After the 2020 presidential election that resulted in a clear victory for Joe Biden, Donald Trump tried mightily to overturn the outcome. He has persistently insisted to this day that he won and Biden lost. On January 6, 2021, Trump ordered then-Vice President Mike Pence to violate his constitutional duty to certify the duly elected electors before the joint session of Congress by counting only…
Source
As we hurtle toward the midterm elections, Democrats are confronting two contradictory sets of numbers. Their poll numbers are surging, and their fundraising numbers are woefully behind the GOP’s. Recent filings showed that the Democratic National Committee had approximately $16 million cash on hand and almost $18 million in debt, while the Republican National Committee had $130 million and no debt.
A monetary advantage does not always translate into an electoral win. But money in politics matters deeply. If it didn’t, candidates, political parties and outside groups would stop raising and spending it.
A monetary advantage does not always translate into an electoral win. But money in politics matters deeply.
Now voters in Montana may soon try to stem that tide of money in their state. A ballot initiative would allow Montana voters to decide whether to bar corporations from spending money in elections. Supporters of the initiative argue that corporations are created by state statutes, and states can decline to give their own creations the ability to spend money in elections.
Except there is a huge problem with this ballot initiative, and it’s called the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has long held that money given and spent in elections is the equivalent of speech, and therefore that restrictions on giving and spending in campaigns are subject to First Amendment review. And then of course in 2010 the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Citizens United: A thin majority of the court concluded that when it comes to spending on campaigns, the identity of the speaker (aka spender) does not matter, and corporations should be treated the same way as individuals.
Play
Meet
A federal appeals court Friday struck down the Trump administration’s policy to quickly send noncitizens to countries they are not from, finding that immigrants must have an opportunity to challenge their removal if they fear for their safety. The decision largely upheld a Boston federal judge’s February ruling that found the Department of Homeland Security’s policy unlawful.
Source
The Endangered Species Act has stood as a pillar of conservation in the United States since 1973, bringing animals like bald eagles, manatees, and humpback whales back from the brink of extinction. But now, the Trump administration has taken its boldest step yet in an effort to strip legal protections for endangered species. Starting this week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says that it…
Source
President Donald Trump’s bid to revive his defamation case against CNN over the network’s use of the phrase “big lie” regarding his 2020 election claims is now at a critical juncture at the Supreme Court.
When the president filed his petition to the justices last month, the network’s opposition brief became due Sept. 21. But ahead of that deadline, CNN this week waived its right to respond to the petition.
There are two basic routes that the high court can take in light of the network’s waiver.
It can call for a response, in which case CNN would file one and the justices would evaluate it before deciding whether to grant review of Trump’s petition.
Or it can do nothing and let the petition proceed to be scheduled for one of the justices’ upcoming private conferences at which they consider pending matters; if the petition is conferenced without the court calling for a response from CNN, then the denial of Trump’s petition is a near certainty. It would amount to the network saying there is nothing worth responding to and the justices effectively agreeing via their silence.
A single justice can call for a response. It takes four justices to grant review.
The court issues order lists after the justices’ conferences, listing which petitions are granted and which are denied. The lists mainly comprise denials, because the court only grants review in a relative handful of cases compared with the thousands of petitions it receives annually.
We do not yet know which route the court will take in Trump v. CNN, and the court is not on a firm deadline to decide. Even if the court
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a federal judge’s order requiring Missouri to use a gerrymandered congressional map in November, putting the state back on course to conduct the election using districts drawn in 2022. In a one-page order, the court granted an emergency request from a political action committee called People Not Politicians and its executive director…
Source