| "This is one very corrupted, compromised man who was probably never going to be part of the solution …" That's Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a climate activist taking his gloves off in an interview with The Post's Climate 202 newsletter about Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.). Liberals are understandably very upset today at Manchin, who pulled the plug on a climate and health-care deal that Democratic leaders thought they were nearing with him.  Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) earlier in the week. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) | This is the second time in half a year that Manchin has single-handedly tanked Democrats' spending and economic bill. (Manchin said he doesn't want to spend more money with inflation so high.) This moment feels particularly apocalyptic to Democrats and climate activists, who fear they may not get another chance to cut emissions before Republicans potentially win control of Congress, and potentially hold it for a long time thanks to gerrymandering. "We can't come back in another decade and forestall hundreds of billions — if not trillions — in economic damage and undo the inevitable human toll," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement. Democrats are also desperate for a concrete victory ahead of November's midterm elections. Their options on what to do next are limited. They can try to keep negotiating with Manchin through the summer, and hope they don't get strung along a third time. Or they can risk having nothing to show voters on climate change — and paid leave, and subsidized pre-kindergarten, and voting rights, and health-care premiums, and on and on. Reader question: If Trump runs for president, could he still be indicted? A few of you had this question yesterday, based on news that Trump is considering announcing his 2024 run soon. The answer is yes, the Justice Department can indict a presidential candidate. It's a common misconception they can't, said former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade. That's because while the Justice Department has a policy that no sitting president can be charged with a crime, "there is no similar prohibition on a candidate for presidency or any other office." But it's also possible that Trump being a presidential candidate makes Justice Department leaders even more skittish about investigating him and potentially indicting him for his role in the Jan. 6 attack. Still, McQuade said, "if the evidence is sufficient to prove the case, it would seem to be in the substantial interest of the nation to file charges, regardless of whether he is a candidate." Right now, we don't know what the alleged crime would be, if any. How LGBT Americans are directing their activism post-Roe  A New York pride event in June. (Sarah YENESEL/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock) | In the past decade, the Supreme Court has helped LGBTQ Americans in some big ways; it upheld same-sex marriage and held that discrimination for being gay or transgender violates federal law. And more Americans than ever before are in favor of same-sex marriage; Gallup recently found 71 percent of the public now supports it, an all-time high. But after the Supreme Court knocked down abortion rights, some in the community fear that it might do similar with same-sex marriage. (Justice Clarence Thomas, often the court's most conservative justice, suggested as much, although the court's other conservatives stressed that their ruling related to abortion and nothing else). So advocates are trying to quickly codify gay marriage at the state level. Some blue states are scrambling to write legislation ensuring that gay marriage would be legal even if the Supreme Court were to say it's no longer recognized as a constitutional right. New Jersey successfully codified gay marriage earlier this year, led by a Republican lawmaker. The Iowa Supreme Court did this years before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage in 2015. Lawmakers are even introducing the legislation to enshrine same-sex-marriage rights in red states like West Virginia and Utah, though they face uphill battles. But it's a piecemeal effort, and nothing they're doing would provide a comprehensive protection if the Supreme Court ever did roll back federal protections. Thirty-five states have decades-old laws on the books banning same-sex marriage, according to Pew. The situation in these states is a lot like abortion trigger laws: If the federal protection of gay marriage is ever taken away, these old state laws and constitutional amendments could kick in. Yet: At least so far, there's no concerted effort on the right to get gay marriage rolled back. Unlike the abortion issue, which has remained a contentious one for decades, a large majority of Americans now support gay marriage and activist organizations that tried to prevent legalizing it have faded in influence. (Though a majority of Americans support abortion rights, and abortion could soon be illegal in half of the country.) | 
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment