Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a Republican-backed appeal that could give state legislatures far more power over federal elections by limiting the ability of state courts to review their actions, taking up a North Carolina case that could have broad implications for the 2024 elections and beyond.

The justices took up the appeal by Republican state lawmakers of a February decision by North Carolina's top court to throw out a map delineating the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts approved last year by the Republican-controlled state legislature.

The North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the boundaries for the districts were drawn by the legislature in a manner that boosted the electoral chances of Republicans at the expense of Democrats. It rejected Republican arguments seeking to shield legislature-drawn maps from legal attack in state courts.

Register

North Carolina House Speaker Timothy Moore, a Republican, hailed the high court's decision to hear the appeal.

"This case is not only critical to election integrity in North Carolina, but has implications for the security of elections nationwide," Moore said.

Voting rights advocates disagreed.

"In a radical power grab, self-serving politicians want to defy our state's highest court and impose illegal voting districts upon the people of North Carolina," said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause, a voting rights group that is among the plaintiffs challenging the legislature's map.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican request to put on hold the lower court rulings that adopted the court-drawn map, a decision seen as boosting Democratic hopes of retaining their slim House majority in the November midterm elections. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from that decision.

The Republican lawmakers said the state court impermissibly imposed its own policy determination for how much partisanship can go into crafting congressional lines. They acknowledged that the case would have an impact beyond redistricting, extending to "the whole waterfront of voting issues, from absentee voting deadlines to witness requirements, voter ID to curbside voting."

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case in its next term, which begins in October, with a decision due by June 2023. The ruling is not expected to come before this November's elections but could apply to 2024 elections including the presidential race.

Two groups of plaintiffs, including Democratic voters and an environmental group, sued after North Carolina's legislature passed its version of the congressional map last November. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated the North Carolina state constitution's provisions concerning free elections and freedom of assembly, among others.

The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the map on Feb. 4, concluding that the way the districts were crafted was intentionally biased against Democrats, diluting their "fundamental right to equal voting power."

A lower state court on Feb. 23 rejected a redrawn map submitted by the legislature and instead adopted a new map drawn by a bipartisan group of experts. According to some redistricting analysts, the new map includes seven Republican districts likely to be won by Republicans, six likely to be won by Democrats and one competitive seat.

The dispute is one of numerous legal battles in the United States over the composition of electoral districts, which are redrawn each decade to reflect population changes measured in a national census, last taken in 2020. In most states, such redistricting is done by the party in power, which can lead to map manipulation for partisan gain.

The Supreme Court in 2019 barred federal judges from curbing the practice, called partisan gerrymandering. Critics have said that such gerrymandering warps democracy.

The North Carolina Republicans' defense of the legislature's map relies on a contentious legal theory called the "independent state legislature doctrine" that is gaining traction in conservative legal circles and, if accepted, would vastly increase politicians' control over how elections are conducted.

Under that doctrine, the U.S. Constitution gives legislatures, not state courts or other entities, authority over election rules including the drawing of electoral districts.

The doctrine is based in part on language in the Constitution stating that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the Republican lawmakers decried the "state supreme court's usurpation of that authority."

The state's Department of Justice said in a legal filing that, contrary to the Republican lawmakers' assertions, North Carolina state law specifically authorizes state courts to review redistricting efforts.

Register

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Continued here:
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Republican bid to curb judicial oversight of elections - Reuters.com

Republican strategist and conservative commentator Alice Stewart joined Don Lemon Tonight Thursday, where she spoke about former President Trumps fundraising efforts since losing the 2020 election. Trump raised hundreds of millions of dollars falsely claiming that the election was stolen.

Money is being raised from people that dont have expendable incomes, or people on fixed incomes that are giving their hard-earned money to Donald Trump to help in this process. The problem is, its all based on lies, Stewart said. It is based on his ill-conceived notion that there was widespread election fraud, and he actually won the election. That is the travesty here, is that were still, a year and a half later, still litigating the 2020 election.

Money from those fundraising efforts is reportedly being used to pay legal fees for some witnesses testifying before the January 6 Committee, raising questions about witness tampering.

We do need to find out what happened and led up to January 6th. We need to hold people accountable to that, Stewart said. But the fact that good people with good intentions that are strong Republicans are still buying into this ill-conceived notion of widespread election fraud.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

ALICE STEWART: Money is being raised from people that don't have expendable incomes-- or people on fixed income-- that are giving their hard-earned money to Donald Trump to help in this process. The problem is it's all based on lies.

- On "Don Lemon Tonight" Thursday, conservative commentator and Republican strategist Alice Stewart spoke about former President Trump and his political organizations covering legal costs for the witnesses testifying before the January 6 committee. The money used is reportedly from funds the former President raised while pushing the false narrative that the 2020 election was stolen.

ALICE STEWART: It is based on his ill-conceived notion that there was widespread election fraud and he actually won the election. That is the travesty here, is that we're still-- a year and a half later, still litigating the 2020 election.

- Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson was originally represented by lawyers allegedly paid for with fundraising money before she got independent counsel and delivered a bombshell testimony to the January 6 committee earlier in the week.

ALICE STEWART: We do need to find out what happened [? and ?] led up to January 6. We need to hold people accountable to that. But the fact that good people, with good intentions, that are strong Republicans, are still buying into this ill-conceived notion of widespread election fraud.

Continue reading here:
Republican strategist claims Trump is raising money off 'people that don't have expendable incomes' - Yahoo News

The first half of the twentieth century began with the demise of Chinas last imperial dynasty, the Great Qing, and ended with the foundation of the Peoples Republic of China in October 1949. Following the 1912 establishment of Chinas first post-imperial government, the Republic of China, the country experienced both industrial and social revolution, a civil war during which communist and nationalist forces battled to shape the countrys future, and looming external threats during both world wars.

The Late Qing and Republican-Era Chinese Newspapers collection provides invaluable perspective on this critical period. The press of more than twenty cities is represented, spanning the Chinese mainland and the entire half century. The collection provides researchers a richly comprehensive perspective on Chinese life, culture, and politics throughout the collapse of the Qing Dynasty, the years of provisional government and civil war, and the birth of the Peoples Republic.

Open Access to this collection is made possible through the generous support of the Center for Research Libraries and its member institutions.

Go here to read the rest:
Global Press Archive

Outright racism has long been a major plank of the Republican Party. But it appears that the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and take away a constitutional right of millions of Americansa move that will disproportionately affect Black and brown womenhas emboldened GOP officials to drop whatever lingering apprehension they had about going full white supremacist and just go for it.

At a Saturday rally held by Donald Trumpi.e., a guy who kicked off his first bid for the White House by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals and whose entire brand is racismRep. Mary Miller said into the microphone: President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday. Then she clapped her hands as the audience cheered.

After an onslaught of condemnation, Millers spokesman insisted to the Associated Press that the congresswoman from Illinois had misread her remarks and meant to say the ruling was a victory for the right to life. Yet that explanation would be a lot more believable if Miller didnt have a history of embracing the views of people who are famously about white life. At a Moms for America event last year, the lawmaker told the crowd that Hitler was right on one thing. He said, Whoever has the youth has the future. (She later issued a statement claiming she was sincerely sorry for any harm her words caused.) So youll have to forgive us if we find it hard to believe this was simply a slip of the tongue.

Whats more, Miller undoubtedly knew she was speaking before a group of people who would be receptive to such a point of view, given that Trump was headlining the event. While examples of the ex-president being an unabashed racist could fill several books (or Twitter timelines), a small representative sampling includes starting an entire movement around the lie that the countrys first Black presidentwasnt born here; calling for theexecutionof five Black and Latino teenagers; telling four congresswomen of color to go back to the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came, despite the fact that three quarters of those women came from the U.S.; banningtravelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S.; pardoning a guy who the Justice Department saidoversaw theworst pattern of racial profilingby a law enforcement agency in U.S. history; throwing atotal shit fitover the removal of a statue of a Confederate general who thought Black people should be white peoples property; and reportedly calling white supremacists my people. As Ahmed Baba, a columnist for The Independent, tweeted on Saturday, Whether it was a slip or not, the audience heard white life and didnt flinch. They applauded.

Meanwhile, Miller wasnt the only Republican lawmaker to put racism on full display this weekend. Also on Saturday, Republican Texas senator John Cornynin the view of manycalled for the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling deeming racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. After Barack Obama tweeted that the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologuesattacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans, Cornyn quote-tweeted him and wrote: Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education. (Cornyn has since suggested he was merely noting the importance of long-standing precedent being overturned.)

See the rest here:
Republican Officials Spent the Weekend Going Full White Supremacist - Vanity Fair

Chris Jacobs, a congressman from New York, uttered the unthinkable on national television the other day: Im now the only Republican thats come out and said Im in favor of an assault weapon ban.

Wow.

Except there is a caveat: Jacobs is NOT seeking re-election. He is from the Buffalo area, the site of a mass shooting last month by an avowed White supremacist.

As Jacobs said, Im here for seven months. I think these could be a pivotal seven months for gun-control activity and legislation.

For most conservative Republicans, staunch supporters of the National Rifle Association and ultimate believers in gun rights, the Second Amendment is the imprimatur for weapons.

Jacobs supports the assault weapon ban on the way out of the door. Head for the hills. Why not stay and lead the fight for the ban since assault weapons shouldnt be on the streets anyway?

Because Jacobs brethren will roast him mercilessly for being a moderate Republican on the gun issue. Conservatives repeatedly say assault weapons are used by farmers and ranchers to kill varmints. Which is comical.

By the way, whatever happened to the term moderate Republican. More specifically, what about Rockefeller Republicans?

Iconic Black bandleader Count Basie once said of his friend then-New York governor Nelson Rockefeller that Rockefeller was rich enough to air-condition a cotton field.

The family riches were derived from the oil business, thanks to patriarch John D. Rockefeller founding Standard Oil Co. in the 1800s. By todays values, analysts figure he was worth $400 billion, or two to three times more than Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

A Rockefeller Republican means fiscal prudence can coexist with a social conscience. To many right-wing conservatives, especially today, that phrase is an oxymoron.

Rockefeller, Gerald Fords vice president, supported civil rights for Black Americans, rejected conservative Barry Goldwater, supported cultural liberalism, and advocated investment in national health care, higher education and labor unions.

Even Richard Nixon adopted some of the principles of Rockefeller Republicans, such as creating the Environmental Protection Agency and signing Title IX in the 1970s.

In fiscal policy, Rockefeller Republicans believed in balanced budgets. Auto mogul George W. Romney Mitts father was a Rockefeller Republican, as was New York senator Jacob Javits, baseball pioneer Jackie Robinson, former EPA director and ex-New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman and style icon Kim Kardashian possibly.

Dr. Martin Luther King once said in the segregated 1960s,If we had one or two governors in the Deep South like Nelson Rockefeller, many of our problems could be readily solved.

Now, the term Rockefeller Republican is taboo in the conservative Republican party. Pure profanity. No centrists are allowed in the club.

The Rockefeller Institute of Government, a think tank in Albany, N.Y., reported that only five states experienced a decline in firearm deaths between 2019 and 2020, with New Hampshire having the largest decrease at2.10 fewer deaths per 100,000 residents.

Perhaps, Jacobs would have been better off serving in the 1960s and 1970s during the height of Rockefeller Republicans instead of the 2020s, when the powerful right-wing rules the GOP.

Said Jacobs, And, again, its about that level of trust and, look, right now, Im seeing this in our party that you cant concede anything: Since I said Im receptive to gun control, Im not really a Republican and Im ostracized.

But there was a time when Senate Republicans and Democrats during Watergate voted 77-0to create the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. As for Goldwater, he led the charge for Republicans against culpable Richard Nixon during Watergate.

On Aug. 7, 1974, Goldwater and fellow Republicans Hugh Scott and John Rhodes visited Nixon at the White House. As former Washington Post writer Carl Bernstein, one of the lead Watergate reporters at the time, recalled on CNN remembrances of the 50th anniversary of the 1972 scandal, Goldwater pulled out this diary and started reading to us (Bernstein and Bob Woodward) how he and the leadership went to the Oval Office, sat across from Nixon, and Nixon asked him, Barry, how many votes do I have in the Senate for acquittal in a Senate trial because Nixon knew he was going to be impeached by the full House.

And Nixon really expected that he could be acquitted. And Goldwater looked at the president, directly across from him, and said, Mr. President, you may have four to six votes for acquittal, and you DONT have mine. And the next day, Richard Nixon announced his resignation from the presidency.

So there is precedent for doing whats right even for Republicans.

Go here to see the original:
Even Republicans Can Do the Right Thing InsideSources - InsideSources