Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NY_20th

NY_20th's Journal
NY_20th's Journal
July 11, 2018

Black women's groups step up efforts to energize African-American voters in the South

WASHINGTON — On the heels of Democratic political victories in the South, black women’s groups are ramping up efforts to get more blacks to the polls in the region and leverage the power of one of the party's most loyal voting blocs.

Leaders of a coalition of national, state and local black women's groups will meet in Alabama in September for a strategy session. They plan to launch more nonpartisan get-out-the-vote campaigns in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi.



The coalition’s effort follows the upset victory last December by Doug Jones in the Alabama Senate race. Black women, who led get-out-the-vote efforts, are credited with helping Jones become the first Democrat in 25 years to win a U.S. Senate seat in Alabama. He was favored by 98 percent of black women voters.

Black women's groups also rallied behind Stacey Abrams, who won the Democratic gubernatorial primary in Georgia in May. If Abrams wins on Nov. 6, she will become the nation’s first African-American woman governor.



The Congressional Black Caucus has also called for national political parties, particularly Democrats, to focus more efforts and resources on the South.


“If we’re going to grow, we’re going to grow in the South," said Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. “This traditional Democratic forfeiting in the South and this traditional Democratic message doesn’t work. … We’re forcing them to come, and they’re coming."

The Democratic National Committee has pledged to ramp up its outreach efforts and recently launched its “Seat at the Table Tour,’’ which hosted a session in New Orleans last week at the Essence Festival. The festival attracted thousands of black women.


https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2018/07/10/black-women-civic-groups-ramp-up-efforts-south/772971002/


July 11, 2018

Top Pence aide Nick Ayers denies breaking the law while running Greitens campaign

JEFFERSON CITY —

Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff denies allegations in a newly filed ethics complaint that he violated Missouri campaign finance laws while helping to run former Gov. Eric Greitens’ 2016 campaign.

Nick Ayers served as Greitens' top political consultant in 2016 and was later paid by Greitens' nonprofit, A New Missouri Inc. His protégé, Austin Chambers, was Greitens’ top adviser during his 17 months as governor.

In June 2017, Ayers became Pence's chief of staff. He is considered a possible replacement as President Donald Trump's chief of staff if John Kelly leaves that post.

In a complaint filed Tuesday with the Missouri Ethics Commission against Greitens' campaign and nonprofit, Ayers is accused of helping both entities commit multiple campaign finance violations — most notably illegally working to conceal the identity of donors.

Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article214679755.html#storylink=cpy

July 10, 2018

New polls show Democrats have a narrow path to a Senate majority

Axios, in conjunction with Survey Monkey, just dropped a big batch of polls from battleground states for the 2018 Senate elections, which are either good or bad news for Democrats, depending on how you look at it.

Democrats are on the defensive, with incumbents in 10 states that Donald Trump won in 2016, while having only a couple of obvious opportunities to win Republican-held seats. The Democrats’ path to victory is narrow if they want to flip the GOP’s current 51-to-49 majority.

The Democrats won’t flip the Senate, according to this new Axios survey that contacted more than 12,600 voters across 13 states. Yes, they are expected to win Arizona and Nevada away from the Republicans, but they are narrowly losing incumbents in Florida, North Dakota, and Indiana. That would mean a 52-to 48 Republican majority.

Yet considering how tough a map the Democrats are facing, that’s not terrible. And by looking closer at the Axios/SurveyMonkey poll while accounting for other surveys, an observer can indeed identify a path to narrow Democratic victory.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/10/17553404/senate-elections-2018-polls-florida-arizona-nevada

Hold our seats, flip Arizona and Nevada. Tough, but possible.

July 10, 2018

Red state Democrats can easily oppose Beltway Brett Kavanaugh

(CNN) — Now that President Trump has bestowed the rose of Anthony Kennedy's Supreme Court seat upon Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the action moves to the Senate. Special attention there will be paid to Democratic senators who represent states President Trump won in 2016. Should they, as Jake Tapper asked me Monday, "vote with their caucus (in the Senate), against the nominee... or vote the way their constituents in red-leaning states would like you to do?"

Actually, this is an easy call. Red-state Democrats should oppose Kavanaugh, period. They should do so early and often; loudly and proudly. Here's why:

Kavanaugh is a total swamp creature. Rather than choosing a judge from Indiana or Pennsylvania or other heartland states, President Trump went with a Beltway Boy, born and bred. Kavanaugh got to where he is the Washington way: by loyally serving powerful figures in the party -- first special prosecutor Ken Starr in his pursuit of Bill Clinton, then as a legal hit man in the Constitutional drive-by shooting of Bush v. Gore. And then, finally, as an aide to Pres. George W. Bush in the White House. Bush rewarded Kavanaugh's service by placing him on the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where he has consistently backed presidential power against the little guy or gal. Kavanaugh is the kind of guy who sucks up and spits down -- the epitome of a Beltway swamp creature. Nobody who rides a John Deere tractor all day will be able to relate to Beltway Brett.

No one ever got beat for opposing a Supreme Court nominee. When President Obama nominated moderate Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley refused to even hold a hearing. Despite the fact that Obama carried Grassley's state by six percent, Grassley refused to budge. It was a shocking breach, a dereliction of duty to refuse to even hold a hearing, much less a vote. After that unprecedented partisan obstruction, Grassley cruised to re-election. Other Republican senators from Obama states did the same, from Marco Rubio of Florida to Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania to Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

read more here: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/opinions/red-state-democrats-can-easily-oppose-brett-kavanaugh-begala/index.html

July 10, 2018

How Brett Kavanaugh Will Gut Roe v. Wade

Kavanaugh was forced to confront the abortion question in 2017 after the Trump administration barred an undocumented minor, known as Jane Doe, from terminating an unwanted pregnancy. The American Civil Liberties Union sued on Doe’s behalf, and the dispute came before a three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh was joined on the panel by Judge Karen L. Henderson, an arch-conservative, and Judge Patricia Millett, a moderate liberal. Doe, who was being held in a federally funded Texas shelter, had already obtained the necessary judicial bypass to get an abortion. But the Trump administration refused to let her see an abortion provider, instead sending her to an anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy center.”

The ACLU argued that the Trump administration was violating Doe’s constitutional rights. Under current Supreme Court precedent, the government may not place an “undue burden” on a woman’s access to abortion. And by preventing Doe from seeing an abortion provider, the ACLU asserted, the government had created such an undue burden. The Trump administration, by contrast, alleged that it had not substantially burdened Doe’s right to an abortion, because if she really wanted one she could just return to her home country. (In fact, abortion is outlawed in Doe’s country of origin.) The government also asserted that Doe had the option of finding a sponsor in the U.S. who would be willing to house her and permit her to terminate her pregnancy.

Hours after hearing the case, the court issued a two-page order that reflected the views of Kavanaugh alone. Millett would’ve ruled that Doe could receive an abortion immediately; Henderson would’ve held that, because she entered the U.S. illegally, Doe has no constitutional rights at all. Kavanaugh, by contrast, struck what he clearly thought to be a middle ground. First, he noted that all parties agreed that Roe v. Wade applies to undocumented minors. Second, he gave the government nearly two weeks to find a sponsor for Doe, removing her from federal custody and transferring responsibility to somebody else. If no sponsor could be found, then the parties could return to court and argue the case all over again, with no assurance that Doe could get her abortion.


In an irate conclusion, Kavanaugh condemned his colleagues for declaring that “unlawful immigrant minors have a right to immediate abortion on demand.” He insisted that the government should be allowed to “help minors navigate what is undeniably a difficult situation by expeditiously transferring them to their sponsors.” By ruling for Doe, the court had deviated from precedent “holding that the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion.”



And that is how the Supreme Court will, in all probability, kill off Roe. A conservative state will pass a draconian anti-abortion restriction—one that shutters all abortion clinics, perhaps, or outlaws abortion after a fetal “heartbeat” is detected. With Kavanaugh providing the decisive fifth vote, the court will rule that the state law does not pose an “undue burden” to abortion access; after all, the government has an interest in “favoring fetal life,” and women who truly want an abortion can go to another state. The majority may not admit what it is doing. But in practice, it will be overturning Roe.


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/how-brett-kavanaugh-will-gut-roe-v-wade.html

I can't believe we have to fight for reproduction rights all over again.
July 10, 2018

San Bernardino prosecutor punished for comments about Maxine Waters, Michelle Obama

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. -- A Southern California prosecutor was disciplined Monday after posting to social media crude and profane comments about U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, former first lady Michelle Obama, Mexican immigrants and the victim of a police shooting. Michael Selyem, a veteran deputy district attorney who handles gang prosecutions in San Bernardino County, was placed on administrative leave while an investigation is conducted, the district attorney's office said. He could ultimately lose his job.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-prosecutor-michael-selyem-punished-profane-posts-maxine-waters-michelle-obama/

He absolutely should lose his job.

Meanwhile, the White House complained to Faux News that Kamala Harris rejected a courtesy call on the SCOTUS pick. The White House is alleging that Kamala's office said "we want nothing to do with you". I hope her office did say that. Reading the filth in the above story, I don't want anything to do with these people, either.

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jun 2, 2018, 09:03 PM
Number of posts: 1,028
Latest Discussions»NY_20th's Journal