thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Trump’s Florida Convention Could Be The First That Actually Helps Lose A State

“ If they move forward with that convention , with the numbers the way they are , people are just going to think they ’ re crazy , ” said Kim Nymeyer , president of the North Pinellas County Democratic Club , adding that Trump ’ s insistence on holding an in-person coronation amid a pandemic gives her side yet another argument .
“ I do think Trump is taking the rope and hanging himself without any help from us.
” Trump seemed to back away from his demand for a packed house in an interview with Voice of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few weeks ago , it looked good .
And now all of a sudden it ’ s spiking up a little bit and that ’ s going to go down .
It really depends on the timing .
.
.
.
We can do a lot of things , but we ’ re very flexible.
” “ It could be OK .
If he has a decent crowd , and he gets up and knocks the speech out of the park .
That ’ s the best case , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case ?
No one comes , it looks empty and there ’ s a bunch of protests , which becomes the big story in the middle of a pandemic.
” Trouble For Trump In His New Home State But with former Vice President Joe Biden leading the ticket , that worry is gone .
Even better , Nymeyer said , the former Sanders and Warren supporters appear to agree that the overarching goal of removing Trump is paramount .
“ The votes are out there .
The key is to go get them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Democratic consultant who ran former President Barack Obama ’ s 2008 victory in Florida and is now working for a pro-Biden super PAC , said he assumes Trump and his campaign will do a competent job of turning out Republican votes , which will get them to about 48 % , while he hopes Democrats will do a decent job with their voters , which would get Biden to 48 % .
Given that , Schale said , the Biden campaign should be happy to be where it is .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re doing something right .
I don ’ t know how much of that is organizational and how much of that is Trump being Trump.
” “ I Will Vote For A Shoe Over Donald Trump ” Others in the progressive community ― Rivera again supported Sanders in the primaries this time around ― and Florida ’ s Puerto Rican community feel the same way , she said , particularly in the aftermath of Trump ’ s botched response to the pandemic , which in Florida has been exacerbated by a dysfunctional state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latinos , who tend to live paycheck to paycheck .
“ The way they dumped on North Carolina , picked Jacksonville .
They can ’ t so far raise the money that ’ s necessary , for people that might not come , in the context of a pandemic , in one of the state ’ s hot spots , with the possibility of a Chicago 1968 in terms of protests , ” Stipanovich said .
“ The potential advantage for the Trump campaign is so small compared to the risk , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just a weird dynamic .
I don ’ t see how it helps .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
DUNEDIN, Fla. ― When President Donald Trump moved his Republican nominating convention to Florida after yanking it from North Carolina last month, the extra hassle and cost at least carried the benefit of shoring up his support in the country’s highest-value swing state.
Four weeks later, with coronavirus cases flaring across the state, the move may instead make it that much harder for Trump to win Florida’s 29 electoral votes ― votes that, if he loses them, would almost certainly guarantee his loss nationally.
Advertisement
“If they move forward with that convention, with the numbers the way they are, people are just going to think they’re crazy,” said Kim Nymeyer, president of the North Pinellas County Democratic Club, adding that Trump’s insistence on holding an in-person coronation amid a pandemic gives her side yet another argument. “I do think Trump is taking the rope and hanging himself without any help from us.”
Trump seemed to back away from his demand for a packed house in an interview with Voice of America on Tuesday. “When we signed a few weeks ago, it looked good. And now all of a sudden it’s spiking up a little bit and that’s going to go down. It really depends on the timing. . . . We can do a lot of things, but we’re very flexible.”
Plans for the three days of rallies at a minor league hockey arena in Jacksonville in late August, meanwhile, continued moving forward Wednesday.
One top Republican close to the White House acknowledged things could, indeed, go badly and wind up hurting Trump’s chances of winning the all-important state.
Advertisement
“It could be OK. If he has a decent crowd, and he gets up and knocks the speech out of the park. That’s the best case,” he said on condition of anonymity. “Worst case? No one comes, it looks empty and there’s a bunch of protests, which becomes the big story in the middle of a pandemic.”
Complications for that best-case scenario are already apparent. Under Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s standing executive order, indoor facilities cannot be filled to beyond 50% capacity, meaning, in the case of Jacksonville’s VyStar Veterans Memorial Arena, only 7,500 would be admitted inside, just 1,300 more than were in the sparsely attended Tulsa, Oklahoma, campaign rally on June 20.
The Republican National Convention is currently planning to test every single one of the attendees daily for the coronavirus, but if cases are still surging in Florida, daily tests of Trump delegates and supporters would raise questions about why so many medical resources were being devoted to an unnecessary celebration.
Finally, there is the choice of the day itself, Aug. 27, the anniversary of “Ax Handle Saturday,” the day in 1961 when Blacks conducting a lunch counter sit-in were brutally attacked by about 200 white people wielding ax handles and baseball bats.
“It’s one of the lowlights of Jacksonville’s history,” said Mike Binder, a University of North Florida political science professor whose recent poll showed that Jacksonville residents, by a 58-42 margin, opposed having the convention there right now. “It’s hard to imagine this going well…. Nobody else had their hand up wanting this thing.”
Advertisement
Trouble For Trump In His New Home State
Even before the pandemic swept all else aside, there were signs that Trump ought not to have been counting on his newly adopted home state to deliver for him.
At a late January meeting of Nymeyer’s Democratic club at the Dunedin Scottish Arts Foundation’s meeting room a few blocks from the town’s main drag, volunteers had to set out extra rows of folding chairs to accommodate all the arrivals.
Nymeyer asked for first-timers to raise their hands and explain why they had come. To a person, they mentioned Trump.
“I’m just pissed off,” said an African American woman.
“I’m here to make sure we win this year,” said a white male retiree.
Added an older white woman: “I’m just here because I’m mad as hell.”
Nymeyer thanked them for coming. “We need you to stop yelling at your TV and start volunteering.”
At the time, she and other Democrats in the area worried that a favorite of the party’s progressive wing, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) could win the nomination, making it hard to win a more moderate swing state like Florida.
President Donald Trump participates in a White House event Tuesday with students, teachers and administrators on how to reopen schools during the coronavirus pandemic. Concerns about COVID-19 led North Carolina to reject requests to loosen public health rules for the Republican National Convention. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Advertisement
But with former Vice President Joe Biden leading the ticket, that worry is gone. Even better, Nymeyer said, the former Sanders and Warren supporters appear to agree that the overarching goal of removing Trump is paramount. “The votes are out there. The key is to go get them,” she said.
Steve Schale, the Democratic consultant who ran former President Barack Obama’s 2008 victory in Florida and is now working for a pro-Biden super PAC, said he assumes Trump and his campaign will do a competent job of turning out Republican votes, which will get them to about 48%, while he hopes Democrats will do a decent job with their voters, which would get Biden to 48%.
Winning the remaining 2% plus 1 will involve persuading people, he said, adding that, right now, most polls show Biden is ahead 5 or 6 percentage points in the state. “The question is, how much of that is in the moment?”
Starting with the famously razor-thin, 537-vote margin of the 2000 election, just two presidential races in Florida have been decided by a margin larger than a point and half, and even those were close: George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, when he won by 5 points, and Obama’s 2008 election, when he won by 3.
The other two presidential contests, the three governor’s races since 2010 and, in 2018, the U.S. Senate race, have been so close that the average victory margin has been 0.8 percentage point.
Advertisement
Given that, Schale said, the Biden campaign should be happy to be where it is. “They’re ahead. They’re doing something right. I don’t know how much of that is organizational and how much of that is Trump being Trump.”
“I Will Vote For A Shoe Over Donald Trump”
That Trump is Trump, though, may well be the best argument Democrats have heading into November.
Four years ago, Adriana Rivera, a Puerto Rican native new to South Florida, had been captivated by Sanders’s primary run but had been turned off by eventual nominee Hillary Clinton and did not bother to vote.
After 3½ years of Trump in the White House, she said, she will not repeat that mistake. “This time around, I will vote for a shoe over Donald Trump. We didn’t know what a Trump presidency would be like. Now we’ve seen it. We’ve seen how horrible it is.”
Others in the progressive community ― Rivera again supported Sanders in the primaries this time around ― and Florida’s Puerto Rican community feel the same way, she said, particularly in the aftermath of Trump’s botched response to the pandemic, which in Florida has been exacerbated by a dysfunctional state unemployment claims system that has disproportionately hurt Latinos, who tend to live paycheck to paycheck.
“I think people are beyond the point of frustrated and are now just angry,” said Rivera, who works with the Florida Immigrant Coalition.
Advertisement
The Trump campaign did not respond to HuffPost requests for comment regarding its Florida strategy. At a Trump rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, in February, communications director Tim Murtaugh ridiculed the idea of even needing one: “We’re going to win Florida. It’s only a matter of when the Dems give up.”
That, though, was before the pandemic spread across the country following weeks of Trump downplaying it, claiming it would go away on its own, even calling it a “hoax” pumped up by Democrats and the news media to hurt his reelection chances.
The informal Republican White House adviser said Republicans’ superior voter turnout operation would, in the end, let Trump win Florida.
“We’re probably down 2 to 4 points. And we’ll win by 1 to 2 points,” he said.
One longtime GOP veteran of Florida politics, however, said that assessment assumes both that the pandemic fades from the state and employment has rebounded to where it was before the crisis.
“They know this. It’s like a baseball team that’s losing. You can’t fire the team, but you can fire the coach,” said Mac Stipanovich, the former chief of staff to Republican Gov. Bob Martinez in the late 1980s who then ran Jeb Bush’s first, unsuccessful, bid for governor in 1994. “If things go well, he gets the credit. If things go badly, he gets the blame.”
Advertisement
Which is why, he added, he cannot understand Trump’s insistence on staging his convention in a state that he has to win.
“The way they dumped on North Carolina, picked Jacksonville. They can’t so far raise the money that’s necessary, for people that might not come, in the context of a pandemic, in one of the state’s hot spots, with the possibility of a Chicago 1968 in terms of protests,” Stipanovich said. “The potential advantage for the Trump campaign is so small compared to the risk, I would be worried about it…. It’s just a weird dynamic. I don’t see how it helps.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Former Fox News Host Shep Smith Joining CNBC Lineup

“ We ’ re thrilled that Shep , who ’ s built a career on an honest fight to find and report the facts , will continue his pursuit of the truth at CNBC , ” the network ’ s chairman , Mark Hoffman , said in a statement .
Smith ’ s one-hour evening news program titled “ The News With Shepard Smith ” will begin airing in the fall and feature a mix of daily news and storytelling , the network said .
“ Gathering and reporting the news has been my life ’ s work .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , both for CNBC ’ s loyal viewers and for those who have been following my reporting for decades in good times and in bad , ” Smith said , adding , “ I know I found a great home for my newscast.
” Smith stunned viewers when he left Fox News last October , saying he asked the network to let him out of his contract .
Though he had been with the right-leaning news operation since its 1996 inception , he began sparring with Tucker Carlson and other Trump-friendly hosts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News .
In his outgoing message , Smith made an apparent nod to President Donald Trump ’ s war with the media .
“ Even in our currently polarized nation , it is my hope that the facts will win the day .
That the truth will always matter .
That journalism ― and journalists ― will thrive , ” Smith said on air .
Trump has disparagingly called him Fox ’ s “ lowest-rated anchor.
” Several weeks later , he took an apparent jab at his former network and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to use those same online tools to shore up their power , ” he said at the International Press Freedom Awards .
“ They flood the world of information with garbage and lies , masquerading as news .
There ’ s a phrase for that.
” Smith ’ s new show at CNBC is scheduled to air Monday through Friday at 7 p.m .
ET .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Fox News host Shep Smith will host a new show on CNBC, the network announced Wednesday.
“We’re thrilled that Shep, who’s built a career on an honest fight to find and report the facts, will continue his pursuit of the truth at CNBC,” the network’s chairman, Mark Hoffman, said in a statement.
Smith’s one-hour evening news program titled “The News With Shepard Smith” will begin airing in the fall and feature a mix of daily news and storytelling, the network said.
Advertisement
“Gathering and reporting the news has been my life’s work. I am honored to continue to pursue the truth, both for CNBC’s loyal viewers and for those who have been following my reporting for decades in good times and in bad,” Smith said, adding, “I know I found a great home for my newscast.”
Smith stunned viewers when he left Fox News last October, saying he asked the network to let him out of his contract. Though he had been with the right-leaning news operation since its 1996 inception, he began sparring with Tucker Carlson and other Trump-friendly hosts near the end of his tenure at Fox News.
In his outgoing message, Smith made an apparent nod to President Donald Trump’s war with the media.
“Even in our currently polarized nation, it is my hope that the facts will win the day. That the truth will always matter. That journalism ― and journalists ― will thrive,” Smith said on air. Trump has disparagingly called him Fox’s “lowest-rated anchor.”
Several weeks later, he took an apparent jab at his former network and its Trump-friendly reporting.
“Autocrats have learned how to use those same online tools to shore up their power,” he said at the International Press Freedom Awards. “They flood the world of information with garbage and lies, masquerading as news. There’s a phrase for that.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Facebook Audit Reveals 'Deeply Troubling' And 'Weaponized' Platform

That stuttering approach has impeded Facebook ’ s own efforts to properly respond to urgent needs , thereby harming both its users and society at large .
As a result , organized hate , misinformation , voter suppression and discrimination remain massive problems for Facebook to tackle , among others .
While auditors applauded the company for a “ number of positive and consequential steps , ” they warned that progress is being undone by other “ vexing and heartbreaking decisions , ” effectively setting Facebook on a “ seesaw of progress and setbacks.
” One example : failing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by President Donald Trump in which he labeled protesters as “ THUGS ” and said that “ looting ” leads to “ shooting.
” The posts were left up after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spoke with Trump and claimed , despite evidence to the contrary , that they didn ’ t incite violence and therefore didn ’ t violate company rules .
After Facebook ’ s inaction on the Trump posts , other politicians and businesses ran ads with similar language , advocating that armed vigilante citizens shoot “ looters ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violated the platform ’ s rules , they weren ’ t flagged by the company and received more than 200,000 impressions before they were brought to Facebook ’ s attention and removed .
In addition to carving out problematic exceptions for the president , the report found Facebook is generally “ far too reluctant to adopt strong rules to limit misinformation and voter suppression , ” effectively “ weaponizing ” the platform to suppress voting .
“ With less than five months before a presidential election , ” the report said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook has failed to grasp the urgency.
” With less than five months before a presidential election , it confounds the Auditors as to why Facebook has failed to grasp the urgency ... For example , repeated false claims by Trump that mail-in ballots are “ substantially fraudulent ” are allowed to remain .
( By Trump ’ s surrogates ’ own admission , voting by mail can be done “ safely and securely.
” ) “ When ... powerful politicians do not have to abide by the same rules that everyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created that privileges certain voices over less powerful voices , ” the report cautioned .
Auditors also raised numerous flags about the spread of hate speech on the platform , particularly white nationalism .
A study by a watchdog group released in May found such groups are “ thriving ” on the website .
The Facebook audit urged the company to go beyond banning only explicit references to white separatism “ to also prohibit express praise , support and representation of white separatism and white nationalism even where the terms themselves are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exacerbates the problem , the audit found , by “ pushing people toward extreme and divisive content , ” with efforts to make the site less divisive reportedly deliberately shut down by top leadership .
Facebook is not “ sufficiently attuned to the depth of concern on the issue of polarization and the way that the algorithms used by Facebook inadvertently fuel extreme and polarizing content , ” the report warns .
The report ’ s release comes amid a large and growing boycott of Facebook by advertisers who are wary of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As of Wednesday , more than 1,000 companies had signed on , including big names like Coca-Cola , Pepsi , Starbucks , Unilever , and Verizon ( HuffPost ’ s parent company ) .
Zuckerberg and his deputies have been dismissive of the boycott .
Last week , he vowed not to change company policies “ because of a threat to a small percent of our revenue ” and predicted advertisers “ will be back on the platform soon enough.
” While Facebook has said it will not bow to the demands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the company ― comes to similar conclusions as those reached by its numerous detractors .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
An independent civil rights audit commissioned by Facebook has found that the company’s decision-making process “remains too reactive and piecemeal” to achieve regular, meaningful progress on key issues plaguing the social media platform.
That stuttering approach has impeded Facebook’s own efforts to properly respond to urgent needs, thereby harming both its users and society at large. As a result, organized hate, misinformation, voter suppression and discrimination remain massive problems for Facebook to tackle, among others.
Advertisement
Facebook released the 100-page report, authored by a team of civil rights attorneys and led by former American Civil Liberties Union executive Laura Murphy, on Wednesday.
While auditors applauded the company for a “number of positive and consequential steps,” they warned that progress is being undone by other “vexing and heartbreaking decisions,” effectively setting Facebook on a “seesaw of progress and setbacks.”
One example: failing to act on a series of recent posts by President Donald Trump in which he labeled protesters as “THUGS” and said that “looting” leads to “shooting.” The posts were left up after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spoke with Trump and claimed, despite evidence to the contrary, that they didn’t incite violence and therefore didn’t violate company rules.
After Facebook’s inaction on the Trump posts, other politicians and businesses ran ads with similar language, advocating that armed vigilante citizens shoot “looters” and “ANTIFA terrorists.” Even though the ads violated the platform’s rules, they weren’t flagged by the company and received more than 200,000 impressions before they were brought to Facebook’s attention and removed.
Advertisement
In addition to carving out problematic exceptions for the president, the report found Facebook is generally “far too reluctant to adopt strong rules to limit misinformation and voter suppression,” effectively “weaponizing” the platform to suppress voting.
“With less than five months before a presidential election,” the report said, “it confounds the auditors as to why Facebook has failed to grasp the urgency.”
“With less than five months before a presidentialelection, it confounds the Auditors as to why Facebook has failed to grasp the urgency...”
For example, repeated false claims by Trump that mail-in ballots are “substantially fraudulent” are allowed to remain. (By Trump’s surrogates’ own admission, voting by mail can be done “safely and securely.”)
The ballot falsehood also touches on yet another vexing area identified by the audit: Facebook’s decision to exempt politicians from its already lax fact-checking system.
Advertisement
“When ... powerful politicians do not have to abide by the same rules that everyone else does, a hierarchy of speech is created that privileges certain voices over less powerful voices,” the report cautioned.
Auditors also raised numerous flags about the spread of hate speech on the platform, particularly white nationalism. A study by a watchdog group released in May found such groups are “thriving” on the website.
The Facebook audit urged the company to go beyond banning only explicit references to white separatism “to also prohibit express praise, support and representation of white separatism and white nationalism even where the terms themselves are not used.”
“The prioritization of free expression over all other values, such as equality and non-discrimination, is deeply troubling,” the report said.
Facebook’s own algorithm exacerbates the problem, the audit found, by “pushing people toward extreme and divisive content,” with efforts to make the site less divisive reportedly deliberately shut down by top leadership.
Advertisement
Facebook is not “sufficiently attuned to the depth of concern on the issue of polarization and the way that the algorithms used by Facebook inadvertently fuel extreme and polarizing content,” the report warns.
The report’s release comes amid a large and growing boycott of Facebook by advertisers who are wary of the harmful content their ads appear alongside. As of Wednesday, more than 1,000 companies had signed on, including big names like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Starbucks, Unilever, and Verizon (HuffPost’s parent company).
Zuckerberg and his deputies have been dismissive of the boycott. Last week, he vowed not to change company policies “because of a threat to a small percent of our revenue” and predicted advertisers “will be back on the platform soon enough.”
While Facebook has said it will not bow to the demands of others, the audit ― perhaps conveniently for the company ― comes to similar conclusions as those reached by its numerous detractors.
“I don’t think there’s a big window” for action, Murphy, the lead author of the report, told CNN. “I think people are very concerned about domestic actors using the platform to interfere with our elections and to spread misinformation.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman To Retire From Military, Cites Trump’s ‘Campaign Of Bullying’

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , a key witness in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump , announced Wednesday that he is retiring from the Army .
Vindman ’ s lawyer , Amb .
David Pressman , told CNN that his client is making the move after 21 years in the armed forces because he has determined his future in the military “ will forever be limited.
” Pressman said Vindman , a Purple Heart recipient , has endured a “ campaign of bullying , intimidation , and retaliation ” since testifying against the president .
In February , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — on which he had served as a Ukraine expert — in retaliation for testifying about his knowledge of a July 2019 call with the Ukrainian president that set off Trump ’ s impeachment inquiry and proceedings .
The president also suggested the military consider taking disciplinary action against Vindman .
Vindman tweeted Wednesday to say he had requested retirement from the Army , “ an organization I love.
” Today I officially requested retirement from the US Army , an organization I love .
My family and I look forward to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Alexander S. Vindman ( @ AVindman ) July 8 , 2020 Important conversations are happening now .
Add your voice !
Join HuffPost Today !

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a key witness in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, announced Wednesday that he is retiring from the Army.
Vindman’s lawyer, Amb. David Pressman, told CNN that his client is making the move after 21 years in the armed forces because he has determined his future in the military “will forever be limited.”
Advertisement
Pressman said Vindman, a Purple Heart recipient, has endured a “campaign of bullying, intimidation, and retaliation” since testifying against the president.
In February, Trump fired Vindman from the National Security Council — on which he had served as a Ukraine expert — in retaliation for testifying about his knowledge of a July 2019 call with the Ukrainian president that set off Trump’s impeachment inquiry and proceedings.
The president also suggested the military consider taking disciplinary action against Vindman.
Vindman tweeted Wednesday to say he had requested retirement from the Army, “an organization I love.”
Today I officially requested retirement from the US Army, an organization I love. My family and I look forward to the next chapter of our lives. pic.twitter.com/h2D9MRUHY2 — Alexander S. Vindman (@AVindman) July 8, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden Teams Come Up With Progressive Policy Recommendations

The more than 100-page document offered by a group of prominent labor leaders , elected officials and academics aligned with either Biden or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ campaigns , is the culmination of a monthslong negotiation in which Sanders and his allies sought to push the all-but-certain Democratic presidential nominee ’ s platform to the left .
The report comes from six joint policy task forces on the economy , education , criminal justice , immigration , climate change and health care .
Each task force had eight members , five of whom were picked by Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Sanders ’ team .
Each group offered Biden a unified platform and a list of policies and possible executive orders he could consider should he be elected president .
Biden welcomed the ideas in a statement , calling them a “ bold , transformative platform for our party and for our country.
” Biden has shown openness to making some adjustments to his policy platform in past months , including making public colleges and universities tuition-free for students from families with incomes less than $ 125,000 a year , eliminating student debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year and lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 — positions that were adopted by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 general election .
A jobs guarantee has not been socialized in American discourse enough for the campaign to be receptive to it .
Sara Nelson , president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA The group spent significant time debating the idea , Nelson said , despite noting it would limit time to discuss other policy proposals like ensuring workers the right to strike and banning stock buybacks — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it into the policy recommendations .
A contentious proposal , the jobs guarantee faced significant pushback from the Biden-appointed negotiators .
“ A jobs guarantee has not been socialized in American discourse enough for the campaign to be receptive to it , ” Nelson said .
“ I know as a union leader , you can ’ t negotiate a provision in a contract that no one understands .
“ “ In order to ensure that everyone who wants to work has a pathway to employment , the government must enact measures to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively used during the New Deal , and ensure such programs are inclusive for women and people of color , ” the report reads .
“ These programs will focus on lifting wages , expanding public services , strengthening bonds with communities , protecting workers , and building our public , physical , and human infrastructure so the United States is more resilient to future pandemics , climate change-fueled catastrophes , and economic downturns.
” The cost of some of Sanders ’ boldest proposals remained a major obstacle in negotiations in multiple task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , co-led by Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal ( D-Wash. ) and former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy , failed to reach consensus on proposals from Sanders ’ team to expand Medicare coverage to those under the age of 60 , and explicitly cover dental , hearing and vision .
But Biden ’ s advisers signaled an openness toward looking into those gaps in coverage , according to task force member Dr. Donald Berwick , who used to run the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Obama administration , and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Sanders ’ picks for the task force .
The recommendations say the party should be committed to “ finding financially sustainable policies to modernize and strengthen Medicare and fill coverage voids.
” Task force members included prominent progressive leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) , who co-wrote the Green New Deal , labor leaders like SEIU union head Mary Kay Henry , and academics like Stephanie Kelton , the leading economist behind modern monetary theory , the idea that governments can never run out of money and that deficit spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic growth .
Biden ’ s team appointed experts including veterans of the Obama administration , like former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Attorney General Eric Holder .
Biden did not emphasize policy during the Democratic primary , releasing fewer plans than other candidates and instead honing in on a fight for “ the soul of the nation ” against Trump .
Meanwhile , his campaign has kept a broad group of outside advisers to consult on his platform .
Biden has taken a significant lead in public polling against President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to attack Biden if he adopts some of the proposed stances .
But many of the potential concessions to the left involve the type of policy detail the average voter is unlikely to care about , and Biden ’ s positions on the most polarizing left-wing positions ― including abolishing ICE , defunding police forces and adopting a single-payer health care system ― will not change .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Vice President Joe Biden has agreed to consider a host of progressive policy positions, including a ban on for-profit charter schools, the creation of a postal banking system, mandating net-zero emissions for all buildings by 2030, and launching a federally backed corps of unarmed first responders.
The more than 100-page document offered by a group of prominent labor leaders, elected officials and academics aligned with either Biden or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaigns, is the culmination of a monthslong negotiation in which Sanders and his allies sought to push the all-but-certain Democratic presidential nominee’s platform to the left.
Advertisement
The report comes from six joint policy task forces on the economy, education, criminal justice, immigration, climate change and health care. Each task force had eight members, five of whom were picked by Biden’s team and three of whom were tapped by Sanders’ team.
Each group offered Biden a unified platform and a list of policies and possible executive orders he could consider should he be elected president. Biden welcomed the ideas in a statement, calling them a “bold, transformative platform for our party and for our country.”
AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File
Biden has shown openness to making some adjustments to his policy platform in past months, including making public colleges and universities tuition-free for students from families with incomes less than $125,000 a year, eliminating student debt for those making less than $125,000 a year and lowering the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 — positions that were adopted by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 general election.
Advertisement
These task force recommendations promote progressive policies, like a proposal to expand automatic enrollment in a public health insurance option for low-income Americans in health emergencies, but are a far cry from the kinds of ideas Sanders’ negotiators came to the table with.
“Though the end result is not what I or my supporters would have written alone, the task forces have created a good policy blueprint that will move this country in a much-needed progressive direction,” Sanders told NBC about the final result.
Sanders’ camp attempted to prioritize a federal jobs guarantee during task force negotiations, according to labor leader Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, who was tapped to co-lead the economy task force.
“A jobs guarantee has not been socialized in American discourse enough for the campaign to be receptive to it.” - Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
Sanders ran on a federal jobs guarantee program, an idea that was endorsed by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) that would aim to create millions of public sector health care, child care, teaching and infrastructure jobs, ensuring a job to any American in search of employment.
Advertisement
The group spent significant time debating the idea, Nelson said, despite noting it would limit time to discuss other policy proposals like ensuring workers the right to strike and banning stock buybacks — two ideas that ultimately did not make it into the policy recommendations. A contentious proposal, the jobs guarantee faced significant pushback from the Biden-appointed negotiators.
“A jobs guarantee has not been socialized in American discourse enough for the campaign to be receptive to it,” Nelson said. “I know as a union leader, you can’t negotiate a provision in a contract that no one understands. “
In the end, the Sanders camp won some language in the recommendation that alluded to a jobs guarantee program.
“In order to ensure that everyone who wants to work has a pathway to employment, the government must enact measures to create jobs and jobs programs like those effectively used during the New Deal, and ensure such programs are inclusive for women and people of color,” the report reads. “These programs will focus on lifting wages, expanding public services, strengthening bonds with communities, protecting workers, and building our public, physical, and human infrastructure so the United States is more resilient to future pandemics, climate change-fueled catastrophes, and economic downturns.”
The cost of some of Sanders’ boldest proposals remained a major obstacle in negotiations in multiple task groups. The health care task group, co-led by Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, failed to reach consensus on proposals from Sanders’ team to expand Medicare coverage to those under the age of 60, and explicitly cover dental, hearing and vision.
Advertisement
But Biden’s advisers signaled an openness toward looking into those gaps in coverage, according to task force member Dr. Donald Berwick, who used to run the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Obama administration, and as a strong single-payer advocate, was one of Sanders’ picks for the task force. The recommendations say the party should be committed to “finding financially sustainable policies to modernize and strengthen Medicare and fill coverage voids.”
The task force also began writing the outline of an executive order to set goals on ending unequal health outcomes in Black, brown and Native communities.
Berwick noted that the coronavirus pandemic, which has left tens of millions unemployed — and uninsured or underinsured as a result — has reinforced the idea of the government as the most secure guarantor of health care.
“I do suspect the groundwork is laid,” Berwick said.
Task force members included prominent progressive leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who co-wrote the Green New Deal, labor leaders like SEIU union head Mary Kay Henry, and academics like Stephanie Kelton, the leading economist behind modern monetary theory, the idea that governments can never run out of money and that deficit spending on major domestic programs would lead to economic growth. Biden’s team appointed experts including veterans of the Obama administration, like former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Attorney General Eric Holder.
Biden did not emphasize policy during the Democratic primary, releasing fewer plans than other candidates and instead honing in on a fight for “the soul of the nation” against Trump. Meanwhile, his campaign has kept a broad group of outside advisers to consult on his platform.
Advertisement
Many of the task force’s recommendations are Democratic boilerplate positions, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices.
Biden has taken a significant lead in public polling against President Donald Trump, and the GOP is likely to attack Biden if he adopts some of the proposed stances. But many of the potential concessions to the left involve the type of policy detail the average voter is unlikely to care about, and Biden’s positions on the most polarizing left-wing positions ― including abolishing ICE, defunding police forces and adopting a single-payer health care system ― will not change.
As an alternative to defunding the police, the criminal justice task force proposed the creation of a federally funded corps of first responders, including “social workers, EMTs, and trained mental health professionals” who could respond to nonviolent emergencies and free up police officers to focus on violent crime.
The Sanders team was hoping these policy recommendations could also influence the kind of personnel Biden would bring to the White House and his Cabinet, but task force members did not indicate there would be a formal continuation of the groups.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Democrats Have A Winning Argument On Unemployment Benefits

Since March , in one of the highest-profile economic debates in the U.S. , Democrats have said increased unemployment benefits help the economy while Republicans have said the extra jobless pay makes things worse by discouraging work .
There ’ s not much evidence of economic harm , and voters seem to prefer the Democratic argument by a wide margin , according to a new poll by the progressive think tank Data for Progress .
Sixty-five percent of survey respondents said they agreed with the statement that the expanded benefits “ help the economy by boosting consumer spending and keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 35 % agreed the benefits “ hurt the economy by encouraging people not to work.
” Michael Linden , director of the liberal advocacy group Groundwork Action , which commissioned the poll , said Congress shouldn ’ t cut the benefits “ in the middle of a pandemic while it ’ s not safe for workers to get back on the job.
” Congress added $ 600 to weekly unemployment benefits in March as part of the Coronavirus Aid , Relief and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act , but the extra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 .
Congress this month will likely debate another major piece of coronavirus legislation that could extend the higher benefits .
The Data for Progress poll is only the most recent indication of the higher jobless pay ’ s popularity .
Sixty percent of survey respondents told the Pew Research Center last month they favored keeping the extra jobless pay beyond July , and three out of four voters told Morning Consult the benefits should be maintained or increased .
Republicans objected strongly to the benefits from the start , forcing an unsuccessful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive more in unemployment than they did from their jobs .
For many workers , the $ 600 added to their regular weekly jobless benefits amounts to more than they previously earned .
Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-Neb . )
said in March the higher benefits would “ knock this nation still harder in the coming months by unintentionally increasing unemployment.
” The Congressional Budget Office has said employment would be slightly lower if the benefits remain in place for the rest of the year , though economic growth would be higher and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rent .
But the extra benefits seemingly haven ’ t held hiring back so far .
The past two months of jobs data brought unexpectedly strong gains as stay-at-home orders expired and millions of Americans returned to work .
( The Trump administration has encouraged states to disallow people to remain on benefits . )
A Brookings Institution analysis of state-level data even suggested that states saw shallower losses and swifter job gains where workers received more generous benefits .
“ Supercharged unemployment benefits have kept the economy afloat and allowed millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy groceries , ” Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) said this week .
“ They are extremely popular with the American people and the data have shown that they have not hindered the economic recovery.
” Republicans have cited many instances of business owners saying they ’ ve struggled to recall workers receiving higher pay from unemployment compensation ― but there are also anecdotes about workers returning to their jobs despite the lower pay .
Last month , during a hearing on the benefits , Republicans called as a witness Les Neilly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company , who testified that the government shouldn ’ t pay people more than they earn on the job .
He said one of his workers whom he ’ d called back to work in April complained that his still-unemployed colleagues were receiving more money .
Sen .
Rob Portman ( R-Ohio ) asked Neilly to elaborate on how the increased jobless pay made it harder to bring workers back and hurt the employer-employee relationship .
He may not have gotten the answer he wanted .
Neilly said that once he told his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company had been approved for forgivable loan from the Paycheck Protection Program ― which requires employers to maintain their payrolls in order for the loan to be forgiven ― everyone came back without complaining .
“ I was very happy that no one refused to come back , ” he said , “ and everybody , when I talked to them , was in agreement and said , ‘ Fine , we ’ ll see you tomorrow.
’ So , it was a little bit ― a relief that I didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Since March, in one of the highest-profile economic debates in the U.S., Democrats have said increased unemployment benefits help the economy while Republicans have said the extra jobless pay makes things worse by discouraging work.
There’s not much evidence of economic harm, and voters seem to prefer the Democratic argument by a wide margin, according to a new poll by the progressive think tank Data for Progress.
Advertisement
Sixty-five percent of survey respondents said they agreed with the statement that the expanded benefits “help the economy by boosting consumer spending and keeping businesses and communities afloat,” while only 35% agreed the benefits “hurt the economy by encouraging people not to work.”
Nearly half (49%) of Republicans said the benefits help, as did 80% of Democrats.
Michael Linden, director of the liberal advocacy group Groundwork Action, which commissioned the poll, said Congress shouldn’t cut the benefits “in the middle of a pandemic while it’s not safe for workers to get back on the job.”
Congress added $600 to weekly unemployment benefits in March as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, but the extra money is set to expire on July 31. Congress this month will likely debate another major piece of coronavirus legislation that could extend the higher benefits.
The Data for Progress poll is only the most recent indication of the higher jobless pay’s popularity. Sixty percent of survey respondents told the Pew Research Center last month they favored keeping the extra jobless pay beyond July, and three out of four voters told Morning Consult the benefits should be maintained or increased.
Advertisement
Republicans objected strongly to the benefits from the start, forcing an unsuccessful vote on an amendment saying nobody should receive more in unemployment than they did from their jobs. For many workers, the $600 added to their regular weekly jobless benefits amounts to more than they previously earned.
“Supercharged unemployment benefits have kept the economy afloat and allowed millions of families to pay the rent and buy groceries.” - Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said in March the higher benefits would “knock this nation still harder in the coming months by unintentionally increasing unemployment.” The Congressional Budget Office has said employment would be slightly lower if the benefits remain in place for the rest of the year, though economic growth would be higher and people would have more money for food and rent.
But the extra benefits seemingly haven’t held hiring back so far. The past two months of jobs data brought unexpectedly strong gains as stay-at-home orders expired and millions of Americans returned to work. (The Trump administration has encouraged states to disallow people to remain on benefits.) A Brookings Institution analysis of state-level data even suggested that states saw shallower losses and swifter job gains where workers received more generous benefits.
“Supercharged unemployment benefits have kept the economy afloat and allowed millions of families to pay the rent and buy groceries,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said this week. “They are extremely popular with the American people and the data have shown that they have not hindered the economic recovery.”
Advertisement
Republicans have cited many instances of business owners saying they’ve struggled to recall workers receiving higher pay from unemployment compensation ― but there are also anecdotes about workers returning to their jobs despite the lower pay.
Last month, during a hearing on the benefits, Republicans called as a witness Les Neilly, president of a Pennsylvania canvas goods company, who testified that the government shouldn’t pay people more than they earn on the job. He said one of his workers whom he’d called back to work in April complained that his still-unemployed colleagues were receiving more money.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) asked Neilly to elaborate on how the increased jobless pay made it harder to bring workers back and hurt the employer-employee relationship. He may not have gotten the answer he wanted.
Neilly said that once he told his workers at the end of April the company had been approved for forgivable loan from the Paycheck Protection Program ― which requires employers to maintain their payrolls in order for the loan to be forgiven ― everyone came back without complaining.
“I was very happy that no one refused to come back,” he said, “and everybody, when I talked to them, was in agreement and said, ‘Fine, we’ll see you tomorrow.’ So, it was a little bit ― a relief that I didn’t have any pushback from any of them.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--The Most Conservative Democrat In Congress Just Survived A Progressive Primary Challenge

On Tuesday , Rep. Josh Gottheimer ( D-N.J. ) survived a primary challenge from Arati Kreibich , a progressive newcomer who had hoped to capitalize on the recent resurgence of energy from left-wing Democrats amid mass unemployment and nationwide anti-racism protests .
“ We ’ ve always known this would be a tough fight , and last night it became clear that we came up short , ” Kreibich said in a written statement .
“ Josh Gottheimer will be our Democratic nominee , and I intend to vote for him and Democrats up and down the ballot in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeated.
” The Kreibich campaign was a long-shot effort to depose one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress .
Gottheimer , who was first elected in 2016 , has persistently pursued Republican policy priorities , earning him the ire of not only progressive activists but even centrist Democrats .
Last year , Gottheimer led a revolt of 18 conservative Democrats against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , demanding that the party strip a set of humanitarian protections for migrants detained at border facilities from a government funding bill .
Gottheimer won , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars to Trump ’ s detention centers and roiled the Democratic caucus for months .
It wasn ’ t the first or the last time Gottheimer pushed a Republican line in Democratic negotiations .
He has exploited his position on the House Financial Services Committee to aggressively fundraise from big banks and private equity firms .
He voted for the bank deregulation bill Trump signed into law in 2018 , and flatters bank executives when they appear before the committee .
Most Democrats who raise money from Wall Street and vote with big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on social issues .
Gottheimer does not .
In January of 2018 , he was one of just six Democrats to break with the party ’ s support for the Dream Act , which provides legal status to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children .
But Democratic leadership has consistently rewarded Gottheimer for his apostasies .
Despite his repeated attacks on party leadership , he ’ s enjoyed the full backing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) and House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries ( D-N.Y. ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party aligned organizations as Planned Parenthood , the Human Rights Campaign and American Federation of State , County and Municipal Employees , an influential labor union .
The electoral calculus for the Democratic establishment was obvious .
Until Gottheimer ’ s victory in 2018 , the wealthy , suburban district had been represented by Republicans since the 1930s and has consistently backed Republican presidential candidates .
A progressive challenger like Kreibich , who supports Medicare for All , might prove too liberal for the district .
But the district has been trending blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , and Trump took the district by just 1.1 % .
In 2018 , Gottheimer defeated his Republican challenger by double digits .
Pelosi ’ s governing strategy convinced progressives to roll the dice .
She has consistently catered to the policy priorities of centrist and conservative Democrats in high-income districts , arguing that they are the most vulnerable members of the caucus who must be protected legislatively .
But with Democrats widely expected to expand on a wide House majority in November ’ s elections , many progressives think deposing lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursue its more progressive goals in 2021 .
Throughout the primary campaign , Kreibich emphasized her Democratic credentials rather than her progressive views , calling herself a “ real Democrat ” and assailing Gottheimer as “ Trump ’ s favorite Democrat .
”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (left), a conservative Democrat, faced a progressive challenger in Tuesday's primary. AFP Contributor via Getty Images
On Tuesday, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) survived a primary challenge from Arati Kreibich, a progressive newcomer who had hoped to capitalize on the recent resurgence of energy from left-wing Democrats amid mass unemployment and nationwide anti-racism protests.
Ballots were still being counted into Wednesday morning when Kreibich formally conceded the race to Gottheimer.
Advertisement
“We’ve always known this would be a tough fight, and last night it became clear that we came up short,” Kreibich said in a written statement. “Josh Gottheimer will be our Democratic nominee, and I intend to vote for him and Democrats up and down the ballot in November. Trump and the GOP must be defeated.”
The Kreibich campaign was a long-shot effort to depose one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. Gottheimer, who was first elected in 2016, has persistently pursued Republican policy priorities, earning him the ire of not only progressive activists but even centrist Democrats.
Last year, Gottheimer led a revolt of 18 conservative Democrats against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, demanding that the party strip a set of humanitarian protections for migrants detained at border facilities from a government funding bill. Gottheimer won, and the resulting budget bill funneled billions of dollars to Trump’s detention centers and roiled the Democratic caucus for months.
It wasn’t the first or the last time Gottheimer pushed a Republican line in Democratic negotiations. He has exploited his position on the House Financial Services Committee to aggressively fundraise from big banks and private equity firms. He voted for the bank deregulation bill Trump signed into law in 2018, and flatters bank executives when they appear before the committee.
Advertisement
Most Democrats who raise money from Wall Street and vote with big banks try to burnish their progressive credentials on social issues. Gottheimer does not. In January of 2018, he was one of just six Democrats to break with the party’s support for the Dream Act, which provides legal status to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.
But Democratic leadership has consistently rewarded Gottheimer for his apostasies. Despite his repeated attacks on party leadership, he’s enjoyed the full backing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) in the primary, alongside such Democratic Party aligned organizations as Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, an influential labor union.
The electoral calculus for the Democratic establishment was obvious. Until Gottheimer’s victory in 2018, the wealthy, suburban district had been represented by Republicans since the 1930s and has consistently backed Republican presidential candidates. A progressive challenger like Kreibich, who supports Medicare for All, might prove too liberal for the district.
But the district has been trending blue. Gottheimer narrowly won his seat in 2016, and Trump took the district by just 1.1%. In 2018, Gottheimer defeated his Republican challenger by double digits.
Pelosi’s governing strategy convinced progressives to roll the dice. She has consistently catered to the policy priorities of centrist and conservative Democrats in high-income districts, arguing that they are the most vulnerable members of the caucus who must be protected legislatively. But with Democrats widely expected to expand on a wide House majority in November’s elections, many progressives think deposing lawmakers like Gottheimer would ultimately help the party pursue its more progressive goals in 2021.
Advertisement
Throughout the primary campaign, Kreibich emphasized her Democratic credentials rather than her progressive views, calling herself a “real Democrat” and assailing Gottheimer as “Trump’s favorite Democrat.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Supreme Court Sides With Religious Schools In Discrimination Suit

WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) - The U.S. Supreme Court , siding with Catholic schools in a legal dispute with teachers who said they were unlawfully dismissed , ruled on Wednesday that religious institutions like churches and schools are shielded from employment discrimination lawsuits .
The 7-2 decision embraced a broad interpretation of the “ ministerial exception , ” a legal doctrine recognized by the Supreme Court in a 2012 case that bars ministers or people in similar roles from suing religious institutions for workplace bias .
The court blocked two teachers from pursuing lawsuits accusing the two Catholic elementary schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disability .
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito , writing for the court , said there was “ abundant ” evidence that the two teachers performed “ vital religious duties ” and therefore fell under the exception .
“ Educating and forming students in the Catholic faith lay at the core of the mission of the schools where they taught , ” Alito wrote .
President Donald Trump ’ s administration sided with the schools , saying the ministerial exception should apply to any employee of a religious organization who performs an important religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 300,000 lay teachers working in religious schools of employment law protections and could impact industries including nurses in Catholic hospitals , the plaintiffs said in a court filing .
In a dissent , liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision had “ no basis in law and strips thousands of schoolteachers of their legal protections.
” The teachers “ taught primarily secular subjects , lacked substantial religious titles and training , and were not even required to be Catholic , ” Sotomayor wrote in the dissent , which was joined by liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the breadth of a “ ministerial exception ” that protects religious organizations from employee suits alleging violations of laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which bars employers from discriminating against employees on grounds including sex , race , national origin and religion .
The ministerial exemption was grounded in the U.S. Constitution ’ s First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom , language meant to prevent government interference with religion .
The ruling arose from separate lawsuits brought by teachers Agnes Morrissey-Berru and Kristen Biel against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles .
Biel accused St. James School in Torrance of unlawfully dismissing her when she requested time off to undergo surgery and chemotherapy for breast cancer .
Biel died last year but her husband has continued the litigation on her behalf .
Morrissey-Berru brought an age discrimination case against Our Lady of Guadalupe School in Hermosa Beach after being told in 2015 , just before her 65th birthday , that her contract would not be renewed .
Federal judges concluded that the ministerial exception barred both claims .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court of Appeals subsequently ruled that both lawsuits could proceed .
In a separate dispute affecting religious schools , the court on June 30 endorsed Montana tax credits that helped pay for students to attend religious schools , a decision paving the way for more public funding of faith-based institutions .

Supreme Court Illustration:HuffPost visuals; Photo: Getty
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court, siding with Catholic schools in a legal dispute with teachers who said they were unlawfully dismissed, ruled on Wednesday that religious institutions like churches and schools are shielded from employment discrimination lawsuits.
The 7-2 decision embraced a broad interpretation of the “ministerial exception,” a legal doctrine recognized by the Supreme Court in a 2012 case that bars ministers or people in similar roles from suing religious institutions for workplace bias. The court blocked two teachers from pursuing lawsuits accusing the two Catholic elementary schools in California of discrimination based upon age and disability.
Advertisement
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said there was “abundant” evidence that the two teachers performed “vital religious duties” and therefore fell under the exception.
“Educating and forming students in the Catholic faith lay at the core of the mission of the schools where they taught,” Alito wrote.
President Donald Trump’s administration sided with the schools, saying the ministerial exception should apply to any employee of a religious organization who performs an important religious function.
The ruling could strip more than 300,000 lay teachers working in religious schools of employment law protections and could impact industries including nurses in Catholic hospitals, the plaintiffs said in a court filing.
Advertisement
In a dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision had “no basis in law and strips thousands of schoolteachers of their legal protections.”
The teachers “taught primarily secular subjects, lacked substantial religious titles and training, and were not even required to be Catholic,” Sotomayor wrote in the dissent, which was joined by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
At issue was the breadth of a “ministerial exception” that protects religious organizations from employee suits alleging violations of laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on grounds including sex, race, national origin and religion.
The ministerial exemption was grounded in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom, language meant to prevent government interference with religion.
The ruling arose from separate lawsuits brought by teachers Agnes Morrissey-Berru and Kristen Biel against two private schools that operate under the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Advertisement
Biel accused St. James School in Torrance of unlawfully dismissing her when she requested time off to undergo surgery and chemotherapy for breast cancer. Biel died last year but her husband has continued the litigation on her behalf.
Morrissey-Berru brought an age discrimination case against Our Lady of Guadalupe School in Hermosa Beach after being told in 2015, just before her 65th birthday, that her contract would not be renewed.
Morrissey-Berru and Biel taught their students religion several days a week in addition to secular subjects.
Federal judges concluded that the ministerial exception barred both claims. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently ruled that both lawsuits could proceed.
In a separate dispute affecting religious schools, the court on June 30 endorsed Montana tax credits that helped pay for students to attend religious schools, a decision paving the way for more public funding of faith-based institutions.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Concerns About Coronavirus Are On The Rise Again

LM Otero/ASSOCIATED PRESS Amid concerns about the spread of COVID-19 , food delivery driver Olutobi Omibiyi wears a mask Wednesday while waiting for an order at a Dallas restaurant .
Forty-eight percent of Americans now say they ’ re very worried about the spread of coronavirus in the U.S. , up from 36 % at the beginning of last month although still shy of the peak level of concern reported in early April .
Throughout the past month , the virus has made unwelcome inroads into the nation ’ s red states , but the shift in concern appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three-quarters of Democrats , 73 % , now say they ’ re very concerned , up from 50 % who said the same at the start of June .
The level of similar concerns among the GOP remained roughly stable ― 21 % were very concerned in the June poll and 25 % in the latest .
Geographically , concern rose most sharply among residents of states in the West , from 31 % who were very concerned in June to 52 % in the latest poll , putting that region on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was also a notable uptick in concern among suburbanites , with the share who call themselves very concerned rising from one-third to 55 % .
Just 13 % of Americans say there shouldn ’ t be any coronavirus-related restrictions in place where they live .
Twenty-eight percent say there should be restrictions on a few nonessential businesses and activities , with most allowed to be open ; 30 % think most should be closed with a few reopened , and 20 % think all nonessential businesses and activities should be shut down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many restrictions where they live , with 40 % saying the restrictions are at about the right level , and 34 % say that there are not enough restrictions in place .
Most Americans also say they ’ re continuing to take precautions against coronavirus in their own lives , although the precise results depend significantly on how the question is framed .
To test this , respondents were split into two groups .
Those asked a binary question ― whether or not they were “ trying to stay at home as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 % to 22 % , that they are .
The other group was given a middle option ( that they were “ choosing to go out sometimes ” but “ taking precautions ” ) .
Among this group , 41 % say that they ’ re staying home as much as possible , 40 % that they ’ re going out sometimes but taking precautions and 16 % that they ’ re “ living as normally as possible.
” Regardless of the framing , most of the public is still feeling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % majority say their daily life has changed at least a little in comparison to how they lived pre-coronavirus , and about two-thirds believe the outbreak will have a lasting effect .
Opinions of the government response , meanwhile , remain generally negative : 38 % approve of the way the U.S. government has handled coronavirus-related issues , with 51 % disapproving .
Forty percent approve of President Donald Trump ’ s response , with 53 % disapproving .
Use the widget below to further explore the results of the HuffPost/YouGov survey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ select survey questions and the buttons at the bottom to filter the data by subgroups .
The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted July 3-6 among U.S. adults , using a sample selected from YouGov ’ s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population .
Most surveys report a margin of error that represents some but not all potential survey errors .
YouGov ’ s reports include a model-based margin of error , which rests on a specific set of statistical assumptions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methodology for random probability sampling .
If these assumptions are wrong , the model-based margin of error may also be inaccurate .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Americans’ concerns about the coronavirus pandemic, which fell substantially from April to June, are now rising again, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds.
Forty-eight percent of Americans now say they’re very worried about the spread of coronavirus in the U.S., up from 36% at the beginning of last month although still shy of the peak level of concern reported in early April.
Advertisement
Ariel Edwards-Levy/HuffPost
Throughout the past month, the virus has made unwelcome inroads into the nation’s red states, but the shift in concern appears to be driven largely by Democrats. Roughly three-quarters of Democrats, 73%, now say they’re very concerned, up from 50% who said the same at the start of June. The level of similar concerns among the GOP remained roughly stable ― 21% were very concerned in the June poll and 25% in the latest.
Geographically, concern rose most sharply among residents of states in the West, from 31% who were very concerned in June to 52% in the latest poll, putting that region on a par with the hard-hit Northeast. There was also a notable uptick in concern among suburbanites, with the share who call themselves very concerned rising from one-third to 55%.
Ariel Edwards-Levy/HuffPost
Advertisement
Just 13% of Americans say there shouldn’t be any coronavirus-related restrictions in place where they live. Twenty-eight percent say there should be restrictions on a few nonessential businesses and activities, with most allowed to be open; 30% think most should be closed with a few reopened, and 20% think all nonessential businesses and activities should be shut down. Eighteen percent of Americans say there are too many restrictions where they live, with 40% saying the restrictions are at about the right level, and 34% say that there are not enough restrictions in place.
Most Americans also say they’re continuing to take precautions against coronavirus in their own lives, although the precise results depend significantly on how the question is framed. To test this, respondents were asked two different questions. When asked a binary question ― whether or not they were “trying to stay at home as much as possible” ― they say, 70% to 22%, that they are. The other question contained a middle option (that they were “choosing to go out sometimes” but “taking precautions”). Asked this question, 41% say that they’re staying home as much as possible, 40% that they’re going out sometimes but taking precautions and 16% that they’re “living as normally as possible.”
Regardless of the framing, most of the public is still feeling the effects of the pandemic. An 84% majority say their daily life has changed at least a little in comparison to how they lived pre-coronavirus, and about two-thirds believe the outbreak will have a lasting effect.
Opinions of the government response, meanwhile, remain generally negative: 38% approve of the way the U.S. government has handled coronavirus-related issues, with 51% disapproving. Forty percent approve of President Donald Trump’s response, with 53% disapproving.
Use the widget below to further explore the results of the HuffPost/YouGov survey, using the menu at the top to select survey questions and the buttons at the bottom to filter the data by subgroups.
Advertisement
The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted July 3-6 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.
HuffPost has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov’s nationally representative opinion polling. More details on the polls’ methodology are available here.
Most surveys report a margin of error that represents some but not all potential survey errors. YouGov’s reports include a model-based margin of error, which rests on a specific set of statistical assumptions about the selected sample rather than the standard methodology for random probability sampling. If these assumptions are wrong, the model-based margin of error may also be inaccurate. CORRECTION: This story previously said that only half of the poll’s respondents saw each question about their behavior due to the coronavirus pandemic. All respondents saw both questions.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Only Policing Probe Launched By Trump DOJ Finds 'Routine' Excessive Force, Lying

The only Justice Department probe of a police department since President Donald Trump took office has found that narcotics unit officers in Springfield , Massachusetts , “ repeatedly punch individuals in the face unnecessarily ” and use “ excessive force without accountability.
” According to a 28-page report by the Justice Department ’ s Civil Rights Division , the officers did so “ in part because they escalate encounters with civilians too quickly , and resort to unreasonable takedown maneuvers that , like head strikes , could reasonably be expected to cause head injuries.
” The Justice Department investigation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 114,000 pages of Springfield Police Department files and numerous interviews , found there was reasonable cause to believe that Springfield narcotics unit officers engage “ in a pattern or practice of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
” Under former President Barack Obama , the Justice Department investigated a number of police departments that engaged in unconstitutional policing .
But the Trump administration has almost entirely abandoned broader investigations of policing practices .
Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions believed that probing unconstitutional conduct by police departments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Barr has continued DOJ ’ s pattern of avoiding investigations that identify patterns of abuse and broader problems within police department cultures .
The Springfield investigation , first announced in April 2018 , found a number of incidents of “ untruthful reporting ” by officers , which DOJ said “ indicate that it is not uncommon for Narcotics Bureau officers to write false or incomplete narratives that justify their uses of force.
” In one instance , involving a suspect identified as F.D.
, two narcotics bureau officers ― including a supervisor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
out of the car after he fled from their unidentified police vehicle .
But that wasn ’ t the whole story .
One officer ’ s report says F.D .
was “ placed ” on the ground and another officer ’ s report states that F.D .
was “ escorted ” to the ground .
But photos of the abrasions to F.D.
’ s face demonstrate the use of serious force and multiple points of impact including : the left side of his forehead , the right side of his forehead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an interview that he was kicked in the face and upper body area 10-12 times , with multiple officers taking turns kicking him .
Regardless of whether these injuries were caused by an aggressive takedown or direct kicks to the head , the prisoner injury report narratives do not indicate that any such force was necessary .
None of the officer reports state that F.D .
resisted arrest or was combative , and this is further supported by the fact that he was not arrested for resisting arrest or assault and battery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents , 12 officers were listed as involved with the arrest and four officers completed prisoner injury report narratives , all arising from an incident that began when F.D .
failed to stop because he did not know he was being chased by officers .
Months after the Justice Department pattern-or-practice investigation began , two Springfield officers were charged with federal crimes for beating and spitting on two Latino teens during a 2016 arrest .
“ Welcome to the white man ’ s world , ” an officer said after spitting on one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release announcing the results of the pattern-or-practice investigation , Barr said that “ being a police officer is the toughest job in America ” and that officers were owed respect and support .
“ But with this high calling comes a tremendous responsibility to uphold the public trust , ” Barr said , adding that DOJ “ is committed to supporting our law enforcement while holding departments accountable that violate this sacred trust.
” Barr said the Justice Department “ will work with the City of Springfield and the Police Department to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Springfield get the law enforcement agency they deserve , one that effectively and constitutionally stops violent crime and narcotics trafficking.
” U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Andrew Lelling said that recent events illustrated it was “ crucial that our urban police departments keep the trust of their communities and ensure accountability for officer misconduct.
” “ Our investigation of the Springfield Police Department over the last year revealed chronic issues with the use of force , poor record keeping on that subject , and repeated failures to impose discipline for officer misconduct , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the department and the City of Springfield have fully cooperated with this investigation and have made clear their commitment to genuine reform .
We look forward to working with them to make Springfield a safer place .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The only Justice Department probe of a police department since President Donald Trump took office has found that narcotics unit officers in Springfield, Massachusetts, “repeatedly punch individuals in the face unnecessarily” and use “excessive force without accountability.”
According to a 28-page report by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the officers did so “in part because they escalate encounters with civilians too quickly, and resort to unreasonable takedown maneuvers that, like head strikes, could reasonably be expected to cause head injuries.”
Advertisement
The Justice Department investigation, based on a review of more than 114,000 pages of Springfield Police Department files and numerous interviews, found there was reasonable cause to believe that Springfield narcotics unit officers engage “in a pattern or practice of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Under former President Barack Obama, the Justice Department investigated a number of police departments that engaged in unconstitutional policing. But the Trump administration has almost entirely abandoned broader investigations of policing practices. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions believed that probing unconstitutional conduct by police departments hurt officer morale, and Attorney General William Barr has continued DOJ’s pattern of avoiding investigations that identify patterns of abuse and broader problems within police department cultures.
The Springfield investigation, first announced in April 2018, found a number of incidents of “untruthful reporting” by officers, which DOJ said “indicate that it is not uncommon for Narcotics Bureau officers to write false or incomplete narratives that justify their uses of force.”
In one instance, involving a suspect identified as F.D., two narcotics bureau officers ― including a supervisor ― claimed that they had pulled F.D. out of the car after he fled from their unidentified police vehicle. But that wasn’t the whole story.
Advertisement
According to the Justice Department investigation:
One officer’s report says F.D. was “placed” on the ground and another officer’s report states that F.D. was “escorted” to the ground. But photos of the abrasions to F.D.’s face demonstrate the use of serious force and multiple points of impact including: the left side of his forehead, the right side of his forehead, and his cheek. F.D. reported in an interview that he was kicked in the face and upper body area 10-12 times, with multiple officers taking turns kicking him. Regardless of whether these injuries were caused by an aggressive takedown or direct kicks to the head, the prisoner injury report narratives do not indicate that any such force was necessary. None of the officer reports state that F.D. resisted arrest or was combative, and this is further supported by the fact that he was not arrested for resisting arrest or assault and battery of a police officer. According to documents, 12 officers were listed as involved with the arrest and four officers completed prisoner injury report narratives, all arising from an incident that began when F.D. failed to stop because he did not know he was being chased by officers.
Months after the Justice Department pattern-or-practice investigation began, two Springfield officers were charged with federal crimes for beating and spitting on two Latino teens during a 2016 arrest. “Welcome to the white man’s world,” an officer said after spitting on one of the teens.
In a press release announcing the results of the pattern-or-practice investigation, Barr said that “being a police officer is the toughest job in America” and that officers were owed respect and support.
“But with this high calling comes a tremendous responsibility to uphold the public trust,” Barr said, adding that DOJ “is committed to supporting our law enforcement while holding departments accountable that violate this sacred trust.”
Advertisement
Barr said the Justice Department “will work with the City of Springfield and the Police Department to ensure that the police officers and people of Springfield get the law enforcement agency they deserve, one that effectively and constitutionally stops violent crime and narcotics trafficking.”
U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Andrew Lelling said that recent events illustrated it was “crucial that our urban police departments keep the trust of their communities and ensure accountability for officer misconduct.”
“Our investigation of the Springfield Police Department over the last year revealed chronic issues with the use of force, poor record keeping on that subject, and repeated failures to impose discipline for officer misconduct,” Lelling said. “That said, the department and the City of Springfield have fully cooperated with this investigation and have made clear their commitment to genuine reform. We look forward to working with them to make Springfield a safer place.”
Read the results of the investigation below.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Republican Group's New Ad Hits GOP Senators Who 'Chose Trump' Over America

The conservative Lincoln Project ’ s latest ad goes after the Republican senators it says have enabled President Donald Trump and failed to take action against his “ circus of incompetence , corruption and cruelty.
” “ Someday soon , the time of Trump will pass , ” says the narrator of the 60-second spot .
“ When it does , the men and women in Trump ’ s Republican Party will come to you , telling you they can repair the damage he has done .
They ’ ll beg you to forgive their votes to exonerate Trump from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their silence , their cowardice and their betrayals as Trump wrecked this nation.
” “ Every time they had a choice between America and Trump , they chose Trump , ” the ad continues .
“ Every time they were called to the service of this nation and their sacred oath , they chose Trump .
Every time .
Learn their names .
Remember their actions .
And never , ever trust them again.
” Reed Galen , co-founder of The Lincoln Project ― a political action committee founded by several prominent GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ― said in a statement that the senators highlighted have failed to stand up for the American people .
“ They ’ re among the highest elected officials in our country , yet they act as if they have no agency to make their own decisions , ” Galen added .
“ If that is indeed true , they have no business serving one more day , let alone another term.
” Another co-founder , Steve Schmidt , said in a tweet that these lawmakers “ had the power to check this disaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their cowardice , complicity and silence .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The conservative Lincoln Project’s latest ad goes after the Republican senators it says have enabled President Donald Trump and failed to take action against his “circus of incompetence, corruption and cruelty.”
“Someday soon, the time of Trump will pass,” says the narrator of the 60-second spot. “When it does, the men and women in Trump’s Republican Party will come to you, telling you they can repair the damage he has done. They’ll beg you to forgive their votes to exonerate Trump from his crimes. Ask you to forgive their silence, their cowardice and their betrayals as Trump wrecked this nation.”
Advertisement
“Every time they had a choice between America and Trump, they chose Trump,” the ad continues. “Every time they were called to the service of this nation and their sacred oath, they chose Trump. Every time. Learn their names. Remember their actions. And never, ever trust them again.”
Reed Galen, co-founder of The Lincoln Project ― a political action committee founded by several prominent GOP figures and strategists who fiercely oppose Trump ― said in a statement that the senators highlighted have failed to stand up for the American people.
“They’re among the highest elected officials in our country, yet they act as if they have no agency to make their own decisions,” Galen added. “If that is indeed true, they have no business serving one more day, let alone another term.”
Advertisement
Another co-founder, Steve Schmidt, said in a tweet that these lawmakers “had the power to check this disaster” but instead “fueled it with their cowardice, complicity and silence.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Lady Antebellum Sues Blues Singer Lady A Over Who Owns Trademark

On Wednesday , the country trio filed a lawsuit in Nashville , Tennessee , in order get the court to recognize its rights to the name “ Lady A , ” which it claims has been a band trademark for more than 10 years , according to Billboard.com .
Problem is , 61-year-old blues singer Anita White has been performing as “ Lady A ” for more than two decades and wasn ’ t too pleased when she learned about the country band ’ s proposed name change last month .
Lady Antebellum announced that it would no longer include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the word is commonly used to refer to the slave-holding South before the Civil War .
The name change was made during the ongoing discussion about racial inequality after the May 25 police killing of George Floyd .
in Minneapolis .
But the name game hasn ’ t gone as easily as the band no doubt hoped .
One day after the group announced its change , White expressed shock that she might be losing her good name .
“ They ’ re using the name because of a Black Lives Matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a moment in time , ” White told Rolling Stone .
“ If it mattered , it would have mattered to them before .
It shouldn ’ t have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it.
” Despite that rocky start , the two sides did attempt an amicable agreement a few days after the initial announcement .
But conversations have since broken down between the two musical camps .
Billboard reported that according to the band ’ s lawsuit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 million payment for the rights to the Lady A name .
“ Today we are sad to share that our sincere hope to join together with Anita White in unity and common purpose has ended , ” the band said in a statement .
“ She and her team have demanded a $ 10 million payment , so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A , a trademark we have held for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any money , just a court declaration that it lawfully holds the Lady A trademark and that it does not infringe on any rights White may have under state or federal law , according to Billboard .
San Diego-based trademark attorney T.C .
Johnston told HuffPost that even if White never officially applied for a trademark for the “ Lady A ” name , she still has “ priority of use if there even is a likelihood of confusion between a country band and a blues singer from the northwest.
” Johnston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work out an agreement .
“ If there isn ’ t a likelihood of confusion , the two names can coexist , ” he said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Looks like Lady Antebellum’s attempt to change its name to Lady A has hit a real bum note.
On Wednesday, the country trio filed a lawsuit in Nashville, Tennessee, in order get the court to recognize its rights to the name “Lady A,” which it claims has been a band trademark for more than 10 years, according to Billboard.com.
Problem is, 61-year-old blues singer Anita White has been performing as “Lady A” for more than two decades and wasn’t too pleased when she learned about the country band’s proposed name change last month.
Advertisement
Lady Antebellum announced that it would no longer include “antebellum” in its name because the word is commonly used to refer to the slave-holding South before the Civil War.
The name change was made during the ongoing national discussion about racial inequality after the May 25 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. But the name game hasn’t gone as easily as the band no doubt hoped.
One day after the group announced its change, White expressed shock that she might be losing her good name.
“They’re using the name because of a Black Lives Matter incident that, for them, is just a moment in time,” White told Rolling Stone. “If it mattered, it would have mattered to them before. It shouldn’t have taken George Floyd to die for them to realize that their name had a slave reference to it.”
Advertisement
Despite that rocky start, the two sides did attempt an amicable agreement a few days after the initial announcement. But conversations have since broken down between the two musical camps. Billboard reported that according to the band’s lawsuit, White’s lawyers demanded a $10 million payment for the rights to the Lady A name.
“Today we are sad to share that our sincere hope to join together with Anita White in unity and common purpose has ended,” the band said in a statement. “She and her team have demanded a $10 million payment, so reluctantly we have come to the conclusion that we need to ask a court to affirm our right to continue to use the name Lady A, a trademark we have held for many years.”
The band is not asking for any money, just a court declaration that it lawfully holds the Lady A trademark and that it does not infringe on any rights White may have under state or federal law, according to Billboard.
San Diego-based trademark attorney T.C. Johnston told HuffPost that even if White never officially applied for a trademark for the “Lady A” name, she still has “priority of use if there even is a likelihood of confusion between a country band and a blues singer from the northwest.”
Los Angeles-based attorney Jane Shay Wald said that a person doesn’t have to register a trademark to have one. “A trademark comes after the fact,” she told HuffPost. “It’s like a birth certificate ― you don’t get one unless you’re born.” Still, since Lady Antebellum claims it has had a registered trademark for the Lady A name for a decade, it’s possible that a court might restrict White’s use of the moniker to places where she’s established herself, such as the Pacific Northwest.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Ivy League Scraps All Sports Till January Amid Pandemic

Ivy League school officials announced Wednesday that all sports would be canceled until at least January amid the coronavirus pandemic .
The move to scrap games and matches in the fall is the first by a Division I NCAA conference , following in the footsteps of a handful of Division II and Division III schools .
As CBS News noted , the Ivy League could still choose to move its football season to the spring of 2021 .
But a source told the network that such a change would prove challenging .
“ You can ’ t move all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t work , ” the source said .
Other than football , several other sports will be affected by the league ’ s decision , including soccer , basketball and cross country .
In a joint statement , the Ivy League Council of Presidents said , “ As a leadership group , we have a responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interest of the students who attend our institutions , as well as the faculty and staff who work at our schools .
These decisions are extremely difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiences that so many value and cherish .
“ We are entrusted to create and maintain an educational environment that is guided by health and safety considerations , ” it added .
“ There can be no greater responsibility — and that is the basis for this difficult decision.
” The Ivy League — comprised of deep-pocketed universities including Harvard , Yale and Princeton that rely less on their athletic programs to drive revenue compared with many other Division I schools — was the first conference to cancel its basketball league play March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S .
Though that decision was initially met with some backlash , the NCAA , which organizes the athletic programs of many U.S. universities and colleges , soon followed suit .
Observers believe the Ivy League ’ s decision to suspend sports for the fall could prove similarly influential .
The smaller colleges that so far have announced the cancellation of fall sports programs include Morehouse in Atlanta , which competes in Division II , and , in Division III , Williams in Massachusetts , Bowdoin in Maine and Swarthmore in Pennsylvania @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Ivy League school officials announced Wednesday that all sports would be canceled until at least January amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The move to scrap games and matches in the fall is the first by a Division I NCAA conference, following in the footsteps of a handful of Division II and Division III schools.
Advertisement
As CBS News noted, the Ivy League could still choose to move its football season to the spring of 2021. But a source told the network that such a change would prove challenging.
“You can’t move all the sports to the spring; the logistics don’t work,” the source said.
Other than football, several other sports will be affected by the league’s decision, including soccer, basketball and cross country.
In a joint statement, the Ivy League Council of Presidents said, “As a leadership group, we have a responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interest of the students who attend our institutions, as well as the faculty and staff who work at our schools. These decisions are extremely difficult, particularly when they impact meaningful student-athlete experiences that so many value and cherish.
“We are entrusted to create and maintain an educational environment that is guided by health and safety considerations,” it added. “There can be no greater responsibility — and that is the basis for this difficult decision.”
Advertisement
Consistent with campus health & safety policies across the League, The Ivy League Presidents outline phased-in approach to intercollegiate athletics activity, including no competition prior to the end of the fall semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
📰» https://t.co/7iwQGnECsT pic.twitter.com/DYUFoFshA4 — The Ivy League (@IvyLeague) July 8, 2020
The Ivy League — comprised of deep-pocketed universities including Harvard, Yale and Princeton that rely less on their athletic programs to drive revenue compared with many other Division I schools — was the first conference to cancel its basketball league play March as COVID-19 began its rapid spread across the U.S.
Though that decision was initially met with some backlash, the NCAA, which organizes the athletic programs of many U.S. universities and colleges, soon followed suit. Observers believe the Ivy League’s decision to suspend sports for the fall could prove similarly influential.
The smaller colleges that so far have announced the cancellation of fall sports programs include Morehouse in Atlanta, which competes in Division II, and, in Division III, Williams in Massachusetts, Bowdoin in Maine and Swarthmore in Pennsylvania.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-08--Amazon Pulls Merchandise For Washington NFL Team

July 8 ( Reuters ) - Amazon.com Inc said it would pull a variety of the Washington NFL team ’ @ @ @ @ @ , T-shirts and jewelry , CNBC reported on Wednesday , citing a note from the @ @ @ @ @ Sellers were given 48 hours to review and remove any products flagged by Amazon , @ @ @ @ @ ( https : //cnb.cx/2ZUy7ye ) Under mounting pressure from sponsors and Native American rights groups @ @ @ @ @ said last week he would consider changing the name of the National Football League team @ @ @ @ @ the 1930s .
Controversy over the team ’ s name resurfaced in recent weeks amid @ @ @ @ @ protests across theUnited States after the death of George Floyd in police custody .
Amazon @ @ @ @ @ a Reuters request fora comment .
Important conversations are happening now .
Add your voice @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
July 8 (Reuters) - Amazon.com Inc said it would pull a variety of the Washington NFL team’s merchandise, including jerseys, T-shirts and jewelry, CNBC reported on Wednesday, citing a note from the e-commerce giant to sellers.
Sellers were given 48 hours to review and remove any products flagged by Amazon, according to the report. (https://cnb.cx/2ZUy7ye)
Advertisement
Under mounting pressure from sponsors and Native American rights groups, team owner Dan Snyder said last week he would consider changing the name of the National Football League team whose roots date back to the 1930s.
Controversy over the team’s name resurfaced in recent weeks amid widespread racial and social justice protests across theUnited States after the death of George Floyd in police custody.
Amazon did not immediately respond to a Reuters request fora comment.