The Nightmare Scenario SCOTUS is Plotting For the 2024 Election Takeover
https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-nightmare-scenario-scotus-is?fbclid=IwAR1jBCWtEwSNPCONphrThlIwRyJSymi18_vmYiaWROKZ8xgpet1eA_L7Vk4
WHAT CAUSED THE 2021/2 INCREASE IN GAS PRICES?
A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6
https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme-court-threat-democracy-january-6
What Happens When American Children Learn About Racism?
“First and foremost, Nelsen found that, compared to students who read the more traditional history text, students of all racial backgrounds benefitted from reading the more critical text. Latino and Black youth, for instance, reported a greater willingness to participate in acts of political engagement and were also more willing to express their views on a variety of issues. In another work, Nelsen also found that white students reported a greater appreciation for the contributions that Black, Latino and Asian Americans have made to American society.
Political scientists are not the only ones finding results like this. Nelsen’s findings are consistent with a larger body of research conducted by a team of psychologists from Northwestern University, the University of Georgia and the University of Vermont. In their recent review of the literature on this topic, psychologist Sylvia Perry and her colleagues noted that teaching children about racism can actually increase the empathy they have for members of other groups, as well as their concerns about systemic racism. They point to studies showing, for example, that when white children learn about racism they are more likely to value racial fairness and show more positive attitudes and empathy toward Black people.”
WHAT CAUSED THE 2021/2 INCREASE IN GAS PRICES?–Video Sources
How Much Of The Gasoline Price Surge Is President Biden’s Fault? Robert Rapier. 2022 3 13. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/03/13/how-much-of-the-gasoline-price-surge-is-president-bidens-fault/?sh=31618bce7c8b 4 reasons high gas prices aren’t Joe Biden’s fault—and one critical way he’s adding to the problem Will Daniel. 2022 6 8. Fortune. https://www.yahoo.com/video/4-reasons-high-gas-prices-090000545.html
Where The Midterms Could Most Affect Abortion Access
“Since the Dobbs decision, Wisconsin clinics have been proceeding as if abortion is now illegal in the state based on an 1849 law banning the procedure, except to save the life of the mother. However, state Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, has said he won’t enforce the ban, and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers promised to pardon any doctors convicted of performing an abortion. In fact, on Tuesday, Evers and Kaul announced a legal challenge to the 1849 ban. (Evers has also said he is considering executive action that would limit local prosecutors’ ability to enforce the law.)
But Kaul and Evers could both lose reelection in 2022. Evers’s loss would be especially consequential: Not only might doctors once again face jail time for performing abortions if the 1849 ban is determined to be operative, but also, if it is not, a Republican governor could join forces with the Republican-led legislature to pass a modern abortion ban. The opposite situation — Democrats winning the legislature and working with Evers to enact new abortion protections — is pretty much off the table, though. Wisconsin’s state-legislative maps are heavily biased toward the GOP, so Democrats do not have a realistic shot at winning either chamber.”
Even Exceptions To Abortion Bans Pit A Mother’s Life Against Doctors’ Fears
“With the end of Roe v. Wade’s abortion protections, there are now millions of Americans who won’t be able to get an abortion if they want one. Some, like Houshmand, will be people who are seeking abortion because of the way a pregnancy is affecting their health. In theory, this shouldn’t be a problem, thanks to exceptions for the life of the mother that are common, even in the strictest abortion bans. But the medical professionals, legal experts and researchers we spoke to said those exceptions are usually vague, creating an environment where patients have to meet some unspoken and arbitrary criteria to get treatment.”
Why Aren’t We Out of Yemen Yet?
“President Joe Biden’s announcement two weeks after taking office that he would end “all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales,” was welcome. It was also inexcusably ambiguous, and when lawmakers sought clarity into the scope of the policy change, the administration mostly declined to give it. Biden’s announcement “includes the suspension of two previously notified air-to-ground munitions sales and an ongoing review of other systems,” wrote the State Department in a letter. But beyond that, the administration didn’t indicate what military support would continue to flow to the Saudi-led coalition intervening in Yemen’s grueling civil war.
An extensive new report from The Washington Post this week confirms that skepticism of the drawdown was warranted and the specification of “offensive operations” was deceptive. While rightfully decrying Russian aggression against civilian targets in Ukraine, the U.S. government continues to be implicated in the same kind of brutality against civilians in Yemen, the site of the world’s most acute humanitarian crisis. This Post report is fresh evidence that we need to know exactly how the U.S. government is backing the Saudi-led coalition and its war crimes in Yemen—and that this backing needs to stop.”
Biden’s Summit of the Americas Was Over Before It Started
“In a speech delivered last Wednesday at the Ninth Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, President Joe Biden made a passionate plea for renewed purpose and partnership between the United States and its Latin American and Caribbean neighbors.
But it was some conspicuously empty seats in the audience that grabbed the attention. Out of the 35 countries in the Americas, only 23 sent heads of state, one of the lowest attendance rates since the first summit almost 30 years ago.
Most of these absences stem from Biden’s decision to not invite Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to the summit over their human rights records, a move driven in part by pressure from Cuban-American exile groups. “There can’t be a Summit of the Americas if all the countries of the continent don’t participate,” Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador stated at a press conference on June 6. The presidents of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, major sources of migration to the United States, also announced they would not attend in protest.
In 2001, the Organization of American States passed the Inter-American Democratic Charter, officially barring nondemocratic states from participating in successive summits at the behest of the United States. However, this rule was seemingly annulled when the U.S. and Cuba reestablished diplomatic relations under former President Barack Obama.
Cuba attended the 2015 summit in Panama, where Obama’s meeting with former Cuban President Raul Castro marked the first time Cuban and American heads of state had met since the Cuban Revolution.”
…
“”There is no way President Biden can make progress on addressing the migrant crisis since the Presidents of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador chose not to attend””
…
“The summit’s perceived disconnects have confirmed what some in the region have feared: The U.S. is failing to reset or even update its Latin America policy after years of neglect under former President Donald Trump.”
…
“”Washington seems to have prepared this summit as if it was 1994,” said Rivero Santos, referring back to the first Summit of the Americas held in Miami. Rivero Santos believes the Biden administration still sees the Americas through the prism of the 1990s neoliberal political wave that swept south, but socialist and populist governments have been making inroads in the region for years. “Washington has not been able to keep up with the changes in the region. The Latin America of 1994 is very different than the Latin America of 2022.””
It’s a Bad Year for Criminal Justice Reform at the Supreme Court
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021-2022 term is not yet over and it is already going down in the books as a terrible term for criminal justice reform. A pair of recent dissents by Justice Sonia Sotomayor spotlights the sorry state of affairs.
First, in Shinn v. Ramirez, the Court held that a death row inmate who received ineffective state-appointed counsel at both trial and postconviction state court proceedings is now barred from presenting new exculpatory evidence—evidence of actual innocence—in federal court. “Innocence isn’t enough,” declared the state attorney during oral arguments, insisting that the federal courts must defer to the flawed state proceedings.
“This decision is perverse,” wrote Sotomayor in dissent. “It is illogical.” She is right on both counts. As The Washington Post’s Radley Balko has detailed, “every court to consider the actual merits of [death row inmate] Barry Jones’s innocence claim has ruled that he never should have been convicted of murder. And every court to rule against Jones did so for procedural reasons without considering the new evidence. If Jones is executed, it will not be because there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt. It will be because of a technicality.””
…
“The second notable Sotomayor dissent came in Egbert v. Boule, a ruling which shielded a border patrol agent from being sued in federal court for his alleged violations of the First and Fourth Amendments. Among its many sins, this outcome made a mockery of the Court’s 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which said that federal officers may indeed be sued in federal court for alleged Fourth Amendment violations.
“Bivens itself involved a U.S. citizen bringing a Fourth Amendment claim against individual, rank-and-file federal law enforcement officers who allegedly violated his constitutional rights within the United States by entering his property without a warrant and using excessive force. Those are precisely the facts of Boule’s complaint,” wrote Sotomayor in dissent.
She is again right on all counts. Innkeeper Robert Boule alleged that Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert assaulted him on his own property after Boule asked Egbert to leave. That Fourth Amendment complaint does not differ in any meaningful way from the Fourth Amendment complaint at issue in Bivens.
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s flawed judgment, Sotomayor observed, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) “agents are now absolutely immunized from liability in any Bivens action for damages, no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury. That will preclude redress under Bivens for injuries resulting from constitutional violations by CBP’s nearly 20,000 Border Patrol agents, including those engaged in ordinary law enforcement activities, like traffic stops, far removed from the border.” So much for the Fourth Amendment when a federal officer is involved.”