in the first place?

Leaders of the initiatives say they have bipartisan support, and this is a continuation of the civil rights struggle for a quality education for all children or a needed effort to inject more competition into public schooling.

But so far most of the energy and leadership has come from more extreme forces.

Almost all the money raised by Californians for School Choice, for example, is a $400,000 contribution from Dale Broome, a physician and prominent member of the Redlands Tea Party Patriots in San Bernardino County. As a reason to vote for the initiative, Broome earlier this year railed against what he called the morally objectionable and un-American curriculum being foisted on public school children. That, according to Broome, includes comprehensive sex education, global warming, social justice, anti-Americanism, atheism, critical race theory, socialism, communism, gender fluidity, globalism, religious pluralism and evolution.

Whats clear that if either initiative were to make it on to next years ballot, it would place schools at the center of an electoral storm not seen in a half century. So brace yourself for another education battle that could reshape California schools far into the future. At this point, it would be foolish to predict which side will prevail.

Louis Freedberg, formerly executive director of EdSource, is a veteran analyst and reporter on California education.

Read the original here:
Republicans are coming for California's public schools. And they could actually win - San Francisco Chronicle