Saturday, June 29, 2024

UK
Extraordinary moment Nigel Farage threatened to use Royal Marines to return migrants to France

Chris Jarvis Yesterday  LEFT FOOT FORWARD

He made the comments on Question Time



The leader of the hard-right Reform UK party Nigel Farage appeared on a special edition of BBC Question Time tonight, facing questions from a live studio audience in Birmingham.

One of the questions put to Farage was how his party would enact its pledge to return migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats to France. In an extraordinary moment, Farage threatened to use the Royal Marines to do so.

He said: “Well we have something called the Royal Marines if it comes to it,” to audible gasps from the audience, before going on to say “we won’t need to do that.”

Farage went on to say that the UK should leave the European Court of Human Rights and ban anyone who crosses the Channel from getting refugee status.


‘He IS the far right of politics’ – The response to Nigel Farage’s Question Time appearance
Yesterday
LEFT FOOT FORWARD

"Farage tries to blag his way out of responsibility for his every action"


Reform UK leader Nigel Farage appeared on the BBC Question Time leaders special this evening.

On the show, he faced a tough grilling from the studio audience about his party’s candidates, his views on migration and his general election campaign.

His appearance has triggered a critical response from people watching.

Former Green Party MP Caroline Lucas slammed Farage as being the ‘far right of politics’ during his performance. That was in response to him claiming to have worked to drive the far right out of British politics. She tweeted: “Did Farage really just say that ‘I’ve done more to drive the far right out of British politics than anyone else alive’ – he IS the far right of politics”.

Alastair Campbell – the man who was once Tony Blair’s comms chief and now hosts a podcast – accused Farage of going ‘full Trump’ in his response to the revelations about Reform UK activists making racist comments. He tweeted: Farage going full Trump … the deep state is at it, setting up actors to work with Channel 4 to damage poor Nige … and the establishment is all ganging up on him.”

Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru’s Liz Saville Roberts accused Farage of trying to ‘blag his way out of responsibility’ for his actions. She tweeted: “Farage tries to blag his way out of responsibility for his every action: His licence for public bigotry, his Brexit failures, his plan to destroy the NHS, his apologies for Putin’s atrocities. He’s a laughing stock”.


Chris Jarvis is head of strategy and development at Left Foot Forward

Farage, rumbled and reviled

Posted on June 29 2024

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk

I watched the Question Time election special last night. Having previously given half hour slots to the leaders of Labour, the Tories, SNP and LibDems, Farage had demanded the same from the BBC. So they gave him what he wanted, and made him share the slot with Adrian Ramsey, co-leader of the Greens.

Ramsey went first. He was coherent, charming, and engaged with the audience. He tried, more than any other politician I have heard in this election, to answer the questions put to him. He dealt as well as could be hoped by his party with questions on their rogue candidates. The nuclear defence question was turned to his advantage. It was clear he had won the audience.

This was his biggest test, and he passed it. I thought Carla Denyer, his co-leader was the better of these two in the media, but Ramsey proved he could hold his own.

And then the audience were let loose on Farage, and they did not spare him. Almost every question accused him of racism. His dislike of migrants was called out time and again. He was made to look like the bigot he is. And when other issues were raised, it was scornfully. One questioner even compared him to Adrian Ramsey, saying the Green offered hope and Farage only offered fear. He had no clue how to respond. It was as if he had been laid bare in public view.

It was some of the best Friday night television I had watched for some time. I said so on Twitter. The reaction, and number of reads, suggests that people agreed.

So, where was Fiona Bruce? Sticking the boot in, as far as I could see. She's clearly not forgiving Farage for the damage he is doing to the Tories.

Rarely has a man looked so reviled on television.

It was good to see that so many have truly rumbled him.



Sunak says ‘racism stings’ as Farage refuses to apologise for activist’s slur


Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage refused to apologise (PA)

By Claudia Savage, Piers Mucklejohn, 
PA Political Staff
Today 

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said “racism stings” in response to a slur used against him by a Reform UK canvasser, which Nigel Farage has refused to apologise for and denounced as a “political set up”.

Campaigners for Mr Farage’s party Reform UK were recorded making racist comments, including about the Prime Minister who is of Indian descent.

The footage, made by an undercover Channel 4 reporter, showed Reform campaigner Andrew Parker using the racist term about Mr Sunak and suggesting migrants should be used as “target practice”.

Another canvasser described the Pride flag as “degenerate” and suggested members of the LGBT community are paedophiles.




Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage speaks during a BBC Question Time Leaders’ Special at the Midlands Arts Centre in Birmingham (Peter Byrne/PA)

During a written Q&A from users on parenting forum Mumsnet, Mr Sunak was asked: “Do you think Nigel Farage is racist?”

The Prime Minister replied: “Racism stings. I’ve experienced it in the past and I’ve spoken about this recently.

“But I’m also your Prime Minister running the country two generations after my grandmother emigrated here, leading the most diverse Cabinet in history, and the fact that neither of these things are a big deal tells you Britain is a great country and we have lots to be proud of.

“With regards to Farage, I won’t put labels on people, but I will call out blatant racism when I see it, and there are clearly deep, deep problems in the party he leads.

“To know my girls may have heard their dad be called a “f****** P***” by someone campaigning for Reform is shocking. We are better than that as a country.”




Prime Minister Rishi Sunak during a visit to Holy Trinity Rosehill CE Primary School in Teesside (Danny Lawson/PA)

During his stint on Question Time, Mr Farage repeated claims that Mr Parker is an actor and he described the expose as “a political set-up of astonishing proportions”.

He said: “Let me tell you, from the minute (Mr Parker) turned up in that office in Clacton and I saw him, he was acting from the very start. He even says on his website, ‘hire me, I do undercover filming’.


He added: “This is a total and utter set-up that has been leapt on, of course, by our political opponents, leapt on by most of the mainstream media.”

Asked who he believed paid Mr Parker to pretend to be a Reform canvasser, Mr Farage said: “It may well have been the production company, or it’s the guy himself who wanted publicity to get more parts, I don’t know. What I know is this is a political set-up of astonishing proportions.”

But Mr Parker told the PA news agency that his volunteering for Reform was separate from his acting job, adding that he had been “goaded” into making the comments caught on camera.

Channel 4 hit back at the claims Mr Parker was a paid actor, with a spokesperson for the broadcaster saying: “We met Mr Parker for the first time at Reform UK party headquarters, where he was a Reform party canvasser.”

On Friday evening, Mr Farage faced incisive live questioning from audience members about the remarks made, as one said he employed “a whole slew of massive racists” and another called on the Reform leader to “take responsibility for your actions and say ‘sorry’, and stop making excuses?”


In response to the former, Mr Farage said: “I’m not going to apologise. I’m not going to apologise – for what? And we’ll find out the full truth, but I promise you what happened over the weekend, what was on the front page of The Times today is a set-up, a deliberate attempt to smear us. When you look at it, what do you say? It’s almost unbelievable.”




Mr Farage faced difficult questions (Peter Byrne/PA)

A spokesman for Essex Police said the force is “urgently assessing” the comments “to establish if there are any criminal offences”.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said he was “shocked” by the “clearly racist” footage and that the Reform UK leader faces a “test of leadership”.

Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch said Reform candidates were the “offcuts” from other parties as she urged Reform voters to “come back” to the Tories.

In an interview with The Times, she said: “People do need to look at them. It goes well beyond racism, misogyny. It’s people who are not fit to make the decisions about your life.


“They don’t understand what it’s about. They’ve got no clue. I think that (Mr Farage) wants to be talked about again. This is all a big show for him. Nigel Farage doesn’t care if there’s a Labour government.

“This is I’m A Celebrity for Nigel Farage. He’s done I’m A Celebrity, came third, he wants to see if he can come first or second in politics, which is just another game [to him], but actually this is about people’s lives.

“I really want Reform voters to know that we’ve heard you. We understand. But you need to come back to the Conservative Party.”




Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch said Reform candidates were the ‘offcuts’ from other parties (Lucy North/PA)

On Question Time, Mr Farage was read racist or xenophobic comments made by Reform candidates, including Leslie Lilley, candidate for Southend East & Rochford; Edward Oakenfull, candidate for Derbyshire Dales; and Robert Lomas candidate for Barnsley North.

Mr Farage said: “In most cases, they’ve been disowned. People like (Leslie) Lilley, honestly, what he said is criminal.”

When asked: “So why is he your candidate?”

Mr Farage said: “I have no idea”, prompting laughter from the audience.

He said: “I inherited this. It was a start-up party. I paid a professional London vetting company to weed this out. The work wasn’t done.”

Asked if he would withdraw support from the three referenced candidates, Mr Farage said: “I wouldn’t want anything to do with them.”


Reform canvassers are the thin end of the wedge in bigoted Britain

A cesspit

 by Hannah Sharland
28 June 2024
in Opinion

Undercover reporters from Channel 4 News have exposed in Clacton the cesspit of bigotry festering inside the Reform Party ahead of the general election. Of course, practically no one was surprised by this.

However, the open bigotry itself from Nigel Farage flunkeys should not be the key take-away. In reality, it speaks to the hate-filled political environment that the two mainstream parties and the corporate media have fomented.

In short, Reform’s racist, homophobic canvassers are the thin end of the violent political landscape that makes up bigoted Britain.

Reform: Clacton canvassers caught out spouting hate

Channel 4 News have sent an undercover reporter on the campaign trail in Clacton, where Farage is standing for election.

In covertly captured footage, it caught out Reform canvassers spouting racist slurs and anti-LGBTQ+ hate. On top of this, the news outlet exposed them advocating disgusting violence against migrants:

People on X were shook and expressed their horror at the entirely unpredictable behaviour of Farage’s cult *ahem* canvassers:

Because, knock me over with a feather, Reform riddled with rabid racists? You don’t say! Needless to say, the ‘news’ was entirely unsurprising to everyone. As one person on X expressed, racists in a racist country is pretty par for the course:

Bad apples from the Reform tree rotten to its core

As a case in point – the replies were cesspool of revolting bigotry:

So what came of Channel 4’s findings in Clacton? Predictably, Reform kicked its public relations face-saving machine into action. Campaign manager for Farage Peter Harris told the outlet that:

Any individuals who have been identified as making unacceptable comments and holding those views are not welcome in our campaign. We are running a campaign to represent all voters in Clacton.

And Farage said that:

I am dismayed by the reported comments of a handful of people associated with my local campaign, particularly those who are volunteers. They will no longer be with the campaign.

In other words, Reform is distancing itself from the bigots the media caught out. Here we go again, a few bad apples is it? One poster on X rubbished this deception:

Consequences for coconuts, but not actual bigots

People also compared this to the reaction of a brown woman using an established critique from Black intellectual thought of how white supremacism manifests through elite Black and brown politicians:

Notably, the term coconut satirically criticises the idea that having diverse representation – in this case, in parliament – actually makes a difference for marginalised communities. As the Canary’s Maryam Jameela has articulated before, this is simply not the case, because:


Getting Black and brown faces into positions of power means very little if those same people don’t use their power to make life better for the most vulnerable people in society.

Crucially, she highlighted that their class identity, in other words, the fact they come from rich and privately educated backgrounds, means they don’t typically represent the most vulnerable in society. Instead, they act in the interests of power. That is, they uphold the white power structures in place – and their regressive, scapegoating policies reflect this.

This is what the term ‘coconut’ is all about, because as the Canary explained:

calling someone a “coconut” is a casual way to suggest that someone who is brown on the outside, is white on the inside. In other words, whilst being brown they are committed to whiteness above all else.

It’s hardly a new term, and documents a social reality that doesn’t often make it into the mainstream.

It’s a complex articulation of racial dynamics and hierarchies.

In short, it wasn’t a racial slur from Marieha, but actually a valid expression of her view that Sunak and Braverman do not speak for her or her community. Ridiculously then, she’s now in court for an entirely unwarranted public order offence.

On Wednesday 26 June, police also arrested protesters who turned out in support of Marieha – many sporting placards that detailed the satirical nature of the term.

Meanwhile, on shit-hole Island, Reform canvassers utter actual racial slurs on the campaign trail and will face no consequences for this.

Of course, as the Canary has consistently pointed out over recent Palestine protests, the cops are servile instruments of the state. Naturally then, they act to protect this power structure – invariably, this means the elite, patriarchal, white supremacist and heteronormative status quo. Unsurprisingly, racism, homophobia, and sexism is therefore deeply embedded in the police too.

Bigotry in ‘bad words’ only


All this is the inevitable end result of an establishment commentariat wedded to the corporate capitalist system. These canvassers are the supporters of a man the BBC and other outlets keep plastering onto our screens:

Far from de-platforming the political symbol of this vile hate, the mainstream media has consistently normalised him.

However, one poster on X articulated how the Clacton Channel 4 News investigation demonstrates another part of this. Specifically, the broadcaster’s piece is illustrative of a broader problem in the mainstream media. That is, how the press only recognises bigotry in its most blatant forms:

And the poster was right. Bigotry isn’t simply the hate-filled words that people utter towards marginalised communities. This is just the visible and thin end of the wedge. Of course, it needs calling out, but so too do the systems that continue to oppress our communities.

Because the reality is, those words are simply the slurs the architects of discriminatory policies are usually too guarded, too politically savvy to say out loud.

Gormless Reform gammons regularly buck this trend, but be under no illusions. The bigot in a nice suit, with slick political gymnastics to justify punching down, is still a bigot. They’re just better at making their violence publicly palatable, and securing the billionaire backers and press to make it happen. In other words, the mainstream political class is actively complicit in this:

Reform might be openly, brazenly fascist, but the creeping fascism of the Tory and Labour right is if anything, more insidious. If you’re wondering why Starmer is comfortable sitting in parliament with Farage, this is the reason.

In other words, Farage and Reform’s existence is almost convenient. Its transparent bigotry lays cover for the Tories and Labour, as they push legislation couched in the same violent hate. And the same corporate media that downplays Reform and Farage’s hate-mongering, also does this with the Tories and Labour to devastating effect too:

It’s the Overton window in its finest, most dangerous hour. At the end of this day, a poster on X summed up this political pantomime in one fell swoop:




UK
The past five Tory-led years have been the WORST since 1950 for YOUR living standards

Don't vote for more of this

 

While the Conservative Party is crowing about GDP and the fact the UK has technically come out of a recession, buried in the figures was some news they probably didn’t want you to hear: your disposable income has actually fallen since 2019. In fact, it has been the worst period for income growth since at least the 1950s.
The UK: out of recession… technically…

Britain’s economy emerged from a short-lived recession in the first quarter with stronger-than-anticipated growth, upwardly revised data showed Friday, lifting embattled Prime Minister Rishi Sunak before next week’s general election.

GDP grew 0.7% in the first three months of this year, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said, upgrading the prior growth estimate of 0.6%. Market expectations had been for no change.

The surprise modest improvement was driven by the services sector, with slightly stronger activity in the professional services, transport and storage.

However, the ONS had revealed earlier this month that the UK economy had stagnated in April with zero growth, but the performance was hit by wet weather.

The economy contracted slightly for two quarters in a row in the second half of 2023, meeting the technical definition of a recession that was caused by elevated inflation that has prolonged a cost-of-living crisis.

But behind these figures was bad news for the rest of us.

Tories: presiding over a fall in your disposable income

Analysis by think tank the Resolution Foundation has found that household disposable income is dire.

It noted that:
Real household disposable income (RHDI) was one per cent lower in Q4 2023 (the latest data at the time of the last General Election) than it was in Q4 2019. Although there is still more data to be released before we can conclusively assess progress up to the 2024 election, it is likely that the 2019-2024 Parliament will have been the worst for income growth since at least the 1950s.

Moreover, it also found that:
Taking a longer view, typical non-pensioner incomes have grown since 2009-10, by £1,900, or 7 per cent. But again, this level of income growth – equivalent to an average annual real-terms change of 0.5 per cent, or £140 a year – is unusually low by historical standards.

And had we experienced the same level of growth in median incomes between 2007 and 2022 as the Netherlands, France and Germany, the UK’s median income in 2022-23 would be £2,700 higher than actually observed.
The worst five years in modern history

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

This parliament will go down as the worst for living standards in modern history – with households worse off than at the start.

The Conservatives can try and blame external events. But 14 years of Tory stagnation have been toxic for family budgets.

The reason so many people have struggled during this cost of living crisis is because real wages are still worth less than in 2008.

We can’t go on like this. We need a government that will make work pay.

TUC analysis shows:If real wages had grown at their pre-crisis tend workers would be, on average, £14,000 a year better off.
Unsecured household debt is set to increase by over £1,600 this year.

Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

Featured image via the Canary

 

AMERIKA

Tracking debt: Which generation owes the most?



















  • Gen Xers have the highest median non-mortgage debt of $33,859
  • Millennials are the most likely to have student loan debt
  • Texas cities topped the list for most debt across every generation

(NewsNation) — Mortgages make up the bulk of household debt but a new analysis shows most Americans owe thousands of dollars beyond their home loans, with members of Gen X carrying the highest balances.

Across the 100 largest metros in the U.S., the median non-mortgage debt is $24,668, according to online lending marketplace LendingTree. Gen Xers, between 44 and 59 years old, owed $33,859, the most across the four generations studied.

Millennials weren’t far behind, owing $30,558 across non-mortgage loans, including credit cards, auto loans, student loans, and personal loans.

Debt levels also vary widely by region. Consumers in McAllen, Texas, have the highest auto debt across all generations, LendingTree found.

Gen Zers in Northeast cities like Boston and New Haven, Connecticut, had the highest student loan debt, while millennials carried higher student loan balances in southeast cities like Durham, North Carolina, and Atlanta, Georgia.

The analysis is based on more than 428,000 anonymized credit reports from LendingTree users in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas. The credit reports are from Oct. 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024.

Median non-mortgage debt balance by generation, according to LendingTree:

  1. Gen Xers (ages 44-59): $33,859
  2. Millennials (ages 28-43): $30,558
  3. Baby Boomers (ages 60-78): $18,779
  4. Gen Zers (ages 18-27): $16,562

The Gen X debt situation

Across all generations in the 100 largest metros, Gen Xers have the highest median non-mortgage debt at $33,859. The cohort also has the largest share of people with debt, nearly 99% carry some type of balance, LendingTree found.

Gen Xers led the way in three of the four categories analyzed. The group — between 44 and 59 years old — has the highest median credit card, auto loan and student loan balances.

Where they owe the most: Four of the five metros where Gen Xers owe the most are in Texas. McAllen tops the list, where Gen Xers owe a median balance of $46,166. Hefty auto loans appear to be the main driver in the Lone Star State, with Gen Xers’ typical car debt hovering around $29,000 in multiple cities.

Gen Xers credit card balances were highest in the northeast and Florida. Bridgeport, Connecticut ($8,669) and New York City ($7,922) topped the list, followed by Miami ($7,797), Lakeland ($7,777) and Cape Coral ($7,714), Florida.

Only 25% of Gen Xers still carry student loans; however, their median balance is $31,066, the highest of any generation.

The millennial debt situation

Millennials have had less time than Gen Xers to rack up debt but they’re already well ahead of the much older Baby Boomers, carrying a median non-mortgage debt balance of $30,558.

Student and auto loans are the main challenge for those ages 28 to 43. Millennials have the second-highest auto loan debt across generations, with nearly 60% owing a median balance of $20,826.

While their average student loan balance is lower than Gen X, millennials are the most likely to have that form of debt. Over 38% of millennials have student debt and their median balance is $24,112.

Where they owe the most: Three of the top five cities were in Texas with El Paso topping the list. Millennials in the West Texas city owe a median non-mortgage debt balance of $42,982.

Once again, auto loans tell much of the story. According to the analysis, five of the six U.S. cities where millennials carry the most car debt are in Texas.

When it comes to student loans, millennials in Washington D.C. owe the most, $31,895. The nation’s capital is followed by Durham ($30,606) and Raleigh ($30,119), North Carolina; Atlanta ($29,724); and Columbia, South Carolina ($29,353).

The baby boomer debt situation

Despite being the oldest generation in the analysis, baby boomers carry considerably less non-mortgage debt than Gen Xers and millennials, owing a median balance of $18,779 across the country’s largest metros.

The cohort between ages 60 and 78 are the most likely to carry credit card debt, with 93% having a balance. They owe a median of $4,862, the second highest of the generations studied.

Baby boomers are faring much better regarding student loans, only 11% still carry them. They’re also less likely to have car debt, just 48% owe on auto loans, the second-lowest by generation.

Where they owe the most: McAllen, Texas ($33,020) topped the list again, followed by Augusta, Georgia ($29,754), San Antonio ($28,524), Austin ($26,686) and Dallas ($25,965).

Although they have the lowest percentage of personal loans, baby boomers carry the highest balances, owing a median of $5,363. In Honolulu, Hawaii they owe a staggering $12,676 in personal loans.

The Gen Z debt situation

The youngest generation in the study has the lowest debt ($16,652) but the vast majority, 97%, still carry a balance.

As far as student loans, Gen Zers owe significantly less than other generations, with a median balance of $12,172 — roughly half of what millennials owe for school. Part of that is because many 18 to 27-year-olds are still making their way through college but they’re also less likely to attend in the first place.

Gen Zers are also fairly likely to have auto debt, with around 47% of the country’s youngest adults having a median car loan amount of $17,402, according to the analysis. 

Where they owe the most: McAllen ($27,781) and El Paso, Texas ($22,476) ranked at the top for Gen Z but the rest of the top ten had more geographic diversity than other generations. Cities like Cape Coral, Florida ($21,208), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania ($21,178) and Syracuse, New York ($21,116) were also among the highest for Gen Z debt.

Young adults in the Northeast carry a particularly high level of student loan debt. Boston ($20,986) ranked first, followed by New Haven ($20,173), Bridgeport ($19,250) and Hartford ($18,481), Connecticut.

 

Barrett breaks with conservatives over Jan. 6 obstruction charge ruling

In a pointed dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett skewered her fellow justices over their decision to narrow an obstruction charge used to prosecute scores of rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 on Friday to side with Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of partaking in the Capitol attack who challenged the provision as being improperly applied to rioters.

Barrett, an appointee of former President Trump — who himself faces a criminal charge that could be impacted by the court’s opinion — noted the high court does not dispute that the certification of the 2020 presidential election results that day qualifies as an “official proceeding.” Nor does it dispute that rioters — including Fischer himself, allegedly — delayed the proceeding. 

“Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?” the conservative justice wrote in a dissent joined by liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said.”

The law, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress. It carries a maximum 20 years in prison and  has been used to prosecute more than 350 rioters accused of interrupting Congress’s 2020 certification of the vote.

But Fischer claimed the Justice Department retooled the charge to sweepingly prosecute those who participated in the riot, when the law — established in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal — actually intended to narrowly criminalize document shredding.

Barrett acknowledged that the Congress that enacted the law likely did not have the riot in mind when creating it. She quipped, “Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?”

However, she contended that statutes “often go further than the problem that inspired them,” accusing the majority of “abandoning” the rules of statutory interpretation and completing “textual backflips” to find “some way — any way —” to narrow the provision’s reach. 

“Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress’s joint session on January 6,” Barrett wrote. “Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction. Fischer’s alleged conduct thus falls within (c)(2)’s scope.” 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that it would be “peculiar” to find that, in Congress’s efforts to close Enron gap, it “hid away … a catchall provision” reaching past the document shredding that prompted the legislation.

“The better conclusion is that subsection (c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in (c)(1),” Roberts wrote.  

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, joined the conservative majority. In a separate opinion, she signaled her belief it is possible for Fischer and other defendants to still be prosecuted under the charge.

“That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand,” Jackson wrote. 

The Supreme Court’s decision could have profound implications on the Justice Department’s years-long prosecution of the Capitol attack.

Among those charged under the provision were several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups, including leaders Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes. 

Two of Trump’s charges in his federal election subversion case — which has been on an indefinite pause as the Supreme Court weighs his presidential immunity challenge — also stem from the provision. He has pleaded not guilty.

US Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction statute in January 6 Capitol riot case

JUNE 28, 2024

In a closely watched decision stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government must prove a defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability or integrity of evidence to be convicted under a key obstruction statute.

On January 6, 2021, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the US Capitol while Congress convened in a joint session to certify the 2020 Presidential election results in favor of Joe Biden. Amid escalating tensions, some protesters breached the Capitol, breaking windows and clashing with law enforcement, which resulted in a significant delay in the certification process. The events raised widespread concerns about the security of democratic processes in the United States.

The case, Fischer v. United States, centered on Joseph Fischer, who was charged under Section 1512(c)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for allegedly obstructing Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election. Fischer argued the statute only covered actions aimed at evidence impairment, not broader obstructive conduct. The preceding section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 1512(c)(1) establishes criminal liability for specific actions such as altering, destroying, or concealing records intending to obstruct official proceedings. Subsection 1512(c)(2) broadens this prohibition to anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”The Supreme Court was asked to weigh in on whether the expansive language of 1512(c)(2) should be tempered by the specific acts listed in 1512(c)(2).

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, narrowed the interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2), emphasizing its linkage to the preceding subsection. In assessing the meaning of “otherwise” in (c)(2), the court focused on two legal principles:noscitur a sociis, the principle that a word is “given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated,” andejusdem generis, “a general or collective term at the end of a list of specific items is typically controlled and defined by reference to those specific items that precede it.” Combined, the court reasoned that these principles show that Congress generally would not introduce a general term if doing so would render the text preceding it meaningless.

On this basis, the court reasoned:
Under these principles, the ‘otherwise’ provision of §1512(c)(2) is limited by the list of specific criminal violations that precede it in (c)(1). If, as the Government asserts, (c)(2) covers all forms of obstructive con- duct beyond §1512(c)(1)’s focus on evidence impairment, Congress would have had little reason to provide any specific examples at all. And the sweep of subsection (c)(2) would swallow (c)(1), leaving that narrower provision with no work to do.\

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the majority improperly interpreted the law, stating “By textually narrowing [subsection 1512(c)(2)], the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches,” explaining that once Congress establishes the outer limits of liability, the Executive Branch can choose which cases to prosecute within those boundaries.

The decision is expected to have significant implications for future prosecutions related to obstruction of justice, particularly in high-profile cases involving political uprisings. It aligns with the Court’s historical approach of limiting statutory interpretations to prevent overly broad criminalization of conduct not intended by Congress.

The ruling vacates an earlier decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which had ruled in favor of a broader interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).


Jan. 6 cases start being reopened after Supreme Court ruling

Just hours after the Supreme Court narrowed an obstruction charge used to prosecute scores of Jan. 6 rioters, trial-level judges have started to reopen some cases tied to the 2021 Capitol attack.

The federal judge who oversaw the case against Guy Reffitt — the first rioter convicted by a jury — ordered Reffitt’s attorneys and the Justice Department (DOJ) to propose a schedule for “further proceedings” in light of the justices’ decision by July 5, signaling a resentencing is imminent. 

Reffitt was convicted on five counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge, stemming from Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress. It carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and has been used to prosecute more than 350 rioters accused of interrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral vote.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday to rein in the obstruction charge after a different rioter, Joseph Fischer, challenged that provision as being improperly applied to those who participated in the Capitol attack.

The judge who handled Reffitt’s case — U.S. District Judge Dabney Langhorne Friedrich, a Trump appointee — reopened several other rioters’ cases Friday afternoon, directing them to adhere to similar instructions as Reffitt. 

Among the hundreds of defendants convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding are several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups — including the leaders of each group, Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, respectively, though they were each convicted of the more serious charge of seditious conspiracy.

Their cases remain dormant for now, though an attorney for Tarrio told The Hill earlier Friday that the ex-Proud Boys national chair’s lawyers plan to “thoroughly review” Tarrio’s sentence and “any collateral consequences” of the high court’s decision.

Though most rioters charged with the obstruction count also faced other felony counts, 50 rioters were sentenced with the obstruction law as their only felony, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said during arguments before the Supreme Court in April. 

Other rioters took plea deals involving the charge, like Tennessee native Ronald Sandlin, whom prosecutors said traveled to Washington in a rental car packed with two pistols, two magazines of ammunition, cans of bear mace and other gear. His case was reopened Friday.

The Supreme Court’s decision could also cause one of the most notorious rioters from the Capitol attack to face prosecution again, the DOJ signaled in recent court filings: Jacob Chansley, dubbed the “QAnon Shaman.”

Chansley pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding and was sentenced to 41 months in prison without a trial. He was released early last year, but in recent court filings, prosecutors said the Supreme Court’s decision “may create a situation where evidence must be preserved and Defendant tried,” not expanding further on the matter. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement following the verdict Friday that he is “disappointed” by the decision, but the “vast majority” of rioters charged for their role in the attack “will not be affected by this decision.” The DOJ will take “appropriate steps” to comply with the high court’s ruling, he said. 

“We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy,” Garland said.


\


US Supreme Court strikes down Chevron deference, freeing courts to overrule regulatory agencies in expert determinations

Analysis

Elena Kagan’s scathing Chevron dissent highlights US supreme court’s disregard for precedent


The court is turning into ‘an administrative czar’, says liberal justice after 40-year-old doctrine is overturned

THE GUARDIAN
Fri 28 Jun 2024 

Elena Kagan issued a devastating dissent to the decision of her hard-right fellow supreme court justices to overturn the Chevron doctrine that has been a cornerstone of federal regulation for 40 years, accusing the majority of turning itself into “the country’s administrative czar”.

Kagan was joined by her two fellow liberal-leaning justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in delivering a withering criticism of the actions of the ultra-right supermajority that was created by Donald Trump. Such caustic missives have become commonplace from the three outnumbered liberals, with each carefully crafted dissent sounding more incensed and despairing than the last.



US supreme court strikes down 40-year precedent, reducing power of federal agencies


In a speech at Harvard last month, Sotomayor revealed that after some of the supreme court’s recent decisions she has gone back to her office, closed the door and cried.

“There have been those days, and there are likely to be more,” she said.

Kagan’s dissent in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo on Friday was the literary equivalent of crying over 33 pages. But she was also searingly angry.

She said that in one fell swoop, the rightwing majority had snatched the ability to make complex decisions over regulatory matters away from federal agencies and awarded the power to themselves.
A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubrisElena Kagan, in her dissent

“As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar,” she wrote.

For 40 years, she wrote, the Chevron doctrine, set out by the same supreme court in a 1984 ruling, had supported regulatory efforts by the US government by granting federal experts the ability to make reasonable decisions where congressional law was ambiguous. She gave a few examples of the work that was facilitated as a result, such as “keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest”.

Now, the hard-right supermajority had flipped that on its head.

Instead of federal experts adjudicating on all manner of intricate scientific and technical questions – such as addressing the climate crisis, deciding on the country’s healthcare system or controlling AI – now judges would make those critical calls.

Kagan, displaying no desire to pull her punches, portrayed Friday’s ruling as a blatant power grab by the chief justice, John Roberts, and his five ultra-right peers, three of whom were appointed by Trump – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

“A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris,” she wrote.

Not for the first time, her most caustic comments relate to stare decisis – the adherence to legal precedent that is the foundation stone of the rule of law. Respect for the previous judgments of the supreme court is a reminder to judges that “wisdom often lies in what prior judges have done. It is a brake on the urge to convert every new judge’s opinion into a new legal rule or regime.”

By contrast, she went on: “It is impossible to pretend that today’s decision is a one-off, in its treatment of precedent.”

It has become an unquestionable pattern: the new hard-right supermajority has a fondness for tearing up their own court’s precedents stretching back decades. They did it when they eviscerated the right to an abortion in 2022, upending 50 years of settled law; they did it again last year when they prohibited affirmative action in university admissions, casting out 40 years of legal precedent; and now they’ve done it once more after 40 years to Chevron.

“Just my own defenses of stare decisis, my own dissents to this court’s reversals of settled law, by now fill a small volume,” Kagan said, her final words as plaintive as they were defiant.

US Supreme Court strikes down Chevron deference, freeing courts to overrule regulatory agencies in expert determinations
The US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that courts must exercise independent judgment in assessing an agency’s statutory authority. This overruled the deference long afforded to an agency’s interpretation of its mandate under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

The case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Secretary of Commerce considered the regulation of fishing. The petitioners challenged the decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to require the petitioners to pay for observers required under a fishery management plan. They argued that the NMFS did not act within its mandate from the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

The Supreme Court did not decide on the facts of Loper. However, these facts provided an ambiguity in legislation through which the court could overrule the Chevron deference and remand Loper for further proceedings. In Chevron, the court found that “the Administrator’s interpretation… is entitled to deference” when it involves technical and complex reasoning to reconcile conflicting policies. The Loper court disagreed, finding that “Chevron was a judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.”

In reaching this conclusion, the court analyzed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), legislation that determines the role of courts. The court found that the Chevron deference conflicts with the APA, which states that “the reviewing court” is to “decide all relevant questions of law.” The majority went on to discuss how the court has consistently minimized the Chevron deference’s scope over time–they hadn’t even used the principle since 2016–recognition that its “justifying presumption is… a fiction.”

The dissent attempted to defend Chevron deference by stating that judges must defer to agencies with institutional knowledge because “judges are not experts in the field.” However, the majority confirms that agencies’ statutory authority is a question of law, and, therefore, deference to agencies contradicts directly with the APA.

Though the court’s decision in Loper may contradict the stare decisiprinciple of judicial continuity, the court found that some cases must involve the court “correcting [its] own mistakes.” Despite this, the court still confirmed that the holdings of previous cases using the Chevron deference (including Chevron itself) stand, perhaps easing concern over a wave of new litigation over old issues

 

Supreme Court broadly shifts power from federal agencies to judges

The Supreme Court has broadly expanded the power of judges at the expense of federal agencies with a pair of decisions this week, and it could be poised to do so again next week. 

Altogether, its actions to transfer authority from agencies to the judiciary could curtail a wide range of financial, environmental, workplace and consumer protections. 

“It’s just part of a continuing trend with the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular, exercising more and more power … at the expense, potentially, of the other branches,” said Don Goodson, deputy director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. 

On Friday, the court struck down a legal doctrine known as the Chevron deference that instructed judges to defer to agencies when the law is ambiguous, in a case known as Loper Bright v. Raimondo.

That decision came one day after it ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of internal administrative courts to try civil fraud cases was unconstitutional — a move that could reverberate to other agencies that also use administrative courts. 

In a scathing dissent on the Chevron case, Justice Elena Kagan wrote “it is impossible to pretend that today’s decision is a one-off” in how it treats agencies, noting that the SEC case similarly kneecapped them. 

“This very Term presents yet another example of the Court’s resolve to roll back agency authority,” she added. 

Next week the court is expected to issue a decision in a third case that could weaken regulatory statutes of limitation and give opponents of a federal action more time to sue.

“You do see a court that’s growing increasingly skeptical of executive power and administrative power” over the last decade, said Jesse Panuccio, who was the Justice Department’s acting associate attorney general during the Trump administration. 

“The executive branch has grown vastly in its powers and in the scope of its regulation,” he added. “I think the court is saying, if that’s where we’re going to be, we need to rein in some of these presumptions in favor of agencies.”

But critics of the court’s moves say that they could weaken the agencies to the detriment of the country. 

James Goodwin, policy director at the Center for Progressive Reform, said that the opinions issued this past week are “all pointed in the same anti-regulatory direction.”

He said the SEC case will “have a chilling effect on agency enforcement actions,” while the Loper Bright case will have a “similar chilling effect on agencies, but with respect to policy making.”

The latter case is expected to allow judges to more easily strike down federal agency rules. That increase in judicial power is technically politically neutral, though liberal critics say the federal judiciary’s conservative makeup could in practice enable right-wing principles to prevail in many cases.

Goodson said that even prior to the decision, some agencies may have already been avoiding actions that would rely on Chevron out of fear that the precedent would be overturned. 

“Many people have been treating Chevron as overruled for several years now because of the extreme skepticism that has been coming from members of the court,” he said. 

The SEC case will apply “anytime federal agencies seek to pursue civil penalties for certain kinds of violations,” like fraud, requiring such cases to go to the federal judiciary, said Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. 

But he noted that agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could also see their cases shifted to federal court — and that the ruling could reach nonfinancial agencies, too, in cases like fraudulent filing of environmental reports with the government. 

The cases echo a prior decision that also curbed federal agencies’ power. In that 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court not only limited how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate climate change, it also codified a legal theory known as the “major questions doctrine,” which holds that regulations of substantial national significance need to have clear authorization from Congress.

Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that decision will have an even greater impact than the more recent ones.

When the major questions doctrine is applied, “the agency doesn’t even have the power to regulate, let alone to regulate in a particular way,” said Carlson, who also recently served in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President Biden. 

Carlson said that Friday’s decision is “one more weapon … in an arsenal being used to attack the administrative state,” but that she expects the “major questions doctrine” to be much more impactful. 

Goodwin, with the Center for Progressive Reform, similarly said that he expects major questions to come into play for the biggest cases, while the Loper Bright ruling may have an impact in cases involving more “intermediate” rules like endangered species protections. 

Panuccio, the former Justice Department official who is now a partner at law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, said that in the coming years, the court has the opportunity to go even further in reining in the other branches by looking to restrict what authorities Congress is allowed to delegate to the agencies. 

“That’s always a challenge that pops up here and there, which is … is the court willing to revisit what’s called the non-delegation doctrine and put some limits on what Congress allows agencies to do?” he said. 

“So long as there are regulated parties and parties on the losing end of a government decision, that’s always something litigants are going to try …. to try to get that question before the court again,” he added.