Politics

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51893">Carl S. Charles, YES! Magazine</a>

Saturday, 19 October 2019 14:12

Charles writes: "On Tuesday, October 8, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what have been dubbed 'the LGBT employment cases,' where two gay men, Donald Zarda and Gerald Bostock, and one transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, were fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, respectively."

Protesters rally in front of the Supreme Court on Oct. 8, 2019, as it hears arguments on whether gay and transgender people are covered by a federal law barring employment discrimination on the basis of sex. (photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)

While Supreme Court Waffles, Cities Stand Up for LGBT Workers� Rights

By Carl S. Charles, Yes! Magazine

19 October 19

No ruling, even from the highest court in the land, will invalidate state and city-level protections.

n Tuesday, October 8, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what have been dubbed �the LGBT employment cases,� where two gay men, Donald Zarda and Gerald Bostock, and one transgender woman, Aimee Stephens, were fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, respectively. These cases were before the court to answer the question �Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964�s prohibition on employment discrimination �because of sex� includes protection from discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity?�

Over the past several decades, state and federal courts across the country have held that the meaning of �sex� in Title VII and other federal statutes includes both sexual orientation and gender identity. But the Trump administration has rejected this established precedent, the Department of Justice supported bringing these well-settled questions before a Supreme Court with a newly conservative majority.

If you read the transcripts or listened to audio of the arguments released this past Friday morning, you would have heard Solicitor General Noel Francisco begin his statement in the Zarda/Bostock case with an astonishing fact: only 21 states, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico, have passed legislation that explicitly protects LGBT workers from discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This would be surprising to the almost half of all Americans who erroneously believe that there exists an explicit federal law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sadly, Francisco is right (at least about this): 29 states provide no legal protection for LGBT employees from the stigma, bias, or bigotry of their employers who can legally fire, demote, or mistreat them based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. And if the Supreme Court rules next summer that federal law doesn�t protect them either, then more than half of the LGBT people living in this country could be fired for who they are.

Despite the cultural and legal significance of the Supreme Court�s 2015 landmark marriage equality decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, protections from discrimination in the workplace remain illusive for more than half of the estimated 11 million LGBT people living in the United States. Such a discrepancy between rights means that Andre can marry his husband Reggie on Sunday, and go to work and be fired for it on Monday. The reality is that while marriage equality is meaningful, employment protections have a much more concrete impact on where and how LGBT people can live, support their families, and become valuable members of their communities without fear of discrimination. And as it stands, there�s a substantial swath of the country where LGBT people lack state-level employment protections.

The resulting patchwork of rights for LGBT workers means that in Georgia, �a county employee who spent a decade of his career helping to build a program for neglected and abused children� could be fired for joining a recreational gay softball league in his off hours, just like Gerald Bostock. And in 29 states, a valued employee can be fired when she informs her employer that she will begin coming to work as the woman she is and adhering to the women�s dress code�which is exactly what happened to Aimee Stephens.

But even if the Supreme Court upends existing precedent (and the arc of history) and rules next summer that federal civil rights laws do not protect LGBT workers from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, all is not lost. Far from it, in fact.

In the absence of federal protections, groups of advocates, community activists, legislators, and committed voters have been showing up to city council meetings, state government hearings, and most importantly, the polls, to make their values heard and reflected in their cities and states. The result: dozens of municipalities (and some states) have codified LGBT nondiscrimination protections at levels that exceed anything Congress has even considered in its failed efforts at passing nationwide legislation.

It isn�t just liberal coastal cities and large metropolitan centers that are stepping up to protect LGBT workers. Some of the most innovative and inspiring citizen-led ordinances are being passed in places that have (often unfairly) been painted as inherently anti-LGBT. Instead, these cities are proving to be an effective venue for passing inclusive employment nondiscrimination laws.

Take, for example, the important work being done by cities in Georgia, one of the many Southern states without a statewide LGBT nondiscrimination law. In June, Dunwoody became the fifth city in Georgia to pass a nondiscrimination ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in private employment, housing, and public accommodations. This ordinance came on the heels of a similar ordinance passed in Doraville, Georgia, in November 2018, where the effort was particularly noteworthy because Doraville is a city of only 10,000 people and because the effort was shepherded by Stephe Koontz, Georgia�s only out transgender elected official. Encouragingly, Koontz reported that since Doraville passed its ordinance, at least six cities�including some outside the Atlanta metro area�have asked her for copies of the ordinance.

Meanwhile, cities in Alabama and Mississippi, two other states without LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination laws, have passed laws to reflect the inclusive values of their communities. In Alabama, in 2017 and 2018, Birmingham and Montevallo each respectively passed a nondiscrimination ordinance to protect LGBT workers, and Mobile, Alabama, appears poised to do the same.

In Mississippi, the capital of Jackson and the small town of Magnolia (population 2,257 in 2018) were both recently joined by Clarksdale, a town known for its tourism and connection to the blues music tradition, in passing an ordinance to protect LGBT workers. These significant strides, in states where religious conservatives maintain a stronghold on state lawmaking, demonstrate the power and progress that can happen when individuals and small communities take legal reform work into their own hands.

The progress being made in these communities is why, at the end of the day, it doesn�t really matter what the Supreme Court ends up saying about whether or not they think federal civil rights laws protect LGBT workers. No ruling, even from the highest court in the land, will invalidate state and city-level protections, though such a ruling might make it more difficult to pass similar ordinances, or defend existing laws against right-wing legal challenges. What matters is what people in cities and states throughout this country say and do to create laws and policies in their communities that reflect the fairness to which everyone is entitled. What matters is people showing up to their city council meetings, voting in local elections, and ensuring that democracy at the local level continues to bend toward justice for all.

2 comments

FOCUS: Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51891">William H. McRaven, The New York Times</a>

Saturday, 19 October 2019 12:04

McRaven writes: "Last week I attended two memorable events that reminded me why we care so very much about this nation and also why our future may be in peril."

The White House at night. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)

Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President

By William H. McRaven, The New York Times

19 October 19

If President Trump doesn�t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office.

ast week I attended two memorable events that reminded me why we care so very much about this nation and also why our future may be in peril.

The first was a change of command ceremony for a storied Army unit in which one general officer passed authority to another. The second event was an annual gala for the Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.) Society that recognizes past and present members of the intelligence and Special Operations community for their heroism and sacrifice to the nation. What struck me was the stark contrast between the words and deeds heralded at those events � and the words and deeds emanating from the White House.

On the parade field at Fort Bragg, N.C., where tens of thousands of soldiers have marched either preparing to go to war or returning from it, the two generals, highly decorated, impeccably dressed, cleareyed and strong of character, were humbled by the moment.

12 comments

FOCUS: Withdrawing From Syria Is a Grave Mistake

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51890">Mitch McConnell, The Washington Post</a>

Saturday, 19 October 2019 11:32

McConnel writes: "Withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria is a grave strategic mistake. It will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances."

U.S. ground forces in Syria. (photo: U.S. Army/Reuters)

Withdrawing From Syria Is a Grave Mistake

By Mitch McConnell, The Washington Post

19 October 19

Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, is majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

ithdrawing U.S. forces from Syria is a grave strategic mistake. It will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances. Sadly, the recently announced pullout risks repeating the Obama administration�s reckless withdrawal from Iraq, which facilitated the rise of the Islamic State in the first place.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I have worked with three presidential administrations to fight radical Islamist terrorism. I have distilled three principal lessons about combating this complex threat.

Lesson No. 1 is that the threat is real and cannot be wished away. These fanatics threaten American interests and American lives. If permitted to regroup and establish havens, they will bring terror to our shores.

Second, there is no substitute for American leadership. No other nation can match our capability to spearhead multinational campaigns that can defeat terrorists and help stabilize the region. Libya and Syria both testify to the bloody results of the Obama administration�s �leading from behind.�

This truth extends well beyond counterterrorism. If we Americans care at all about the post-World War II international system that has sustained an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity and technological development, we must recognize that we are its indispensable nation. We built this system, we sustained it and we have benefited from it most of all.

When the United States threw off the comforting blanket of isolationism in the 1940s and took the mantle of global leadership, we made the whole world better, but we specifically made it much better for the United States. If we abandon that mantle today, we can be sure that a new world order will be made � and not on terms favorable to us.

The third lesson is that we are not in this fight alone. In recent years, the campaigns against the Islamic State and the Taliban, in Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan, have been waged primarily by local forces. The United States has mainly contributed limited, specialized capabilities that enable our local partners to succeed. Ironically, Syria had been a model for this increasingly successful approach.

In January, following indications that the president was considering withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria and Afghanistan, I thought the Senate should reaffirm these crucial principles. Senators would have the opportunity to debate our interests and strategy in the Middle East.

The Senate stepped up. A bipartisan supermajority of 70 senators supported an amendment I wrote to emphasize these lessons. It stated our opposition to prematurely exiting Syria or Afghanistan, reemphasized the need for sustained U.S. leadership to fight terrorists, and urged that we continue working alongside allies and local forces. While I was disheartened that nearly all the Senate Democrats running for president and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) opposed the amendment, the consensus position of nearly all Republicans and a number of Democrats was encouraging.

Unfortunately, the administration�s recent steps in Syria do not reflect these crucial lessons.

The combination of a U.S. pullback and the escalating Turkish-Kurdish hostilities is creating a strategic nightmare for our country. Even if the five-day cease-fire announced Thursday holds, events of the past week have set back the United States� campaign against the Islamic State and other terrorists. Unless halted, our retreat will invite the brutal Assad regime in Syria and its Iranian backers to expand their influence. And we are ignoring Russia�s efforts to leverage its increasingly dominant position in Syria to amass power and influence throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Predictably, our adversaries seem to be relishing these developments. The resulting geopolitical chain reaction appears to have been perfectly distilled by an online video which, according to reports, shows a smiling Russian �journalist� strolling around a just-abandoned U.S. military base in northern Syria. A strategic calamity neatly captured in one Facebook post.

As we seek to pick up the pieces, we must remain guided by our national interests and not emotions. While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan�s offensive into northeastern Syria is misguided, is it really the case that the United States would prefer that Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces control the region rather than Turkey, our NATO ally?

We need to use both sticks and carrots to bring Turkey back in line while respecting its own legitimate security concerns. In addition to limiting Turkey�s incursion and encouraging an enduring cease-fire, we should create conditions for the reintroduction of U.S. troops and move Turkey away from Russia and back into the NATO fold.

To keep pressure on Islamic State terrorists, deter Iranian aggression and buy our local partners more leverage to negotiate with Bashar al-Assad to end the underlying conflict, we should retain a limited military presence in Syria and maintain our presence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. We must also work closely with allies threatened by this chaos, such as Israel and Jordan, and redouble international efforts to pressure the Assad regime. And Congress must finally pass the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act to hold the regime accountable for its atrocities.

Finally, whatever happens in Syria, this situation must chasten the United States against withdrawing from Afghanistan before the job is done. We must recommit to our Afghan partners as they do the heavy lifting to defend their country and their freedoms from al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

As neo-isolationism rears its head on both the left and the right, we can expect to hear more talk of �endless wars.� But rhetoric cannot change the fact that wars do not just end; wars are won or lost.

The United States has sacrificed much in years-long campaigns to defeat al-Qaeda and the Islamic State and stabilize the conflicts that foster extremism. But while the political will to continue this hard work may wax and wane, the threats to our nation aren�t going anywhere.

We saw humanitarian disaster and a terrorist free-for-all after we abandoned Afghanistan in the 1990s, laying the groundwork for 9/11. We saw the Islamic State flourish in Iraq after President Barack Obama�s retreat. We will see these things anew in Syria and Afghanistan if we abandon our partners and retreat from these conflicts before they are won.

America�s wars will be �endless� only if America refuses to win them.

25 comments

William Barr's Wild Misreading of the First Amendment

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51459">Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker</a>

Saturday, 19 October 2019 08:59

Toobin writes: "William P. Barr just gave the worst speech by an Attorney General of the United States in modern history. Speaking at the University of Notre Dame last Friday, Barr took 'religious liberty' as his subject, and he portrayed his fellow-believers as a beleaguered and oppressed minority."

William Barr. (photo: Tom Williams/Getty Images)

William Barr's Wild Misreading of the First Amendment

By Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker

19 October 19

illiam P. Barr just gave the worst speech by an Attorney General of the United States in modern history. Speaking at the University of Notre Dame last Friday, Barr took �religious liberty� as his subject, and he portrayed his fellow-believers as a beleaguered and oppressed minority. He was addressing, he said, �the force, fervor, and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion we are experiencing today. This is not decay; this is organized destruction.�

Historically illiterate, morally obtuse, and willfully misleading, the speech portrays religious people in the United States as beset by a hostile band of �secularists.� Actually, religion is thriving here (as it should be in a free society), but Barr claims the mantle of victimhood in order to press for a right-wing political agenda. In a potted history of the founding of the Republic, Barr said, �In the Framers� view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people�a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order.� Not so. The Framers believed that free government was suitable for believers and nonbelievers alike. As Justice Hugo Black put it in 1961, �Neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.� But the real harm of Barr�s speech is not what it means for historical debates but what it portends for contemporary government policy.

The real giveaway of Barr�s agenda came near the end of his speech, when he said, with curious vagueness, �Militant secularists today do not have a live-and-let-live spirit�they are not content to leave religious people alone to practice their faith. Instead, they seem to take a delight in compelling people to violate their conscience.� What�s he really talking about here? Barr and the Trump Administration want religious people who operate businesses to be allowed to discriminate against L.G.B.T.Q. people. The Trump Justice Department supported the Colorado bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple (in a case that the Supreme Court basically ducked last year), but more such lawsuits are in the pipeline. Innkeepers, restaurant owners, and photographers are all using the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment to justify their refusal to serve gay customers. This is Barr�s idea of leaving �religious people alone to practice their faith.� The real beleaguered minorities here are gay people who are simply trying to be treated like everyone else, but Barr twists this story into one about oppression of believers.

The heart of Barr�s speech is devoted to a supposed war on religion in education. �Ground zero for these attacks on religion are the schools. To me, this is the most serious challenge to religious liberty,� he said. He asserted that the problem is �state policies designed to starve religious schools of generally available funds and encouraging students to choose secular options.� Again, Barr engages in a measure of vagueness to obscure his real subject. Historically, parochial schools have flourished largely outside of government supervision and, just as important, without government funding. This reflects the core meaning of the establishment clause, which enshrines the separation of church and state.

But, in recent years, a key tenet of the evangelical movement (and its supporters, like Barr) has been an effort to get access to taxpayer dollars. In a major case before the Supreme Court this year, the Trump Administration is supporting religious parents who want to use a Montana state-tax-credit program to pay for their children�s religious schools. This effort is also a major priority of Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, who is pushing for the increased availability of taxpayer vouchers to pay for religious schools. Barr portrays these efforts as the free exercise of religion when, in fact, they are the establishment of religion; partisanship in the war between the religion clauses is one of the signatures of Trump�s tenure in office. Of course, the necessary corollary to providing government subsidies to religious schools is starving the public schools, which are open to all children, of funds.

Perhaps the most galling part of Barr�s speech, under current circumstances, is its hymn to the pious life. He denounces �moral chaos� and �irresponsible personal conduct,� as well as �licentiousness�the unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expense of the common good.� By contrast, �religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what is good.� Throughout this lecture, one can only wonder if William Barr has ever actually met Donald Trump.

23 comments

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50554">Aaron Rupar, Vox</a>

Saturday, 19 October 2019 08:56

Rupar writes: "Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney�s disastrous press briefing on Thursday was a prime example of how the White House is struggling to explain President Donald Trump�s efforts in Ukraine in a way that isn�t tantamount to a confession. But Trump�s rally a few hours later in Dallas indicated the president isn�t doing a much better job."

Supporters react as U.S. President Donald Trump holds a rally. (photo: Leah Millis/Reuters)

Trump�s Dallas Rally Showed How Untethered From Reality His Impeachment Pushback Is

By Aaron Rupar, Vox

19 October 19

It�s little more than lies and gaslighting.

cting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney�s disastrous press briefing on Thursday was a prime example of how the White House is struggling to explain President Donald Trump�s efforts in Ukraine in a way that isn�t tantamount to a confession. But Trump�s rally a few hours later in Dallas indicated the president isn�t doing a much better job.

Thursday night, Trump didn�t try to defend his efforts to cajole the Ukrainian government to undertake politically beneficial investigations � efforts that have prompted an impeachment inquiry. Instead, he made stuff up about House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), attacked a whistleblower whose core allegations have already been corroborated by the White House, and suggested his handpicked intelligence community inspector general is conspiring against him. None of these talking points can withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Trump�s attacks on Schiff are at odds with reality

For weeks now, Trump has been lying about what happened during a September 26 House Intelligence Committee hearing featuring testimony from acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire.

Schiff opened that hearing by paraphrasing �the essence� of what Trump said to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during the fateful late-July phone call in which Trump used American military aid as leverage to get the Ukrainian government to undertake politicized investigations. Schiff�s approach wasn�t just unnecessary � the White House�s own summary of the call was damning enough � it was also an unfortunate one, as it provided Trump and his defenders with an opportunity to deflect from the substance of the scandal.

Side note: Adam Schiff's decision to open the hearing with a fictional account of Trump's call with the Ukrainian president was a bad idea and has already been used by two Republicans to criticize him. Here's video of how Schiff framed things: pic.twitter.com/eURjf6grDL
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 26, 2019

Not only has Trump attacked Schiff over the incident, but he�s gone far further and absurdly characterized his paraphrasing as a criminal act that�s tantamount to treason. And on Thursday in Dallas, unloading on Schiff was one of the main talking points Trump used to frame the entire impeachment proceeding as a fraud.

A couple things from Trump's Dallas rally that reflect how he's struggling to respond to the impeachment inquiry:

1) These comments about Schiff are delusional. They don't reflect what happened at the hearing, & there's video! But instead of defending himself on merits, he lies. pic.twitter.com/fIGfCH3WHh
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 18, 2019

�[Schiff] makes up my conversation which was perfect; he makes up my conversation,� Trump said. �He sees what I said � it doesn�t play well because it was perfect � so he made up a totally false conversations with the Ukrainian president. And we caught him cold. Everybody knew it anyway.�

�I want to get him before Congress, and I want to see what he has to say,� Trump added. �You know, they say he has immunity. Why do you have immunity for outright fraud? He�s a fraud!�

Seeing as how there�s video of the hearing in question, Trump�s talking point represents an especially egregious effort at gaslighting the public. But since his actions are so hard to defend on the merits, gaslighting appears to be all Trump has.

Trump�s attacks on the whistleblower continue to entirely miss the point

After attacking Schiff, Trump turned his fire on the intelligence community whistleblower who first sounded the alarm about Trump�s dealings and the inspector general who found his account to be credible.

�The whistleblower got it all wrong! Who�s the whistleblower? Who�s the whistleblower?� Trump said. �We have to know. Is the whistleblower a spy? And who is the IG that did this? All he had to do is look at the tape, or look at what they wrote down � the transcribed version of the phone call � compare that to the whistleblower�s account, and you see if had nothing to do with it. So why did the IG allow a thing like this to happen to our country? Why? Why?�

2) In this single clip, Trump lies about Schiff, tries to turn impeachment into a referendum on the whistleblower even though whistleblower's core allegations have already been corroborated, & suggests his hand-picked intel community IG is conspiring against him. Very weak stuff. pic.twitter.com/sWDdN0F2IN
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 18, 2019

But as I detailed weeks ago, Trump�s attacks on the whistleblower completely miss the point because his core allegations about the July call and the White House�s efforts to cover it up have already been corroborated by the White House itself. And the impeachment-related hearings that have been held in recent days with key players in the Ukraine saga have only further corroborated the whistleblower�s account about what happened during the call and the subsequent efforts to cover it up.

The fact of the matter is the whistleblower�s complaint has both proven to be broadly accurate, and it is also not central to public understanding of the Ukraine scandal. But instead of trying to explain the pattern that has emerged from House hearings, Trump is falling back on his familiar strategy of lashing out and making dark insinuations about deep-state conspiracies.

Along those lines, Trump�s insinuation that intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson conspired against him is absurd on two fronts. First, Atkinson was appointed to his position by Trump in November 2017, so if the president doesn�t know who he is by now, he has nobody to blame but himself. Secondly, the House hearings have made it abundantly clear that Atkinson made the only reasonable judgment possible in finding the whistleblower complaint to be credible.

Despite the flimsiness of his anti-impeachment talking points, Trump�s Dallas audience ate them up, chanting �drain the swamp!� and booing on cue as Trump lambasted Democrats. While that might be enough for Trump�s base, it�s unlikely Trump will find many buyers of what he�s selling among the unconverted.

Indeed, during a CNN interview on Friday, Republican Rep. Francis Rooney (FL) indicated that he doesn�t find Trump�s explanations for why he tried to get the Ukrainian government to undertake politically useful investigations to be persuasive. He thinks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi �has a point� in linking Trump�s efforts to enlist Ukraine�s help in undercutting the Russia investigation to his ongoing, broader affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Rooney is just one House Republican, but his willingness to publicly rebuke the president suggests patience is growing thin with Trump�s unpersuasive efforts to defend the indefensible, even among the GOP rank and file.

5 comments

More Articles...

<< Start < Prev 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 Next > End >>

Page 720 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.