A federal appeals court on Friday overruled a judge who struck down much of Florida’s controversial 2021 election law, allowing the provisions to go into effect while a lawsuit makes its way through the courts. U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker had ruled in March that the Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters in drafting the law and ordered the state not to make any future changes to those provisions without his court’s approval. But three judges on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, granted the state’s request to appea...
Stories Chosen For You
Twenty-four hours after a conservative Supreme Court issued a controversial and unpopular 6-3 ruling that dismantled the 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision that gave women the right to an abortion no matter where they lived, a longtime anti-choice activist attempted to make the case on CNN that taking away a woman's right to choose is actually a good thing.
That led a very skeptical Fredricka Whitfield to pepper former Americans United for Life CEO Charmaine Yoest with a series of questions asking her to make her case -- only to be told repeatedly, "Women deserve better than abortion."
After stating that the court returned this "to the American people and that is what is really exciting about this," Yoest stated, "[This] is the best of what America is supposed to be. That on issues like this, that have deeply held opinions on both sides are going to be decided by people with their closest representatives in a conversation in their own community. And so people are waking up this morning and discovering that they finally have an opportunity to legislate on this issue and that is what we've been working for in the pro-life community for decades now."
"Except, this ruling is contrary to what polled American's opinion is on Roe v. Wade," the CNN host corrected her. "That nearly 60% of Americans polled say they do want women to have a choice."
"You know, I'm really glad you bring that up," Yoest parried. "So I'm hearing this a lot. That this reflects people's supporting Roe, but when you dig into it, people don't support Roe when they know what Roe actually meant. When you look at polling data that asked people if they support common-sense regulations on abortion, you get 80% support for things like informed consent, parental consent, other kinds of things that protect women's health. Frankly, women deserve better than an abortion."
After Yoest claimed, "Women are more pro-life than men are. The pro-life movement has been led by women for decades, so I think you're going to see an invigorated conversation about women and women's place in society. and we welcome that because I think that is a good conversation for us to be having," host Whitfield shot back, "Except the interpretation of many women is that the Roe v. Wade allowed for a choice. And taking that away now eliminates the choice."
"You know, I'm so glad you say that because one of the things that has motivated a lot of us in this movement has been refreshed by women who came out of having an abortion and saying that they felt abused. That they felt backed into it, that they had no choice. And they tell pollsters that time and time again that abortion wasn't this thing that they wanted. It was the baby that was the problem. It was their financial circumstances, relationship and professional circumstances and I would argue to you, Fredricka, that as women, we deserve better than that. That is the lowest common denominator. That is the bottom of the barrel in terms of what we could offer to women in 2022 America. we could do better than that."
"What do you say to women who feel they have fewer rights as a result of this decision and they deserve to have equal rights?" the CNN host pressed.
"Well one of the things that I don't think people are talking about enough is we're hearing a lot about how some states are restricting abortion rights, but Fredricka, actually, as you know, other states are flinging open the doors. so we're going to have a very vibrant conversation moving forward about what common-sense abortion regulations looks like."
"And how do you see this decision improving American women's lives?" the CNN host later asked.
"Oh, very definitely. because we believe that American women deserve so much better than abortion," she repeated yet again. "And so coming to a place where we're talking about what does better look like and how can we have better scenario for women where they don't feel backed into a worst-case decision. That is a very definite improvement for women."
CNN 06 25 2022 12 09 33 youtu.be
On CNN Saturday afternoon, conservative commentator S.E. Cupp insisted the Supreme Court ruling dismantling Roe v Wade after 50 years of allowing women to make choices about their reproductive freedom no matter where they live, will come back the haunt the Republican Party in the 2022 midterms.
As Cupp explained, combined with the battle over gun laws, the unpopular 6-3 decision by the conservative court could be a defining issue that increases voter turnout that will, in turn, cripple GOP efforts to reclaim both chambers of Congress.
Speaking with CNN hosts Christ Paul and Boris Sanchez, Cupp insisted the past week's news has benefitted Democrats as they make their case for November 2022 and beyond.
"Yeah, I think the Roe ruling was a huge -- they [Republicans] might like the outcome, but politically I can't imagine a better turnout engine than this ruling for democrats," Cupp claimed. "And you can make the argument that the Republicans' legislative victories and the Supreme Court victory by a conservative court are regressive, they're taking us backwards. Whether you like them or not, you can't deny the fact that they're going backwards, right? They're taking us back to a different time when these weren't rights."
"Republicans are banning books," she continued. "I mean, it really does feel anachronistic where the country is, so I think that's a good message for Democrats."
"You know, look, the economy is still going to be a huge driver for the election but I absolutely think the Democrats got a big boost from both of these rulings, I feel like, and they needed it, politically," she added.
CNN 06 25 2022 10 33 13 youtu.be
Trump's lawyers could be the first indicted due to the Jan 6th hearings -- and that's very bad news for him
In a column for Politico, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti suggested that a quintet of lawyers who attempted to help Donald Trump steal the 2020 presidential election could be the first major players in the former president's orbit to be hit with criminal conspiracy charges due to revelations from the House Jan 6th committee hearings thus far.
According to Mariotti, the actions of John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Jeffrey Clark seem to be a major focus of the bi-partisan select committee, and that the evidence presented makes a strong case against each of them.
"Of all the evidence uncovered by the committee, what jumps out to me as a former federal prosecutor are the 'fake elector' certificates signed by Trump electors and submitted to former Vice President Mike Pence in an effort to delay the certification of the electoral votes on January 6. Those certificates contained statements that are easily proven false," he wrote before adding, "Typically, lawyers are not a weak link. In my experience, lawyers have been the most difficult defendants to convict. They’re usually careful about what they say and what they write down. But Trump’s coterie of dishonest legal advisers — John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Clark — weren’t careful. In their attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, they said things that were demonstrably false and were personally involved in lies told to government officials."
Writing, "If prosecutors can prove that one or more of them created the false certificates, and knew that doing so was illegal, they may have criminal liability," he suggested that testimony given so far has demonstrated that they knew they were lying and that could be used against them in a trial where, by virtue of the fact that they are also attorneys, makes the case against them even easier.
"Because the statute criminalizing false statements requires knowledge that the statement was false and that the defendant was doing something illegal, the attorneys are the easiest targets for DOJ," he wrote before elaborating, "As attorneys, it will be hard for Eastman, Giuliani and Ellis to claim that they had no idea that they were acting outside the four corners of state law by convening 'alternative' electors and submitting them to the Senate even though the state had already submitted official electors. It will also be hard for Clark to argue that he had no idea that what he was doing was illegal, given that his superiors forcefully told him so."
Calling the cases against them the easiest path for prosecutors eager to head to court, Mariotti added, "But if federal prosecutors build a case against Giuliani, Eastman or Clark first, they could potentially flip one of them and have a key cooperator against Trump. Presumably Trump had forthcoming one-on-one conversations with those attorneys, believing that they were protected by attorney-client privilege."
"If one of them agreed to cooperate, DOJ could go to a judge seeking an order permitting disclosure of Trump’s statements under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, which permits disclosure of private communications between an attorney and client if they were about ongoing crimes," he predicted.
You can read more here.