Categories
Politics

McCarthy threatens to drag GOP members from Home Jan. 6 committee after Pelosi rejects Trump allies Jordan and Banks

U.S. Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks during a weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol July 1, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

Alex Wong | Getty Images

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy threatened Wednesday to withdraw all his picks for the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol invasion unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reinstates the two Republicans she rejected.

Less than an hour earlier, Pelosi announced that she had vetoed GOP Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana, two of McCarthy’s five picks, from participating in the House probe of the deadly attempted insurrection by a mob of former President Donald Trump’s supporters.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement she made that decision “with respect for the integrity of the investigation” and “with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members.”

On the same day of the Jan. 6 invasion, in which hundreds of Trump’s supporters broke into the Capitol to try to stop President Joe Biden’s election certification, both Jordan and Banks had voted to object to the results of the election.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

McCarthy, R-Calif., in a statement called Pelosi’s move “an egregious abuse of power” and accused her of being “more interested in playing politics than seeking the truth.”

“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts,” McCarthy said.

Jordan, a staunch Trump ally and the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, in a brief statement said Pelosi’s actions show that her Jan. 6 probe “is nothing more than a partisan political charade.”

Banks in his own statement said Pelosi “is afraid of the facts.”

“We said all along that this was a purely partisan exercise by the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi’s rejection of me and Jim Jordan shows once again she is the most partisan figure in America today,” Banks said.

But Pelosi earlier this month had picked a Republican — Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming — one of her eight members on the panel. 

The Democratic-led House set up the select committee after Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have created an independent commission to investigate the attack. Six GOP senators voted to move forward with the legislation.

Pelosi’s statement Wednesday said she told McCarthy that she would appoint the other three Republican nominees to the panel, and “requested that he recommend two other Members” to replace Jordan and Banks.

When asked at the Capitol why she rejected the two Republicans, Pelosi told NBC News, “January 6th.”

McCarthy had selected Banks to serve as the top Republican on the 13-member panel.

McCarthy’s other picks included Reps. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelley Armstrong of North Dakota and Texas freshman Troy Nehls. 

This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

Categories
Politics

Obamacare survives after Supreme Courtroom rejects newest Republican problem

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Thursday against Texas and other Republican-led states seeking to strike down Obamacare in the law’s latest test before the nation’s highest court.

The court reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down the law’s individual mandate provision. Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion, as did Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Breyer said Texas and the other states that challenged the law failed to show they were harmed by it.

“Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have shown that the injury they will suffer or have suffered is ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ of which they complain,” Breyer wrote.

The decision marks the third time that Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, has survived a challenge before the Supreme Court since former President Barack Obama signed the landmark legislation into law in 2010.

Defenders of Obamacare worried that the Supreme Court – with its 6-3 majority of Republican-appointed justices – would scrap the law, a crucial element of the nation’s health-care system.

President Joe Biden, who served as Obama’s vice president when the law was signed, praised Thursday’s ruling as a “major victory” for millions of Americans who were at risk of losing their health care in the midst of the Covid pandemic if the law was overturned.

Biden also vowed to expand Obamacare, a central promise of his presidential campaign.

“After more than a decade of attacks on the Affordable Care Act through the Congress and the courts, today’s decision – the third major challenge to the law that the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected – it is time move forward and keep building on this landmark law,” Biden said in a statement.

“Today’s decision affirms that the Affordable Care Act is stronger than ever, delivers for the American people, and gets us closer to fulfilling our moral obligation to ensure that, here in America, health care is a right and not a privilege,” he said.

Obama said the Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that the law will endure, and the principle of universal health-care coverage has been established.

Two of former President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court picks, Kavanaugh and Barrett, joined the court’s overwhelming majority in rejecting the latest Republican effort to overturn the law. Democrats had warned during Barrett’s confirmation hearings that she was likely to cast a vote in the case that would jeopardize Obamacare.

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, both conservatives, dissented from the court’s majority opinion.

“Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two,” Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Gorsuch. “In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue.”

Trump tried unsuccessfully throughout his one term in office to overturn Obamacare. However, Congress as part of the 2017 tax bill effectively eliminated Obamacare’s so-called individual mandate penalties by reducing them to $0.

Texas and more than a dozen other Republican-led states then filed suit, arguing that that change to the law rendered it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the mandate under Congress’ power to tax, but the GOP-led states argued that the tax justification was no longer valid if the penalty was nonexistent.

Those states, backed by Trump’s Department of Justice, argued that the entire Affordable Care Act should be erased if the individual mandate provision was found to be unlawful.

The case made its way through federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which agreed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. But 20 Democrat-led states, led by California, asked the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court’s judgment, arguing that with the mandate reduced to zero Americans have the choice whether or not to buy insurance.

The Supreme Court agreed in March 2020 to hear the case.

A spokeswoman for Trump did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the court’s ruling.

Numerous Biden administration officials and the top Democrats in Congress were quick to celebrate the decision.

“Each time, in each arena, the Affordable Care Act has prevailed,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor minutes after the ruling.

“Let me say definitively: The Affordable Care Act has won, the Supreme Court has ruled, the ACA is here to stay. And now, we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” Schumer said.

“What a day,” he added.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was instrumental in the law’s passage, hailed the ruling and praised Obamacare as a “pillar of American health and economic security.”

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a landmark victory for Democrats’ work to defend protections for people with preexisting conditions,” the California Democrat said during her weekly press conference.

White House chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted “It’s still a BFD” — an apparent reference to Biden’s infamous hot-mic comment at the signing of the bill in 2010, when he whispered to Obama, “this is a big f—— deal.”

“Today is a good day,” tweeted Sabrina Singh, deputy press secretary for Vice President Kamala Harris.

White House communications official Karine Jean-Pierre noted that the ruling marked the third time Obamacare survived a challenge in the high court.

Categories
Politics

Biden rejects new GOP infrastructure provide

U.S. President Joe Biden gestures toward Senator Shelley Capito (R-WV) during an infrastructure meeting with Republican Senators at the White House in Washington, May 13, 2021.

Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

President Joe Biden rejected a new Republican infrastructure counteroffer on Friday, but will continue talks with Republicans next week as the White House considers whether it should abandon hopes for a bipartisan deal.

During a conversation with the president Friday, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., proposed adding about $50 billion in spending to the GOP’s framework, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement. Republicans last put forward a $928 billion plan. Biden most recently proposed a $1.7 trillion package.

Biden signaled the “current offer did not meet his objectives to grow the economy, tackle the climate crisis, and create new jobs,” she added. Though he shot down the latest proposal, Biden will meet with Capito again Monday and plans to engage with senators from both parties about a “more substantial package,” according to Psaki.

As the talks continue, Democrats have also moved ahead with a surface transportation bill in the House. The legislation could serve as the means to approve major pieces of Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure package through a series of must-pass spending bills.

House Transportation Committee Chair Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., unveiled the bill on Friday. It would invest $547 billion over five years in roads and bridges, as well as rail and other public transport.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

DeFazio has scheduled a committee mark up the bill Wednesday, a date which could serve as the closest thing to a real deadline for Biden and Senate Republicans to reach a deal on infrastructure. Biden separately spoke to DeFazio to “offer his support” for the hearing on the legislation.

The parties have tried to forge a compromise for weeks but appear far from agreement on how much money to spend on infrastructure and how to pay for the investments. Monday marks the date by which Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said the White House wanted to see a “clear direction” in the talks.

Biden could have to decide whether to pursue a massive infrastructure package with only Democratic votes. Members of his own party could complicate the process: Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia on Thursday expressed doubts about using special budget rules to pass a bill as he holds out hope for a bipartisan deal. Biden would need every Democratic vote in the Senate if a plan lacks GOP support.

Biden has told Capito he wants a bill to include at least $1 trillion in new money — or increases to the spending set out under existing policy. The Republican plan would allocate only about $250 billion in new funds.

The president also floated alternatives to his proposal to pay for a bill by hiking the corporate tax rate to at least 25%, a move Republicans oppose. Biden mentioned the possibility of implementing a 15% minimum corporate tax as some profitable companies manage to pay little or no taxes. (The White House stressed that Biden still supports hiking the corporate rate).

However, it is unclear if Republicans will accept Biden’s concession.

The talks have underscored fundamental differences in what the parties consider infrastructure and what they see as the federal government’s role in a changing economy. The White House wants a plan to include not only upgrades to transportation, broadband and water systems, but also investments in clean energy, care for dependent family members, housing and schools.

The GOP wants a more narrow focus on areas including roads, bridges, airports, broadband and water systems.

Whether Biden chooses to craft a bipartisan agreement or pass a bill with only Democratic support, he could face backlash from Democrats. Some progressive lawmakers, including Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., have grown wary of the president’s efforts to cut his original $2.3 trillion proposal in order to win Republican votes.

“If what we’ve read is true, I would have a very difficult time voting yes on this bill,” he said in a statement Thursday. “$2 trillion was already the compromise. President Biden can’t expect us to vote for an infrastructure deal dictated by the Republican Party.”

Still, Psaki signaled Friday that the administration has not shut the door on a bipartisan deal. She told reporters “there’s runway left” on the talks.

However, she suggested the White House would put a cap on how long it negotiates with Republicans.

“There are some realities of timelines” on the talks, she said, “including the fact that Congressman DeFazio is leading the markup of key components of the American Jobs Plan next week.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has told his caucus he wants to pass an infrastructure bill by July.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Categories
World News

Biden rejects Trump’s strategy to North Korea

U.S. President Joe Biden and South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in hold a joint news conference after a day of meetings at the White House, in Washington, U.S. May 21, 2021.

Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden on Friday rejected his predecessor’s approach to North Korea and said his goal as president was to achieve a “total denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula.

Speaking at a joint press conference with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, Biden used the example of former President Donald Trump’s high-profile meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un to illustrate what he, Biden, would never do.

“If there was a commitment on which we met, then I would meet with [Kim],” said Biden. “And the commitment has to be that there is discussion about his nuclear arsenal.”

“What I would not do is what has been done in the recent past,” the president said. “I would not give him all he’s looking for, international recognition as legitimate, and give him what allowed him to move in a direction of appearing to be more serious about what he wasn’t at all serious about.”

Trump held three high-profile meetings with Kim, one in Singapore in June of 2018, another in Hanoi the following February, and the last one in June of 2019. During their third meeting, Trump took several steps onto North Korean soil, becoming the first American president to do so.

All three meetings between Trump and Kim were ostensibly focused on denuclearization. Yet rather than reduce his stockpile, Kim doubled his country’s arsenal of nuclear weapons during the four years Trump was president.

Biden and Moon pledged to work together to continue the effort to denuclearize North Korea.

As part of this process, Biden announced Friday that Ambassador Sung Kim will serve as the U.S. special envoy for North Korea.

Sung Kim is a career diplomat and a former ambassador to South Korea. He was recently nominated to be the assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

Another important topic during Biden and Moon’s meeting on Friday was their countries’ ongoing response to Covid-19.

South Korea is currently experiencing a shortage of coronavirus vaccines. Approximately 7% of South Koreans have received at least one shot of the vaccine, according to data by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency.

By contrast, more than 48% of Americans have received one shot, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

During the press conference, Moon and Biden announced that the United States would provide 550,000 Korean service members with Covid-19 vaccines.

Biden and Moon’s press conference followed an afternoon of meetings and ceremonies, including the awarding of the Presidential Medal of Honor to a U.S. veteran of the Korean War.

The visit was Biden’s second time as president hosting a foreign leader at the White House. And it offered the president an opportunity to showcase that, in his words, “America is back.”

After four years of Trump’s isolationist approach to foreign policy, Moon welcomed the new tone.

“The world is welcoming America’s return and keeping their hopes high for America’s leadership more than ever before,” Moon said Friday.

But foreign policy is not where Biden has devoted the lion’s share of his attention as president.

Aides to the president say he is chiefly focused on enacting his domestic agenda: two massive proposals, to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure and to fund a range of family and social services.

As the past week has shown, however, events on the ground can quickly force any White House to shift its attention overseas.

Most recently, renewed fighting between Israel and the Islamic militant group Hamas in Gaza consumed much of the attention of the world during the past 11 days.

Biden said Friday that a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is “the only answer.”

And despite pressure from some Democrats to take a harder line on Israel’s airstrikes, Biden emphasized that nothing in his approach to the longtime U.S. ally has changed.

“There is no shift in my commitment to the security of Israel. Period.”

He also praised Egypt’s president, Abdel Al-Sisi, for doing what Biden said was a “commendable job” securing the cooperation of Hamas on a cease-fire that began early Friday morning.

Categories
Health

Singapore rejects Delhi chief’s claims about new Covid-19 variant

People take their lunch break in the Raffles Place financial district in Singapore on May 5, 2021.

Facebook Facebook Logo Log in to Facebook to connect with Roslan Rahman AFP | Getty Images

SINGAPORE – Singapore has ordered Facebook, Twitter, and a local publisher to correct a false statement that implies a new variant of coronavirus from the city-state that is at risk of spreading to India.

Singapore Health Minister Ong Ye Kung instructed the two social media giants and SPH magazines to provide a correction notice to their users in Singapore. SPH Magazines has a popular forum called HardwareZone.

“There is no new” Singapore “variant of Covid-19. There is also no evidence of a Covid-19 variant that is” extremely dangerous “for children,” said the Singapore Ministry of Health.

“The strain that prevails in many of the Covid-19 cases discovered in Singapore in recent weeks is variant B.1.617.2, native to India,” he added. “The existence and distribution of variant B.1.617.2 in India goes back to the discovery of the variant in Singapore. This was publicly known and reported by various media on May 5, 2021.”

The Covid variant B.1.617 was detected for the first time in India last year. The World Health Organization recently named the B.1.617 a “worrying variant”, indicating that it has become a global health threat.

What happened?

The move from Singapore came after unsubstantiated comments by an Indian politician sparked a diplomatic incident between the two countries earlier this week.

The chief minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, tweeted on Tuesday that a new coronavirus variant in Singapore is said to be extremely dangerous for children and could lead to a third wave in India. He has provided no evidence to support his claims.

What was the reaction like?

Kejriwal was publicly reprimanded by the foreign ministers of both countries.

“Politicians should stick to the facts! There is no such thing as a ‘Singapore variant’,” said Vivian Balakrishnan, Singapore’s foreign minister, in a tweet in response to Kejriwal’s claim.

The Singapore Foreign Ministry said Wednesday it regretted Kejriwal’s “unsubstantiated claims”.

“MFA is disappointed that a prominent political figure did not establish the facts before making such allegations. MFA met with Indian High Commissioner P Kumaran this morning to express those concerns,” the State Department said.

India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said the two countries are “solid partners” in the fight against the pandemic.

“Irresponsible comments from those who should know better, however, can harm long-term partnerships. Let me be clear – Delhi CM doesn’t speak for India,” he said on Twitter. Jaishankar was previously India’s High Commissioner in Singapore.

Indian Minister of Civil Aviation Hardeep Singh Puri responded to Kejriwal’s comments on Twitter, noting that international flights to India have been suspended since March 2020.

He also pointed out that India and Singapore have no air travel bubble and that New Delhi only operates return flights from the city-state to bring back stranded Indians.

“Even so, we are keeping an eye on the situation. Every precaution is being taken,” Puri said, according to a CNBC translation of his remarks in Hindi.

Covid in India and Singapore

There was recently a surge in locally submitted cases in Singapore, prompting the government to tighten social restrictions again.

While a number of children in the city-state were recently infected with Covid-19, Education Minister Chan Chun Sing said on Sunday that none of them are seriously ill, but the situation is still worrying, according to the Straits Times.

Nonetheless, Singapore announced on Tuesday that children between the ages of 12 and 15 could be vaccinated.

So far, Singapore has reported more than 61,600 cases and 31 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University.

India is the second worst infected country in the world after the US and is facing a devastating second wave. To date, India has reported more than 25 million cases and over 287,000 deaths, but experts believe the numbers have been severely under counted.

Delhi was one of the hardest hit regions in the country, with hospitals facing shortages of hospital beds, oxygen supplies and drugs to treat Covid-19 patients.

Categories
Business

Cramer rejects Buffett’s stance on inventory selecting, favors hybrid mannequin

CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Monday denied Warren Buffett’s claim that Wall Street’s new retail investors are shying away from individual stock picking to invest in index funds.

“I respect Warren Buffett, but I’ll always be the Peter Lynch type,” Cramer told Mad Money, responding to comments from the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. Cramer endorses the investment philosophy of Lynch, the legendary investor best known for his management of Fidelity’s Magellan Fund and his book on investing, One Up on Wall Street.

Lynch’s philosophy is based on an investor using their ability to watch, study, and take action on a stock, Cramer said.

“That’s why I believe in a hybrid. I don’t share Buffett’s disdain for home gamers trying to pick stocks, nor do I want you to go all-in on individual stocks,” he said.

Cramer provided a list of retail stock ideas for investors to test the principles of Lynch.

“I don’t want it to sound easy. If you want to invest like Peter Lynch, you have to actually visit these places or try things on, whatever piques your curiosity,” Cramer said, suggesting that viewers read Lynch’s book. “But I think a game or two of these reopening games will go well with an index fund in your retirement account.”

A Berkshire Hathaway spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment.

Disclosure: Cramer’s charitable foundation owns shares in Walmart and Costco.

Disclaimer of liability

Questions for Cramer?
Call Cramer at 1-800-743-CNBC

Would you like to dive deep into Cramer’s world? Open it up!
Mad Money Twitter – Jim Cramer Twitter – Facebook – Instagram

Questions, comments, suggestions for the Mad Money website? madcap@cnbc.com

Categories
Health

Detroit mayor rejects preliminary J&J vaccine cargo, calls Pfizer, Moderna ‘the very best’

Vial of the Janssen Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) vaccine from Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson via Reuters

Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan turned down an initial allocation of the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 single vaccine this week, according to the Michigan State Department of Health.

At a news conference Thursday, Duggan confirmed that he had refused to grant J&J vaccines from the state this week, citing sufficient supply of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to meet demand from eligible residents.

“Johnson & Johnson is a very good vaccine. Moderna and Pfizer are the best. And I’ll do everything I can to make sure the Detroit city residents get the best,” Duggan said at a news conference Thursday.

The FDA on Saturday approved J & J’s Covid-19 vaccine for emergency use. This makes it the third vaccine approved for distribution in the United States and the only vaccine that requires only one dose.

Clinical trial data shows that J & J’s vaccine provides 66% overall protection against Covid, compared to around 95% for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. While some have raised concerns about the J&J vaccine’s lower rate of effectiveness, the J&J vaccine has been shown to prevent 100% of virus-related hospitalizations and deaths, according to clinical trial data.

“All vaccines are safe and effective, and I recommend that all vaccines be offered in all communities,” said Dr. Michigan chief medical executive Joneigh Khaldun in a statement to CNBC.

“Also, the Johnson and Johnson vaccine has been studied in a more recent period of time with more easily transmissible variants, so I would not recommend comparing the Pfizer and Moderna studies directly with the Johnson and Johnson studies,” Khaldun said.

At a news conference on Friday, Andy Slavitt, Senior White House Covid Advisor, said Duggan’s comments on the J&J vaccine had been misunderstood.

“We have had a constant dialogue with Mayor Duggan … He is very excited about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. And I think we want to reiterate the message that the very first vaccine we can take makes perfect sense for all of us is take, “said Slavitt.

In a statement later Friday, Duggan reiterated the effectiveness of the J&J shot in preventing hospitalizations and Covid-related deaths.

“The only reason we decided not to take the first shipment from Johnson & Johnson was because we had the capacity with Moderna and Pfizer to handle the 29,000 first and second dose appointments planned for the coming week which has already brought us very close to our capacity at our current locations, “Duggan said in a statement on Friday.

The J&J allotment, rejected by Duggan, comprised 6,200 doses that were distributed to other local Michigan health departments, according to Bob Wheaton, spokesman for the state health department.

Wheaton said the state doesn’t expect to receive any more J&J vaccines “for a few weeks.”

Duggan said the city will open a new vaccination site for J&J shots if demand from eligible residents exceeds supply of Moderna and Pfizer cans.

“We always planned to distribute Johnson & Johnson as soon as demand warranted it, and we had our distribution plan so we could make it available to our residents as much as Moderna and Pfizer,” Duggan said in Friday’s statement. “By the time the next J&J broadcast arrives, we’ll have our plan to make it available.”

Categories
Politics

Supreme Court docket Rejects Texas Lawsuit Difficult Biden’s Victory

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded with his own letter on Friday morning. “Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of turmoil,” he wrote, “moving this court to heal grave threats to Texas Senate suffrage and the suffrage of its citizens in presidential elections affirms the Constitution, which is the opposite of turmoil . ” ”

Allegations that the election was tainted by widespread fraud have been rebutted by Mr Trump’s own Attorney General William P. Barr, who said this month the Justice Department had not uncovered election fraud “on a scale that could have changed the election. “

Some 20 Democratic-led states, in a brief endorsement of the four battlefield states, urged the Supreme Court to “reject Texas’s last-minute attempt to discard the results of a popular vote that is safely monitored and certified by its sister states. ”

Georgia, which won Mr Biden by less than 12,000 votes out of nearly five million votes cast, said in his letter that it had handled his election with integrity and care. “In this election cycle,” the letter said, “Georgia has done what the constitution was empowered to do: it implemented electoral processes, managed the election in the face of the logistical challenges posed by Covid-19, and confirmed and confirmed the election.” Results – over and over again. Even so, Texas sued Georgia. “

Even ahead of Election Day, Mr Trump and his Republican allies filed nearly five dozen lawsuits against the treatment, casting and counting of votes in courts in at least eight different states.

They generally lost these cases and often drew blistering reproaches from judges who heard them. Along the way, Mr Trump has not nearly overturned election results in a single state, let alone the minimum of three he would need to claim Mr Biden’s victory.

The first set of measures preceded the elections and was aimed at ending or rolling back the voting measures that states across the country had been taking to deal with the coronavirus crisis. In Texas, for example, Republicans were prosecuting a failed attempt in federal court to stop the drive-through vote in Harris County, home of Houston. A similar move was taken in Pennsylvania to prevent the state from accepting postal ballot papers received after election day.

Categories
Politics

Supreme Courtroom rejects Trump backed lawsuit that sought to overturn Biden election victory

United States President Donald Trump looks on during a ceremony to present wrestler Dan Gable with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC on December 7, 2020.

Saul Loeb | AFP | Getty Images

The United States Supreme Court on Friday rejected an offer tabled by Texas and backed by President Donald Trump in an attempt to undo Joe Biden’s election victories in key swing states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The ruling dealt a death blow to Trump’s desperate and unsuccessful efforts to undo Biden’s planned victory at the electoral college. It took three days for voters to cast their ballots in their respective states and for Biden’s victory to be finalized.

Suffrage experts said from the start that the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed. But Trump, who himself had applied to intervene in the case, had hyped Paxton’s lawsuit as “the big one”.

The court on Friday denied Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to file the lawsuit against the four battlefield states. The judges said Paxton didn’t have reasons to sue the other states over changes they made to their voting procedures amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“The Texas state’s application for permission to file a notice of appeal is denied due to a lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the court said.

“Texas has shown no judicial interest in the way any other state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as in dispute.”

Trump, who appointed three judges to the nine-member court, had said ahead of the November 3rd election that he believed the Supreme Court would ultimately decide the race.

“I think it is very important that we have nine judges,” Trump said shortly after the death of the liberal judiciary Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September.

Biden spokesman Mike Gwin said in a statement on Friday evening that the court had “decided and quickly rejected the recent attack by Donald Trump and his allies on the democratic process.”

“This is no surprise – dozens of judges, election officials from both parties and Trump’s own attorney general have rejected his baseless attempts to deny that he lost the election,” said Gwin. “The clear and authoritative victory of President-elect Biden will be confirmed by the electoral college on Monday and sworn in on January 20th.”

The Texas lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to invalidate the election results of the four battlefield states by stating that their votes “cannot be counted” in the electoral college.

Biden’s victories in the four states, which together had 62 votes, had brought him over the 270-vote threshold required to secure the presidency. Biden is expected to win 306 votes, compared to 232 for Trump.

If Texas had won the lawsuit, it would have canceled Biden’s victory.

Two of the most conservative Supreme Court justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, said in brief disagreement that they allowed Paxton’s lawsuit to be filed, but added that they would “grant no other relief” requested in the case .

“In my view, there is no discretion to refuse to file a notice of appeal in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction,” Alito wrote in a statement backed by Thomas. “I would therefore grant the request to file the notice of appeal, but would not grant any other relief, and I do not express an opinion on any other subject.”

More than a dozen states in which Trump won the referendum filed briefs in support of Texas’s action. More than 120 Republican members of Congress, including House Minority Chairman Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., Filed similar Friend of the Court letters shortly thereafter.

But about two dozen states and territories that Biden had won filed their own pleadings against the Texas appeal.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., In a damning letter from her dear colleague on Friday afternoon, accused the Republicans of supporting the case of “electoral subversion that threatens our democracy”.

“This lawsuit is an act of GOP desperation that violates the principles enshrined in our American democracy,” wrote Pelosi.

“As members of Congress, we take a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution,” her letter said. “The Republicans are undermining the Constitution through their ruthless and fruitless assault on our democracy, which threatens to seriously undermine public confidence in our most sacred democratic institutions and slow our progress on the urgent challenges ahead.”

Rudy Giuliani, the attorney who spearheaded Trump’s efforts to reverse Biden’s victory through legal proceedings, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has clashed with Trump, said in a statement that the Supreme Court has finally “closed the book on the nonsense.”

“Since election night, a lot of people have puzzled voters by turning the Kenyan birther guy. ‘Chavez carved the election out of the grave conspiracy theories,’ but any rule of law American should take comfort that the Colonel The court – including all three tips from President Trump – closed the book on the nonsense, “he said.

Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel, who represented her state against Paxton’s lawsuit, said the ruling was “an important reminder that we are a nation of laws, and while some may bow to the wishes of a single person, they will.” Courts don’t do this. “

NBC News legal analyst Benjamin Wittes noted that while Alito and Thomas opposed the decision, they likely would have opposed it on the matter.