Tired of ads? Want to support our progressive journalism? Click to learn more.LEARN MORE
Enjoy good journalism?
… then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has slashed advertising rates, and we need your help. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. And unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.
Raw Story is independent. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.
We need your support in this difficult time. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.
Value Raw Story?
… then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has slashed advertising rates, and we need your help. Like you, we believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We need your support to do what we do.
Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.
  |  |
Report typos and corrections to: corrections@rawstory.com.
Even New York Times columnist David Brooks—widely reviled over many years for his "wrongheaded and naive" brand of right-wing commentary—agreed Friday with the many progressive voices arguing that Democrats will ultimately be justified in abolishing the legislative filibuster in the U.S. Senate if Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell continues his obstructionist ways.
In his latest column—titled the "The Case for Biden Optimism"—Brooks contends that if current efforts to forge a bipartisan power-sharing agreement fail, efforts to pass a comprehensive Covid-19 economic relief package put forth by President Joe Biden are stymied, and "Republicans go into full obstruction mode" then the Democrats, led by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, "should absolutely kill the filibuster."
<p>
While progressives have been
<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/17/jim-crow-relic-must-be-abolished-demand-end-filibuster-grows" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">making this argument intensely</a> for weeks, if not months, many were caught off guard by Brooks' endorsement.
</p><p>
"Can't believe David Brooks and I finally agree on a thing,"
<a href="https://twitter.com/WaywardWinifred/status/1352650715848732676" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">said</a> Winnie Wong, former top aide to the 2020 Bernie Sanders campaign, in response to the column.
</p><div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 100%; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="true" allowtransparency="true" class="" data-tweet-id="1352627782908567554" frameborder="0" id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1352627782908567554&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Fr%2Fentryeditor%2F2650071971%23publish&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 422px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="Twitter Tweet">
</iframe>
</div><p>
"Kill the filibuster. Today. Now," <a href="https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1352657553826607109" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">said</a> former secretary of labor Robert Reich in a tweet directed at Schumer. "Hell, even David Brooks agrees."
</p><p>
As columnist Ryan Cooper <a href="https://theweek.com/articles/962414/mcconnell-already-moving-strangle-biden-presidency" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">wrote</a> for <em>The Week</em> on Thursday: "[McConnell] is demanding Democrats preserve his ability to block anything they propose with the Senate filibuster, so he can ruin the country and blame it on them, and he is gambling that moderate Democratic senators will be too scared to call his bluff. Democrats should tell McConnell to go pound sand, and nuke the filibuster right now."
</p><p>
Cooper explained:
</p><blockquote>
Recall that the filibuster allows just 41 senators to block most legislation. Activists have begged Democrats to get rid of the filibuster after witnessing McConnell use it to shamelessly obstruct Democratic priorities and then immediately remove it as an obstacle to his own chief priority, confirming right-wing Supreme Court Justices. Yet so far a crucial segment of moderate Democratic senators have resisted, for reasons of "tradition," or worries it will force them to take difficult votes, or simple timidity. Now McConnell has broken yet another Senate norm by <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/21/democrats-mcconnell-filibuster-460967" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">threatening to filibuster</a> the Organizing Resolution unless Democrats agree to keep the legislative filibuster for the next two years. To the best of my knowledge, filibustering the initial organizational rule package in a new Congress has never happened before. (Incidentally, since the Senate will continue to operate under its current rules, that leaves Republicans in charge of the committees so long as it is not passed.)<br/>
If Democrats agree, given McConnell's history, he is virtually guaranteed to not allow any normal legislation through, and to drag out the confirmation of any appointee as long as possible. The only way to pass any law will be through the cumbersome and limited reconciliation process. Just as he did under President [Barack] Obama, McConnell wants to throw sand in the gears of government, prevent Biden from accomplishing anything, blame Democrats for the resulting dysfunction, and take back full control of the Senate in two years.</blockquote><p>
In response to McConnell's request to keep the filibuster in place, Schumer on the Senate floor Friday morning said the proposal "is unacceptable, and it won't be accepted. And the Republican leader knew that when he first proposed it."
</p><p>
In a statement on Thursday, Mairead Lynn, a spokesperson for the watchdog group Accountable.US, also suggested that Schumer should not tolerate McConnell's obstruction for one minute longer and called out the Republican leader's objections to the organizing agreement in the Senate thus far as clearly made in bad faith.
</p><p>
"If McConnell wanted to work with Democrats in good faith," said Lynn, "he would have spent the last two months moving President Biden's Cabinet nominees through the confirmation process—a precedent afforded to every previous president."
</p><p>
McConnell's "unprecedented" and "outsized" demands that would neutralize Democratic control over the Senate, added Lynn, "are nothing more than a last-ditch effort to further obstruct the Biden administration from implementing the will of the people. Enough is enough: McConnell needs to drop his unreasonable demands and let the Senate get to work."
</p><p>
On Thursday, Ezra Klein, Brooks' liberal colleague at the <em>Times</em>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/opinion/biden-inauguration-democrats.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">argued</a> that none of the far-reaching bills that Democrats have vowed to pass will be possible in "a Senate in which the filibuster forces 60-vote supermajorities on routine legislation."
</p><p>
Democrats, wrote Klein, "have plenty of ideas that could improve people's lives and strengthen democracy. But they have, repeatedly, proved themselves more committed to preserving the status quo of the political system than fulfilling their promises to voters. They have preferred the false peace of decorum to the true progress of democracy. If they choose that path again, they will lose their majority in 2022, and they will deserve it."
</p><p>
According to Klein, Biden's "agenda will live or die in the Senate"—and if proper action is not taken, he continued, "odds are it will die, killed by the filibuster."
</p><p>
This is exactly why progressive critics have urged Democrats to immediately end the charade orchestrated by McConnell.
</p><p>
In a series of tweets Thursday, Ezra Levin, co-founder of the progressive advocacy group Indivisible, <a href="https://twitter.com/ezralevin/status/1352328111162093568" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">said</a> his read on the situation was this: "McConnell wants to block popular bills this Congress—stuff like D.C. statehood and H.R. 1. He doesn't want to have the filibuster fight with that backdrop, so instead he's picking the fight on a boring-sounding procedure thing hoping it's more favorable ground for him."
</p><p>
"To be clear," he added: "Senate Dems have no reason or need to give into McConnell's BS. It would be a colossal mistake of historic proportions for them to give in. And I don't think they will here."
</p><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 100%; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><iframe allowfullscreen="true" allowtransparency="true" class="" data-tweet-id="1352344411590561797" frameborder="0" id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1352344411590561797&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Fr%2Fentryeditor%2F2650071971%23publish&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 456px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="Twitter Tweet"></iframe></div><p>And as Levin put it on Friday in a <a href="https://twitter.com/ezralevin/status/1352655220266905606" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tweet</a> linking to Brooks' column: "Killing the Jim Crow filibuster is the institutionalist, pro-democracy position."</p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Police in Moscow on Saturday began detaining supporters of jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny after he called for demonstrations across the country against President Vladimir Putin's rule.
Navalny, 44, put out the call for nationwide protests after he was detained last week on arrival to Russia from Germany where he had been recuperating from a near-fatal attack with the Soviet-designed nerve agent Novichok.
<p>In the centre of the capital, police detained several Navalny supporters ahead of the 2:00 pm (1100 GMT) official start of the rally, when protesters are expected to march towards the Kremlin, AFP reporters said.</p><p>OVD-Info, a group that monitors political detentions, said more than 200 anti-Kremlin protesters had been swept up by law enforcement in around 30 cities across Russia.</p><p>Russian authorities ramped up pressure on Navalny's aides on the eve of the protests, handing short jail terms and fines to his close associates for violating protest legislation and urging people to take to the streets.</p><p>Russia's media watchdog had also issued a warning to social media platforms that hosted calls for a large turnout at Saturday's demonstrations.</p><p>Navalny's arrest sparked sharp condemnation from the leaders of Western countries who echoed calls from the Russian opposition for his release.</p><p>© 2021 AFP</p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Legal experts slam fired pro-Trump Texas lawyer who cited 'Lord of the Rings' in his lawsuit against Biden
January 23, 2021
Law experts and legal observers are having a field day on Twitter with the latest bizarre lawsuit filed by Paul M. Davis, the Texas lawyer ousted from his job after recording himself storming the U.S. Capitol.
The disgraced conservative lawyer has reportedly filed legal documents charging that President Joe Biden is not a legitimate president. According to Law & Crime, Davis insists a federal judge "might be able to appoint a group of 'stewards' from the cabinet of former President Donald Trump to run most of the government from the White House."
<p>However, that is not the most bizarre part of the lawsuit. In the second paragraph of Davis' complaint, it referenced a line from the classic film, "Lord of the Rings" as he insisted, "Gondor has no king."</p><p>A footnote was also included in the complaint to further explain his analogy:</p><p><em>During the course of the epic trilogy, the rightful King of Gondor had abandoned the throne. Since only the rightful king could sit on the throne of Gondor, a steward was appointed to manage Gondor until the return of the King, known as "Aragorn," occurred at the end of the story. This analogy is applicable since there is now in Washington, D.C., a group of individuals calling themselves the President, Vice President, and Congress who have no rightful claim to govern the American People. <br/></em></p><p><em>Accordingly, as set forth in the Proposed Temporary Restraining Order, as a remedy the Court should appoint a group of special masters (the "Stewards") to provide a check the power of the illegitimate President until this Constitutional Crisis can be resolved through a peaceful legal process of a Preliminary Injunction Hearing and a jury trial on the merits.</em></p><p>Davis went on to urge federal judges to "take a stand against tyranny" despite his attempt to promote just that by attempting to overthrow an elected official holding the highest position in the nation. He also offered a number of other analogies to back his arguments. At one point, Davis even alleged that the entire Congress is illegitimate. </p><p>Now, <a href="https://www.salon.com/2021/01/22/texas-lawyer-fired-after-capitol-riot-files-ambitious-suit-dissolve-congress-dont-arrest-him/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">legal experts are weighing in with critical remarks about Davis' wild lawsuit</a>. Barry Burden, Elections Research Center director at the University of Wisconsin, explained the main issues he sees with Davis' suit.</p><p>"The suit is illogical and convoluted," Burden said, adding, "It misunderstands the Help America Vote Act altogether and the relationship between the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, and state election law. It is filed far too long after the election to be actionable and in any event is requesting a preposterous remedy of removing every elected federal official from office who was elected in 2020 aside from President Trump. Remarkably, the lawsuit says nothing about how Vice President Pence should be treated."</p><blockquote>The only named plaintiff in a nutso lawsuit brought against literally every lawmaker by Texas lawyer Paul Davis (of… https://t.co/QRTl6sdaA3<br/> — Roger Sollenberger (@Roger Sollenberger)<a href="https://twitter.com/SollenbergerRC/statuses/1352063661142134786" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">1611192071.0</a></blockquote> <p>Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a fellow at the New York University (NYU) School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice, also revealed what she believes will be the outcome of Davis' lawsuit based on the judicial handling of more than five dozen of the Trump campaign's post-election lawsuits. <br/></p><p>"One thing that Americans learned during the post-election litigation is how little patience courts have for absurd legal arguments," Torres-Spelliscy noted, adding, "This legal effort to declare Congress illegitimate will be laughed out of court and could lead to sanctions for the lawyer bringing such a claim."</p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Trending
Latest
Videos
Copyright © 2021 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email corrections@rawstory.com.