Liz Cheney and Elissa Slotkin

Dear Commons Community,

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney visited Michigan yesterday and crossed party lines to support Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin.  As reported by the Associated Press and CNN.

“If we want to ensure the survival of our republic, we have to walk away from politics as usual,” Cheney said. “We have to stand up, every one of us, and say we’re going to do what’s right for this country. We’re going to look beyond partisan politics.”

Slotkin is a two-term House member competing against Republican state Sen. Tom Barrett in Michigan’s redrawn 7th Congressional District, which includes Lansing. The contest is among the most expensive House races in the country and is considered a toss-up.

Slotkin, who described herself as a Democrat representing a Trump-voting district, told reporters that Cheney approached her last month on the House floor about the possible endorsement. Slotkin acknowledged during her speech that the two differ on most policy issues, joking that the last time Cheney was in the area was to counter something the Lansing-area Democrat was doing.

“But there is one really, really big thing we agree on and that is preserving the American democracy,” Slotkin said.

Cheney’s visit to the battleground state comes as she considers a 2024 presidential run after losing her primary earlier this year. Cheney was one of eight House Republicans who lost primaries or chose not to seek reelection after voting to impeach former President Donald Trump in 2020.

In her endorsement last week, Cheney mentioned that she’s become acquainted with Slotkin while serving together on the House Armed Services Committee. Slotkin also worked in U.S. intelligence, national security and defense during the Obama and Bush administrations.

Cheney said that this was the first time she has ever campaigned for a Democrat but that “it was not a hard decision at all.”

Both have been vocal critics of House Republicans who have sought to downplay the siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Cheney is vice chair of the House Jan. 6 committee, which recently issued a subpoena for Trump to testify.

“As a nation today, we are facing an ongoing assault by the former president and by people that are spreading his lie,” Cheney said Tuesday.

Following Cheney’s endorsement last week, her primary opponent Harriet Hageman and former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard both announced that they were supporting Barrett in the Lansing-area race.

Barrett criticized Cheney during an event yesterday morning for having the “audacity” to endorse his opponent in a critical race that will “decide which party controls Congress.”

Cheney is leaving Congress at the end of her current term after losing the Republican primary for her at-large Wyoming seat in August. Her continued criticism of former President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol was seen as a key factor in her defeat.

Cheney said last month that she would not remain a Republican if Trump is the GOP nominee for president in 2024.

Kudos for Cheney for putting the country ahead of the party!

Tony

(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Dear Commons Community,

The US Supreme Court yesterday ruled that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) must testify in the Georgia investigation into alleged election interference by former President Donald Trump.

The justices, in an unsigned order, lifted a temporary hold on an appeals court’s order compelling Graham to appear before an Atlanta special grand jury probing Trump’s efforts to overturn his narrow 2020 election loss in the Peach State.

Graham has no choice but to testify on Nov. 17 however, the top court did note that Graham still could raise objections to some questions from prosecutors.

The South Carolina senator, a top Trump ally, had argued that a provision of the Constitution, the speech and debate clause, shields him from being forced to testify at all.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had told the justices that “the delay resulting from a stay would be unavoidably harmful” to the grand jury investigation.

Graham, a four-term senator who last won reelection in 2020, was first subpoenaed in July by Willis. The district attorney opened her investigation shortly after a recording of a January 2021 phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was made public. In that call, Trump suggested Raffensperger could “find” the votes needed to overturn his narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Willis wants to question Graham about two phone calls he made to Raffensperger and his staff in the weeks after the election.

During those calls, Graham asked about “reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump,” Willis wrote in a petition seeking to compel his testimony.

Raffensperger said he took Graham’s question about absentee ballots as a suggestion to toss out legally cast votes. Graham has dismissed that interpretation as “ridiculous.” Graham has also argued that the call was protected because he was asking questions to inform his decisions on voting to certify the 2020 election and future legislation.

Graham’s legal team plans to reach out to Willis’ office about what happens next, according to a statement from the senator’s office.

Graham became a toady for Trump!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Fox News has been fueling a “culture and a climate” that led to last week’s violent break-in at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco house, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a CBS News interview airing today.

“They’re sowing the seeds, creating a culture and a climate like this,” Newsom told CBS News’ chief Washington correspondent, Major Garrett, referring to the conservative network. “I mean, look online. Look at the sewage that is online that they amplify on these networks and in social media to dehumanize people like Nancy Pelosi and other political leaders.”

The governor’s remarks come days after an intruder broke into the San Francisco house Pelosi shares with her husband, Paul, whom the intruder attacked with a hammer, causing a skull fracture and other injuries that required surgery.

“I’ve seen the dehumanization of Nancy Pelosi. I don’t think anyone’s been dehumanized like she has consistently,” Newsom said of his fellow California Democrat.

He specifically called out Fox News host Jesse Watters, who has done several segments about Paul Pelosi pleading guilty to a misdemeanor driving under the influence charge earlier this year.

“What he’s been saying about Paul Pelosi the last five, six months, mocking him consistently ― don’t tell me that’s not aiding and abetting all this. Of course it is,” Newsom said.

Watters downplayed the attack shortly after it happened, suggesting that the suspect, David Wayne DePape, should be released from custody.

“What I want is that I want this alleged perpetrator to be treated the exact same way if he had treated ― if he had attacked anybody else,” Watters said on his show. “Because a lot of people get hit with hammers. A lot of people get attacked. And a lot of the times they’re out on bail the next day and it’s a simple assault charge. So I don’t know why this guy is being treated differently.”

When law enforcement arrived at the Pelosis’ home during the attack, they found a roll of tape, rope, rubber and cloth gloves, two hammers and zip ties. DePape has been charged with one count of assault of an immediate family member of a U.S. official and one count of attempted kidnapping of a U.S. official. He faces a potential 50 years in prison.

DePape has “a long history of fringe conspiracy theory views,” California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D) said earlier this week, noting he became familiar with him and his pro-nudism activism while serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. A blog that media investigations have uncovered shows several troubling posts written by someone named David DePape, including remarks questioning the results of the 2020 presidential election, supporting former President Donald Trump and propping up QAnon conspiracy theories.

Watters is a Tucker Carlson wannabe who will do or say anything for a ratings bump!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The US Supreme Court yesterday appeared ready to rule that the race-based admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful, based on questioning over five hours of vigorous arguments, a move that would overrule decades of affirmative action precedents.

Such a decision would jeopardize affirmative action at colleges and universities around the nation, particularly elite institutions, decreasing the representation of Black and Latino students and bolstering the number of white and Asian ones.  As reported by The New York Times:

Questioning from members of the court’s six-justice conservative majority was sharp and skeptical. “I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means,” Justice Clarence Thomas said. “It seems to mean everything for everyone.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked a similar question about the term “underrepresented minority.”

“What does that mean?” he asked, adding that college admissions are “a zero-sum game” in which granting advantages to one group necessarily disadvantages another.

If the court does away with affirmative action by the end of its current term, it would represent the second time in the space of a year that its conservative supermajority has jettisoned decades of precedent to overturn a policy that has helped define American life. But as its decision in June eliminating the constitutional right to abortion made plain, members of that majority have not hesitated to take bold steps on divisive issues.

A ruling against the universities would be further evidence of the court’s rightward lurch after President Donald J. Trump’s appointment of three justices, and it could raise fresh questions about whether the court’s approach to precedent threatens the stability of the law and the court’s own legitimacy.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who views himself as the custodian of the court’s independence and authority, may have conflicting impulses in the cases argued Monday. He has long been critical of drawing distinctions based on race. His questions about race-neutral means of achieving diversity suggested that he might be pursuing a characteristically incremental path. That approach could limit the sweep of a decision rejecting race-conscious programs.

In general, two themes ran through questions from the court’s conservatives: that educational diversity can be achieved without directly taking account of race and that there must come a time when colleges and universities stop making such distinctions.

The court’s three liberal members put up a spirited defense.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said “race does correlate to some experiences and not others.”

“If you’re Black,” she said, “you’re more likely to be in an underresourced school. You’re more likely to be taught by teachers who are not as qualified as others. You’re more likely to be viewed as having less academic potential.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it would be odd if admissions officers could consider factors like whether applicants were parents, veterans or disabled — but not if they were members of racial minorities. That has “the potential of causing more of an equal protection problem than it’s actually solving,” she said.

Justice Elena Kagan said she was worried about “a precipitous decline in minority admissions” if the court were to rule against affirmative action in higher education. “These are the pipelines to leadership in our society,” she said of elite universities.

Over the course of the argument, the justices discussed with seeming approval several kinds of race-neutral approaches: preferences based on socioeconomic status; so-called top 10 programs, which admit students who graduate near the top of their high school classes; and the elimination of preferences for children of alumni and major donors, who tend to be white.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether it would be permissible for minority students to write essays describing their experiences with race discrimination. Patrick Strawbridge, a lawyer for Students for Fair Admission, the group challenging the programs, said that was fine.

“What we object to,” he said, “is a consideration of race and race by itself.” Personal essays are different, he said. “It tells you something about the character and the experience of the applicant other than their skin color,” he said.

We will likely know in June but the hearing yesterday does not bode well for affirmative action.

Tony