The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has found U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents who fatally beat Mexican father Anastasio Hernández Rojas responsible for acts of torture. It’s the first time the independent commission, which investigates extrajudicial killings and human rights violations, has issued such findings against a U.S. law enforcement agency. In 2010, Rojas was crossing the southern border in an attempt to return to San Diego, where he’d lived for 25 years, to reunite with his wife and five children after being deported. He was stopped by border agents, who brutally beat and tasered him while he was handcuffed, until Rojas died from heart failure. His death was later ruled a homicide.

This comes as President Trump’s nominee to head Customs and Border Protection, Rodney Scott, is accused of obstructing the criminal probe into Rojas’s killing.

The decision “exposes the unchecked powers of policing in the United States and holds the United States accountable for what is one of the worst violations in human rights, which is the taking of a life,” says Andrea Guerrero, executive director of Alliance San Diego.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

“Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Doug Burgum are plotting to sell off America’s national public lands to their billionaire friends, and Kate MacGregor is the perfect henchwoman. During the first Trump administration, MacGregor became infamous as a conduit for fossil fuel and mining interests to realize their extractive agenda. MacGregor was the key Interior Department contact for energy companies looking for help with regulations and permits—with one fossil fuel trade group executive noting that ‘we’ll call Kate’ was the solution to virtually every problem.

“If MacGregor returns to the Trump administration, she will serve Trump, Burgum and Elon Musk’s efforts to sell off public lands, limit public access, and let oil, gas, and mining companies exploit and damage national public lands without any semblance of safeguards. Public lands belong to all Americans, not wealthy corporate executives. The Trump administration’s extreme agenda of selling off and exploiting our nation’s natural areas, while making reckless decisions that threaten public safety, stands to ruin Americans’ summer vacations, increase wildfire risk across the country and enrich wealthy corporate interests.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

• February 19^th marks anniversary of Executive Order 9066 Japanese internment, Newsom proclamation urges standing up for civil rights regardless of immigration status
• Trump’s Labor Secretary nominee tells senators she’ll implement Trump agenda, allays republican qualms over past support for union legislation
• Bay area religious leaders reaffirm support for California sanctuary for migrants on anniversary of WW2 Japanese internment order
• UC Santa Cruz students, faculty walk out in protest of Trump immigration policies
• Stanford designated as hostile campus because of its response to pro-Palestinian activism
• World Health Organization, UNICEF conducting mass vaccinations for polio in Gaza, as new US commission scrutinizes childhood vaccine schedule

The post Anniversary of Japanese internment marked by protests against Trump policies; Labor secretary nominee says she’ll implement Trump agenda – February 19, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, was questioned by lawmakers Tuesday in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, which largely focused on his decades of anti-vaccine activism, as well as his views on abortion and other healthcare issues. We play excerpts from the contentious hearing and speak with the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who says Democrats successfully highlighted his controversial views, potentially putting his confirmation at risk despite the Republican majority in the Senate. “This is one of the most important positions in the world as it relates to healthcare,” says Wyden. “He cannot be trusted, … and he’s unprepared.” Kennedy faces a second day of questioning today before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Former U.S. Rep. Billy Long of Missouri, whom President-elect Donald Trump has named his nominee to head the IRS, touts his expertise in tax matters.

He advertises his credential as a certified tax and business advisor, and he adds CTBA to his name on his X profile. That profile encourages people to message him to “save 40% on your taxes.”

But tax experts told ProPublica that they have never heard of CTBA as a credential in the tax profession. The designation is offered by a small Florida firm, Excel Empire, which was established just two years ago and only requires attendance at a three-day seminar. That is in stark contrast to the 150 credit hours and the rigorous exams required to become a certified public accountant, a standard certification for tax accountants.

In most tax cases, only lawyers, CPAs and enrolled agents — federally authorized tax practitioners — can represent taxpayers at the IRS.

“The cost of relying on tax advice from somebody that is solely focused on minimizing the tax liabilities that you have — as opposed to somebody that’s focused on both minimizing the tax liabilities and complying with the tax law — can be extraordinarily high if you are found to be in violation of the standards,” said Nathan Goldman, an associate professor of accounting at North Carolina State University.

Excel Empire’s three-day certification course has been advertised for as much as $30,000; its upcoming session is advertised at $4,997. Matthew Pearson, one of its founders, said this summer in a podcast that about 135 people have earned the CTBA designation, which the firm designed to help people without tax backgrounds to become advisors.

Nina Olson, a prominent taxpayer advocate, said that the modern tax industry has seen “a proliferation of different groups and entities that are providing tax advice” and that consumers have no way of knowing who is competent.

“It could just be that you’ve taken a very short course, and paid a large fee for that course, and that gives you the ability to put some initials after your name,” said Olson, who served as the IRS’ national taxpayer advocate from 2001 to 2019. She is now executive director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, a Washington-based nonprofit that promotes fairness and access to justice in tax systems.

Tax experts said that Long’s years of experience as a real estate agent and as an auctioneer — before spending a dozen years in Congress — pales next to the deep experience in tax policy or management of the people who have held the job. For instance, the current IRS commissioner, Danny Werfel, previously served as acting IRS commissioner and held leadership roles at the Office of Management and Budget. He also worked in the private sector as a managing director at Boston Consulting Group.

Long’s experience in the tax world has been more narrowly focused. In the two years since he left Congress, he worked to bring in customers for at least two firms that marketed the employee retention credit — a pandemic-era benefit designed to support businesses that kept workers despite revenue losses or disruptions caused by COVID-19.

The credit also attracted fraud, eventually landing on the IRS’ “worst of the worst” list for tax scams. Two Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday announced an investigation into the firms, noting Long had neither a “background in tax preparation nor any credential as a licensed accountant, attorney or enrolled agent.”

Worth up to $28,000 per employee, the credit was available for the 2020 and 2021 tax years and has been widely used by both for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations across the country. However, the IRS raised significant concerns about aggressive promoters pushing ineligible businesses to file questionable claims. Red flags included inflated payroll numbers, claims for all quarters without proper eligibility or citing minor government orders that did not directly impact business operations.

The IRS says it has recovered over $1 billion from businesses that voluntarily reported improper claims. And it has launched hundreds of criminal investigations to try to recoup what it says could be billions of dollars more.

In a prepared statement in November, Werfel said businesses should review their claims and see if they were misled by firms marketing the tax credit.

“They should listen to trusted tax professionals, not promoters,” he said.

In a 2023 podcast discussing his work for the two firms, Long joked that he had a hat bearing the name of the credit glued to his head. He said his work marketing the tax credit had caused some clients to question their CPAs’ advice.

“Hey, this auctioneer, real estate broker, former congressman told me I’m going to get $1.2 million back,” he said. “Uh, you’re my CPA. Why didn’t you tell me that?” And he said the response of CPAs would be: “That’s a joke. That’s a fake deal. That’s not true. You’re going to have to pay all that money back. You’ll get audited.”

But he said the firms he worked for had never seen the IRS turn down one of their claims.

There is no evidence that either Excel Empire, Long or the firms that he worked for — Lifetime Advisors of Hudson, Wisconsin, and Commerce Terrace Consulting of Springfield, Missouri — engaged in wrongdoing. In the same 2023 podcast, Long emphasized he and his colleagues had helped only taxpayers who were entitled to the benefit.

Neither Long, Lifetime Advisors nor Commerce Terrace Consulting responded to requests for comment.

If Long is confirmed and succeeds Werfel, he’ll have the power to influence how Americans pay their taxes and how the federal government collects revenue. Trump has promised to end IRS “overstepping,” while Republicans have said that they would slash billions of dollars in funding passed under the Biden administration to modernize the IRS and enhance tax enforcement.

The IRS and the Trump transition team did not respond to requests for comment.

During his time representing Southwest Missouri in Congress, Long pursued legislation to abolish the IRS and establish a national sales tax. Billionaire Elon Musk, a Trump advisor, recently asked on X if the agency’s budget should be “deleted.”

Like Long, members of Excel Empire suggest that accountants don’t feel it is their role to save their clients money because they prioritize compliance over planning and are too busy during tax season to discuss strategies. The company’s website claims the firm has saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Edward Lyon, who is listed on Excel Empire’s website as chief tax planner and tax attorney, writes on his personal website that the seven most expensive words in the English language are “My CPA takes care of my taxes.”

Lyon elaborated on a podcast last year, noting that accountants “generally are rule followers,” but when it comes to lawyers, “we are trained to understand the rules but we’re trained to stretch the rules and bend the rules and poke at the rules and do an end run around the rules. It's a much more proactive focus.” Still, he has consistently emphasized that his company acts “legally, ethically and morally.”

The company’s co-founder, Pearson, once described Lyon on a podcast as the “preeminent proactive tax attorney in the country.” Lyon and Pearson declined to comment.

The Ohio Supreme Court suspended Lyon’s law license in 2005 for failing to meet registration and fee requirements on time, and he hasn’t regained it. He also does not appear to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment advisor.

Despite this, Lyon says he has trained tens of thousands of tax and finance professionals. As the author of several books and a column, he claims to be one of the country’s most widely read tax strategists and commands speaking fees of $15,000 and first-class travel arrangements.

Lyon has also developed several tax certification programs. On the Excel Empire website, some officers, including Pearson, use a title created by Lyon: tax master.

Appearing on another podcast, Lyon discussed how small businesses can be used as tax shelters. As an example, he asked the host, Heather Wagenhals — who also carries the CTBA title — if she had a swimming pool at her home, where she records her show.

“I do,” Wagenhals said. “That’s why I picked this one.”

Lyon responded: “All right, so I’m gonna rock your world in five words, ready? On-premises employee athletic facility.”

“Oh my God!” Wagenhals said.

Lyon added: “It’s really there in the tax code, and nobody’s told you that.”

In another podcast, Pearson brags about firing an accountant who balked at his request for advice about how to use a new Corvette “to keep from paying taxes.”

Olson said that attitude was disturbing and that simplistic answers can create problems for taxpayers in IRS audits and in the courts. “A swimming pool in someone’s home, even if employees are working in the home and using it, still would require the court to look at the percentage of employee use versus personal use — and they would look really closely at that,” she said.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Jeremy Kohler and Alex Mierjeski.

In her first major interview since ascending to the top of the Democratic ticket, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris was questioned by CNN’s Dana Bash about her policy positions and campaign platform. We begin with a look at Harris’s increasingly rightward stance on immigration and border policy with immigration activist Erika Andiola. As she touted her support for hard-line border security and asylum policies, Harris positioned herself as tougher on immigration than Trump. “Republican talking points … now truly have become Democrat talking points,” says Andiola.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The Democratic National Committee is moving to confirm President Joe Biden as the party’s presidential nominee with a “virtual roll call” as early as next week, despite serious doubts from many Democratic lawmakers and voters about his viability following a disastrous debate performance in late June. “Joe Biden could be nominated for president next week, even though the convention is almost a month away,” says The Nation’s John Nichols.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

As Democrats discuss whether President Joe Biden should stand down as the 2024 Democratic presidential candidate following his disastrous debate performance, we speak with James Zogby, senior member of the Democratic National Committee, about his call for an open and transparent nomination process to select new candidates leading up to the Democratic National Convention next month, where the final nominee would be voted on. “I want to see a unified, energized party with a lot of excitement because they were part of a historic process of change,” says Zogby, who is president of the Arab American Institute.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

As Democrats discuss whether President Joe Biden should stand down as the 2024 Democratic presidential candidate following his disastrous debate performance, we speak with James Zogby, senior member of the Democratic National Committee, about his call for an open and transparent nomination process to select new candidates leading up to the Democratic National Convention next month, where the final nominee would be voted on. “I want to see a unified, energized party with a lot of excitement because they were part of a historic process of change,” says Zogby, who is president of the Arab American Institute.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Former President Donald Trump trounced runner-up Nikki Haley in Tuesday’s Republican primary, in what Jeff Sharlet, expert on the far right, says is another landmark in the acceleration of fascism in the United States. “Trump is the nominee. Fascism is on the ballot,” says Sharlet, who describes how Trump is appealing to broader groups of Americans, why the political press is failing to capture the fascist movement, and the importance of resisting its growth. “It’s popular front time. It’s broad coalition time.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

We feature highlights on climate change, foreign policy and Trump from the first Republican presidential debate of the 2023 race and speak with John Nichols, The Nation's national affairs correspondent. We also look at how former president and front-runner Donald Trump refused to attend the debate ahead of turning himself in at the Fulton County Jail in Atlanta, Georgia, to face racketeering charges for running a criminal enterprise with 18 co-defendants to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. The debate felt like “an argument at the kids' table on Thanksgiving rather than a classic political debate,” says Nichols, who says candidates were attempting to become Trump’s vice president or project themselves as leaders in a post-Trump Republican Party.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

• House Republicans approve bill banning transgender athletes in most women’s or girl’s school sports
• Julie Su’s nomination to serve as Labor Secretary faces opposition from Republicans and big business — and maybe some Democrats
• Attorney John Burris files federal civil rights lawsuit against Antioch and its police department
• Attorney Generals in 17 states want a recall of Kia and Hyundai cars because they’re too easy to steal

The post House Republicans vote to ban transgender students from women’s and girl’s school sports; Labor Secretary nominee Julie Su faces Republican opposition at confirmation hearing; Federal civil rights lawsuit filed against Antioch and its police department: The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – April 20, 2023 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

More than five dozen advocacy organizations on Friday implored U.S. President Joe Biden to swiftly select a Federal Communications Commission candidate who will serve the public interest, not the telecommunications industry.

The coalition's letter stresses that a fifth commissioner is urgently needed to end the current 2-2 deadlock and enable the FCC to "increase digital equity and media diversity, bolster online privacy and safety protection, and reassert its rightful authority over broadband to ensure everyone in the United States has access to this essential service."

The message to Biden comes after Gigi Sohnremoved herself from consideration last week, citing the "legions of cable and media industry lobbyists, their bought-and-paid-for surrogates, and dark money political groups with bottomless pockets" who distorted her "over 30-year history as a consumer advocate into an absurd caricature of blatant lies."

"We call on you to immediately put forth a new nominee—specifically, one who has a history of advocacy for the public interest and is free of industry conflicts of interest."

Sohn, the new letter states, "was eminently qualified to serve as a commissioner. But after 16 months of organized and well-funded attacks by dark-money groups—which were carried out by lobbyists, enabled by complicit elected leaders, and amplified in partisan media—Sohn made the understandable decision to withdraw from consideration."

Organizations behind the letter—including Common Cause, Demand Progress Education Fund, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action, Our Revolution, Public Knowledge, Revolving Door Project, and RootsAction.org—were outraged over both the telecom industry smear campaign against Sohn and top Democrats' refusal to fiercely defend the nomination. Her withdrawal has sparked fears that Biden will choose an industry-friendly candidate.

"Now, we call on you to immediately put forth a new nominee—specifically, one who has a history of advocacy for the public interest and is free of industry conflicts of interest; demonstrates a clear commitment to championing the rights of low-income families and communities of color; and supports Title II oversight and laws that ensure the FCC the authority to prevent unjust discrimination and promote affordable access," the coalition wrote to Biden.

"We ask you to actively press the Democratic majority in the Senate to swiftly confirm your nominee," the groups added. "We cannot permit senators to prevent forward progress any longer at the behest of the very corporations the FCC is meant to regulate."

Free Press Action president and co-CEO Craig Aaron similarly argued in a Common Dreams opinion piece last week:

We must oppose and reject any return to business as usual that furthers industry capture of the FCC.

Instead, we need to demand an independent candidate with public-interest bona fides and a clear commitment to racial justice and civil rights. They must show they're willing to stand up to lies. They must be unequivocal in their support for restoring the FCC's authority, and making sure that the internet is open, affordable, available, and reliable for everyone. They must demonstrate a commitment to engaging the public, not just meeting with lobbyists.

Sohn's defeat also "has implications that go far beyond the FCC," Aaron noted. "The Republicans and their Democratic enablers are setting out markers for who's allowed to serve in government."

"They made clear that public servants will be pilloried while ex-corporate lobbyists sail through," he wrote. "Women and LGBTQIA+ folks—Sohn would have been the first lesbian to serve as an FCC commissioner—will be slandered. Tweeting about police violence can be disqualifying (in the Senate, retweets do equal endorsements). Questioning the propriety of Fox News—even as it's being exposed for aiding and abetting election lies and insurrection—is unacceptable. A basic understanding of U.S. history and racism may be disqualifying."

Sohn "deserved better," Aaron tweeted. "But I hope we—and the White House and Democratic Party, especially—can learn so it doesn't happen again."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Suggesting that the appointment of federal regulators who acknowledge the threat of the climate crisis is a signal of inappropriate "partisan politics," U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Joe Manchin on Friday announced that he will not advance President Joe Biden's nominee to oversee land and minerals management at the Interior Department.

In an op-ed for The Houston Chronicle, the right-wing West Virginia Democrat wrote after months of speculation that he will not allow Laura Daniel-Davis' nomination for assistant secretary for lands and minerals management to proceed.

Manchin wrote that he particularly objected to a recently revealed internal memo from the Interior Department which showed Daniel-Davis—currently principal deputy assistant secretary for lands and mineral management—approved a decision to not lower federal fees for fossil fuel companies.

As The Hill reported last week, the Interior Department considered charging lower royalties for leased parcels to oil and gas companies when it sold leases in Alaska's Cook Inlet. In theinternal memo, which was mistakenly made public on the department's website, Amanda Lefton, then-director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, claimed that cutting fees would "incentivize additional blocks receiving bids, increase bonus bids, and increase the chances of a discovery being developed."

"Nevertheless, because of the serious challenges facing the nation from climate change and the impact of [greenhouse gases] from fossil fuels, the bureau is not recommending this option since it would not include an appropriate surcharge to account for those impacts," Lefton added, in a decision that secured Daniel-Davis' signoff.

As he weighed Daniel-Davis' nomination last week—months after she was first nominated by Biden—Manchin expressed concern about the memo, saying he opposed the confirmation of anyone he believes has put "their radical climate agenda ahead of the needs of the people of Alaska and the United States."

"With this position vacant, critical clean energy and conservation funds will not reach the communities that need them most."

On Friday, he confirmed in the Chronicle his opposition to Daniel-Davis over what he called her "misguided reasoning" for maintaining higher royalties for fossil fuel companies.

"Even though I supported her in the past," he wrote, "I cannot, in good conscience, support her or anyone else who will play partisan politics and agree with this misguided and dangerous manipulation of the law."

Manchin backed Daniel-Davis in previous committee votes on her nomination last year.

The senator went as far as suggesting Daniel-Davis demonstrated insufficient loyalty to the U.S. when she approved the fees for oil and gas companies, writing on Friday, "Going forward, each and every proposed nominee I will review will be judged through one prism: Are they political partisans first or Americans first?"

On Wednesday, he also denounced officials in the Biden administration for "putting their radical climate agenda ahead of our nation's energy security."

Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, called Manchin's decision "baffling, hypocritical, and short-sighted," noting that Manchin confirmed many of former Republican President Donald Trump's nominees "by saying that he 'always understood the importance of an executive being able to assemble a team of people they trust.'"

"It appears that standard no longer applies," said Rokala.

The group particularly took issue with Manchin's suggestion that "shaping policy based on the threat posed by climate change makes someone a 'political partisan,'" even as polls show more than half of Republican voters back policies to confront the climate crisis.

"Climate policy is not a partisan issue. Climate change doesn't care whether you're a Republican, Democrat, or Independent," said Rokala. "Voters across the political spectrum worry about the threats posed by drought, wildfire, heatwaves, rising seas, and other climate disasters. But it's clear today that Joe Manchin's real constituents are the oil and gas executives at [global energy conference] CERAWeek, not the American people."

The Sierra Club noted that without an assistant secretary for lands and minerals management, "critical clean energy and conservation funds will not reach the communities that need them most."

Manchin's rejection of Daniel-Davis marks just his latest decision obstructing the climate agenda of his own party. Last month he signaled plans to revive a "dirty deal" to accelerate fossil fuel permitting and joined Republicans in pushing a proposal that would bar the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from banning methane-powered gas stoves in the interest of protecting public health and safety.

The senator's latest financial disclosure forms show that he earned nearly $500,000 from his family's coal business and that his share of the company is worth between $1 million and $5 million. The fossil fuel industry donated more money to Manchin than any other lawmaker during the last election cycle.

Jamie Williams, president of the Wilderness Society, said Friday that Manchin's rejection of climate action led him to block a nominee who "is imminently qualified for this role and deserved a fair process."

"We regret that [Daniel-Davis'] exceptional bona fides were not enough to shield her from the politics that seem to have infected the process," said Williams.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

"Greece sold its state-owned railway operator, now called Hellenic Train, to Italy's state-owned Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane in 2017 during its debt crisis," the news outlet noted. "The sale was a term in the country's bailout agreements with the European Union and the Washington-based International Monetary Fund."

More than 40,000 workers and students hit the streets of Athens, where they chanted "murderers!" and "we are all in the same carriage." Demonstrators in Greece's capital and largest city also waved signs reading, It's not an accident, it's a crime" and, "It could have been any of us on that train."

Another 20,000-plus people rallied in Thessaloniki, Greece's second-largest city. Meanwhile, near the scene of the train collision in Larrisa, protesters declared, "No to profits over our lives!"

The demonstrations coincided with a daylong strike called by trade unionists. Greece's largest public sector union participated in the work stoppage, disrupting a wide range of transit services, while a teachers' union made clear that "it's not the time to fall silent."

Rail workers, for their part, "have staged rolling, 24-hour strikes since Thursday, bringing the network to a halt," Reuters reported. "The workers say their demands for improvement in safety protocols have gone unheard for years."

Police have responded to protests held across Greece since the disaster occurred with violent repression.

Many of the roughly 350 passengers aboard an intercity train that collided with a freight train while traveling on the same track—including 12 victims—were university students returning to Thessaloniki from Athens.

The stationmaster was arrested hours after the crash and is facing felony charges for disrupting transport and endangering lives.

"You feel angry because the government did nothing for all of those kids," 19-year-old Nikomathi Vathi told Reuters. "The public transport is a mess."

The main rail workers' union has vowed to "impose safe railways so that no one will ever experience the tragic accident at Tempi ever again," adding that "we have an obligation toward our fellow humans and our colleagues who were lost in the tragic accident."

Leftist former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis this week accused the Greek government of trying to "cover-up the real causes of our railway tragedy... by bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and appointing arbitrarily its own three-member investigative committee—on which, remarkably, they included a gentleman who oversaw the botched privatization of our railways—not to mention the prime minister's pronouncement that the cause was human error."

Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the leader of Greece's conservative government who is up for re-election this year, orginally blamed the crash on human error before apologizing Sunday and "acknowledging that decades of neglect could have contributed to the disaster," Al Jazeera reported.

Hours after the collision, former Transport Minister Kostas Karamanlis resigned. Mitsotakis appointed one of his closest allies, George Gerapetritis, to replace him.

At a Wednesday morning press conference, Gerapetritis said that he understands why people are angry, apologized for the crash and promised to identify its causes, and announced that rail services are being suspended until at least the end of March while the government conducts a safety review.

"No train will set off again if we have not secured safety at the maximum possible level," said Gerapetritis. Greece's new transport minister said the government plans to invest in upgrading infrastructure and hiring more staff.

According to Al Jazeera correspondent John Psaropoulos, the press conference raised "more questions than answers" and is likely to make "the families of the victims even angrier."

As the news outlet reported:

“First of all, we've learned that some of the automated systems that should have been in place throughout the Greek network, were in fact operational on the night of the accident in Larissa station," said Psaropoulos.

He explained that an automated optimal route selection for the train would have been possible, but was not used.

"Secondly, it also doesn't answer why two additional station masters who should have been on duty until 11:00 pm took off at 10:00 pm without permission. Thirdly, it does not answer why the train was about 15 minutes late in leaving," he added, explaining how all these things contributed to the collision.

"It suggests enormous problems in the operation and training of personnel," said Psaropoulos.

E.U. Railway Agency executive director Josef Doppelbauer toldEuronews on Wednesday that his organization repeatedly warned Greek authorities of the need to shore up rail safety prior to the deadly crash.

Despite years of warnings from regulators and the provision of funding to modernize the country's railways, Doppelbauer said, Greek officials failed to fully implement an automated rail traffic management system and other recommended changes. If they had, he added, the disaster likely would have been averted.

European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen has pledged to provide technical support. Gerapetritis was set to meet with Doppelbauer and other transportation experts from the bloc later on Wednesday.

Varoufakis, who served as Greece's finance minister in 2015 when the "troika"—the EC, the European Central Bank, and the IMF—rammed through a devastating "structural adjustment" program, balked at Leyen's offer, arguing that she helped bring about the crisis in the first place.

The EC was part of the unelected troika that "railroaded the Greek government into the botched privatization that caused the tragedy," he noted. "Keep your assistance dear Ursula. We have had enough."

Last week, the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25), which was co-founded by Varoufakis, argued that "the E.U. has blood on its hands."

The deadly collision "has further brought the negligence and corruption of the Greek government under scrutiny, and rightly so," the group said. "However, the role of the European Union in the tragedy cannot go unmentioned either, as it was the E.U. and its institutions who forced Greece to sell off public utilities for a pittance to private—and in the case of the railways, bankrupt and incompetent—companies."

Erik Edman, spokesperson of the European Realistic Disobedience Front (MeRA25), a left-wing Greek political party founded by Varoufakis, denounced the E.U.'s posturing after it lowered its flags to half-mast on Friday in a symbolic tribute to the victims of the crash.

"The architects of the permanent impoverishment of the Greek state and the disastrous privatization of its public property are lowering their flags today," said Edman. "The EC were the brains behind the haphazard privatization that forced the Greek state to sell the entirety of its national railways to the bankrupt (!) Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane for—I kid you not—a measly 45 million euros."

"They view demonstrations, such as those by Greek rail workers, as backward unionists opposing the efficiency of privatization," Edman continued. "People who had been warning of an inevitable accident as a result of underinvestment. Their colleagues had been injured in past years, and now."

"They constantly praise the corrupt government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis as a 'success story,'" he added. "So, they should either stand by the policies they've been supporting and keep the flags up, or take them down and put them away in shame. Anything else is hypocrisy of the worst kind."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

"I could not have imagined that legions of cable and media industry lobbyists, their bought-and-paid-for surrogates, and dark money political groups with bottomless pockets would distort my over 30-year history as a consumer advocate into an absurd caricature of blatant lies," Sohn said in a statement. "The unrelenting, dishonest, and cruel attacks on my character and my career as an advocate for the public interest have taken an enormous toll on me and my family."

While her announcement came just after U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a frequent obstacle to his own party's priorities, confirmed Tuesday that he would not support the nomination, Sohn's lengthy statement—shared with The Washington Post—signaled that she decided to bow out after speaking with her family on Monday.

According to Sohn:

Unfortunately, the American people are the real losers here. The FCC deadlock, now over two years long, will remain so for a long time. As someone who has advocated for my entire career for affordable, accessible broadband for every American, it is ironic that the 2-2 FCC will remain sidelined at the most consequential opportunity for broadband in our lifetimes. This means that your broadband will be more expensive for lack of competition, minority, and underrepresented voices will be marginalized, and your private information will continue to be used and sold at the whim of your broadband provider. It means that the FCC will not have a majority to adopt strong rules which ensure that everyone has nondiscriminatory access to broadband, regardless of who they are or where they live, and that low-income students will continue to be forced to do their school work sitting outside of Taco Bell because universal service funds can't be used for broadband in their homes. And it means that many rural Americans will continue the long wait for broadband because the FCC can't fix its Universal Service programs.

It is a sad day for our country and our democracy when dominant industries, with assistance from unlimited dark money, get to choose their regulators. And with the help of their friends in the Senate, the powerful cable and media companies have done just that.

After thanking Biden—who first nominated her to the post in October 2021 and has stood by the choice—as well as the hundreds of organizations and advocates who have supported her throughout the process, Sohn said that "I hope the president swiftly nominates an individual who puts the American people first over all other interests. The country deserves nothing less."

During a media briefing Tuesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre praised Sohn.

"We appreciate Gigi Sohn's candidacy for this important role. She would have brought tremendous intellect and experience, which is why the president nominated her in the first place. We also appreciate her dedication to public service, her talent, and her years of work as one of the nation's leading public advocates on behalf of American consumers and competition," said Jean-Pierre, who declined to comment on what's next.

"The abject failure of Democratic leaders to stand up and advocate for their own nominee means that these companies will likely only double down on the kinds of deceitful and dirty tactics they deployed against Sohn."

Meanwhile, advocacy groups that rallied behind Sohn not only expressed disappointment that she won't be on the FCC but also took aim at Democratic leadership for failing to adequately stand up for her in the face of dishonest attacks.

"Gigi would have provided the final key vote needed to move forward on major White House priorities including net neutrality, digital discrimination, privacy, network competition, broadband maps, and the digital divide," said Demand Progress communications director Maria Langholz. "Sohn's nomination was marred by right-wing extremist attacks that centered on misinformation and politics of division and hate rather than her record and role at the FCC. While it would be easiest to blame the right-wing for her nomination failing, there was missing urgency and commitment from Democrats in the White House and Senate."

"With Sohn now out of consideration, we expect the White House to provide a strong nomination in the immediate future," Langholz added. "The American people cannot afford to have this stalemate at the FCC any longer. President Biden must expeditiously move forward a nominee who will be a champion on net neutrality and privacy, and avoid delivering big telecommunications companies a victory in the form of an industry-friendly pick."

Free Press president and co-CEO Craig Aaron similarly said that "they're probably celebrating at Comcast and Fox today, and their lobbyists deserve most of the credit for concocting lies to derail her nomination. Republicans who willfully spread those lies must be thrilled, too. But they're not the only ones to blame: The failure of Democratic leaders to stand up to industry-orchestrated smears cost the agency—and the nation—a true public servant."

"The abject failure of Democratic leaders to stand up and advocate for their own nominee means that these companies will likely only double down on the kinds of deceitful and dirty tactics they deployed against Sohn," he warned. "We're angry about how Sohn was treated, and we're disturbed that Democratic leaders by and large failed to speak out against the lies, bigotry, and innuendo surrounding her nomination. But the answer here is not going back to the way things used to be at the FCC, when the industry got to hand-pick commissioners. Going backward would be a terrible mistake."

"There will be temptation in the weeks ahead to put forward an industry-friendly nominee to avoid a larger political fight. That's how the agency has worked in the past," Aaron added. "But the public—now more than ever—needs an independent voice at this crucial agency, one who won't cave to the industries they are supposed to regulate. Though Gigi Sohn deserved much, much better, we can only hope this moment will finally serve as a wake-up call to the Biden administration and the Democratic Party."

"Democrats promised to restore net neutrality and FCC oversight of telecom monopolies, and instead they caved to corporate interests and homophobic smears."

Fight for the Future director Evan Greer also expressed concern that the development will be followed by an industry-backed pick.

"Let's be perfectly clear: Democrats promised to restore net neutrality and FCC oversight of telecom monopolies, and instead they caved to corporate interests and homophobic smears. The same telecom companies that were caught red-handed funding a flood of fraudulent comments to the FCC and paying for misleading robocalls to senior citizens to kill net neutrality rules now will seemingly get to pick their own regulator, just as they did with Ajit Pai," Greer said, referring to a former FCC chair.

Internet service providers (ISPs) "are under immense pressure to censor legitimate content, including websites with accurate information about abortion care and LGBTQ issues, with state legislatures passing bills demanding ISPs block entire websites," she noted. "Meanwhile, lack of FCC oversight has enabled collection and sale of cel phone location data that puts vulnerable communities at risk of stalking, harassment, and surveillance. A fully staffed FCC could address these issues. Biden's deadlocked FCC is utterly impotent. And marginalized communities will pay the price for Democrats' incompetence and cowardice."

As for Biden's next nominee, Greer said that "we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that they don't pick another Ajit Pai clone. We demand an FCC commissioner that will fight for the public interest, and one that has no ties to the telecom industry that the agency is supposed to regulate."

This post has been updated with comment from Fight for the Future.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

The New York State Senate's Democrats on Wednesday delivered a "major embarrassment" for and "extraordinary repudiation" of Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, rejecting Hector LaSalle, her anti-choice, anti-union nominee to lead the state's top court.

"We thank the members of the state Senate who stood with working New Yorkers in opposing a judge with a troubling judicial record on workers' rights, abortion rights, and racial justice," said New York Working Families Party director Sochie Nnaemeka.

"In the wake of an extremist U.S. Supreme Court and a New York Court of Appeals captured by corporate and conservative interests," Nnaemeka added, "we urge Gov. Hochul to return with a chief judge nominee with a clear and unequivocal record of protecting the rights of working people."

Wednesday's 39-20 vote fell mostly along party lines, with all Republicans present except state Sen. Mario Mattera (R-2) supporting Lasalle and all but one Democrat, Sen. Monica Martinez (D-3), voting against him. It came after the Senate Judiciary Committee last month narrowly opposed the nominee.

While Senate Democrats argued the panel's vote was sufficient to block the nomination, Hochul claimed the state constitution required a full chamber vote and even considered a lawsuit. However, it was the committee's top Republican, Sen. Anthony Palumbo (R-1), who filed suit last week.

As The New York Timesreported:

While the vote could help quell a weekslong intraparty battle that had overshadowed legislative business in Albany, it is sure to strain the governor's relationship with Democrats in the Legislature as they begin to negotiate over the state's budget, which is due in six weeks.

It also means that state officials will need to restart a monthslong process to select a chief judge, who besides sitting on the Court of Appeals is also tasked with overseeing the state’s complex court system, which has thousands of judges and staff.

Hochul said in a statement Wednesday that "this vote is an important victory for the constitution. But it was not a vote on the merits of Justice LaSalle, who is an overwhelmingly qualified and talented jurist."

The Times noted that LaSalle "defended his record during a five-hour legislative hearing last month in which he declared his support for reproductive and labor rights, arguing that the cases his critics singled out had hinged on procedural questions."

While reaffirming her support for her defeated candidate, Hochul also said, "Now that the full Senate has taken a vote, I will work toward making a new nomination."

Opponents of LaSalle, including New York State Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-35) and Deputy Leader Michael Gianaris (D-12), framed the vote as necessary to shift the focus to a new candidate and other important issues.

"Today, we again rose to our leadership responsibilities and ended the ongoing distraction of the Justice Hector LaSalle nomination," said Stewart-Cousins. "We have a state to run. This court case would've dragged on for months and stymied our judicial system. It was time to put this matter to rest."

Gianaris declared that "the failure of some in our state to respect the proper role and independence of this Legislature has led to a crisis affecting all branches of government. It now falls to our Senate majority to again be the adult in the room and move our state past this deadlock that would have otherwise dragged on for even more months while our top court is without a properly appointed chief judge and while we are in the midst of negotiating a state budget that must continue our economic recovery."

"It is the Senate's constitutional right to determine how it operates and to reject nominees that do not have the support of a Senate whose confirmation role is critical to the balance of powers," he stressed. "My colleagues and I voted against this nomination because we need a chief judge possessed of a diverse professional background and who represents a departure from the tenure of former Chief Judge Janet DiFiore, and this nominee was not that person. It is now time to find a new nominee who can get the required support to be confirmed."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

To recap for anyone not lucky enough to be a New Yorker: for the last few months, leftists in the state have been fighting a fierce battle with Governor Kathy Hochul over her decision to nominate a conservative judge, Hector LaSalle, to lead the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court. Hochul lost the first (and possibly last) skirmish in that battle, as the State Senate's Judiciary Committee voted not to send LaSalle's nomination to the floor for a full vote, though it remains possible Hochul will sue the State Senate to try and force that vote.

LaSalle's initial defeat is good news for anyone who wants to halt the Court of Appeal's recent rightward drift. The judge's record indicated he would rule in favor of prosecutors and police, and against defendants and suspects; in favor of corporations, and against unions; and that his positions on issues from consumer protection to domestic violence to immigrant rights were indistinguishable from those held by a Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett.

As nice as it is to stop a conservative judge, there's a larger importance to the LaSalle nomination and (hopeful) defeat, one that is relevant to our national fights over judges, and even to how we think and talk about the law. The people pushing LaSalle were also pushing the false, but terribly common, idea that law is a neutral body of rules and precedents from which certain truths can be divined, and certain rulings naturally flow. In this reading, the statutes and judicial rulings that comprise the law are different from essays, novels, films, the Bible, or other texts, all of which lend themselves to multiple, equally valid interpretations. Law is special, akin to mathematics, easily knowable and usually certain. LaSalle's defeat represents a defeat of this false ideology.

This lie, indulged in by Republicans and Democrats both, is perhaps the most destructive one in our national discourse, and all too often the excuse for why we can't have a society that cares for everyone. It's a lie with a long history, undergirded by seductive philosophical musings and parroted by powerful parties with nefarious vested interests.

It's also in direct competition with another school of thought that sees law more realistically, as the product of flawed humans being wielded by other flawed humans. LaSalle's critics may not have been versed in this philosophy called legal realism, but they intuitively knew that judges who rule for the powerful and against the oppressed may do so for reasons found in their own heads, not in any statute or decision.

LaSalle's defenders framed his record in a way that will be familiar to anyone who has closely watched Supreme Court confirmation battles. When critics pointed to the awful real-world consequences of many rulings he supported, we were told that such rulings were just "procedural" or that LaSalle was, sadly, powerless to rule otherwise, so constrained was he by the iron shackles of precedent. To take one example, LaSalle's vote to allow Cablevision to sue its union workers personally for union activity undertaken during a labor struggle was excused as a decision about mere process. Don't you get it?, cried Hochul and her minions. Law is complicated! Sometimes injustice must be sanctioned, because that's how law works! How naïve of you to think otherwise!

Hochul and her allies didn't engage on the substance of LaSalle's cases—who won, who lost, and what happened. Instead, their apologetics emphasized the impersonal processes of law, the alleged rules of the game, the highly technical nuances that laypersons just couldn't understand. In this, they drew inspiration from what is probably the dominant theory of law today among academics: so-called "legal positivism," and specifically the version thereof popularized by philosopher H.L.A. Hart in his 1961 book The Concept of Law. Nothing better explains the defenses of LaSalle than legal positivism.

Legal positivists believe that law can be accurately determined to a high degree by review of statutes and decisions. Individual judges are of minimal importance, their role reduced to an intake of precedent and an output of analysis. Legal positivism is not concerned with the social, cultural, or psychological dynamics that led to the creation of any given law or judicial decision—the focus is on the process by which law is created, not the reasons for its creation. In this sense, legal positivism is a theory that discourages looking beyond the textual documents that comprise a legal system. All you need is right there on the page.

Hart himself believed most cases were "easy," and required minimal judicial creativity. When John Roberts told Congress that the job of a judge is akin to an umpire, calling balls and strikes, he was tipping his hat to legal positivism.

Legal positivism is a harmful philosophy, not least because it claims neutrality in the form of deference to existing "rules." But of course, that's wrong, because the rules themselves are ideological, written by the powerful to protect the powerful. LaSalle's critics have implicitly understood this. They may not have known it, but by focusing on the consequences of his rulings, and arguing that LaSalle could and should have ruled differently, the anti-LaSalle coalition was standing up for legal realism, and against the positivists.

"Law is what the judge had for breakfast." This old quote—usually attributed to the late legal philosopher and judge Jerome Frank—has alternately been used by the enemies of legal realism to highlight the supposed radicalism of this school of legal philosophy, or by the most radical realists themselves, to boil their ideas down into one pithy phrase. In that sense, it is sort of the "Defund The Police" of jurisprudence, embraced by both its proponents and their worst critics.

Everyone, though, agrees on what it is means. In sum, a judge's rulings do not emanate from careful study of precedent and statute, which will allow for only one "correct" ruling. Rather, judges are human beings (one of Frank's greatest works is called "Are Judges Human?") with their own biases, predilections, histories, neuroses, and yes, ideologies, and their rulings—what we call "law"—are a mishmash of all those things stirred up and spewed across the page. Even what the judge had for breakfast factors in (something that turns out to be quite literally true). Law has no gravitational center—it is whatever the powerful person in the robe decides, for whatever reasons they decide it.

The funny thing is that pretty much every attorney who has actually practiced in a courtroom accepts the general precepts of legal realism (which is the progenitor of modern theories like critical legal studies, or Marxists analyses of law). Judges often make wacky rulings. They aren't usually high-profile—maybe no one outside of the courtroom will ever even know about them—but they are vitally important to the litigants being ruled over. Any practicing lawyer can tell you about the cases they knew they lost the second the judge opened their mouth, before the evidence was presented or legal arguments made, because the judge decided they liked one side and didn't like the other (and this is a mild example—imagine the judge ruling on the riot his wife helped start). This is a reality of litigation.

But when lawyers leave the courtroom and ascend to the halls of power and/or the ivory towers, they suddenly become great defenders of this immense, alienating system we call law, and legal positivism gives them the tools to defend it. There is a great desire to believe that law is larger than individuals, that it is a system we can trust and that we can "know" in an epistemological sense. If the process is fair, perhaps we won't be so angry after it chews us up and spits us out.

Nowhere does this ideology become clearer than during fights over judicial appointments. Any given judge's defenders, conservative or liberal, strive to cast their preferred judge as the "neutral" choice, the one who will not "legislate from the bench" (a literally meaningless phrase), but will instead pull out their trusty old trowel and brush and excavate until the correct answer—of which there is only one—reveals itself. This is how the law maintains its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Judges, we are told, are not politicians but archeologists, and do not create but only reveal. This has been the trope embraced by the LaSalleians, just as it was the trope of the Kavanaugh partisans, the Coney Barrett boosters, the Alito enthusiasts. (Indeed, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's absolute refusal to acknowledge that perhaps it might be better for her to retire under a Democrat than a Republican is a very legal positivist framework, as it eschews politics in favor of some nebulous judicial neutrality.)

That this is such clear bullshit is supremely frustrating. One wonders if Kathy Hochul somehow missed the recent loss of the alleged "right" to abortion, on the books for almost 50 years. A result like that should call into question the idea that law is stable, knowable, and easily grasped.

Understand—there is no correct answer to the question of whether the Constitution recognizes a right to abortion. Rather, there are schools of judicial interpretation—which are always and without exception embraced by judges to give legal weight to that judge's preexisting ideology—that will find one way or the other. When the Supreme Court has a certain number of one sort of ideologue, abortion will be a constitutional right. When it has the other, it will not.

None of LaSalle's critics know why he ruled against union workers, or in favor of phony "crisis pregnancy" centers, or to allow prosecutors to strike dark-skinned women from a jury (yes, he ruled this way). It doesn't matter. What matters is that these decisions protected the powerful at the expense of the powerless. If your ideological leanings involve uplifting the powerless, you should not want a judge who would rule in this way, no matter his excuse for doing so.

It is a huge credit to LaSalle's critics that they focused their attack on the outcomes of rulings rather than LaSalle's alleged judicial philosophy, or his "experience," or respect for precedent. Precedent is not real—it's an excuse for a judge to do what they were already determined to do, something rightwing judges understand well.

We should never trust someone who claims that law is independent from ideology, or from politics, or from how a judge feels about dark skin or unions or abortion. Law is politics practiced in a courtroom instead of a ballot box. Hector LaSalle is as much a politician as his benefactor, Kathy Hochul. And if you wouldn't vote for LaSalle to represent you in a legislative body, there's certainly no reason to want him to be a judge, no matter what excuses he proffers for the ills he has done.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by John Teufel.

Digital and LGBTQ+ rights groups are condemning homophobic attacks against U.S. President Joe Biden's Federal Communications Commission nominee Gigi Sohn, whose Senate confirmation has been stalled for over a year largely due to opposition from the powerful telecom industry.

The LGBTQ Victory Institute and 21 other organizations sent a letter Monday to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), respectively.

Noting that Biden first nominated Sohn to the FCC in October 2021 and has continued to support her—formally renominating the candidate last month—the groups wrote that "we share the administration's view that Gigi is the right leader for this role given her extensive qualifications, superior leadership qualities, and deep technical background."

"Gigi is the right leader for this role given her extensive qualifications, superior leadership qualities, and deep technical background."

"Gigi is one of the nation's leading public advocates for open, affordable, and democratic communications networks. She demonstrated her dedication to ensuring that every American household has affordable and robust broadband internet for 30 years," they pointed out, while also stressing the necessity of a "fully functioning FCC."

The letter highlights that "Gigi's nomination has recently come under attack, not on the basis of qualifications or substance, but because she is openly LGBTQ+. Her barrier-breaking nomination as the first LGBTQ+ nominee to the FCC is being met with homophobic tropes and attacks, against herself and her family, in an attempt to stall her nomination. That cannot stand."

"Homophobic and sexist fearmongering should have no place in the consideration of Gigi's qualifications. It's morally corrupt and antithetical to the high virtue of the chamber," the letter concludes. "We call upon every member of the Senate to condemn homophobia and sexism and consider Gigi's nomination on its merits. We urge members to confirm Ms. Sohn to the seat she is so qualified for without delay."

The letter followed an opinion piece published Thursday by Fast Company, in which Fight for the Future director Evan Greer and National Digital Inclusion Alliance communications director Yvette Scorse called on both Biden and Senate Democrats to "stand up to homophobic attacks" on Sohn.

\u201cBiden and Democrats must stand up to homophobic attacks on FCC nominee\u2014 a) basic decency & b) or else they\u2019ll basically doom every other LGBTQ+ candidate down the road. COME ON. by \u2066@evan_greer\u2069 https://t.co/CLJbtV4y2B\u201d

— Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg (@Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg) 1675698372

The pair explained that Sohn first endured the telecommunication industry's smear campaign—and now, "right-wing news outlets, emboldened by the internet service provider-funded smears, have crossed the line: They've launched a new round of blatantly homophobic attacks on Gigi that recycle QAnon and extreme right tropes conflating LGBTQ identity with deviance and predation."

As Greer and Scorse detailed:

Fox News, The Daily Mail, Breitbart, and other outlets have run nearly identical stories claiming that Gigi has "opposed" efforts to combat sex trafficking. Even these news outlets, who play fast and loose with the truth, have a hard time backing up that headline. Their argument is that Gigi sits on the board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a highly respected digital rights organization known for fighting to defend free speech and privacy online, and EFF opposes SESTA/FOSTA, legislation passed in 2018 that claimed to address sex trafficking. The rest of the articles go to melt down over the fact that EFF once gave an award to a consensual adult dominatrix for her advocacy work around issues of online free speech and human rights, as if that somehow implicates Gigi in some sort of scandal.

Here's the thing: EFF isn't the only group that opposes SESTA/FOSTA. The legislation has been condemned by almost every major human rights organization in the world including the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, and the Wikimedia Foundation, because it has actually made it harder for the government to curtail online sex trafficking, while having devastating effects on online free speech and marginalized communities. A report issued by the U.S. government itself indicated that the law has not been useful in aiding prosecutions, and has almost never been used. Insinuating that opposition to SESTA/FOSTA somehow means support for sex trafficking is absurd on its face. Many anti-trafficking organizations also oppose the law, saying it hurts more than it helps. Even the Trump administration's Department of Justice agreed that the law was undermining their efforts to combat trafficking.

But none of that matters, because the FCC has absolutely no jurisdiction in this area whatsoever. Gigi has never taken a position on SESTA/FOSTA or any similar legislation, and EFF opposed SESTA/FOSTA long before Gigi became a board member. None of this is remotely relevant to Gigi's candidacy for a position at the FCC, the agency that oversees phone and cable companies.

The pair added that "we don't expect any better of Fox News pundits who want to block Gigi's appointment. But we are appalled by the complicit silence of the White House and Senate Democrats."

\u201cNotably, the LA Times here also eviscerates the idea that opposing SESTA/FOSTA makes you "pro sex trafficking" and thoroughly explains why SESTA/FOSTA was an utter failure, citing the excellent research of advocates like @MistressBlunt. Just embarrassing for the bigots & trolls.\u201d

— Evan Greer is on Mastodon (@Evan Greer is on Mastodon) 1675435865

Their article came a day after Fight for the Future and Demand Progress launched a petition that similarly outlined recent attacks on Sohn, urged Biden and Senate Democrats to stop being "shamefully silent," and warned that "if they don't speak up now and condemn these attacks, this will become a go-to strategy for bigots looking to sink any LGBTQ person's nomination."

In a statement announcing the petition, Demand Progress communications director Maria Langholz said that "we're now closer to the end of President Biden's first term than we are to the beginning. These past two years, Democrats have controlled both the White House and Senate, yet the FCC remains without its fifth and final commissioner. The public is being failed."

Langholz emphasized that "in the absence of action, the FCC will stay deadlocked and the public will suffer the consequences" while "unhinged and discredited attacks on Ms. Sohn will continue to percolate in this vacuum."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Progressive lawmakers and rights advocates in New York celebrated Wednesday after the state Senate Judiciary Committee voted against Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's nominee to serve as the state's top judge, Justice Hector LaSalle—whose rulings regarding abortion rights, labor, and criminal justice made his nomination "an absolute disaster," according to one critic.

The panel voted 10-9 against allowing LaSalle's nomination for chief judge of the state Court of Appeals to proceed to the state Senate floor.

The vote followed a lengthy hearing at which some of the Democrats questioned the judge about his past rulings including a 2015 decision in favor of Cablevision, which wanted to be able to sue union leaders for criticizing the company's response to Hurricane Sandy, and one which shielded an anti-choice "crisis pregnancy center" from a state investigation into whether it was practicing medicine without a license.

"Based on your record, I think that it's not unfair for people to project what some of your decisions might be," state Sen. John Liu (D-16), told LaSalle.

According to The New York Times, Hochul "has not ruled out taking legal action to force a vote of Justice LaSalle on the full Senate floor."

"Now all eyes turn to Hochul," Alex Sammon of Slate tweeted.

Hochul was joined by U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) in pushing for LaSalle's confirmation, while progressives including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) rallied their supporters against the judge.

Progressive state lawmakers swiftly came out against the nomination when it was announced earlier this month, with state Sens. Jabari Brisport (D-25) and Kristen Gonzalez (D-59) making clear that they would not support LaSalle.

The Democratic supermajority in the state Senate "doesn't need to tolerate Gov. Hochul acting like a Republican," said Brisport Wednesday.

Gonzalez called the committee's vote "a victory for all New Yorkers who want a court that protects workers, immigrants, women, and civil liberties."

The New York Working Families Party called on Hochul to nominate a judge "who has a strong record of defending the rights and freedoms of everyday New Yorkers," particularly in light of the far-right supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Center for Community Alternatives called on Hochul to nominate one of the judges the group put forward last month as being "outstanding candidates" with experience in civil rights and government: Corey Stoughton of the Legal Aid Society, Yale law professor Abbe Gluck, and Judge Edwina Richardson-Mendelson, the state's deputy chief administrative judge for justice alternatives.

"We thank the Senate for rejecting this nomination," said the group, "and we call on Gov. Hochul, as we have for months, to put forward a nominee for chief judge who will stand up for the rights of marginalized New Yorkers and lead the court New York deserves."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

President Joe Biden and his supporters have sought to downplay the significance of the improperly handled and stored classified documents discovered at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, a think tank where Biden maintained an office. The documents are believed to relate to his time as vice president under Barack Obama. But then it emerged that another batch of classified documents was recovered from Biden’s personal garage at his home in Delaware. Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed a special counsel to investigate the matter.

Former President Donald Trump and his supporters have defended his transfer of classified materials to his resort at Mar-a-Lago, claiming that the president had authority to declassify the materials. That case is also the subject of a federal investigation.

Related

▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Jeremy Scahill.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Ryan Grim.

Wyoming's Republican voters on Tuesday nominated for the U.S. House a right-wing attorney who has spent decades combating regulations aimed at preserving her state's lands and waters from fossil fuel exploitation.

Harriet Hageman cruised to victory in Wyoming's at-large House district, benefiting from widespread right-wing anger at incumbent Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over her vote to impeach former President Donald Trump in 2021 and her decision to serve as vice chair of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The former president endorsed Hageman, an ex-Cheney ally who in 2016 called Trump "somebody who is racist and xenophobic" and attempted to thwart his nomination during that year's Republican National Convention.

Hageman now disowns her previous statements on Trump, claiming she was led astray by "the lies the Democrats and Liz Cheney's friends in the media were telling at the time."

"Absolutely the election was rigged," Hageman said on the campaign trail, echoing the former president's lie about the 2020 election. "What happened in 2020 is a travesty."

The GOP nominee advances to face Democratic pick Lynnette Grey Bull, a renewable energy advocate who is vying to become the first Indigenous person to win a U.S. House seat representing Wyoming, which produces a large percentage of the nation's coal.

"It's definitely a David and Goliath type of campaign," said Grey Bull, who states on her website that "coal, oil, and gas are not viable energy sources in the long-term, environmentally or economically."

By contrast, Hageman—who is heavily favored to win in November—has been described as an "anti-conservation zealot" given her years as a trial lawyer fighting environmentalists in court and her expressed disdain for the very idea of protected federal lands. The oil and gas industry was among the corporate interests that helped fund her campaign against Cheney, who was also a vocal supporter of fossil fuel development.

"For three decades, Hageman has been sparring with environmentalists, suing federal agencies over land use decisions, and advocating for transferring control of federal lands to states," HuffPost's Chris D'Angelo recently reported. "It is a record of anti-conservation, anti-government zealotry that once earned her the nickname 'Wicked Witch of the West' among environmentalists—a title she embraced."

"Come next year," D'Angelo warned, "Hageman could be Wyoming's new at-large congresswoman and, if she has it her way, a member of the House committee with jurisdiction over energy development, public lands, and wildlife."

In a December appearance on former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's podcast, Hageman boasted, "I've taken on the EPA, I've taken on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I've taken on the USDA."

Hageman is currently listed as a senior litigation attorney on the website of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a right-wing legal group that opposes climate regulations. As the New York Times notes, her "most far-reaching case" as a trial lawyer "was a successful challenge of Clinton-era federal regulations to protect millions of acres of National Forests from road-building, mining, and other development."

Unlike her position on Trump, Hageman's support for fossil fuel extraction and opposition to federal land, water, and endangered species protections has not wavered.

"At a luncheon last week for the Chamber of Commerce of Rock Springs, a community built on fossil-fuel extraction, Ms. Hageman promised to be a champion in Washington for those industries if elected," the Times reported Tuesday. "And she warned that Democrats' climate and tax bill would be 'devastating' to Wyoming, after stating that coal was an 'affordable, clean, acceptable resource that we all should be using.'"

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

A New York Times/Siena College poll released Monday indicates that President Joe Biden's support among his own party's base is eroding, with 64% of Democratic voters saying they would prefer a different candidate in 2024.

Asked whether they "think the Democratic Party should renominate Joe Biden as the party's candidate for president in 2024" or pick a different candidate, nearly two-thirds of Democratic respondents opted for the latter while just 26% said the incumbent should be renominated.

A striking 94% of Democratic voters between the ages of 18 and 29—a group that has demanded bold climate action and student debt relief—said they want a different nominee, according to the new poll.

In a follow-up question, respondents were asked to select the most important reason they would prefer a different, unspecified nominee over Biden. A third of respondents answered that the president's job performance is the primary factor, another 33% cited Biden's age, and 10% said their preference stems from Biden not being "progressive enough."

The survey was conducted between July 5 and July 7 and included 849 registered voters. The poll's margin of error is 4.1 percentage points.

The new survey comes days after a separate poll found that a clear majority of U.S. voters don't want Biden or former President Donald Trump to run in 2024.

"Biden's support among Dems has collapsed—it's not just the progressive vanguard," author and journalist Zachary Carter wrote in response to the New York Times/Siena College survey, alluding to the outgoing White House communications director's recent broadside against activists who have been critical of the administration.

Biden has insisted that he intends to run again in 2024 and, as of yet, no clear alternative Democratic candidate has emerged.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who vied for the Democratic nomination in 2016 and 2020, has not ruled out another run, but he has made clear that he's not planning to launch a primary challenge against Biden in 2024.

"I think Biden will probably run again, and if he runs again, I will support him," Sanders said last month.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Defenders of Social Security on Tuesday urged the U.S. Senate to block President Joe Biden's little-noticed nomination of Andrew Biggs—an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow with a history of supporting Social Security privatization—to serve on the independent and bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board.

Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy group, is leading the charge against Biggs, highlighting his role in the George W. Bush administration's failed attempt to privatize the New Deal program in 2005. At the time, Biggs worked on Social Security as an associate director of Bush's National Economic Council.

"Andrew Biggs has advocated for Social Security cuts throughout his career. And now, he's been nominated to oversee Social Security," Social Security Works tweeted on Tuesday.

The group, whose president currently serves on the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), is also sharing a sample call script for those who wish to contact their representatives about Biggs.

"The Senate can, and must, block this terrible nomination," the organization wrote. "Please call your senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote NO on Andrew Biggs."

The White House announced Biggs' nomination to the SSAB in May, a move that drew little notice at the time.

Last month, The Lever's Matthew Cunningham-Cook called attention to the president's pick and warned it suggests "there could soon be a coordinated push in Washington to cut the Social Security program, which provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits to 66 million Americans."

While Biden vowed on the campaign trail to back an expansion of Social Security, he has previously supported cutting the program's benefits. Biden was vice president when former President Barack Obama proposed a "grand bargain" with the GOP that would have entailed cuts to Social Security.

Biggs, too, has a long record of advocating Social Security cuts. As Cunningham-Cook wrote last month, "For years, Biggs has been a vocal critic of expanded Social Security and workers' right to a secure, stable retirement free from the vagaries of the stock market."

"He has dismissed the retirement crisis as a non-issue and as recently as 2020 blamed problems with the Social Security system on 'older Americans' game of chicken,'" he added. "While the seat on the bipartisan board is by tradition assigned to a Republican, Biden could have chosen a moderate candidate—or even leaned on precedent to avoid the nomination process altogether. Former President Donald Trump routinely refused to nominate Democrats for seats on boards and commissions."

Simmering outrage over Biggs' nomination to serve on the SSAB, which was formed in 1994 to advise the president and Congress on Social Security, comes as progressives are demanding an expansion of the program's modest benefits—while Republican lawmakers, per usual, eye cuts.

Last month, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led the introduction of the Social Security Expansion Act, which would lift the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax and boost the program's annual benefits by $2,400.

"At a time when half of older Americans have no retirement savings and millions of senior citizens are living in poverty, our job is not to cut Social Security," Sanders said at the time. "Our job must be to expand Social Security so that every senior citizen in America can retire with the dignity they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Supporters of Federal Communications Commission nominee Gigi Sohn and other critics of the telecommunications industry's efforts to thwart her U.S. Senate confirmation this week called out not only those behind the smear campaign but also Democratic leaders.

"Dem leadership is nowhere to be found defending their nominee."

The digital rights group Fight for the Future tweeted late Thursday that President Joe Biden and Senate Majority Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) promised to restore Obama-era net neutrality rules, of which Sohn was a chief architect.

"But instead they're sitting on the sidelines while Big Telecom mounts a massive dark money-funded smear campaign against their nominee to the FCC, Gigi Sohn," Fight for the Future added. "Where's the leadership? Do what you said you would do."

Fight for the Future director Evan Greer said Thursday that "it is absolutely absurd that millions of people from across the political spectrum fought for and won net neutrality at the FCC."

Ajit Pai, who chaired the FCC during the Trump administration, "repealed it, Dems promised to restore it, and they've so far failed to do so by caving to industry pressure and slow-walking" Sohn's nomination, Greer added.

"The only reason for this is corruption. Plain and simple," she charged, adding that it is a "good time to remember that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon etc. are huge donors to Democratic leadership and candidates. They've got their hands all up in there."

The campaigner also said that while the telecom sector and others—including the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)—attack Sohn, "Dem leadership is nowhere to be found defending their nominee."

Greer pointed to a piece that Scott Roberts, senior director of criminal justice campaigns for Color of Change, wrote for The Root last year, declaring that the FOP is "one of the largest and most powerful hate groups in the country" and "acts as the guardian, enforcer, and perpetuator" of "racist police culture."

The FOP has openly opposed Sohn, citing her "forceful advocacy of end-to-end encryption and 'user-only-access'" and claiming that her employment history, public policy stances, and social media activity "indicated serious animus towards law enforcement officers and the rule of law."

The FOP on Wednesday released polling it commissioned from Morning Consult, which asked U.S. registered voters various questions, including some about Sohn.

"In the poll, 65% of voters had no opinion on this nominee. But after seeing information and social media posts about her extreme positions on policing issues, 6 in 10 said they would be less likely to support the nomination," said FOP national president Patrick Yoes. "For those who say Ms. Sohn's nomination will impact their vote in the Senate's midterm elections, 60% say they are more likely to vote for a Republican candidate—which is very significant in states like Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, and Washington."

Critics framed the FOP polling as part of the ongoing efforts to tank Sohn's nomination.

"The smear campaign against [Sohn] has been beyond ridiculous," said Techdirt founder Mike Masnick. "Everyone who knows anything about her knows that it's pure nonsense, that she's beyond qualified, and that she will do an amazing job."

"The smear merchants are doing it *because* they know she'll do a good job," added Masnick, who was responding on Twitter to similar comments from technology writer Karl Bode.

Bode had tweeted of the FOP polling that "this is part of a manufactured smear campaign being run by AT&T and Comcast against a highly qualified and extremely popular FCC nominee literally everyone in the telecom/media space knows would be great on telecom monopolization, broadband affordability, and media consolidation."

Writing for Techdirt on Friday, Bode blasted the FOP's "not-at-all-scientific poll" as well as the "grotesque campaign" by telecom giants to "spread harmful gibberish in a bid to either flip or provide flimsy justification" for right-wing Democratic senators opposing her nomination.

He also wrote:

The Biden team isn't faultless here either. It took the Biden administration nine months to even nominate Sohn, giving the telecom industry… ample time to galvanize opposition. Team Biden also hasn't done anything to defend Sohn publicly, or apply any meaningful pressure on the Senate confirmation voting process. Nor have Sohn's future FCC colleagues voiced any public support, despite the shamelessness of the attacks.

Which, in turn, is fairly reflective of how the federal government doesn't really take stuff like telecom monopolization and telecom consolidation seriously, especially in an era where "Big Tech" has sucked all the oxygen out of the D.C. policy room. And again, this is all occurring in an era when D.C. pretends to be interested in "bipartisan antitrust reform," revealing the hollowness of the gambit.

In a series of tweets Friday, Bode warned that "it is going to be an EXTREMELY long and painful decade if Democratic strategists don't start pulling their heads out of their asses and start displaying something vaguely resembling urgency, passion, and creativity."

"The phony appeal of authoritarianism can only be defeated if the [Democratic National Committee] shakes off corruption and truly represents the public interest," Bode added. "You don't accomplish this by letting a hugely popular media and telecom reformer drown under unopposed GOP/telecom propaganda attacks."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Economists and workers' rights advocates on Thursday condemned the latest setback for working people dealt by right-wing Democratic lawmakers, three of whom joined every Republican senator in opposing President Joe Biden's nominee to lead the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division after being aggressively lobbied by business interests.

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) voted against allowing Dr. David Weil's nomination to move forward Wednesday evening, several months after the former Obama administration official was first nominated for the top wage regulatory role.

Manchin and Sinema have obstructed much of President Joe Biden's agenda since he took office—opposing the elimination of the filibuster in order to pass voting rights legislation and rejecting climate and anti-poverty provisions in the Build Back Better Act.

"This is really infuriating," said Chirag Mehta of the grassroots group Community Change, accusing the senators of repeatedly "delivering body blows to working people on behalf of big business."

Weil led the Wage and Hour Division for two years under former President Barack Obama—and had Manchin's support when he was nominated for the job in 2014—and now serves as a dean at Brandeis University.

Despite previously backing Weil, Manchin expressed late last year that he had doubts about the academic's nomination. On Thursday he claimed he was concerned that Weil would enact policies that would harm small businesses.

"The more accurately you diagnose the American economy, the less likely you are to be confirmed to a position with any control over it."

Weil is the author of The Fissured Workplace, which examines large corporations that classify workers as subcontractors and rely on franchisees in order to cut costs and avoid responsibility for ensuring fair working conditions. He has harshly criticized companies like Uber and Lyft for classifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees, exempting them from benefits and workplace protections.

"The more accurately you diagnose the American economy, the less likely you are to be confirmed to a position with any control over it," said journalist Hamilton Nolan.

In the Wage and Hour Division, Weil would have overseen regulation and enforcement of overtime rules, minimum wages, and child labor laws, and could have advanced federal investigations into companies' classification of employees as independent contractors.

Right-wing groups including Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) lobbied Manchin, Sinema, and Kelly after Weil was nominated last year, casting him as a "radical" and complaining of Weil's opposition to so-called "right to work" laws which strip unions of collective bargaining power.

"If confirmed, Weil would use his power to implement the anti-worker PRO Act by executive fiat," ATR told Kelly and Sinema, referring to the legislation which would protect workers' right to organize their workplaces.

The senators' opposition to advancing Weil's nomination "shows the huge power of corporate lobbying," said former New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse.

"David Weil is one of the most innovative, pro-worker, and ambitious policy thinkers we've got," said Jake Rosenfeld, author of You're Paid What You're Worth. "It was unfortunate his Obama administration initiatives didn't survive the Trump years; it's shameful that Democrats have sunk his chance to try them again."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Julia Conley.

Jackson’s appointment, which must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, would allow Biden to deliver on a campaign promise to diversify the court. Senators have set a tentative goal of confirmation by April 8, according to the Associated Press.  

Jackson would replace retiring liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who she once clerked for and appears to largely align with ideologically. Thus, her confirmation would maintain the court’s split of six conservative justices and just three liberals, likely relegating her to a dissenting role for the immediate future.

With the court expected to decide on several important environmental cases in the coming year, including a case that asks the court to rein in the federal government’s jurisdiction over the nation’s waters under the Clean Water Act, Jackson’s mixed environmental record promises to be relevant. As a federal judge, she has ruled against environmental groups as often as she’s ruled in their favor.

In 2018, Jackson ruled in favor of a $160 million lawsuit by the government Guam against the U.S. Navy for failing to clean up a federal Superfund site, and she also sided with environmental groups who sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to update nine air pollution standards under the Trump administration. 

The next year, however, she issued a ruling allowing the Department of Homeland Security to waive more than two dozen environmental laws to build a segment of Trump’s border wall, claiming that the relevant laws did not permit judicial review of the administration’s actions. (Legal experts interviewed by Politico suggested that Jackson tends to defer to the legal authority vested in federal agencies.) 

While acknowledging her complicated record, major environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, and the Environmental Defense Fund have come out in favor of Jackson’s confirmation. (The NRDC and Environmental Defense Fund are advertisers with Grist; advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.)

“Often the Supreme Court has the last word on how, and sometimes whether, our laws designed to protect the environment and public health are enforced,” NRDC president Manish Bapna said in a statement on Friday. “Those cases underscore the importance of confirming justices and judges, like Jackson, who respect precedent and recognize the government’s role in addressing consequential societal issues, like protecting the environment and public health.” 

Last year, when Jackson was confirmed to join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Sierra Club celebrated the decision. Courtney Hight, the group’s democracy program director, called Jackson’s appointment “historic” at the time, describing her as a “jurist who has devoted her career to pursuing equal justice under the law.”

However, given the evenly divided Senate and increasingly partisan nature of confirmation proceedings, only time will tell what Jackson’s road to the bench will ultimately look like. The timeline could be complicated by Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine and a stroke suffered by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, a Democrat whose vote would be essential if no Republican senators vote in Jackson’s favor.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Biden has picked his Supreme Court nominee. Here’s her environmental record. on Feb 25, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Adam Mahoney.

• Democrats slam Republicans rush to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
• President Donald Trump and Joe Biden hold separate televised town halls in lieu of  debate.
• President’s plan to send $200 prescription card to seniors ahead of election, criticized.
• Peninsula voters to decide fate of Caltrain with Measure RR, a tax to fund the service.
• Poll finds Californian’s of both political parties say more funding needed to reopen schools safely.

The post Democrats slam Republicans rush to confirm Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

• Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett refuses to weigh in on climate change, a “controversial” issue.
• California Republican Party refuses to stop ballot harvesting, despite outcry.
• Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell debates Democratic challenger Amy McGrath.
• Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett questioned about granting felons the right to vote.
• California public health officials issue new guidance for gatherings this holiday season.
• Vintners in the wine country hit hard during wildfires.

The post Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett refuses to weigh in on climate change, a “controversial” issue; State health officials issue guidelines for holiday gatherings – October 14, 2020 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

• Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, dodges questions on controversial issues.
• Indigenous activists at U.S. Mexico border tear gassed for protesting border wall.
• Congressional hearing on climate change looks at impact of melting sea ice on Alaska.
• Proposition 15 supporters rally in front of Bank of America in San Francisco.
• San Francisco voters to consider tax on CEO pay 100 times greater than average worker.

The post Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, dodges questions on controversial issues; S.F. voters to consider tax on high C.E.O. pay appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Comprehensive coverage of the day’s news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice.

• Republicans to confirm President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before presidential election.
• Health care activists warn a conservative justice could overturn Obamacare amidst pandemic.
• +200,000 dead from coronavirus in U.S., health experts warn of a 2nd wave.
• California allows 9 more counties-3 in the Bay-to loosen restrictions as infection rates lower.
• Death penalty opponents rally against “spree” of federal executions ahead of election.

Photo by Claire Anderson on Unsplash.

The post Republicans to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before election; Activists warn a conservative court could overturn Obamacare amidst pandemic; Death penalty opponents rally against “spree” of federal executions ahead of election appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.