#First Female U.S. Attorney General

[mikeysbride]

We Are Not Going Back

The 2024 U.S. presidential election has been anything but typical or boring, especially in the last month. Once President Joe Biden made the decision to remove himself from the race against Donald Trump in favor of endorsing VP Kamala Harris, everything changed. And it changed for the better if you're a Democrat. I was upset when he first withdrew, feeling that he was basically pushed into it by the media's insistence he is too old to run despite the record he's had as President the last 4 years. But then, within minutes, it seemed, my attitude changed to one of a sense of hope I hadn't felt in a while where the election is concerned. In reality, he made the ultimate selfless decision to put the country's interests above his own, and that is a remarkable quality, especially in a politician. It shows he's the real deal.

It appears I am not alone. The surge of excitement in the Democratic Party surrounding Kamala's nomination, which she'll officially accept this week, has been nothing short of amazing to watch. I have not seen anything like this since President Obama, and that says a lot. Her rallies are breaking attendance records, and even longtime Republicans are pledging to vote for her.

Of course, Kamala has already received the predictable criticism from the Trump cult about everything from her heritage to her laugh. Trump also still refuses to pronounce her name correctly, which is blatantly disrespectful but also typical behavior for him. If Kamala ("comma-la") is too hard for him to pronounce, Madame President will do just fine, I'm sure. But none if this should come as news to anyone. They have nothing else to go on, so of course they resort to the lowest rungs on the ladder when in reality, she has a stellar resume and record having served as a prosecuting attorney, District Attorney, Attorney General, Senator, and now Vice President of the United States. She is an actual prosecutor going up against Trump and his 34 felony convictions, and he's allowed to do that for the highest job in the country even though many jobs won't consider you if you have even 1 felony conviction. It's laughable really; it would be hilarious if it weren't also so sad and ridiculous. You can bet anyone of color would not be allowed the same leniency.

A few days before Kamala became the presumptive nominee, my 16-year-old daughter told me she felt apprehensive about her future if there were to be another Trump presidency. I told her that I feel the same way for myself. I actually feel that way about anyone who isn't a rich, straight white male because those are the only people Donald Trump cares about - those who look and think exactly like he does. But then, Joe passed the torch to Kamala, and it seemed the country awakened to a clearly better alternative and someone even the independents could get behind. Suddenly, there was hope that maybe, just maybe, things would be OK after all. That same daughter then came to me, just a few days after our previous conversation, and told me she is no longer fearful the way she was before. My 14-year-old daughter echoes her feelings, and the both of them have taken a greater interest in the election as a result. My teenage daughters are inspired and can see themselves in Kamala, and that is huge for them and for me.

I don't care who you are; this is historic and a big deal. It takes an incredible amount of privilege to see all this unfolding and not appreciate how significant this is in our history. Not only are we on the verge of having our first female U.S. President, but she's also Black. Not only that, but she's smart, successful, personable, and damn qualified. I can't help but think of my grandparents and how thrilled they would have been to live to see Barack Obama become President and now Kamala Harris. We came so close to a female President with Hillary Clinton in 2016, and I pray the election deniers and complacent people don't mess it up for us this time. I honestly don't think we can survive another Trump presidency and come out the same way ever again. He's already promised to be a dictator on his first day back in office and has alluded to doing away with elections...neither of which we need. And we certainly don't need him. He only wants to be President to avoid jail time, point blank. We can't let that happen.

We have a chance this November to save our democracy and keep moving forward - to make a hopeful future available to everyone and not just the rich, straight white males of the country. We can do this, and I have to believe we will. This is a test we absolutely cannot stand to fail. I understand the assignment. Do you?

[hologramcowboy]

Warning! This is a political post but it’s an important one.

Here are a few reasons to consider voting for Kamala Harris as president:

Experience: Harris has a strong background in law and politics, having served as a U.S. Senator and Attorney General of California.

Progressive Values: She advocates for key progressive issues, including healthcare reform, climate change action, and criminal justice reform.

Diversity and Representation: As the first female vice president and the first Black and South Asian vice president, she represents a broader range of American experiences and perspectives.

Focus on Equity: Harris emphasizes policies aimed at reducing inequality, including economic opportunities for underserved communities.

Strong Leadership: She has demonstrated resilience and leadership in navigating complex political landscapes and tackling major issues.

I hope you choose someone committed to progress and inclusivity so that America may continue evolving!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

Twenty-six Republican state attorneys general are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the anti-transgender sports laws in Idaho and West Virginia. The AGs of Idaho and West Virginia have already asked the high court to review rulings that blocked them from enforcing their laws barring trans athletes from competing under their gender identity in school sports. The justices, who are in recess for the summer, haven’t said if they’ll take the case. The AGs calling on the court to uphold the laws filed friend-of-the-court briefs, known formally as amicus curiae, August 14. Such briefs are filed by people and organizations that are not directly involved in a case but want to express an opinion on it. The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming signed on to the Idaho brief, and the same ones, with the exception of West Virginia and the addition of Idaho, signed on to the West Virginia brief — that’s because Idaho and West Virginia, respectively, are the states directly involved.

They assert that such laws are needed to assure equal opportunities for cisgender girls and women in sports. “Amici States all have laws or policies like Idaho’s that restrict girls’ sports teams to biological females,” the Idaho brief reads. “Basing the distinction on biology rather than gender identity makes sense because it is the differences in biology — not gender identity — that call for separate teams in the first place: Whatever their gender identity, biological males are, on average, stronger and faster than biological females. If those average physical differences did not matter, there would be no need to segregate sports teams at all.”

[...]

Arkansas AG Tim Griffin and Alabama AG Steve Marshall are the leaders in filing the briefs. “Like Arkansas, West Virginia has a strong interest in safeguarding the benefits of equal access to athletic opportunities for women and girls,” Griffin said in a press release. “They deserve the opportunity to shine on a level playing field. Biological males should not be robbing females of their opportunity to compete for athletic accolades or scholarships, nor should they be threatening the safety of women in competition. I will continue fighting to protect girls’ sports teams and the opportunities of female athletes.” In Idaho, Lindsay Hecox, a trans woman track athlete at Boise State University, filed a suit challenging the state's law, the first in the nation, shortly after Republican Gov. Brad Little signed it in 2020, along with Kayden Hulquist, a then-senior at Boise High School who is cisgender and was concerned about being subjected to the law’s invasive “sex verification” testing. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and its Idaho affiliate, Legal Voice, and Cooley LLP.

Idaho Chief U.S. District Court Judge David C. Nye issued an injunction blocking the ban in August 2020. He noted that it appears to be on shaky constitutional ground. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed his action in 2023. In West Virginia, trans girl Becky Pepper-Jackson, then 11, filed suit challenging the law in 2021, represented by the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and a private law firm. U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin that year issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking enforcement of the law and said she could try out for girls’ sports, noting that the suit “seeks relief only insofar as this law applies to her.” Goodwin also wrote that Pepper-Jackson, who is on puberty-blocking drugs, “has shown that she will not have any inherent physical advantage over the girls she would compete against on the girls’ cross country and track teams. Further, permitting B.P.J. to participate on the girls’ teams would not take away athletic opportunities from other girls.”

26 Republican AGs ask the MAGA majority on SCOTUS to uphold Idaho and West Virginia’s laws banning trans people from playing sports competitions matching their gender identity.

[mikaylacarlierose]

All the kids I knew in high school who wanted to be cops were literally the laziest motherfuckers, and the difference between those kids who knew they weren’t getting into college, knew they wouldn’t be able to hack it in college, or literally just wanted to shoot a gun for living, compared to a young black woman who made it into law school, became a successful prosecutor, District Attorney, Attorney General, then transitioned into politics to become a U.S. Senator, and the first female Vice President. Is staggering. It’s honestly obscene to even make that comparison.

[libraryresources]

Weekly Round-Up

Weekly Round-Up is an information initiative with two goals. The first is to help – in whatever small way – to highlight down-ticket items that are easily lost in the deluge of information about the presidential election. The second is to raise awareness about the severity of politically-motivated book bans in the US and the impact on libraries and schools.

Sources: Election news is sourced primarily from Ballotpedia, unless otherwise noted; remember to check Vote.org for more insights into your local ballot.

Library & intellectual freedom articles are sourced from weekly emails I receive from the New York Library Association (NYLA), one of my own professional organizations.

From Ballotpedia

Voters set to decide the highest number of ballot measures since 2018; Candidates for Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Oklahoma Gov. moves minimum wage measure to 2026 ballot

For Ballotpedia's complete list of 2024 ballot measures (as of Sept. 27), click here.

Ballotpedia reports a record number of abortion-related ballot measures. As reported on Sept. 18th, measures in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Nevada, and South Dakota would guarantee a right to abortion in those states. An initiative in Nebraska would prohibit abortions after the first trimester.

8 states will decide on measures that, if passed, would prohibit non-citizen voting. Many states are deciding on measures that would make changes to the electoral process, mainly whether to use, repeal, or ban ranked choice voting as an electoral method.

The other most common ballot measures this year include criminal justice and police funding, minimum wage initiatives, and the legalization of marijuana or other substances.

As for the business in Oklahoma: The measure in question would begin the process of raising OK's minimum wage from the federal standard ($7.50/hour) to $15/hour by 2029.

Personally I find it interesting that the governor (Kevin Sitt (R)) wants to take the measure off the 2024 ballot and move it to a special election during the PRIMARIES in 2026. Almost as if he knows people are less likely to participate or pay attention during midterm elections and primaries...?

Intellectual Freedom News

With Banned Books Week coming to an end, take a look at the American Library Association's preliminary data regarding book bans in 2024. The ALA and the Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF) track bans and challenges annually and assist libraries that are facing acts of censorship.

As Unite Against Book Bans states on the webpage:

Between January 1 and August 31, 2024, ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom reported 414 attempts to censor library materials and services and documented challenges to 1,128 unique titles. While those numbers are lower than last year's record shattering figures, they are still much higher than the numbers prior to 2020. In particular, ALA noted the effect of "soft censorship" on this year's data, where books are purchased but placed in restricted areas, not used in library displays, or otherwise hidden or kept off limits due to fear of challenges. According to ALA, these include circumstances where books have been preemptively excluded from library collections, taken off the shelves before they are banned, or not purchased for library collections in the first place. Simply put, censorship is already happening before challenges to books and services can take place because of the fear of challenges being brought.

UABB (which is itself an ALA initiative) provides a comprehensive summary of the situation, but you can read the entire report on the ALA website.

Lest you believe that book bans only happen in Texas or Florida... This article details how a group of students in Orchard Park, NY took a stand against the sharp increase in book challenges in their community, ultimately founding an organization called Students Protecting Education.

From the article:

Proponents for bans, or at least restrictions, argue access to “R-rated” books with explicit language and graphic content, should be a parent’s decision and not their child’s.  Lippitt disagrees.  “We're young adults. We're not kids anymore," he said. "We're entering a world where these things are all around us, and [there's] no worse way to send your kid out into the world than know nothing about it.”

That's it for the first Weekly Round-Up! I'm hoping to post one every Saturday or Sunday for the next month or so. With luck, somebody out there will find this helpful for expanding and maintaining their own personal information ecosystem.

[odinsblog]

Stalking is so closely correlated with lethal violence that experts refer to it as “slow motion homicide”: More than half of all female homicide victims in the U.S. were stalked before they were killed. Despite the terrifying and dangerous consequences, many victims of stalking do not report the abuse to law enforcement for fear they will not be taken seriously.

The reasonableness of that fear was vividly illustrated by the Supreme Court oral arguments in Counterman v. Colorado on Wednesday morning, as members of the highest court of the land joked about messages sent by a stalker to his victim, bemoaned the increasing “hypersensitivity” of society, and brushed aside consideration of the actual harm of stalking to focus on the potential harm of stalking laws.

For nearly two years, Billy Raymond Counterman sent thousands of unsolicited and unwanted Facebook direct messages to C.W., a local musician, ultimately driving her to abandon her career and leave the state. Counterman, who had previously served time in federal prison for making violent threats against his ex-wife and her family, argues that his conduct towards C.W. was free speech protected by the First Amendment. Counterman maintains, supported by amicus briefs from influential civil libertarian organizations such as the ACLU, the EFF, and FIRE, that stalking cannot be criminally prohibited except when the government can prove that the stalker subjectively intended to terrify his victim. The state of Colorado, supported by amicus briefs from First Amendment scholars, stalking experts, and domestic violence victim advocates, argues that it is enough to prove that the stalking would be terrifying to a reasonable person in light of the totality of the circumstances. If the court rules in Counterman’s favor, delusional stalking—no matter how objectively terrifying or threatening—will be transformed into an inviolable constitutional right.

During oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts quoted a handful of the thousands of unsolicited messages Counterman sent to C.W. “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you,’” Roberts read aloud. After a pause, he joked, “I can’t promise I haven’t said that,” prompting laughter from other justices and the audience. Picking out another message, which he described as an “image of liquor bottles” captioned as “a guy’s version of edible arrangements,” Roberts challenged Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser to “say this in a threatening way,” leading to more laughter from the court. And the laughs didn’t stop there: Counterman’s attorney, John Elwood, shared with the court that his mother would routinely tell him to “drop dead” as a child, but “you know, I was never in fear because of that.”

(continue reading)

[thebiscuiteternal]

He used the same language to a CNN reporter about Vice President Kamala Harris, the first woman and first person of Black and Asian heritage to occupy the office and now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. Harris served as a U.S. senator from California from 2017-2021 and the attorney general of California from 2011-2017 before she was elected vice president in 2020. Harris and President Joe Biden received more than 81.2 million votes, the highest total in American history by more than 8.6%. “Biden said, first off, he’s going to hire a Black female for Vice President, and he just skipped over – what about white females, what about any other group? When you go down that route, you take mediocrity, and that’s what they have right now as the vice president,” Burchett told CNN’s Manu Raju. “100% she was a DEI hire,” he added. “Her record is abysmal at best.”

He wants to call them slurs so fucking bad.

[noisycowboyglitter]

Navigating the "Comma La" Phenomenon: Kamala Harris' 2024 Campaign

"Comma la" is a clever wordplay on Vice President Kamala Harris's first name, creating a catchy and memorable phrase that's both witty and visually striking. This design concept breaks down "Kamala" into two parts: "Comma" and "la," emphasizing her unique identity in American politics.

Buy now:19.95$

The visual representation likely features a prominent, stylized comma as the centerpiece. This comma might be exaggerated in size or creatively integrated into other design elements. The "la" could be presented in a contrasting font or color, completing the playful deconstruction of Harris's name.

Color schemes might include:

Red, white, and blue to reflect American politics

Purple tones, often associated with Harris

Gold or yellow accents for a touch of vibrancy

Additional elements could include:

A silhouette or portrait of Harris

Subtle patriotic motifs in the background

Text highlighting her role as Vice President

Buy now

This design could be applied to various products like t-shirts, mugs, posters, and campaign buttons. It serves multiple purposes:

Creating a memorable branding for Harris

Making her name more approachable and relatable

Celebrating her historic position in American politics

The "Comma la" concept offers a fresh, engaging way to represent Harris, appealing to supporters who appreciate clever wordplay and modern political messaging. It's a succinct yet powerful representation of her identity and role in contemporary American politics.

Kamala Harris has made history as the first female Vice President of the United States. Born to immigrant parents, her journey exemplifies the American dream. With a background as California's Attorney General and U.S. Senator, she has championed criminal justice reform, healthcare access, and environmental sustainability.

Buy now

Harris’s leadership is marked by empathy, resilience, and a commitment to justice. Her ability to connect with diverse communities and advocate for marginalized voices makes her a powerful and influential figure. She emphasizes unity and collaboration, striving to bridge divides in an era of polarized politics.

Kamala Harris’s groundbreaking role serves as an inspiration to many, particularly young women and people of color. Her dedication to creating a more equitable society and her historic Vice Presidency continue to shape the future of American politics.

Buy now

[rapeculturerealities]

How South Carolina Ended Up With an All-Male Supreme Court — ProPublica

When attorneys arrived for oral arguments in South Carolina’s high-profile abortion case last fall, state Supreme Court Justice Kaye Hearn took her seat up front, a ruffly white shirt beneath her black robe, the only woman on the dais. With piercing green eyes, she scanned the courtroom.

A sea of white men jammed one side of the room. Before them, at a wooden table, sat three male attorneys there to argue in favor of the state’s law banning abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy.

On the other side of the room, a group composed mostly of women crowded benches behind a female attorney who had challenged the law.

Even in these polarized times, the starkness of the divide stunned Hearn.

South Carolina’s high court was among the first to hear an abortion law challenge after the U.S. Supreme Court released its Dobbs v. Jackson decision last June, overturning the country’s landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade and kicking the combustible issue to the states. Hearn knew the nation was watching. But she didn’t anticipate that the arguments about to begin in that divided courtroom would contribute to an even starker gender divide on the court where she sat.

Three months later, on Jan. 5, the justices struck down the deep red state’s abortion law. By a 3-2 vote, the majority ruled that the law violated the state’s constitutional right to privacy. Hearn wrote the lead opinion, a capstone of sorts given she had reached the mandatory retirement age of 72.

While abortion rights supporters rejoiced, the ruling outraged the General Assembly’s new supermajority of Republicans, many of whom derided her as an activist jurist. They also saw an opening.

In South Carolina, unlike all but one other state, the legislature alone selects judges. And in just a few weeks, they would vote on Hearn’s replacement.

The three candidates, who’d been put forward by a legislative commission, were all widely respected judges on the state Court of Appeals: one man, two women. Both women had longer tenures on the state’s second-highest court than the man. One had beat him before: She’d won over legislators in the 2014 race for her appeals court seat. He arrived three years later.

It wasn’t certain how any of the candidates might rule on an abortion case. (Before Dobbs, federal courts handled nearly all abortion law.) Nor were the candidates’ political views obvious; state judicial canon strictly forbids commentary on controversies or issues that may come before the court.

But before lawmakers could cast their votes, the overwhelmingly male lot of Republicans rallied behind the male candidate, Gary Hill, ultimately creating the only all-male state Supreme Court in the nation.

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

The NY Times

By Minho Kim

Vice President JD Vance attacked federal judges on Sunday for blocking several of the Trump administration’s sweeping executive actions, characterizing their recent decisions as “illegal.”

“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” Mr. Vance wrote on social media.

Mr. Vance’s post raises questions about whether the Trump administration will abide by federal rulings curtailing President Trump’s agenda. He compared judicial intervention to courts telling generals how to conduct military operations, suggesting that American presidents should wield broad powers in executing their domestic policy.

Federal courts have risen in the first weeks of the Trump administration as the front lines of a push from state attorneys general and outside watchdogs’ efforts to stop the Trump administration from enacting partisan policies through extensive directives and executive orders.

In recent days, those critics racked up a considerable number of victories, as federal courts have blocked some of Mr. Trump’s executive actions, at least temporarily. Judges have shut down decrees from Mr. Trump and his officials aimed at ending birthright citizenship, transferring transgender female inmates to male-only prisons, potentially exposing identities of F.B.I. employees who investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, coaxing federal workers to accept “deferred resignation” under a tight deadline and freezing as much as $3 trillion in domestic spending.

Judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents both joined in condemning some of Mr. Trump’s most contentious decrees, such as ending birthright citizenship or shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development, which Congress had established and funded.

One of the most scathing judicial criticisms came from a Reagan-appointed judge who was the second to block Mr. Trump’s order to end universal birthright citizenship.

“The Constitution is not something with which the government may play policy games,” Judge John C. Coughenour said, referring to the 14th Amendment, which endows U.S. citizenship to “all persons born” in the United States.

Such a change, he added, could be made only through amending the Constitution. “That’s how the rule of law works.”

[misfitwashere]

Advice and consent or total submission?

The Senate will soon hold hearings on Trump’s Cabinet picks. At least four are dangerously unqualified. Will Senate Republicans have enough integrity to vote against them?

ROBERT REICH

JAN 6

Friends,

The cast of characters Trump has chosen to populate his second term are a Star Wars cantina of fanatics, extremists, conspiracy theorists, sexual harassers, and disreputable no-goods. They have little or no experience running government, let alone expertise in the issues confronting the agencies and departments Trump wants them to lead.

Over the next two weeks, the Senate will hold confirmation hearings on them. As soon as they’re completed and Trump takes the oath of office on January 20, the Senate will vote on them. Most if not all Senate Democrats will vote against them, so Trump can afford to lose the votes of only three Senate Republicans.

The question, therefore, is whether at least four Senate Republicans have enough integrity to refuse to confirm the worst of them. The worst of the worst are: 

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick for secretary of defense. Hegseth has a reputation for sexual harassment, including an allegation of assault in 2017. (His own mother accused him in writing of repeatedly abusing women but subsequently disavowed the statement.) According to a recent report, Hegseth was ousted from leadership roles in two military veterans organizations following allegations of financial mismanagement, aggressive drunkenness, and sexist behavior. 

Nonetheless, Hegseth has appeared to win over key Senate Republicans. Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, an Armed Services Committee member and the Senate’s first female combat veteran, has been deeply concerned about sexual harassment and assault in the military (where she says she was assaulted). But Trump Republicans have threatened to run a primary challenger against her if she doesn’t support Hegseth —which seems to have changed her attitude toward him. 

Of all Trump’s nominations, Hegseth is probably closest to Trump in character and temperament, which should be damning enough to stop his confirmation. He’s scheduled to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing on January 14. Stay tuned. 

Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to direct the FBI. He has called for firing the top ranks of the FBI, prosecuting leakers and journalists, and replacing the national security workforce with “people who won’t undermine the president’s agenda.” 

Patel has even created a list of whom he dubs “government gangsters” — headlined by outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland — who he says “must be held accountable and exposed in 2024.” He has pledged to investigate Trump’s political opponents and “come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig the presidential election.” 

Of all Trump’s picks, Patel may be the most dangerous. 

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence. She has publicly called for the U.S. to allow Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to remain in power and traveled to Syria to meet with him. She even challenged U.S. intelligence that found Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons. 

Gabbard is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and a favorite on Russian propaganda. In 2022, she used her platform to amplify a Russian talking point that the U.S. had somehow provoked Putin to invade Ukraine.

Why in the world would Trump want her to head national intelligence — unless, of course, Trump himself is compromised? 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick for heading the Department of Health and Human Resources. Kennedy Jr. is a well-known anti-vaxxer who has made the baseless claims that COVID-19 was “targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people” and that “the people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” 

Kennedy Jr. keeps repeating the long-debunked claim that vaccines cause autism in kids, along with his insistence that the COVID vaccine has killed more people than it’s saved, which is another lie. 

He’s a wacko. Nonetheless, his critiques of corporate influence over food and drugs might possibly gain the votes of two Democrats: Bernie Sanders and John Fetterman. 

**

The Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2), gives the Senate the power of “advice and consent” over a president’s key appointments. Advice and consent requires careful screening, not outright submission to the will of an incoming president. 

If you live in a state with Republican senators (or in Sanders’s Vermont or Fetterman’s Pennsylvania), you might remind them that they have a constitutional duty to not allow the U.S. government to fall into the hands of unqualified and potentially dangerous people like the four mentioned above. 

[bllsbailey]

Gov. Newsom And State Lawmakers Brainstorm How California Laws Can Be 'Trump-Proof'

California Governor Gavin Newsom stands at a press conference on October 27, 2024 in Los Angeles, California.

California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom and other state legislators will reportedly convene on Monday to defend California’s “progressive policies” in the run-up to President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

In order to prepare for a legal battle against what Democrats refer to as “anticipated federal challenges,” Newsom is requesting that his allies in the Legislature, who have supermajorities in both houses, approve more financing for the attorney general’s office at a special session at the California state capitol on Monday.

On Monday, Democrat Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel suggested spending $25 million to strengthen the attorney general’s defense division. He claimed that the purpose of these funds would allegedly be to “protect” state programs related to illegal immigration, abortion, climate-related initiatives, and “civil rights” from expected federal opposition.

“While we always hope to collaborate with our federal partners, California will be ready to vigorously defend our interests and values from any unlawful action by the incoming Trump Administration,” Gabriel said in a statement.

California officials brought more than 120 lawsuits against Trump’s administration during his first term.

“According to officials, the state spent roughly $42 million in litigation costs during the first Trump administration,” Newsweek reported, highlighting how Newsom and California officials had no problem spending taxpayers’ hard-earned money on lawsuits that never made any dent in the course of Trump’s first term.

Newsom is unwavering in his efforts to prevent the GOP’s idealized America, which includes a society uplifted by the Bill of Rights and Constitution, gun rights, freedom of religion, lower taxes, stricter laws for criminals, a stronger economy, keeping biological men and boys out of female sports, locker rooms, and safe spaces, inhibiting illegal immigration, and giving power back to parents, rather than California teachers with a political agenda.  

“We’re not going to be caught flat-footed,” Newsom said at a news conference, highlighting the state’s preparedness to fight back on Trump’s federal regulations.

Trump has previously voiced his opposition to Newsom and California’s policies. During his 2020 campaign, Trump called the governor “New-scum” and criticized the state for its pro-illegal immigration laws, extremist environmental regulations, and growing homelessness problem. In addition, he has promised mass deportations of illegal immigrants, which makes up a large demographic of California’s workforce, at least in comparison to other U.S. states.

“The six states with the largest unauthorized [illegal] immigrant populations in 2022 were: California (1.8 million) Texas (1.6 million) Florida (1.2 million),” according to the Pew Research Center. However, since these figures were reported in 2022, the number of illegals is most likely much higher now at the end of the year 2024.

Gabriel continued explaining his thoughts on the upcoming second Trump term.

“We are positioned, if necessary, to be the tip of the spear of the resistance and to push back against any unlawful or unconstitutional actions by the Trump administration,” Gabriel, who chairs the budget committee, said, according to AP News.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sam Stockard at Tennessee Lookout:

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court’s ruling and upheld Tennessee’s 2023 ban on adult cabaret entertainment in front of children. The court found that Memphis theater group Friends of George’s, which puts on drag shows, failed to show standing in its challenge of the state law and instructed the U.S. District to dismiss the case. The theater group filed suit against the state claiming the ban on cabaret performances and drag shows violated its First Amendment rights. The district court sided with Friends of George’s and declared the law unconstitutional, permanently enjoining Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy from enforcing the law in his jurisdiction. Mulroy appealed the ruling, questioning the cabaret club’s standing and the merits of an injunction overriding the ban. The appeals court determined the group failed to meet its burden that the ban would put it in danger of prosecution and sent the case back to the lower court with orders to dismiss it.

The case stemmed from the Legislature’s passage of the Adult Entertainment Act in 2023 that made it illegal to put on adult cabaret shows on public property or in places where the entertainment could be seen by a minor. “Adult cabaret entertainment” is defined as “adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors” and feature topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators and similar entertainers. The law’s passage stemmed, in part, from complaints about an annual PRIDE parade in Jackson that could be seen by children. The Tennessee Attorney General’s Office pointed out afterward the Sixth Circuit found that the district court was mistaken, in saying “there is no constitutional interest in exhibiting indecent material to minors.”

In a 3-judge hearing at the right-wing 6th Circuit Court, the 6th overturned a lower court ruling that barred Tennessee from enforcing drag ban law SB3 in Friends of George’s v. Mulroy by tossing out the case because Friends of George’s didn’t have any standing to sue.

[news365timesindia]

[ad_1] Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris are gearing up for a closely contested race in the upcoming U.S. presidential election on November 5, with both candidates making final appeals in critical battleground states. Several third-party candidates are also participating in the election. Here’s a summary of the candidates: Democratic Party Kamala Harris Harris, 60, secured the Democratic nomination after President Biden withdrew from the race, aiming to present a fresh vision for America that contrasts with Trump’s agenda. With a background as a U.S. senator and California attorney general, she made history as the first woman and person of color to serve as vice president. If elected, she would be the first female president in the country’s history. Polls indicate that Harris holds a slight edge over Trump, leading nationally by 44% to 43% in a Reuters/Ipsos survey published on October 29. Other polls show tight competition in essential battleground states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Michigan, and Nevada. In the closing weeks of her campaign, Harris has intensified efforts to portray Trump as a danger to democracy, citing his inflammatory remarks. She is advocating for reproductive rights and supports a national law to ensure access to safe abortion. Harris’s economic proposals include tax cuts for most Americans, measures against price gouging, affordable housing initiatives, and a child tax credit. She has suggested raising the corporate tax rate to 28% and eliminating taxes on tips. Regarding immigration, she aims for stricter border controls and efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking. Her stance on climate and energy aligns with Biden’s focus on addressing climate change. Harris has worked to maintain a positive relationship with the tech industry while addressing concerns related to competition and privacy. On foreign policy, Harris is expected to largely follow Biden’s approach on key issues such as support for Ukraine and Taiwan and seeking peace in Gaza while condemning Hamas. She has garnered endorsements from various labor organizations and leaders across different sectors. Republican Party Donald Trump At 78, Trump is running for president for the third time, having won the Republican nomination in July. He continues to claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him, campaigning amid significant legal challenges, including recent indictments related to his efforts to contest the election results. During his presidency from 2017 to 2021, Trump became the first president to be impeached twice and has characterized his legal troubles as politically motivated, promising “retribution” against adversaries. He has chosen Senator JD Vance of Ohio as his running mate. Trump’s campaign includes promises of mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship, and imposing new tariffs on imports. He aims to prioritize American workers, proposing cuts to taxes on tips and overtime, lowering corporate taxes, and expanding access to federal lands for energy companies. In terms of foreign policy, Trump has pledged to fundamentally change the U.S. relationship with NATO and to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, potentially through negotiations that might require territorial concessions from Kyiv. He has received backing from police organizations and former officials, though some Republicans have criticized his personal attacks on Harris. Third Parties & Independents Libertarian Party: Chase Oliver The Libertarian Party nominated Chase Oliver, 39, who previously ran for a Georgia Senate seat in 2022. Green Party: Jill Stein Jill Stein, a physician aged 74, returns as the Green Party nominee, focusing on climate action and economic reform. Independent: Cornel West Cornel West, a philosopher and activist, initially ran as a Green Party candidate but has since declared himself an independent, advocating for poverty reduction and guaranteed housing for all.

[news365times]

[ad_1] Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris are gearing up for a closely contested race in the upcoming U.S. presidential election on November 5, with both candidates making final appeals in critical battleground states. Several third-party candidates are also participating in the election. Here’s a summary of the candidates: Democratic Party Kamala Harris Harris, 60, secured the Democratic nomination after President Biden withdrew from the race, aiming to present a fresh vision for America that contrasts with Trump’s agenda. With a background as a U.S. senator and California attorney general, she made history as the first woman and person of color to serve as vice president. If elected, she would be the first female president in the country’s history. Polls indicate that Harris holds a slight edge over Trump, leading nationally by 44% to 43% in a Reuters/Ipsos survey published on October 29. Other polls show tight competition in essential battleground states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Michigan, and Nevada. In the closing weeks of her campaign, Harris has intensified efforts to portray Trump as a danger to democracy, citing his inflammatory remarks. She is advocating for reproductive rights and supports a national law to ensure access to safe abortion. Harris’s economic proposals include tax cuts for most Americans, measures against price gouging, affordable housing initiatives, and a child tax credit. She has suggested raising the corporate tax rate to 28% and eliminating taxes on tips. Regarding immigration, she aims for stricter border controls and efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking. Her stance on climate and energy aligns with Biden’s focus on addressing climate change. Harris has worked to maintain a positive relationship with the tech industry while addressing concerns related to competition and privacy. On foreign policy, Harris is expected to largely follow Biden’s approach on key issues such as support for Ukraine and Taiwan and seeking peace in Gaza while condemning Hamas. She has garnered endorsements from various labor organizations and leaders across different sectors. Republican Party Donald Trump At 78, Trump is running for president for the third time, having won the Republican nomination in July. He continues to claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him, campaigning amid significant legal challenges, including recent indictments related to his efforts to contest the election results. During his presidency from 2017 to 2021, Trump became the first president to be impeached twice and has characterized his legal troubles as politically motivated, promising “retribution” against adversaries. He has chosen Senator JD Vance of Ohio as his running mate. Trump’s campaign includes promises of mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship, and imposing new tariffs on imports. He aims to prioritize American workers, proposing cuts to taxes on tips and overtime, lowering corporate taxes, and expanding access to federal lands for energy companies. In terms of foreign policy, Trump has pledged to fundamentally change the U.S. relationship with NATO and to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, potentially through negotiations that might require territorial concessions from Kyiv. He has received backing from police organizations and former officials, though some Republicans have criticized his personal attacks on Harris. Third Parties & Independents Libertarian Party: Chase Oliver The Libertarian Party nominated Chase Oliver, 39, who previously ran for a Georgia Senate seat in 2022. Green Party: Jill Stein Jill Stein, a physician aged 74, returns as the Green Party nominee, focusing on climate action and economic reform. Independent: Cornel West Cornel West, a philosopher and activist, initially ran as a Green Party candidate but has since declared himself an independent, advocating for poverty reduction and guaranteed housing for all.

[noisycowboyglitter]

Madam Vice President Kamala Harris: Forging a Path for Women in Politics

Kamala Harris made history in 2021 when she became the first woman, first Black person, and first person of South Asian descent to hold the office of Vice President of the United States. Serving alongside President Joe Biden, Harris has taken on a range of responsibilities and initiatives during her tenure.

Buy now:19.95$

Born in Oakland, California, to immigrant parents from India and Jamaica, Harris's background reflects the diversity of modern America. Her career in public service began as a prosecutor in Alameda County, California, before she was elected as the District Attorney of San Francisco and later as the Attorney General of California.

In 2016, Harris was elected to the United States Senate, representing California. During her time in the Senate, she gained national attention for her sharp questioning during committee hearings and her advocacy for progressive policies. Her performance in the Senate and her presidential campaign in 2019-2020 ultimately led to her selection as Joe Biden's running mate for the 2020 election.

As Vice President, Harris has been tasked with addressing complex issues such as immigration reform, voting rights, and racial equity. Her role has included diplomatic missions, tie-breaking votes in the Senate, and serving as a key advisor to the President.

Buy now

Harris's vice presidency has been marked by both achievements and challenges. While she has broken barriers and inspired many, she has also faced criticism and scrutiny from various political quarters. Her performance and impact continue to be subjects of national discussion as she navigates her historic role in American politics.

The Feminist Inauguration of January 20, 2021, marked a significant milestone in American politics and women's rights. This historic event saw Kamala Harris sworn in as the first female, first Black, and first South Asian Vice President of the United States, shattering long-standing barriers in the nation's highest offices.

Buy now

The inauguration ceremony itself reflected a strong feminist theme, with several women playing prominent roles. Youth poet laureate Amanda Gorman delivered a powerful and inspiring poem, while Lady Gaga and Jennifer Lopez performed stirring renditions of the national anthem and patriotic songs.

The event symbolized progress in gender equality and representation, coming just over 100 years after women gained the right to vote in the U.S. It was seen as a victory for feminist movements and a beacon of hope for future generations of women in leadership.

Buy now

Beyond the ceremony, the Biden-Harris administration emphasized its commitment to gender equality by appointing a record number of women to cabinet positions and other key roles in the government. This "Feminist Inauguration" set the tone for an administration pledging to prioritize issues affecting women and promote greater inclusivity in American politics and society.