Mediaboss Marketing

Im looking at society today, and its like Im watching an X-Men movie.

A Florida Republican named Webster Barnaby said this at a committee hearing about the ceaseless march of Republican lawmakers seeking to make it impossible for trans people to so much as use a public washroom safely. He was speaking directly to trans people in the room with him, who had gathered there to speak their peace and plead for some sanity in a fraught and terrible time for trans lives. Choice words that firmly root Republicans in their comical super-villain era.

The rub of it: Hes not wrong.

Hes not wrong that when looking out at a sea of trans people, he is seeing the X-Men. He is seeing people who look different than the pressed suits on his side of the line, slamming gavels and pointing fingers and remarking at the demonic appearance of the congregated masses. The X-Men are indeed a group hated and feared by a society that sees itself as normal and mutants as counter to that norm. Whats telling is that Barnaby, in labeling the people he despises as demons, imps, and mutants, sees his heroes in villainy. Hes entering his Robert Kelly era.

Robert Kelly, apologies, SENATOR Robert Kelly is a longtime anti-mutant politician and X-Men enemy in Marvel comics who was tricked into believing the mutant hero Cyclops had fired his optic blasts into a crowd of innocent bystanders. With no real evidence to go on, he swiftly and decisively makes up his mind about an entire group of people and begins campaigning against the scourge of mutants living among the other human detritus he surrounded himself with.

Robert Kelly was a primary backer of programs like the Mutant Control Act and Project Wideawake, loosely defined anti-mutant laws requiring all mutants to register with the state to make their identities known and, by extension, tracked. When that law was shot down by the senate for being unconstitutional, Kelly aided the funding of AI-powered robots called Sentinels that were designed to track, counter, and detain/destroy mutants wherever they might be found. The ultimate goal was to remove mutants from society.

As you can imagine, AI-powered robots designed to track and detain certain kinds of folk as their primary function spiraled out of control pretty quickly.

Robert Kelly is a direct analogue to the kind of real life politicians who love nothing more than to keep a fire of hatred burning hot and bright.

The issue with someone like Barnaby saying he looks out and sees trans people as the X-Men and also demons and imps, his other colorful words for real live people in the room with him is that he sees himself as a Robert Kelly-type, and that he is okay with that comparison being drawn. Like watching Star Wars and only rooting for the Empire, thinking it sure would be nice to be that Palpatine fella.

His words cut hard enough that even fellow republicans distanced themselves from his rhetoric, without enough self-awareness that this road was always going to lead to this point.

In the fictional world of the X-Men, the constant fear of mutants leads to the invention and mass production of literal mutant-hunting robots. Robert Kelly, eventually, sees the error of his ways, begins to listen to their pleas, and starts to understand them as worthy of rights and freedoms the same as anyone else. His anti-mutant crusade well and truly ends when his life is saved by a queer mutant named Pyro, a mutant stricken with the Legacy Virus (the in-world analogue to AIDS). And he is, of course, eventually assassinated at a rally where he was speaking about his reformed worldview.

But, this isnt comics.

Shortly after his speech, Barnaby expressed regrets for his choice of words toward trans people. He said he considers himself a christian and it is unlike people of his faith to dehumanize others the way that he did. But this bears too little responsibility, too little consideration of just how he and others get to this point where they are calling trans people demons in public committee hearings with little forethought.

Barnaby apologized but also said he stands by his statement, which is a really professional way of saying well Im sorry that you feel this way. And unless politicians start to push back on their peers who have become so emboldened in their bigotry that they are drawing these comparisons to real life people in settings such as this, we can only surmise that the situation which is already fraught and terrifying will get worse. We know indeed where this path leads, and it travels a short distance to a terrifying place.

Gutter Talkis a biweekly series by Niko Stratis that looks at comic books from a queer and trans perspective.

Join A+!

View original post here:
Gutter Talk: Republicans Are in Their X-Men Villain Era - http://www.autostraddle.com

The new litigation was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, a Trump appointee. It stems from the first subpoena issued in a sweeping House GOP investigation into Braggs office. Republicans launched their probe, led by Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), while rallying to Trumps side ahead of his indictment.

Vyskocil replied to Braggs lawsuit Tuesday afternoon, indicating that she would not grant his motion for a temporary restraining order. Instead, she ordered Bragg to serve the lawsuit on Jordan by 9 p.m. Tuesday and for Jordan and the committee to respond to the filing by April 17. Vyskocil said she would hold a hearing on April 19.

Meanwhile, Jordan and members of his committee will take their defense of Trump to a new height by heading to New York on Monday, ramping up their public pressure campaign against Bragg. And the Ohioan quickly took to Twitter to push back on Braggs suit.

First, they indict a president for no crime, Jordan wrote. Then, they sue to block congressional oversight when we ask questions about the federal funds they say they used to do it.

The three GOP lawmakers have also been quietly preparing for a potential court battle. They warned in a March response to Braggs office that they believed any subpoena would survive a three-prong test previously laid out by the Supreme Court that is meant to determine the legal sufficiency of a congressional subpoena.

Pomerantz told Jordan and the Judiciary Committee on March 27 that he would not testify voluntarily, citing an instruction he received from Braggs office earlier in the month. That instruction came in a letter, dated March 25, in which Braggs general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, told Pomerantz that the Judiciary Committee subpoena raised concerns about federalism, state sovereignty, the limits on congressional power, and the purpose and legality of the probe.

The battle over Pomerantz could also portend a more prolonged fight between House Republicans and Braggs office. Jordan sent a letter on Friday to Matthew Colangelo, senior counsel to the New York County District Attorneys Office, requesting closed-door testimony. (He took a similar step with Pomerantz before issuing his subpoena.)

And Jordan hasnt ruled out subpoenaing Bragg himself. Judiciary panel staffers were already laying some of the groundwork for that step, but their timeline is in limbo amid a volley of letters back-and-forth with Braggs office. Responses from the DAs office have not ruled out cooperating and instead pushed for more details on what the three GOP lawmakers would want to discuss as part of any sitdown interview.

Pomerantz began working on investigations into Trump under former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and continued after Bragg took office in December 2021. However, Pomerantz and a colleague abruptly resigned about two months later, with reports quickly emerging that Bragg had balked at launching the wide-scale tax-and-insurance fraud prosecution of Trump that Pomerantz favored.

Two months ago, Pomerantz released a book accusing Bragg of abandoning a winnable criminal case against Trump. Just before the book was published, Bragg sent the author and the books publisher, Simon & Schuster, a letter urging a delay and warning that Pomerantz had a duty to clear any manuscript about his work in advance with Braggs office.

The book was published as scheduled, and Pomerantz insisted hed abided by his duties. I am confident that all of my actions with respect to the Trump investigation, including the writing of my forthcoming book, are consistent with my legal and ethical obligations, he said in a statement at the time.

Bragg never sued to block Pomerantzs book or interviews he granted in connection with its release. However, the district attorneys new lawsuit does seek orders forbidding the former prosecutor from complying with the House subpoena. Its unclear whether the DA will ask the judge for a broader order that limits Pomerantzs ability to discuss his interactions in the office.

Bragg also used his lawsuit to swing back at Trumps attacks on him, noting that they led to threats to his office.

Mr. Trump in particular has threatened New York officials with violent and racist vitriol, Braggs filing states. These statements have had a powerful effect. District Attorney Bragg has received multiple death threats. In one instance, he received a package containing suspicious white powder with a note making a specific death threat against him.

Braggs lawsuit features a chronology of Jordan and the House Judiciary Committees public statements attacking the DA and bashing the investigation of Trump, which he says betrays the political nature of the GOP investigation. He contends that those Republican statements are evidence that the committee lacks a legitimate legislative purpose for probing his office and is instead using it to punish a political adversary engaged in a criminal investigation.

To bolster that position, Bragg cites the Supreme Courts decision in another Trump-related matter: Democrats yearslong effort to get the former presidents financial records from his accounting firm, Mazars USA. In its opinion, the court endorsed Congress sweeping power to investigate matters it plans to legislate, but acknowledged some limits on that power.

The purported legislative purposes Chairman Jordan has invoked to support the subpoena are unsupported, speculative, specious, and/or unconstitutional. The subpoena is more broad than reasonably necessary to support any claimed congressional objective, Braggs office contends.

But courts have long been wary of policing Congress investigative power, and even more loath to delve into the mindset of individual lawmakers who are pursuing politically explosive investigations. However, Braggs lawsuit may tie up Congress ability to garner testimony and information related to the Trump probe while it plays out in court.

Erica Orden contributed to this report.

Read the original here:
Bragg sues House Republicans over 'campaign of harassment' amid ... - POLITICO

A biker rolls past the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, March 21, 2023. Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom.

A group of 69 congressional Republicans is backing a federal judges ruling that would overturn the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations two-decade-old approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.

The 11 GOP senators and 58 House lawmakers, who filed a brief in the appeals case, broke the relative silence from Republicans in Congress on the Friday ruling, though no members of leadership signed onto the brief.

By approving and deregulating chemical abortion drugs, the FDA has not followed Congress statutorily prescribed drug approval process and has subverted Congress critical public policy interests in upholding patient welfare, the GOP lawmakers wrote.

The Republicans expressed concern in their34-page briefthat people other than the pregnant woman such as intimate partners, family members, or sex traffickers may be asserting reproductive control over the woman, which are actions that interfere with a womans reproductive intentions.

In the context of abortion, reproductive control not only produces coerced abortions or continued pregnancies, but it also affects whether the pregnancy was intended in the first place, they wrote. Reproductive control is a prevalent issue for women.

The Republican lawmakers were among the dozens of organizations, both supporting and opposing abortion rights, that have filed briefs with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans this week.

That court is now in charge of the case after the federal governmentappealedthe Texas federal district court judges Friday, April 7 ruling that would overturn the FDAs approval of mifepristone Friday, April 14 at midnight. The Department of Justice has also asked the appeals courtto place the Texas ruling on holdamid the appeals process.

Anti-abortion groups argue against DOJ appeal

The anti-abortion organizations that filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn the FDAs approval of the abortion medication mifepristone have filed briefs with the 5th Circuit opposing the federal governments appeal of the Texas judges ruling.

The organizations are also opposed to the U.S. Justice Department asking for the appeals court to place the Texas ruling on hold past the Friday midnight deadline the Texas judge placed in his ruling.

In the23-page brief rejecting the federal governments appeal, they write that the 5th Circuit has no jurisdiction over the case since the federal district court judge issued a stay of the 2000 FDA approval and not an injunction.

In the49-page brief opposing the federal governments request for a stayof the Texas ruling, the anti-abortion organizations argue the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering an administrative stay under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it is the governments stay request that is extraordinary and unprecedented, not the district courts ruling.

The anti-abortion organizations, in a brief filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote that because the district court granted an administrative stay, not a preliminary injunction, this Court lacks interlocutory appellate jurisdiction and should leave in place the district courts ruling.

The U.S. Department of Justice, in a20-page responseon Wednesday, said while the federal judge in Texas purported to be acting in a restrained manner there is nothing modest about upending the decades-long status quo by blocking access nationwide to a safe and effective drug.

The federal government reasserted that mifepristone is safe and effective when used in line with the FDA approval, adding that there was no basis in administrative law for the district courts unprecedented overriding of FDAs considered scientific judgment.

The Justice Department also noted that laws of every State allow patients to use mifepristone in some circumstances, reflecting the importance of a drug that millions of women have relied on to safely terminate their pregnancies.

States also have preserved access to mifepristone for other purposes, including to help women manage miscarriages, the justice department attorneys wrote.

Democrats in Congress back FDA authority

Two hundred forty Democratic members of Congressfiled their own brief supporting the FDAs regulatory authority and the approval of mifepristone. Maryland Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-7th) was the only Maryland Democrat who did not sign on.

Democratic attorneys general from 23 states, including Maryland, and the District of Columbia have filed a brief supporting the approval of mifepristone, which is authorized for up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy as part of a two-drug regimen that includes misoprostol as the second pharmaceutical.

Republican attorneys general from 21 states have indicated they plan to file or have filed briefs in the case.

The GOP members of Congress who filed the brief opposing the FDAs approval process for mifepristone represent 30 states. Rep. Andy Harris (R-1st) was among the House Republicans to support the brief.

Pharma companies argue against ruling

Pharmaceutical companies have also filed a brief with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, raising major warnings about the long-term effects of one federal judge overturning an FDA approval.

The companies, in a46-page brief, argued the Texas district court unreasonably found fault with FDAs sound scientific judgments in order to stay approval of a drug that has been approved for nearly a quarter-century and used safely by millions of women.

The argued that U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Matthew Kacsmaryks ruling also badly misapplied governing drug-approval laws, and administrative law more generally.

Far from being limited to one drug, the logic of the district courts order overturns the long-settled legal basis of FDAs drug-approval process, wrote the group of more than 20 companies that included Pfizer Inc. Unless stayed, the district courts lawless opinion will empower any plaintiff to grind drug approvals to a halt, disrupting patients access to critical medicines.

If the federal district court judges ruling from Friday is allowed to take effect, they wrote, it would result in a seismic shift in the clinical development and drug approval processes, erecting unnecessary and unscientific barriers to the approval of lifesaving medicines, chilling drug development and investment, threatening patient access, and destabilizing the pharmaceutical industry.

Read this article:
Texas judges abortion pill ruling supported by 69 Republicans in ... - Maryland Matters

Maryland Del. Nic Kipke, R-Anne Arundel, apologized to House Speaker Adrienne Jones Tuesday afternoon after he told her to sit down in the final minutes of this years General Assembly session in a harsh exchange over a provision to cannabis legislation.

A debate between Democrats and Republicans arose over HB1071, a bill that would prohibit a law enforcement officer from conducting a search on a motor vehicle based on the scent of marijuana alone. As the legislatures required midnight adjournment for the year was just a few minutes away, Jones stopped Republicans from explaining their votes, which angered Kipke.

Kipke raised his voice and pointed his finger at Jones, telling her to sit down, and let the speaker pro-tem handle the intense situation. Even though Jones gaveled him down, he quoted provisions in the House rules and continued to yell into the microphone.

I did call the speaker to apologize for the tone that I used I respect the speaker, Im very fond of her, Kipke said to Capital News Service. I did listen to my speech and I felt like I was a little disrespectful, and I didnt mean to be disrespectful. I was just upset.

Kipkes apology is a quick shift from how he talked about apologizing to Jones on Monday night, the General Assemblys mandated deadline. He initially told The Baltimore Banner that he didnt apologize for standing up for the voice of the Republicans in the chamber and was only sorry if someones feelings were hurt.

When asked how the apology went, Kipke declined to go into detail and said it was a personal conversation, but mentioned Jones was very gracious about it.

After the conversation between the delegate and speaker, Jones issued a statement saying, Delegate Kipke and I have served together for a long time, and I believe that when he called me this afternoon to apologize, it was genuine.

Some Democratic legislators found Kipkes behavior shameful. In a tweet on Tuesday morning, Jheanelle Wilkins, D-Montgomery, said Kipke was intoxicated and belligerent on the House floor, adding that he must apologize immediately and consider if his future is in the House.

I think thats ridiculousI was tired, Kipke told Capital News Service in response to Wilkinss tweet, adding that she wasnt near him to truly know if he was drinking. The only thing that I could have done differently is I could have been more respectful in my tone, which I will definitely keep in mind.

In another tweet, Wilkins said, Women in leadership especially Black women should NEVER be told to sit down. Wilkins is the chair of the Black Caucus, which also called on Kipke to publicly apologize to Jones.

Kipke wasnt alone when it came to his frustration and challenge towards the speaker. Other Republican delegates walked off the floor during the last minutes of session, protesting the speakers curtailing of their ability to explain their vote.

But what (Republicans) were standing up for, is the right to be heard and to be treated fairly, Kipke said. Were going to stand up and were going to be heard because we have an obligation to the voters that sent us there.

House Minority Leader Jason Buckel, R-Allegany, who urged the walk out among the Republican delegates, told CNS that not allowing the Republican delegates to speak or ask a question about a bill was unfair. If the rules werent going to be recognized to allow any of our members to explain their votes, theres really very little purpose of us being there, he added.

When asked if he thinks this incident will strain the relationship between House Democrats and Republicans, Buckel said that it will be resolved by the next session. Buckel also talked to Jones Tuesday morning at Gov. Wes Moores first bill-signing event, in which he expressed his respect for her and what both Democrat and Republican members can do to accomplish goals.

Speaker Jones and her staff are professionals, Buckel said. Theyre good people uniformly.

This article was originally published on CNSMaryland.org and is republished with permission.

Like Loading...

Related

More:
Republicans apologize for harsh tone that ended House session - The Southern Maryland Chronicle

Pat Heintzelman has been teaching for more than 22 years, but she isnt confident shell have a job come this summer.

Heintzelman, an untenured English instructor at a regional university in Texas, got an ominous letter along with others in her department several months ago. The letter reminded them they should have no expectation of having their contracts renewed.

Heintzelman is president of the Texas Faculty Association; she has a track record of speaking out. Now, shes scared of teaching her usual curriculum, which includes novels that discuss topics such as racism that conservatives have decried as divisive. When she testifies in front of lawmakers, she doesnt specify which institution she teaches at.

If you dont have tenure, you dont have a voice, Heintzelman said.

A bill in Texas would do away with tenure altogether, prohibiting public colleges and universities from offering it to faculty members hired after this September. The legislation -- accompanied by calls from Texas Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick to ban the practice -- is one of several efforts across the country seeking to chip away at professors' job protections through practices such as post-tenure reviews.

Proponents say tenure reforms will improve the student experience and allow for more freedom of expression. But academics say they will do the reverse, dampening state colleges competitive edge and chilling speech in classrooms at a time when tenure is already becoming less common.

Board shake-ups, threats to tenure: How conservatives are reshaping colleges

The concept of tenure emerged in the mid-20th century as a means of supporting academic freedom. Professors granted tenure can speak, teach and conduct research about controversial issues without putting their job at risk. Its a lifetime appointment, barring extreme circumstances criminal conduct, for example.

Even before the latest round of bills, however, tenure was already fading in prevalence. Fewer than a quarter of U.S. college faculty members were tenured in fall 2021, according to research by the American Association of University Professors, down from roughly 39% in 1987. Nearly half of faculty members at U.S. colleges and universities were employed part-time in 2021, compared with about a third in 1987.

Story continues

Women and people of color are far more likely than men and white faculty members to serve in part-time or contingent appointments.

DEI came to colleges with a bang: Now, these red states are on a mission to snuff it out.

Laws that weaken tenure would exacerbate the already grave disparities in job security, pay and scholarship priorities that exist on campus, said Marc Stein, a professor and LGBTQ+ history scholar at San Francisco State University who has studied the topic.

The average salary of a tenured professor is about $150,000 on average, compared with roughly $66,000 for an untenured instructor. Heintzelman, for example, said she makes $42,000.

Weakened tenure protections would also undermine a university's ability to attract and retain talented faculty members, said Glenn Colby, senior researcher for the American Association of University Professors.

"When you take away the protections that tenure affords then people who are considering entering academia might think twice about it," Colby said. It "makes the institution less able to fulfill its mission of providing students with access to diverse opinions, ideas and experiences."

Not just Nikole Hannah-Jones: Black women are underrepresented among tenured faculty

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis passed a law last year requiring post-tenure reviews every five years for professors at state colleges. The state's higher education governing body recently established a process for those reviews, which will assess how productive and successful faculty members are in relation to their assigned duties and allow for the termination of those who are "unsatisfactory." A bill introduced earlier this year would further allow university trustees to call for a tenure review at any time.

Now, post-tenure review policies are making their way through legislatures in other states.

In Louisiana, Republican State Sen. Stewart Cathey late last month introduced legislation that would require annual performance reviews for tenured professors and establish processes for dismissing those who get bad marks.

A bill in Ohio, meanwhile, would among other changes require annual performance evaluations for faculty members in various categories, such as teaching and research, and establish a post-tenure preview process. Student reviews would count for 50% of the teaching component, with one of the mandatory questions asking: Does the faculty member create a classroom atmosphere free of political, racial, gender and religious bias?

More: Ohio may prohibit employees at public universities, colleges from striking

According to Stein, such scrutiny is unnecessary given the lack of evidence that tenured professors contribute less to student learning and scholarship.

But it can also cause real harm to faculty and students, Stein said, citing the perception or reality that faculty work is under surveillance" and the reviews' immense workload.

In Texas, Heintzelman said the threats to tenure are already having an impact.

The bills havent even passed yet, but the chilling effect in the classroom is definitely there, she said. If you dont have tenure you live in fear your contract wont be renewed.

The climate is similar in Florida. Last week, the Tampa Bay Times reported that the interim president of New College of Florida, a public liberal arts college, has asked seven faculty members to withdraw their tenure applications.

New College of Florida: Emotional meeting ends with DeSantis-appointed board abolishing diversity office

More: Can Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis re-create Michigan's Hillsdale College in his state?

Contact Alia Wong at (202) 507-2256 or awong@usatoday.com. Follow her on Twitter at @aliaemily.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Tenure track for professors in states like Texas may disappear

Link:
Tenure was already in decline. Now some Republicans want it gone from colleges for good. - Yahoo News