Supreme Court blocks recognition of LGBTQ club at Yeshiva University

“We are pleased with Justice Sotomayor’s ruling which protects our religious liberty and identity as a leading faith-based academic institution," said Yeshiva University's president.

FILE - The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, Monday, June 27, 2022. The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a court order that would have forced Yeshiva University to recognize an LGBTQ group as an official campus club. The court acted Friday, Sept. 9, in a brief order signed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that indicated the court would have more to say on the topic at some point. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

September 9, 2022

By 

Kathryn Post

(RNS) — The Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a court order that would have forced Yeshiva University to recognize an LGBTQ group as an official campus club.

The court acted Friday in a brief order signed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that indicated the court would have more to say on the topic at some point.

The university, an Orthodox Jewish institution in New York, argued that granting recognition to the group, the YU Pride Alliance, “would violate its sincere religious beliefs.”

“We are pleased with Justice Sotomayor’s ruling which protects our religious liberty and identity as a leading faith-based academic institution,” said Rabbi Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University, in a press release. “But make no mistake, we will continue to strive to create an environment that welcomes all students, including those of our LGBTQ community.”

Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Yeshiva, said in a statement to Religion News Service that the school should not have had to turn to the nation’s highest court “to receive such a commonsense ruling in favor of its First Amendment rights.”

The lawyers for YU Pride Alliance told RNS that the group “has received Justice Sotomayor’s order and will await a final order from the Supreme Court.” In the meantime, they say, the group is committed to remaining a source of safety and support for Yeshiva’s LGBTQ students. 

In a phone call with the RNS, Marc Stern, chief legal officer with the American Jewish Committee, said it’s not clear whether Sotomayor agreed to block the court order as part of an administrative stay, which would put the lower court’s order on hold until she can consult with her colleagues, or if it’s an indication that the Court sees this as a serious issue that deserves full review. 

“I think the smart reading of the decision is that Yeshiva has presented serious issues that at least some members of the court will want to give serious attention to,” Stern told RNS.

In either case, he said, “I think many people would have dismissed Yeshiva’s challenge as borderline frivolous, and that no longer is a credible attitude.”  

Mordechai Levovitz, founder and clinical director of JQY, a nonprofit that supports Orthodox Jewish queer youth, told RNS in a phone interview, “I feel horrible for the queer students at YU that now have to go to school on Monday at a school that has declared them a threat, that has publicly announced their simply wanting recognition, self esteem, camaraderie is a religious violation and irreparable injury to the school and the students.”  

“For the last 25 years, Orthodox rabbis have been telling us that they have no problem with queer identity or with queers wanting to build camaraderie,” he said. “Rabbis have been telling us for the last 25 years that the issue that they had was with sexual behavior. But now we see that they were lying to us.”

Levovitz said that if the school won’t recognize YU Pride Alliance, JQY will financially support the group and rent a room for them to meet in the building next door. 

Earlier this week, LGBTQ students and alumni from Yeshiva took to social media to express their concerns about the schools’ emergency request to the Court. In a video posted on social media, the students challenged Yeshiva’s claim that the undergraduate school is welcoming toward LGBTQ students. 

A New York state court had sided with the student group and ordered the university to recognize the club immediately. The matter is on appeal in the state court system, but judges there refused to put the order on hold in the meantime.

---

RELATED: Yeshiva University petitions Supreme Court to intervene in LGBTQ club dispute

---

A coalition of other religious groups, including the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Liberty University and Wheaton College submitted a friend-of-the-court briefs on Sept. 2 asking the Supreme Court to block the order requiring Yeshiva to recognize the LGBTQ student group. The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and a number of Jewish organizations filed separate friend-of-the-court briefs. 

The Supreme Court has been increasingly receptive to religious freedom claims in recent years.

In June, conservatives who hold a 6-3 majority struck down a Maine program prohibiting state funds from being spent at religious schools and ruled a high school football coach in Washington state has the right to pray on the field after games.

Nearly 200 religious colleges deemed ‘unsafe’ for LGBTQ students by Campus Pride

'Campus Pride envisions campuses and a society free of anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice, bigotry, and hate,' said Campus Pride Executive Director Shane Windmeyer.

Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Photo by Taber Andrew Bain/Creative Commons

September 8, 2022

By 

Alejandra Molina

(RNS) — Dozens of religious universities across the country, including Seattle Pacific University in Washington and Brigham Young University in Utah, were listed as unsafe and discriminatory campuses for LGBTQ students by Campus Pride, a national organization advocating for inclusive colleges and universities.

Fewer than 10 of the 193 schools on the list released Thursday (Sept. 8), were not religiously affiliated or did not list a religious affiliation, according to Campus Pride.

Campus Pride, which began in 2002 as an online community and became a nonprofit in 2006, said it launched the national listing in 2015 to bring attention to colleges and universities that requested Title IX exemptions against LGBTQ students.

Among the campuses that made “The Worst List:”  Azusa Pacific University, an interdenominational Christian school in Southern California; Baylor University, a Baptist school in Waco, Texas; George Fox University, a Quaker institution in Newberg, Oregon; Yeshiva University, a Modern Orthodox Jewish school in New York City; and Liberty University, a Baptist institution in Lynchburg, Virginia.

---

RELATED: Are LGBTQ students at Christian schools discriminated against? A lawsuit, scholarly studies say yes.

---

Many of the schools made the list for claiming an exemption to Title IX and for “allowing the college to discriminate against its students on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, pregnancy or receipt of abortion while still receiving federal funds.” More than 120 schools were listed as exempt from Title IX.

Other schools in California qualified for the list due to their opposition to a state bill that targets private universities exempted from anti-discrimination laws. The schools argue compliance would conflict with their religious tenets,  the Los Angeles Times reported.

“Campus Pride envisions campuses and a society free of anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice, bigotry, and hate,” Shane Windmeyer , executive director of Campus Pride, said in a statement on Twitter. “The growing anti-LGBTQ+ attacks on youth across the country makes the release of #TheWorstList even more crucial and timely.”

People participate in the third day of a sit-in at Seattle Pacific University, May 26, 2022, after the board of trustees decided to retain a policy that prohibits the hiring of LGBTQ people. Photo via Twitter/@SPUisGay

The list is published as schools like Seattle Pacific University have faced backlash from students protesting policies they say are discriminatory toward LGBTQ people.  

---

RELATED: Washington state confirms probe into Seattle Pacific University’s LGBTQ hiring practices

---

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in late July confirmed his office was investigating SPU for potential illegal discrimination against LGBTQ people due to the school’s employment policies. The investigation came as  students staged a monthlong sit-in to protest the board of trustees’ decision to keep a policy barring the hiring of LGBTQ people.

“Until students can see themselves represented in their professors, SPU cannot be considered a safe space for LGBTQ+ students,”  an Instagram statement from Seattle Pacific LGBTQ+ Protest said.

U$ COPS AT WAR WITH CIVILIANS***

Family wants answers after pallbearer killed by officers

JOHN RABY

Thu, September 8, 2022 

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Jason Arnie Owens helped carry his father’s casket to the hearse, then turned to embrace a relative. He never made it to the cemetery.

As mourners gathered outside a northern West Virginia funeral home on Aug. 24, two plainclothes officers with a fugitive warrant swooped in from separate vehicles, called Owens' name and shot him dead, spattering his 18-year-old son's shirt with blood as horrified loved ones looked.

"There was no warning whatsoever,” family friend Cassandra Whitecotton said.

In the blink of an eye, stunned friends and family already mourning one member lost another. Now, they want answers — not just why Owens was shot but why the encounter happened the way it did.

Law enforcement officials aren't explaining much right now, citing an ongoing investigation. Owens, 37, was wanted on a fugitive warrant, but the U.S. Marshals Service hasn't said what it was for. The agency also said in a statement that he had a gun when members of a fugitive task force approached. Multiple witnesses contend that's not true.

Whitecotton and others who stood just feet away said Owens was unarmed, had been hugging his aunt, Evelyn O’Dell, and was fired on immediately after his name was called. Witnesses also dispute the U.S. Marshals' assertion that first aid was performed right away, before emergency medical services arrived.

"They yelled Jason’s name. They just said ‘Jason’ and then started firing,” Whitecotton said. “There was no identifications they were U.S. Marshals — anything. They did not render this man any aid at all. Never once they touched him to render any aid whatsoever.”

As relatives prepared for services Friday for Owens, a state police investigation of the shooting was underway. But patience in the community is wearing thin.

Relatives and supporters protested outside the Harrison County Courthouse last week, accusing law enforcement authorities of overreach in the death of Owens, who was white. A Facebook page called Justice for Jason Owens has swelled to about 800 members — more than half of the population of Nutter Fort, where Owens was killed.

Underlying the unanswered questions is whether some boundary of decency had been crossed in arresting a man in the midst of burying his father.

“If they’ve been searching for someone and they finally figure out where they are, they’re going to get them,” said Tracy L. Hahn, a Columbus, Ohio-based security consultant who retired after 32 years in law enforcement, including as deputy police chief at Ohio State University.

Hahn said she knows agencies that have gone to funerals but have waited until afterward to approach the person.

“There must be some extenuating circumstance that they felt the urgency to arrest him then instead of waiting, if there was some risk factor, an escape risk or something like that,” Hahn said.

Family members aren’t so sure. They say it only adds to their sense of disrespect that the agencies involved feel no obligation to address their questions.

“We want to know why you would do this in front of his family,” said Owens’ cousin, Mandy Swiger. “And what gives you the right to do that to an unarmed man?”

Acting U.S. Marshal Terry Moore said he couldn’t answer questions during the investigation and messages left with state police weren’t returned.

It’s not clear whether video exists from police bodycams, a police vehicle dashboard or the funeral home itself. Unlike major cities where detailed incident reports and video footage are released after fatal police shootings — sometimes within hours — that rarely happens in West Virginia.

West Virginia law exempts police from having to release video footage during an investigation. And the U.S. Marshals Service office said it did not write a detailed incident report about the shooting, referring to the news release that withheld Owens’ name and other details.

Owens had been in trouble with the law before. He was sentenced in 2018 to three to 13 years in prison for fleeing a Harrison County sheriff’s deputy and trying to strangle him during a scuffle. He was released on parole in April 2021.

But Swiger said he committed a parole violation “for not checking in just once. And that’s why he promised his mom after the funeral he would turn himself in.”

Whitecotton said she was smoking a cigarette after the service when an SUV came flying down the side street where the hearse would pull out.

"It about hit me, so I jumped back up on the curb and kind of looked at him like, ‘What’s your problem?’” she said. A man in shorts and a T-shirt jumped out, leaving his door open.

Swiger said a white truck with another plainclothes officer inside almost hit her mother’s vehicle as the truck sped into the parking lot. Swiger said Owens was shot from different directions and estimated as many as 40 people were in the area. She, too, said she didn't see a gun in Owens' hands.

Some mourners instinctively rushed toward Owens after he fell to the ground, Swiger said, but were told by one of the officers, “You step back or I’ll shoot you.”

Whitecotton said she has lived in much larger cities such as Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth.

“Never in my life have I dealt with anything like this,” she said. "I would expect it there, honestly. But not here.”

*** MILITARIZED POLICE SERVE AND PROTECT CAPITALI$M AND IT'S STATE

'Triple-dip' La Niña is on the way. 

Here's what it means for weather in the US.



Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
Fri, September 9, 2022

La Niña just won't go away.

Meteorologists say that for the third straight year, La Niña will persist throughout the winter in the Northern Hemisphere. This is the first "triple-dip" La Niña of the century, according to a recent update from the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization.

This La Niña began in September 2020.

The La Niña climate pattern is a natural cycle marked by cooler-than-average ocean water in the central Pacific Ocean. It is one of the main drivers of weather in the United States and around the world, especially during late fall, winter and early spring.

It's the opposite to the more well-known El Niño, which occurs when Pacific ocean water is warmer than average. While this would be the first "triple-dip" La Niña this century, it's not unprecedented for the pattern to last more than nine months to a year, which is typical for a La Niña, according to ABC News.

What is La Niña?: Does it bring more snow? How climate pattern could affect US weather.

Yosemite in peril: How climate change’s grip is altering America’s national parks

A new normal? Climate change exposes growing gap between weather we've planned for – and what's coming

What does La Niña mean for winter in the US?

A typical La Niña winter in the U.S. brings cold and snow to the Northwest and unusually dry conditions to most of the southern tier of the U.S., according to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center. The Southeast and Mid-Atlantic also tend to see warmer-than-average temperatures during a La Niña winter.

Meanwhile, New England and the Upper Midwest into New York tend to see colder-than-average temperatures, the Weather Channel said.

Climate change also plays a role

However, the WMO said all naturally occurring climate events now take place in the context of human-induced climate change, which is increasing global temperatures, exacerbating extreme weather and climate, and impacting seasonal rainfall and temperature patterns.

“It is exceptional to have three consecutive years with a La Niña event," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas in a news release. "Its cooling influence is temporarily slowing the rise in global temperatures – but it will not halt or reverse the long-term warming trend,” he added.
Where did the term La Niña come from?

Both La Niña and El Niño are Spanish language terms: La Niña means "little girl," while El Niño means "little boy," or "Christ child." South American fishermen first noticed periods of unusually warm water in the Pacific Ocean in the 1600s, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. The full name they used was "El Niño de Navidad" because El Niño typically peaks around December.

The entire natural climate cycle is officially known by climate scientists as El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a see-saw dance of warmer and cooler seawater in the central Pacific Ocean.

During La Niña events, trade winds are even stronger than usual, pushing more warm water toward Asia, NOAA said. Off the west coast of the Americas, upwelling increases, bringing cold, nutrient-rich water to the surface.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'Triple-dip' La Niña forecast: What does that mean for US weather?

La Nina winter 2022-23 could mean tornado outbreaks, blizzards and everything in between

Do you remember the last two winters? Well, if forecasts for a rare-triple dip La Niña are accurate, the country is in store for more weather extremes.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released an updated outlook Thursday that said there was a 91 percent chance the pattern would be in control through November and a 54 percent chance through March 2023.

A substantial amount of cooler-than-average water in the east-central Pacific and long-range climate models give forecasters confidence that the La Niña pattern will continue.

FARMERS’ ALMANAC DECLARES PARTS OF US ‘HIBERNATION ZONE’ WITH PREDICTED ‘GLACIAL, SNOW-FILLED’ WINTER

During a typical La Niña winter, the southern tier of the country tends to be drier and warmer, and the northern half is usually colder and snowier than usual.

Where moisture and temperature extremes meet, areas can resemble battle zones. If the right ingredients are in place, tornado outbreaks can impact the South and the country’s heartland.

"Preliminary research indicates that La Niña corresponds to an especially active phase for tornadoes over the Deep South with a relatively high frequency of cold-season outbreaks of EF2 or stronger tornadoes," the National Weather Service office in Jackson, Mississippi, said.

The combination of an active jet stream, plenty of moisture and a clash of air masses helped produce a record-breaking deadly tornado outbreak in December 2021. The outbreak included a rare EF-4 long-track tornado that flatted parts of Mayfield, Kentucky.

HOW SALMON NUMBERS RISE AND FALL DURING EL NINO AND LA NINA

On the other side of the spectrum, snowstorms and blizzards are usually common where deep moisture meets frigid air.

Communities from Maine through the Plains and to the Pacific Northwest reported record-breaking snowfall events during the past winter and there is nothing in the outlook that says the extreme events won’t happen in the northern tier again.

Average date of the first snowfall of the season.

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center believes the La Niña three-peat will be only the third time on record for the occurrence.

Usually, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or what is commonly called the ENSO, tends to act more seesaw-like, flipping between La Niña and El Niño more frequently.

Long-term model guidance shows high chances of La Niña drastically waning during the spring.

A diminishing La Niña would put the world in neutral status until ocean temperatures and complex pressure patterns decide the future of the state of the ENSO.

NOAA ENSO Forecast showing the possibilities of La Nina, El Nino and neutral status.

Bernie Sanders says he’ll vote against keeping the government open if Manchin’s ‘disastrous side-deal’ on energy is included

Joseph Zeballos-Roig, Ben Winck

INSIDER
Thu, September 8, 2022

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (L) walks past Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee mark up, on Capitol Hill on May 03, 2022 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Sanders said he'd oppose a short-term government funding bill if it included a Manchin deal on energy.

The bill is set to ease regulations around building a new oil pipeline.

He also warned of a looming revolt among House Democrats.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said on Thursday that he'd oppose a short-term government funding bill if Democratic leaders attached legislation meant to ease construction of crude oil pipelines and other energy infrastructure.

"I will not vote for any bill that makes it easier for Big Oil to destroy the planet and that includes approving the Mountain Valley Pipeline," the Vermont independent wrote on Twitter. "The Continuing Resolution must not be held hostage by Big Oil."

The continuing resolution is a bill designed to keep the government funded for several weeks while Democrats and Republicans craft a year-long spending bill. The measure includes permitting reforms meant to speed up the approval of energy infrastructure projects including the Mountain Valley Pipeline in Sen. Joe Manchin's home state of West Virginia.

Sanders took to the Senate floor and pummeled the legislation, which Democratic leaders and President Joe Biden agreed to pass in an effort to secure Manchin's vote for the Inflation Reduction Act last month. Winning Manchin's support was crucial for the party to advance the slimmed-down version of Biden's economic agenda.

Progressive Democrats have fervently pushed back against the inclusion of the reforms, arguing they give the oil industry a boost when the country should be investing in renewable energy. The inclusion of permitting changes reflects a "disastrous side-deal" between Manchin and Democratic leadership, Sanders said, adding the reforms are in opposition with the energy policy the US should be pursuing.

"At a time when climate change is threatening the very existence of our planet, why would anyone be talking about substantially increasing carbon emissions and fossil fuel production?" Sanders said. He also warned of a revolt among House Democrats, saying "at least" 59 Democratic lawmakers would release a letter stating their opposition to the deal.

Manchin defended his position on Thursday, noting that the IRA included funding for several kinds of clean energy projects. Still, the senator from West Virginia argued that increased energy production from fossil fuels is needed to address more pressing energy demands.

"If I thought it was damaging for climate, I'd have never done it," Manchin told Insider. "We're talking about solar farms, wind farms, but we have to have the fossil horsepower that we need right now."

Sanders leads progressive revolt over Manchin-backed 'side deal' for government funding bill

TRISH TURNER and ALLISON PECORIN

ABC NEWS
Thu, September 8, 2022

Democratic congressional leaders are facing a progressive revolt -- that could potentially risk a government shutdown -- in the wake of the closed-door deal between Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin that won the latter's crucial support for the Inflation Reduction Act.

After repeatedly slamming that "disastrous side deal" that would streamline the permitting process for energy projects across the U.S. -- which Schumer agreed to include with a must-pass spending bill to fund the federal government -- Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., promptly announced Thursday that he intends to oppose the funding resolution as a result.

"If the United States Congress goes on record and says, 'Yes we are going to support more fossil fuel reduction, more carbon emissions,' the signal we are sending to our own people and the planet is a terrible, terrible signal," Sanders said in a floor speech.

He did not mince words with reporters afterward. Asked if he would vote no on funding the government if the Schumer-Manchin permitting deal is attached, he replied: "Yes. You're talking about the future for the planet."

MORE: Calculate how much Biden's Inflation Reduction Act may save you

Sanders' opposition adds to the growing progressive pressure in the House, where some left-wing lawmakers have likewise threatened to block the government funding bill if it includes Manchin's desired changes to energy permitting.

Sanders on Thursday read from a soon-to-be-released letter -- obtained by ABC News Wednesday -- that he said had been signed by "at least 59" House progressives opposing the Schumer-Manchin agreement.

That deal, Sanders said, quoting from the letter, "would silence the voices of environmental communities by insulating them from scrutiny. This would cause members to choose between protecting environmental justice communities from further pollution or funding the government. We urge you to ensure these provisions are kept out of a continuing resolution or any other must-pass legislation this year."

GIVING CHUCK HIS PIECE OF THE ACTION

Sen. Joe Manchin looks to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer after U.S. President Joe Biden signs The Inflation Reduction Act in the State Dining Room of the White House August 16, 2022 in Washington, DC. 

(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Manchin has argued that permitting reform will also help speed projects related to wind, solar and other environmentally friendly sources of energy. He's adamant that permitting reform must stay in the funding bill and, so far, he seems to have Schumer's backing.

Despite the progressive rhetorical thunder, it is possible that the bill to fund the government -- which will also include popular aid for Ukraine and disaster relief -- will garner enough GOP support to render the threatened liberal blockade moot.

"It was a rank political deal," Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the appropriations committee, told reporters Thursday of Manchin and Schumer's agreement. But he stopped short of saying it would put government funding in jeopardy.

MORE: Joe Manchin is 'intentionally sabotaging the president's agenda': Bernie Sanders

Still, some other Republicans are vowing to oppose the funding resolution because they oppose Schumer and Manchin's dealmaking. Many conservatives have said they took umbrage at the last-minute nature of the deal among Democrats on the sweeping climate and health care reform legislation known as the IRA. It passed without a single GOP vote -- not long after some Republicans had voted with Democrats on computer chip funding, thinking that the Democrats' social spending bill was dead.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told ABC that "I would vote against it," referring to government funding, and he said he was urging his Republican colleagues to do the same.

It's not yet clear whether Republicans will unite behind Graham's effort, but most GOP aides familiar with the matter say they do not expect that.

ABC News' Mariam Khan contributed to this report.

More than 70 House Democrats join push against Manchin’s permitting reform

Rachel Frazin

THE HILL
Fri, September 9, 2022

More than 70 House Democrats are signing on to a letter pressing Democratic leaders to not include a side deal with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on reforming the permit process for energy projects in a bill funding the government.

The permitting reform language was offered to Manchin to win his vote on the massive climate, tax and health care bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act that was signed into law by President Biden last month.

Manchin provided the critical support to get that bill through the evenly divided Senate after winning concessions from Democratic leaders.

But in the new letter, the Democratic lawmakers are asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) not to include the permitting reforms championed by Manchin into a stopgap funding measure that Congress is expected to take up this month.

Without a stopgap funding measure, the government will shut down on Oct. 1.

“The inclusion of these provisions in a continuing resolution, or any other must-pass legislation, would silence the voices of frontline and environmental justice communities by insulating them from scrutiny,” they lawmakers wrote.

“We urge you to ensure that these provisions are kept out of a continuing resolution or any other must-pass legislation this year,” they added in the letter that was spearheaded by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.).

The opposition from Democrats is a significant problem. If the group follows through on the letter, Democrats might not have the votes to pass a government funding bill if it includes the language backed by Manchin.

And the fact that so many members signed on to the push may give them some additional leverage.

Democrats have historically opposed any changes perceived as undercutting environmental reviews in the permitting process, arguing that this could hamper the consideration of climate and pollution concerns.

When they announced the agreement on the major climate, tax and health care bill, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Manchin said that they, along with Pelosi and President Biden, had reached a deal to pass permitting reform by October to secure Manchin’s vote.

Schumer has already said publicly that he would include the provisions in a stopgap funding measure, known as a continuing resolution.

Legislative text on these reforms have not yet been released, but a summary from Manchin’s office says they would set maximum timelines for environmental reviews assessing an energy project’s potential climate and pollution impacts, restrict states’ abilities to block projects that run through their waters and require the president to prioritize certain projects.

Specifically, the president will be required to prioritize permitting for a “balanced” list of projects including both fossil fuels and renewable energy.

The summary also said the package will require the completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a controversial vessel that would carry natural gas from West Virginia to Virginia.

Grijalva previously told The Hill that he didn’t feel an “obligation” to vote for the changes since he was not part of the negotiations with Manchin. He has argued that members should not have to choose between funding the government and voting for changes that they oppose.

In the new letter, the lawmakers said that they support bolstering the environmental review process by providing more funding for government agencies, but oppose “attempts to short-circuit or undermine” a key environmental law requiring the reviews.

Schumer in tough spot over Manchin promise

Alexander Bolton
Thu, September 8, 2022

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday pledged to add permitting reform legislation to a stopgap funding bill that would prevent a government shutdown, but he’s in a tough spot as he seeks to deliver on a promise to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

The permitting reform is a side-deal Schumer struck with Manchin in late July to pass a climate, tax and health care bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is projected to help reduce that nation’s carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

Manchin offered his support for the bill in July after winning significant concessions, and his vote allowed Democrats to pass a major achievement for President Biden.

Schumer made clear Wednesday that he doesn’t plan to backtrack on his promise.

“Permitting reform is part of the IRA and we will get it done,” Schumer said Wednesday. “Our intention is to add it to the CR.”

But that plan is running into opposition from progressive House Democrats and outside environmental groups. There’s also a chance that several Senate Democrats may balk at the deal with Manchin, now that they no longer need his vote to pass a budget reconciliation bill.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s (D-Ariz.) office told The Hill on Wednesday that 50 lawmakers had signed onto his letter calling for a separate vote on the permitting reform provisions instead of putting them in the continuing resolution.

Attaching it to a short-term government funding measure would force House progressives to choose between voting no and possibly forcing a shutdown or voting yes and making it easier to develop new energy projects that would burn fossil fuels and pump more carbon into the atmosphere.

Many environmental groups are also up in arms over the deal.

More than 650 such organizations sent a letter to Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressing their opposition last month.

“This fossil fuel wish list is a cruel and direct attack on environmental justice communities and the climate. This legislation would truncate and hollow-out the environmental review process, weaken Tribal consultations, and make it far harder for frontline communities to have their voices heard by gutting bedrock protections in the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act,” they wrote.

Some Senate Democrats also said they couldn’t say whether they would support a short-term government funding bill that includes permitting reform until they review the details of the bill.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said he wants to know what the net impact on carbon emissions will be from passing both the Inflation Reduction Act and the permitting reform package.

“‘Are we helping to solve the climate problem?’ is the question,” Whitehouse said. “I don’t even know what the permitting reform is.”

And while many Republicans also support the types of reforms Manchin supports, several GOP senators on Wednesday panned Manchin’s proposal for not going far enough.

“It seems pretty weak to me. I want to see how they have it written up but I hear it sounds pretty weak — ineffective,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), has said that he would oppose such a measure on principle, calling it part of a “political payback scheme.”

There is doubt over whether the government funding measure combined with permitting reform could pass the House, given the growing opposition from progressive House Democrats.

“I like the idea of permitting reform. So, I’ll certainly keep an open mind,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told The Hill on Wednesday. But he also said he’d be “surprised” if Manchin “gets what was promised.”

“I know there were progressives over in the House that don’t like the idea. They swallowed the reconciliation bill, but it’s going to be an interesting process to watch,” he said, adding jokingly that “this may be a Lucy and the football moment” for Manchin.

Schumer could find a way around the jam by also adding to the government funding measure a bill to codify marriage equality. That could make it more difficult for House liberals to vote no, but it would also threaten Republican support for the package in the Senate.

Schumer says his preference is to bring the marriage equality bill to the Senate floor separately.

“We would prefer to do it as a separate bill. We hope there are ten Republicans to help us with that,” he said Wednesday.

A bipartisan group of Senate negotiators met earlier in the day in an effort to put together a deal on marriage equality legislation that could muster 60 votes in the Senate to overcome an expected GOP filibuster.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis), one of the lead Democratic negotiators on the marriage bill, said she also wants to keep it separate from the short-term government funding bill.

Baldwin said Wednesday that she’s close to getting the 10 Republican votes she needs.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), one of the bill’s cosponsors, told reporters on Wednesday the talks are making progress.

“I’m never confident until a roll call. But we’re making good progress. It’s a lot of sincere interest,” Collins said.

Collins’ comments came after she and Baldwin penned an opinion piece published in The Washington Post addressing “mischaracterizations” about the bill’s scope, including the idea that it would “legalize or recognize polygamous relationships or marriages.”

Some Democrats are hesitant to sign onto the idea linking the marriage bill and the government funding package, though they won’t rule out the proposal if it helps them get both priorities passed by the end of the month.

“I’m for the art of the possible,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), said. “If it makes it easier to pass it we should do it that way. If it makes it harder to pass it we shouldn’t.”

“This is gaining, slowly in the Senate, bipartisan support,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said, referring to the marriage equality bill. “I’m hopeful that we can get it done whatever the vehicle.”

Some Republican leaders are insisting on a clean funding package, potentially punting a separate vote on the marriage equality bill until after the coming midterm elections.

Collins and Baldwin have also pushed against using the funding bill as a vehicle for their bill, though they would like to see a vote before the November election.

Despite opposition in the House, there is support among some climate hawks in the Senate to add Manchin’s permitting proposal to the government funding bill. They argue that it will bolster the deployment of clean energy.

“We are going to have to build big, planet-saving projects and the environmental movement has been organized around stopping things from being built and although that continues to be an important aspect of being an environmentalist, now we need to think about building projects that will save the planet,” Schatz said.

But if enough liberals opposing the plan flex their muscles in the House, it’s not guaranteed the funding bill would get enough Republican votes to make it to Biden’s desk.

By attaching both permitting reform and marriage equality legislation to the CR, Schumer could shift blame to Republicans opposing the same-sex marriage measure.

Otherwise, progressives Democrats will have to swallow permitting reforms that will make it easier to build new energy projects and tougher for environmental activists to slow them down.

“My guess is, if it’s on our CR, they’re gonna have to eat it if they don’t like it,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said on the issue. “Or wrap their arms around it if they do.”

Queen Elizabeth’s Net Worth Was

So Massive She Basically Left 

Behind a Small Fortune for Her Family

Mehera Bonner

COSMOPOLITAN

Thu, September 8, 2022 

Before Queen Elizabeth II passed away this afternoon, it was common knowledge that she was rich. Like, owns multiple palaces, several sparkly diamond tiaras, a solid gold piano, all of Hyde Park (lol), literally every single swan in the United Kingdom, and a casual abbey R-I-C-H. But how much does she actually have tucked away in the bank, you ask? Answer: It’s complicated because a ton of stuff “owned” by the Queen actually just belongs to the “Royal Firm,” so the time has come to break it all down.

First Up: The “Royal Firm” Is a $28 Billion Empire

According to Forbes, the crown, through the the Firm (which actually goes by “Monarchy PLC”), holds nearly $28 billion in assets. Quick tally of its various assets: The Crown Estate holds $19.5 billion, Buckingham Palace is worth an estimated $4.9 billion, the Duchy of Cornwall holds $1.3 billion, the Duchy of Lancaster holds $748 million, Kensington Palace has an estimated worth of $630 million, and the Crown Estate Scotland holds $592 million.

But not all of this money belongs to the British royals! Some of it belongs to the British Treasury. Let’s take the Crown Estate as an example, shall we?

The Crown Estate technically belongs to the reigning monarch (in this case, Queen Elizabeth II) for the duration of their reign but isn’t their private property nor is it the property of the government. Instead, it’s run by an outside board. Per Forbes, the Crown Estate made £475 million in profits in 2020, and the royal family got 25 percent of that (this sum is known as the Sovereign Grant), while the remaining 75 percent went to the British Treasury. That year alone, that grant amount totaled a truly eye-watering £86.3 million!!
*le sigh*

So yeah: The Queen *did* make money from the royal institution as a whole—but it’s honestly kinda irrelevant because she also had an entirely separate set of assets that were just hers.

The Queen Had $500 Million in Personal Assets

Said assets include but are not limited to personal investments that are “mostly in British blue chip shares,” a truly massive art collection, an equally massive jewelry collection, and real estate—including Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle.

Photo credit: Tim Graham - Getty Images

 

Plus, She Inherited Her Mother’s Entire Estate

The Queen Mother left an estimated £70M fortune to the Queen, including many significant works of art. Although according to the BBC, Her Majesty decided the most important pieces left by her mother would be transferred to the Royal Collection, where they would be “held in trust for the nation.”

And speaking of inherited estates, the Queen’s late husband, Prince Philip, is said to have left an estate worth about £10 million, including a collection of paintings by Edward Seago as well as 3,000 books.

The Queen Owned a Wildly Expensive Stamp Collection

According to the Sunday Times, the Queen owned the Royal Philatelic Collection, which is valued at £100 million and is composed of UK and Commonwealth stamps.

There Are Claims She Was Trying to Hide Her Wealth

Back in February 2021, The Guardian released a bombshell report alleging that Queen Elizabeth II “successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her ‘embarrassing’ private wealth from the public.” Apparently, this occurred in the 1970s and “placed a veil of secrecy over the Queen’s private shareholdings and investments until at least 2011.”

But according to The Sun, a spokeswoman for Buckingham Palace shut down this report, saying in part that “any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect.”

Hmmm. Curious! Anyway, in conclusion, the Queen was super rich. Bernie Sanders, get in here!

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-on-the-question-of-the-right-of-inheritance

On the Question of the Right of Inheritance - The Anarchist Library 

We on the contrary take our departure from the present, where we are under the system of individual property triumphant, arid we encounter an obstacle in our ...

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-report-of-the-committee-on-the-question-of-inheritance

Report of the Committee on the Question of Inheritance 

At present, in order to emancipate the worker, the human being, and to establish the reign of justice on the ruins of all the political and theological ...

Prince Charles is now King Charles. That's an excellent reason to end the monarchy.

Ahmed Twaij - Yesterday 


The same statement from Buckingham Palace announcing the death of Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday declared that her son Charles had succeeded her as king. And just like that, this unelected man became the head of state for millions around the world. The former Prince of Wales, whose life has been riddled with controversy, is now the strongest argument for ending the archaic institution of the monarchy.

The queen’s demise ended a reign spanning seven decades and the terms of 14 U.S. presidents and 15 British prime ministers. She was heir to, and in turn passes on, a chain of rule defined by the brutality of the British Empire as it conquered and exploited people around the world. As a British-born Iraqi who grew up in London, it still pains me to visit the British Museum and see what was plundered from the nation during a ferocious colonial rule.

Charles, too, has benefited from this self-interested and abusive conduct, and some of the most odious royal traditions continue under him. For starters, in a country suffering from worsening inflation, a collapsing health service and rising poverty, King Charles III and his family will still enjoy an annual payment from the British government known as the “Sovereign Grant.”

The grant cost British taxpayers £86.3 million ($100.12 million) in 2021 and was further increased by £27.3 million ($31.67 million) over the next two years to help cover a 17% rise in spending by the royals. The grant has been used for a variety of items, from the upkeep of many palaces to £32,000 (more than $37,000) for a chartered flight for Charles to attend a James Bond movie premiere (despite his years of pro-environment advocacy). Playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda’s famous line about the British monarchy in the age of Alexander Hamilton remains true: “Essentially, they tax us relentlessly. Then King George turns around, runs a spending spree.”

Full speech: King Charles III promises ‘lifelong service’ after death of Queen Elizabeth II     Duration 8:51     View on Watch

In June, The Sunday Times reported that Charles had previously accepted €1 million ($1.16 million) in cash for his foundation in a suitcase, part of €3 million ($3.48 million) in total, from a former Qatari prime minister. The charity was later found to have accepted millions from Osama Bin Laden’s family as well.

In February, Scotland Yard announced a probe into the circumstances under which an aide to Charles allegedly accepted donations to a foundation set up by Charles from a Saudi national in exchange for help to obtain British citizenship and a knighthood. Clarence House once again said that Charles had “no knowledge” of a cash-for-honors scheme.

On political matters, though the British monarch is supposed to stay strictly neutral, Charles as prince lobbied the British government for various policy shifts through handwritten letters that were dubbed the “black spider memos”; the letters were obtained by The Guardian after a legal battle. A spokesperson for Charles responded that he was only “raising issues of public concern, and trying to find practical ways to address the issues.”

The memos include a letter to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair urging a change in herbal medicine policy from the prince, who later went on to set up an alternative medicine company. Charles said at the time that Blair had asked him for his opinion on new European Union rules on the products. Other of his lobbying efforts were far more sinister, including one letter to Blair expressing concerns that British troops didn’t have the necessary resources while waging the Iraq War, which had already claimed thousands of Iraqi lives.

In the modern world, placing such power in an unelected individual can’t be a birthright. For a country that claims its Parliament is “one of the oldest continuous representative assemblies” in the world, having an unelected monarch marred with controversies as head of state is by no means democratic.

Charles also has no claim to moral leadership, negating any argument that the monarchy remains important as a sober ceremonial force in society. Charles famously engaged in an extramarital affair with Camilla Parker Bowles while being married to “People’s Princess” Diana. He now assumes not only the throne but becomes the head of the Church of England — another inherited role that should be discontinued.

Of course, the arrogance of Charles presuming to be a religious figure was passed down for generations within the British monarchy. The Church of England was first established because in 1534 King Henry VIII, frustrated by Catholicism’s prohibition on divorce, established a new branch of Christianity, made himself the head and promptly permitted divorce. Without Henry’s entitled precedent, Charles would not have been able to divorce Diana and still have a claim to the crown.

When you add in the treatment of Prince Harry’s wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and the behavior of Charles’ brother Andrew, the standing of the British royal family is only further degraded. To expect us to instantly refer to Charles as “His Majesty,” as if he is automatically a man of dignity, is laughable. The monarchy should have ended years ago. With Charles at the helm, it most certainly should end now.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Members of some diaspora communities call for Canada to break ties to Crown

Yesterday 

Some Canadians from diaspora communities called for the country's independence from the Crown on Friday, saying the death of the Queen is a chance to rethink its ties to the monarchy.


Members of some diaspora communities call for Canada to break ties to Crown© Provided by The Canadian Press

More than 50 countries with historical links to Britain are part of the Commonwealth, which Queen Elizabeth II was head of throughout her reign. Her death Thursday came as a growing number of nations debate their relationship with the British Crown amid demands that the country apologize for its colonial-era abuses and award its former colonies slavery reparations.

Parmod Chhabra, the president of the India Canada Association, said he respected the Queen as the sovereign of Canada but thinks it's time for the country to break ties with the Crown.

“I think it is the time for the monarchy to go away,” said Chhabra, recalling atrocities committed against Indians when the British Empire ruled that country.

“We should start rethinking about it, and think about total freedom, instead of having the Queen as our head whom we don’t elect," he added.

That sentiment was shared by Monir Hossain, the president of the National Bangladeshi-Canadian Council, who said Canada should be a fully independent nation like other countries around the world.

“I think we all want independence these days," he said. "The world is moving forward.”

The Royal Family has faced multiple controversies this year surrounding the Crown's continuing role in Britain's former colonies as members travelled to celebrate the Queen's Platinum Jubilee, which marked her 70 years on the throne.

In March, Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge were sharply criticized for being "tone deaf" and perpetuating images of Britain's colonial rule during a tour of Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas.

Though many people welcomed the royals, they were also greeted by protesters demanding an apology for Britain's role in the enslavement of millions of Africans and reparations for the damage caused by slavery.

The following month, the Earl and Countess of Wessex -- Edward, the youngest son of the Queen, and his wife Sophie -- postponed the Grenada leg of a Caribbean tour on the eve of the seven-day trip after consultations with the Grenadine government and the governor general, the Queen's representative on the island.

They had been likely to face similar calls for a British apology during their planned visit to Grenada, where activists had requested an audience with the royal couple.

Barbados cut ties to the monarchy in November and Jamaica has said it will follow suit.

In Canada, the Queen’s death will likely fuel conversations about getting rid of the monarchy, as well as responses that the country's system works well and would be too hard to change, said Jonathan Malloy, a political science professor at Carleton University.

“The Queen’s longevity has allowed us to perhaps put off some conversations,” and some will see her passing as an opportunity for change, he said Friday.

The monarchy is anachronistic and represents values that no longer align with Canada’s direction, but the system “does actually work fairly well … and it would be extremely hard to change,” he said.

For instance, the Crown is at the heart of our legal and political systems, and cutting ties with it would, among other things, undermine treaties with Indigenous nations, he said.

Provinces probably also like the current system because it allows them to claim their own direct relationship with the Crown, and changing that would require them to overhaul their systems, Malloy said.

There would also be issues related to how to select a new head of state, and the risk that removing the Crown would open the door to other attempts to change the Constitution, he said.

“No government wants to be consumed by constitutional talks and changes,” he said, pointing to the constitutional crises of Meech Lake and Charlottetown several decades ago.

Not everyone in the diaspora community criticized the Queen and the British monarchy on Friday.

Reuben Wong, 73, who grew up in poverty in Hong Kong before immigrating to Canada in the 1970s, said he wouldn’t be where he is today without the Queen and the British system.

Hong Kong has not been a part of the Commonwealth since the 1997 handover to China, but some in its diaspora in Canada continue to embrace the monarchy.

“The Queen’s spirit lives in my blood,” the Richmond, B.C., retiree said Friday.

Wong said he grew up in a village with no water or electricity, and paid tribute to the free education provided by colonial British authorities that allowed him to immigrate and forge a career as a public servant.

“When I look back, I feel thankful to the British system in Hong Kong and the Queen," he added.

- With files from Paola Loriggio, Nono Shen and The Associated Press

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 9, 2022.

Sharif Hassan, The Canadian Press