dailysignal--2020-12-07--Here Are Politicians Who Refused to Stay Home After Telling You to Do So

A plethora of elected lawmakers and executives have repeatedly urged citizens to stay home and away from their loved ones , even for the holidays , and then refused to stay home themselves .
From New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo to Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl , Democratic lawmakers and executives are flouting their own advice—then either apologizing or excusing their actions as essential .
The Daily Caller News Foundation compiled a list of the biggest offenders , including Cuomo , Kuehl , New York Mayor Bill de Blasio , D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser , House Speaker Nancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam , and many more .
The Daily Caller News Foundation searched for , but did not find , examples of prominent Republicans who urged citizens to stay home and then did not follow their own advice .
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio visited his local YMCA hours before Cuomo shut down all gyms in the state as COVID cases escalated in March .
De Blasio ’ s office said the mayor wished to visit the YMCA one more time before it was shut down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge part of his and his family ’ s life , like it has been for a lot of New Yorkers .
It ’ s clear that ’ s about to change and before that , the mayor wanted to visit a place that keeps him grounded one last time.
” Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot urged citizens to stay at home in accordance with COVID restrictions until she needed to get a haircut .
Following massive backlash , she defended her haircut , saying , “ I ’ m the public face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m a person who [ takes ] personal hygiene very seriously and I felt like I needed to have a haircut .
So I got a haircut.
” Lightfoot also urged citizens to cancel their Thanksgiving plans , though she was seen celebrating with large crowds after following news that Joe Biden won the presidential election .
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi attended a hair appointment in San Francisco in late August , though indoor hair salons in the California city were currently closed due to the coronavirus pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask during at least part of the appointment , later accused the hair salon of setting her up .
Pelosi also canceled an in-person dinner for newly elected House Democrats after backlash over hypocrisy of the indoor event .
California Gov .
Gavin Newsom was photographed dining indoors at the Michelin-starred French Laundry on the evening of Nov. 6 after urging California residents to wear face masks “ in between bites.
” He later apologized and called the party a “ bad mistake.
” Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney was photographed dining indoors without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while indoor dining was prohibited in Philadelphia .
Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam was caught without a face mask at Virginia Beach in May while he was weighing a statewide order requiring citizens to wear masks .
The governor ’ s office later explained that Northam was “ not expecting to be within six feet of anyone.
” D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser traveled to President-elect Joe Biden ’ s early November victory speech in “ high risk ” Delaware despite the D.C. health department travel requirements .
She excused the trip by saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s restrictions .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif. , was filmed chatting with her aides maskless in the corridors of a government building before entering a mid-November hearing .
Feinstein has advocated a nationwide mask mandate and attempted to prevent coronavirus funding going to states that would not adopt this mandate .
A bipartisan group of state lawmakers traveled to Hawaii in mid-November for the annual Independent Voter Project conference—a trip that drew criticism from those who said the lawmakers should not be at a resort amidst rising coronavirus cases .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assembly members .
Elite New York Democrats who attended a November private party did not adhere to the state ’ s coronavirus restrictions , photographs showed .
Attendees included former Brooklyn Democratic Party Chairman Frank Seddio and Deputy Brooklyn Borough President Ingrid Lewis-Martin .
After telling New Yorkers to “ stay away ” from their loved ones , New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo said that his mother and his daughters would be coming to his home for Thanksgiving .
After massive backlash , the governor ’ s office told The Daily Caller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thanksgiving and would not be at home .
Oregon Gov .
Kate Brown , who cheered massive Black Lives Matter protests , told citizens to “ uninvite ” family members and loved ones ahead of Thanksgiving , tweeting : “ This is hard , but making difficult sacrifices now will save lives .
This Thanksgiving , keep it small .
Uninvite them.
” Williamson County , Texas , Judge Bill Gravell plead guilty and will pay a fine of $ 1,000 for violating the stay-at-home order he enacted in April after he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s birthday party , his attorney announced in late November .
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock warned citizens to “ avoid travel ” in a tweet only 30 minutes before he boarded a flight to travel to his family for Thanksgiving .
“ Stay home as much as you can , especially if you ’ re sick , ” the mayor ’ s tweet said .
“ Host virtual gatherings instead of in-person dinners .
Avoid travel , if you can.
” San Jose , California , Mayor Sam Liccardo attended a Thanksgiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of his own household after telling citizens to “ cancel big gatherings this year.
” “ Cases are spiking , in part because we ’ re letting our guard ( and masks ) down with family & friends , ” Liccardo tweeted Nov. 25 .
“ Let ’ s cancel the big gatherings this year and focus on keeping each other safe.
” Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl voted to ban outdoor dining Dec. 1 , calling outdoor dining a “ most dangerous situation.
” Then she was seen dining outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trattoria .
Kuehl admitted through a spokesperson that she dined at Il Forno “ on the very last day it was permissible.
” The outdoor dining ban went into effect Dec. 2 .
San Francisco Mayor London Breed dined in a semi-enclosed room at the French Laundry restaurant in early November .
Eight people attended the party in a partially enclosed room with a ceiling and chandelier—the same kind of room that Newsom infamously dined in on the evening of Nov. 6 .
Three days after Breed dined at the French Laundry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of San Francisco .
Austin Mayor Steve Adler hosted 20 guests at an outdoor wedding and reception for his daughter in early November , then boarded a private jet the next day and flew to Cabo San Lucas , Mexico , for vacation at the family timeshare .
“ We need to stay home if you can , ” Adler said in a Facebook video message to Austin residents .
“ This is not the time to relax .
We are going to be looking really closely .
… We may have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ careful.
” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ] .

A plethora of elected lawmakers and executives have repeatedly urged citizens to stay home and away from their loved ones, even for the holidays, and then refused to stay home themselves.
From New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, Democratic lawmakers and executives are flouting their own advice—then either apologizing or excusing their actions as essential.
The Daily Caller News Foundation compiled a list of the biggest offenders, including Cuomo, Kuehl, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, and many more.
The Daily Caller News Foundation searched for, but did not find, examples of prominent Republicans who urged citizens to stay home and then did not follow their own advice.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio visited his local YMCA hours before Cuomo shut down all gyms in the state as COVID cases escalated in March.
De Blasio’s office said the mayor wished to visit the YMCA one more time before it was shut down, saying: “The YMCA has been a huge part of his and his family’s life, like it has been for a lot of New Yorkers. It’s clear that’s about to change and before that, the mayor wanted to visit a place that keeps him grounded one last time.”
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot urged citizens to stay at home in accordance with COVID restrictions until she needed to get a haircut. Following massive backlash, she defended her haircut, saying, “I’m the public face of this city and you know, I’m a person who [takes] personal hygiene very seriously and I felt like I needed to have a haircut. So I got a haircut.”
Lightfoot also urged citizens to cancel their Thanksgiving plans, though she was seen celebrating with large crowds after following news that Joe Biden won the presidential election.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi attended a hair appointment in San Francisco in late August, though indoor hair salons in the California city were currently closed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Pelosi, who did not wear a mask during at least part of the appointment, later accused the hair salon of setting her up.
Pelosi also canceled an in-person dinner for newly elected House Democrats after backlash over hypocrisy of the indoor event.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was photographed dining indoors at the Michelin-starred French Laundry on the evening of Nov. 6 after urging California residents to wear face masks “in between bites.” He later apologized and called the party a “bad mistake.”
Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney
Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney was photographed dining indoors without a mask in Maryland in late August while indoor dining was prohibited in Philadelphia.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam was caught without a face mask at Virginia Beach in May while he was weighing a statewide order requiring citizens to wear masks. The governor’s office later explained that Northam was “not expecting to be within six feet of anyone.”
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser traveled to President-elect Joe Biden’s early November victory speech in “high risk” Delaware despite the D.C. health department travel requirements. She excused the trip by saying it was essential travel exempt under D.C.’s restrictions.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was filmed chatting with her aides maskless in the corridors of a government building before entering a mid-November hearing. Feinstein has advocated a nationwide mask mandate and attempted to prevent coronavirus funding going to states that would not adopt this mandate.
California State Lawmakers
A bipartisan group of state lawmakers traveled to Hawaii in mid-November for the annual Independent Voter Project conference—a trip that drew criticism from those who said the lawmakers should not be at a resort amidst rising coronavirus cases. The group included both Republican and Democratic California assembly members.
New York Democratic Leaders, Elites
Elite New York Democrats who attended a November private party did not adhere to the state’s coronavirus restrictions, photographs showed. Attendees included former Brooklyn Democratic Party Chairman Frank Seddio and Deputy Brooklyn Borough President Ingrid Lewis-Martin.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo
After telling New Yorkers to “stay away” from their loved ones, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said that his mother and his daughters would be coming to his home for Thanksgiving. After massive backlash, the governor’s office told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he would be busy on Thanksgiving and would not be at home.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, who cheered massive Black Lives Matter protests, told citizens to “uninvite” family members and loved ones ahead of Thanksgiving, tweeting: “This is hard, but making difficult sacrifices now will save lives. This Thanksgiving, keep it small. Uninvite them.”
Williamson County Judge Bill Gravell
Williamson County, Texas, Judge Bill Gravell plead guilty and will pay a fine of $1,000 for violating the stay-at-home order he enacted in April after he was caught on camera attending his grandson’s birthday party, his attorney announced in late November.
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock warned citizens to “avoid travel” in a tweet only 30 minutes before he boarded a flight to travel to his family for Thanksgiving.
“Stay home as much as you can, especially if you’re sick,” the mayor’s tweet said. “Host virtual gatherings instead of in-person dinners. Avoid travel, if you can.”
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo
San Jose, California, Mayor Sam Liccardo attended a Thanksgiving party with family members who were not part of his own household after telling citizens to “cancel big gatherings this year.”
“Cases are spiking, in part because we’re letting our guard (and masks) down with family & friends,” Liccardo tweeted Nov. 25. “Let’s cancel the big gatherings this year and focus on keeping each other safe.”
Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl
Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl voted to ban outdoor dining Dec. 1, calling outdoor dining a “most dangerous situation.” Then she was seen dining outside at the Santa Monica restaurant Il Forno Trattoria.
Kuehl admitted through a spokesperson that she dined at Il Forno “on the very last day it was permissible.” The outdoor dining ban went into effect Dec. 2.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed
San Francisco Mayor London Breed dined in a semi-enclosed room at the French Laundry restaurant in early November. Eight people attended the party in a partially enclosed room with a ceiling and chandelier—the same kind of room that Newsom infamously dined in on the evening of Nov. 6.
Three days after Breed dined at the French Laundry, she banned indoor dining in the city of San Francisco.
Austin Mayor Steve Adler
Austin Mayor Steve Adler hosted 20 guests at an outdoor wedding and reception for his daughter in early November, then boarded a private jet the next day and flew to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, for vacation at the family timeshare.
“We need to stay home if you can,” Adler said in a Facebook video message to Austin residents. “This is not the time to relax. We are going to be looking really closely. … We may have to close things down if we are not careful.”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-12-07--‘The Bill Walton Show’: Surviving COVID-19 With Jay Richards

Weeks after Jay Richards , co-author of “ The Price of Panic : How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic Into a Catastrophe , ” joined “ The Bill Walton Show , ” he contracted COVID-19 .
Now recovered , Richards rejoins the show to talk about his personal experience with the virus , the discussions he had with front-line health care workers , and why they don ’ t wear the masks that the rest of us wear .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
Richards also looks at how vaccines will start a whole new debate in this country .
Read a portion of the transcript , lightly edited , below or watch the full episode above .
Bill Walton : Welcome to “ The Bill Walton Show.
” Today , I ’ m here with my friend Jay Richards , who ’ s the executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Douglas Axe and William Briggs , of “ The Price of Panic : How the Tyranny of Experts Turned the Pandemic Into a Catastrophe.
” Well , we were very skeptical about the lockdowns , very skeptical about masks , and also very skeptical about how lethal the virus was .
Well , a couple of weeks after we did the show , Jay got the virus .
He was a genuine COVID-19 patient and went through the whole process .
And Jay ’ s back today to talk about what that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things right now .
Jay , glad you ’ re with us .
Jay Richards : Thanks , Bill .
I know we talked right when the book came out .
And it ’ s funny because I wrote the book with two co-authors , as you mentioned .
And all of us said , “ We ’ re writing about this from the third person because none of us [ have had COVID-19 ] .
” I mean , we knew people who had gotten it .
In fact , we knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it , maybe from it .
But we hadn ’ t experienced it ourselves .
And sure enough , right after the book comes out , for some unknown reason—because I ’ m basically a hermit staying in my house—I managed to catch it .
Walton : Now , did any of the three of you wish you had had it so you ’ d have some authority when you wrote the book ?
Richards : Honestly , not so we would have authority , because the reality is the arguments are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , statistics are statistics either way .
But I thought it would be nice to have been able to have experienced it from the inside , because we had to just sort of read about it or ask people .
Now , I ’ ve seen it from first person , and have seen the workers on the front lines , and I ’ ve experienced at least what it ’ s like for me .
Of course , different people have different symptoms , but at least I knew what it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think , representatives for somebody my age .
Walton : So , the politicians have reacted by making it even tougher to congregate .
What did you learn that would give you a point of view about that ?
Richards : Well , certainly this is a respiratory virus .
And so what ’ s happening right now is similar to what happens during flu season .
So of course they ’ re going to be not merely by cases , let ’ s just talk about actual cases that need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do think there ’ s an increase in that , as would be expected with a respiratory virus .
The problem is that the way we ’ re coding this now , we don ’ t actually know what ’ s happening with the flu because the way the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [ tracks it ] … In fact , the CDC quit tracking this on the website recently .
And so it looks like we may be counting lots of cases as COVID-19 cases that could very well be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least , we ’ re not really tracking the flu anymore .
And so what I suspect is going to happen is we ’ re going to have this conglomeration that ’ s going to follow the regular cold and flu season pattern that ’ s going to include all the traditional common colds .
It will include influenza , it will include COVID-19 .
And we ’ ll see that as a kind of respiratory pattern that ’ s existed since we ’ ve been keeping records , is that you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s no reason to think the hospitals are going to be overrun .
In fact , here in D.C. , I can tell you this because this is my experience , I ruptured my quad tendon almost two years ago when we were living in District of Columbia on the first Friday in February .
And the first two hospitals turned my ambulance away .
And so I had to go to the third one .
And I said , “ Well , what ’ s going on ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want to get injured on the first Friday of the month in Washington , D.C. , because people cash their checks , they get drunk , and they end up in the emergency room.
” So this happens .
Walton : Why haven ’ t I heard about that on 6 o ’ clock news ?
Richards : No , you never hear about the “ first Friday.
” I know .
And so nobody ’ s tracking that .
The reality is that when you have something , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s no reason to think they ’ re going to be completely overrun .
Walton : I keep struggling to find out what ’ s real , what isn ’ t real .
If you take a look at cold and flu deaths for the last decade , and you just do a chart across time , what do they average—200,000 ; 250,000 a year ?
Richards : Well , if you include pneumonia .
Richards : Yeah , you got to include pneumonia .
Walton : And then also if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also see the vastly disproportionate numbers among people 75 and over .
Richards : Of course , yeah .
That ’ s right .
Walton : So how is this different from that ?
Richards : It is very similar .
I mean , this has always been the thing that people bristle when you say , “ Well , let ’ s look at the flu.
” The reason we look at the flu is that the flu is essentially what more or less accounts for the annual variation in deaths once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and things like that is how bad the flu season was .
And [ COVID-19 ] is really not the flu , it ’ s the flu plus pneumonia and complications .
This is very much like that .
It ’ s , of course , a different virus , but it ’ s a respiratory virus .
It ’ s much more dangerous for people over 70 or 75 with co-morbidities .
In fact , it ’ s 1,000 times more dangerous for people like that than it is for the school-age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zoom .
And so that ’ s just a fact that we now know .
And so the idea that policy wouldn ’ t change based upon that fact , it boggles the imagination .

Weeks after Jay Richards, co-author of “The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic Into a Catastrophe,” joined “The Bill Walton Show,” he contracted COVID-19.
Now recovered, Richards rejoins the show to talk about his personal experience with the virus, the discussions he had with front-line health care workers, and why they don’t wear the masks that the rest of us wear.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
Richards also looks at how vaccines will start a whole new debate in this country.
Read a portion of the transcript, lightly edited, below or watch the full episode above.
Bill Walton: Welcome to “The Bill Walton Show.” Today, I’m here with my friend Jay Richards, who’s the executive editor of The Stream and co-author, with Douglas Axe and William Briggs, of “The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned the Pandemic Into a Catastrophe.”
Well, we were very skeptical about the lockdowns, very skeptical about masks, and also very skeptical about how lethal the virus was. Well, a couple of weeks after we did the show, Jay got the virus. He was a genuine COVID-19 patient and went through the whole process. And Jay’s back today to talk about what that was like and how he feels about things right now. Jay, glad you’re with us.
Jay Richards: Thanks, Bill. I know we talked right when the book came out. And it’s funny because I wrote the book with two co-authors, as you mentioned. And all of us said, “We’re writing about this from the third person because none of us [have had COVID-19].”
I mean, we knew people who had gotten it. In fact, we knew of people who had died at least with it, maybe from it. But we hadn’t experienced it ourselves.
And sure enough, right after the book comes out, for some unknown reason—because I’m basically a hermit staying in my house—I managed to catch it.
Walton: Now, did any of the three of you wish you had had it so you’d have some authority when you wrote the book?
Richards: Honestly, not so we would have authority, because the reality is the arguments are the same either way. I mean, statistics are statistics either way. But I thought it would be nice to have been able to have experienced it from the inside, because we had to just sort of read about it or ask people.
Now, I’ve seen it from first person, and have seen the workers on the front lines, and I’ve experienced at least what it’s like for me. Of course, different people have different symptoms, but at least I knew what it was like for me, sort of, I think, representatives for somebody my age.
…
Walton: So, the politicians have reacted by making it even tougher to congregate. What did you learn that would give you a point of view about that?
Richards: Well, certainly this is a respiratory virus. And so what’s happening right now is similar to what happens during flu season. So of course they’re going to be not merely by cases, let’s just talk about actual cases that need to be treated, right? So I do think there’s an increase in that, as would be expected with a respiratory virus.
The problem is that the way we’re coding this now, we don’t actually know what’s happening with the flu because the way the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [tracks it]… In fact, the CDC quit tracking this on the website recently.
And so it looks like we may be counting lots of cases as COVID-19 cases that could very well be flu cases. Or at the very least, we’re not really tracking the flu anymore. And so what I suspect is going to happen is we’re going to have this conglomeration that’s going to follow the regular cold and flu season pattern that’s going to include all the traditional common colds. It will include influenza, it will include COVID-19.
And we’ll see that as a kind of respiratory pattern that’s existed since we’ve been keeping records, is that you have deaths go up, hospitalizations go up. There’s no reason to think the hospitals are going to be overrun.
In fact, here in D.C., I can tell you this because this is my experience, I ruptured my quad tendon almost two years ago when we were living in District of Columbia on the first Friday in February. And the first two hospitals turned my ambulance away. And so I had to go to the third one. And I said, “Well, what’s going on?” They said, “You really don’t want to get injured on the first Friday of the month in Washington, D.C., because people cash their checks, they get drunk, and they end up in the emergency room.” So this happens.
Walton: Why haven’t I heard about that on 6 o’clock news?
Richards: No, you never hear about the “first Friday.” I know. And so nobody’s tracking that. The reality is that when you have something, it’s going to hit emergency rooms. There’s no reason to think they’re going to be completely overrun.
Walton: I keep struggling to find out what’s real, what isn’t real. If you take a look at cold and flu deaths for the last decade, and you just do a chart across time, what do they average—200,000; 250,000 a year?
Richards: Well, if you include pneumonia.
Walton: OK.
Richards: Yeah, you got to include pneumonia.
Walton: And then also if you track that over time, you also see the vastly disproportionate numbers among people 75 and over.
Richards: Of course, yeah. That’s right.
Walton: So how is this different from that?
Richards: It is very similar. I mean, this has always been the thing that people bristle when you say, “Well, let’s look at the flu.” The reason we look at the flu is that the flu is essentially what more or less accounts for the annual variation in deaths once you control for things like population growth and things like that is how bad the flu season was.
And [COVID-19] is really not the flu, it’s the flu plus pneumonia and complications. This is very much like that. It’s, of course, a different virus, but it’s a respiratory virus. It’s much more dangerous for people over 70 or 75 with co-morbidities.
In fact, it’s 1,000 times more dangerous for people like that than it is for the school-age children that we’re making use Zoom. And so that’s just a fact that we now know. And so the idea that policy wouldn’t change based upon that fact, it boggles the imagination.


dailysignal--2020-12-08--A 2020 Election Redo in 4 States? Here Are the Details About Texas Lawsuit

If Texas has its way , the 2020 presidential election won ’ t be over soon .
The state of Texas has filed an unprecedented motion with the U.S. Supreme Court , asking for leave to file a complaint with the court against the states of Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin over the 2020 presidential election .
The motion alleges that changes made in election rules governing absentee ballots in those states by “ non-legislative actors ” violated the Constitution and “ cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is saying these four states ’ elections were unconstitutional—and therefore , invalid .
The Lone Star State ’ s complaint , filed by state Attorney General Ken Paxton , asks that Georgia , Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin conduct new elections to determine their electors for the Electoral College .
The motion filed by Texas includes the 41-page complaint and a 35-page brief making the legal arguments for why the Supreme Court should grant approval of the filing of the lawsuit , since Article III , Section 2 of the Constitution gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over “ controversies between two or more States.
” The complaint goes into great detail describing what happened in each state .
• Pennsylvania : The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of , among other things , “ without legislative approval , unilaterally abrogating ” Pennsylvania statutes that require “ signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.
” These changes were “ not ratified ” by the Pennsylvania legislature .
• Georgia : Similarly , the complaint describes how Georgia ’ s Secretary of State , Brad Raffensperger , also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia ’ s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.
” • Michigan : The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “ abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.
” • Wisconsin : Lastly , the Wisconsin ’ s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the legislature that “ weakened , or did away with , established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.
” The complaint catalogues these and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states by government officials , not the state legislatures .
According to Texas , these “ amendments to States ’ duly enacted election laws ” violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution , Art .
II , § 1 , Cl .
2 , which vests “ state legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
” In other words , while the state legislatures have the authority to set the rules for presidential elections in their states—and thus could have made all of these changes if they had wanted to—other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges , did not have the constitutional authority to make these changes .
Second , the complaint describes how voters in different parts of these states were treated differently .
For example , election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania set up a “ cure process ” for voters in those jurisdictions whose absentee ballots did not comply with state legal requirements .
Those noncompliant ballots should have been rejected because state law does not allow such a procedure .
As a result of this behavior and similar behavior in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment allotted to votes ” in areas “ administered by local government under Democrat control.
” This differential treatment , says Texas , violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment .
It cites the Supreme Court ’ s 2000 decisions in Bush v. Gore , which “ prohibits the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a state.
” Additionally , the one-person , one-vote principle “ requires counting valid votes and not counting invalid votes.
” This damaged Texas because in “ the shared enterprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and vice president , equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.
” Finally , Texas argues that these states violated “ substantive due process ” requirements because their election practices—through both “ intentional failure to follow election law as enacted by ” their state legislatures as well as “ unauthorized acts by state election officials and their designees in local government ” —reached “ the point of patent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acted unconstitutionally to lower their election standards… with the express intent to favor their candidate for president.
” Texas argues that all of these unconstitutional actions changed the outcome of the presidential election , citing the actual vote totals in each state and the number of ballots affected .
The state is asking for a declaratory judgement that the administration of the election by Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin violated the Constitution ; that their Electoral College votes can not be counted ; and to order that these states “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electors.
” If the states have already appointed their presidential electors , Texas asks that their legislatures be directed “ to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment , or to appoint no presidential electors at all.
” This is an unprecedented lawsuit , and the Supreme Court may be extremely leery and disinclined to take any actions regardless of the merits that could upset the results of a presidential election .
Texas does a good job of describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actions of government officials making unauthorized , unilateral changes in the rules may have violated the Constitution and affected the outcome of the election .
But by almost any measure , this is the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass .
While the questions raised are serious ones , it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will address them at this time .
As Texas points out , these issues will likely be repeated in future elections .
If the Supreme Court does not take up these issues now , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .

If Texas has its way, the 2020 presidential election won’t be over soon.
The state of Texas has filed an unprecedented motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking for leave to file a complaint with the court against the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin over the 2020 presidential election.
The motion alleges that changes made in election rules governing absentee ballots in those states by “non-legislative actors” violated the Constitution and “cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”
In a nutshell, Texas is saying these four states’ elections were unconstitutional—and therefore, invalid. The Lone Star State’s complaint, filed by state Attorney General Ken Paxton, asks that Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin conduct new elections to determine their electors for the Electoral College.
The motion filed by Texas includes the 41-page complaint and a 35-page brief making the legal arguments for why the Supreme Court should grant approval of the filing of the lawsuit, since Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court—not lower federal courts—original jurisdiction over “controversies between two or more States.”
The complaint goes into great detail describing what happened in each state.
Pennsylvania: The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania Legislature.
The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania Legislature. Georgia: Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”
Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.” Michigan: The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”
The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.” Wisconsin: Lastly, the Wisconsin’s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the Legislature that “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin Legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”
The complaint catalogues these and numerous other changes made in all four states by government officials, not the state legislatures.
According to Texas, these “amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws” violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, Cl. 2, which vests “state legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.”
In other words, while the state legislatures have the authority to set the rules for presidential elections in their states—and thus could have made all of these changes if they had wanted to—other government officials in those states, including judges, did not have the constitutional authority to make these changes.
Second, the complaint describes how voters in different parts of these states were treated differently. For example, election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties in Pennsylvania set up a “cure process” for voters in those jurisdictions whose absentee ballots did not comply with state legal requirements. Those noncompliant ballots should have been rejected because state law does not allow such a procedure.
As a result of this behavior and similar behavior in other states, there was “more favorable treatment allotted to votes” in areas “administered by local government under Democrat control.”
This differential treatment, says Texas, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It cites the Supreme Court’s 2000 decisions in Bush v. Gore, which “prohibits the use of differential standards in the treatment and tabulation of ballots within a state.”
Additionally, the one-person, one-vote principle “requires counting valid votes and not counting invalid votes.” This damaged Texas because in “the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the president and vice president, equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”
Finally, Texas argues that these states violated “substantive due process” requirements because their election practices—through both “intentional failure to follow election law as enacted by” their state legislatures as well as “unauthorized acts by state election officials and their designees in local government”—reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness.” The states “acted unconstitutionally to lower their election standards … with the express intent to favor their candidate for president.”
Texas argues that all of these unconstitutional actions changed the outcome of the presidential election, citing the actual vote totals in each state and the number of ballots affected.
The state is asking for a declaratory judgement that the administration of the election by Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin violated the Constitution; that their Electoral College votes cannot be counted; and to order that these states “conduct a special election to appoint presidential electors.”
If the states have already appointed their presidential electors, Texas asks that their legislatures be directed “to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.”
This is an unprecedented lawsuit, and the Supreme Court may be extremely leery and disinclined to take any actions regardless of the merits that could upset the results of a presidential election.
Texas does a good job of describing what happened in each state and why the actions of government officials making unauthorized, unilateral changes in the rules may have violated the Constitution and affected the outcome of the election.
But by almost any measure, this is the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. While the questions raised are serious ones, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will address them at this time. As Texas points out, these issues will likely be repeated in future elections. If the Supreme Court does not take up these issues now, it may well have another opportunity in the future.


dailysignal--2020-12-08--7 Things to Know About Biden’s Radical Choice to Run HHS

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra , with a record in that state office and Congress that conservatives consider extreme , is headed for a rocky confirmation battle to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , in announcing Sunday his intent to nominate Becerra for HHS secretary , cited Becerra ’ s leadership in defending Obamacare as a state attorney general and his support for passing the health care law while in the U.S. House of Representatives .
Pro-life activists , however , point to Becerra ’ s record of trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponents on the abortion issue .
Becerra , 62 , was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992 and reelected 11 times .
A Sacramento native , he got his law degree from Stanford Law School in 1984 .
Then-California Gov .
Jerry Brown , a fellow Democrat , appointed Becerra as state attorney general in 2017 when the incumbent , Kamala Harris , won election to the U.S. Senate in November 2016 .
Becerra was elected to the attorney general ’ s job in 2018 .
Harris , Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president Jan. 20 if Biden prevails against President Donald Trump ’ s legal challenges to election results in several states .
Here are seven things to know about Becerra .
After becoming California ’ s attorney general in January 2017 , Becerra tried to force faith-based , pro-life pregnancy centers to post abortion information .
This move alone is enough for Sen. Tom Cotton , R-Ark.
, to oppose the nomination .
“ Xavier Becerra spent his career attacking pro-life Americans and tried to force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortions , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been a disaster in California and he is unqualified to lead HHS .
I ’ ll be voting no , and Becerra should be rejected by the Senate.
” In a 5-4 decision in the 2018 case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the California law requiring pregnancy centers to promote abortion , which the Legislature enacted before Becerra became state attorney general .
“ [ H ] e went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to advertise and refer for abortion—a policy the court rejected as unconstitutional , ” Marjorie Dannenfelser , president of the Susan B. Anthony List , said Sunday in a public statement about the Becerra nomination .
“ In Congress , he even voted in favor of partial-birth abortion.
” The secretary of health and human services has authority over the nation ’ s health care and medical policy , which includes matters related to abortion—such as whether taxpayers should fund abortions in any circumstances .
The California law , passed in 2015 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center licensed to provide medical services such as pregnancy tests and ultrasounds ) to provide information about abortion .
The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates argued that the law , which included civil penalties for failure to comply , violated the First Amendment by requiring the centers to tell women about procedures that violate their faith .
Writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision , Justice Clarence Thomas said the California law “ targets speakers , not speech , and imposes an unduly burdensome disclosure requirement that will chill their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling , Becerra griped that women deserve information on abortion options .
“ When it comes to making their health decisions , all California women—regardless of their economic background or ZIP code—deserve access to critical and non-biased information to make their own informed decisions , ” Becerra said after the high court ’ s decision .
“ Today ’ s court ruling is unfortunate , but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their health care options will continue.
” Becerra also brought criminal charges against two undercover representatives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Planned Parenthood officials on video describing a desire to sell body parts of aborted babies .
Harris , Becerra ’ s predecessor , first pursued the case ; he took over after being appointed as attorney general when she won election to the Senate .
“ Becerra is aggressively pro-abortion and a foe of free speech .
As attorney general of California , he continued what his predecessor Kamala Harris started by persecuting citizen journalists who exposed Planned Parenthood ’ s role in baby parts trafficking , ” SBA List ’ s Dannenfelser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Center for Medical Progress , and employee Sandra Merritt told Planned Parenthood executives in a series of sting videos that they worked for a biomedical research company .
The videos showed regional Planned Parenthood officials talking freely about selling baby body parts for profit , although Planned Parenthood later claimed the videos were heavily edited .
Shortly after becoming California attorney general in March 2017 , Becerra announced that his office was charging Daleiden and Merritt with 15 felony counts related to invading the privacy of Planned Parenthood executives who didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California ’ s Constitution , and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society , ” Becerra said after bringing the charges .
“ We will not tolerate the criminal recording of confidential conversations.
” The criminal complaint said that from October 2013 through July 2015 , on 14 occasions , the duo filmed Planned Parenthood officials without their permission in the counties of Los Angeles , San Francisco , and El Dorado .
The criminal case is ongoing .
Daleiden sued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Harris .
The editorial board of the left-leaning Los Angeles Times called the criminal charges a “ disturbing overreach ” by Becerra .
The liberal Mother Jones magazine published a fan article that said Becerra was “ chilling ” a “ legitimate investigation ” regardless of one ’ s abortion views .
During the presidential campaign , Biden said repeatedly that he opposed a “ Medicare for All ” health care plan , which would be a single-payer insurance system .
Becerra repeatedly has stated his support for the Medicare for All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I-Vt. , who ran for president a second time in the 2020 Democratic primaries .
Asked whether he supported the plan introduced by Sanders , Becerra said on Oct. 22 , 2017 : “ Absolutely .
I ’ ve been a supporter of Medicare for All for the 24 years that I was in Congress.
” The conservative Americans for Tax Reform found and provided the comments from Becerra .
“ I would scrap all of that and move us toward a system where everyone has access to health care , a single-payer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
As far back as March 21 , 2010 , Becerra said that Obamacare didn ’ t go far enough , though he still voted to pass the Affordable Care Act , the 2009 legislation creating it .
“ We need to reform the system .
My solution would have been Medicare for All , ” he said .
The choice of Becerra to lead HHS doesn ’ t reflect well on what Biden presented during his campaign as a moderate agenda , said Grover Norquist , president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s presidential campaign told America he would not raise any tax on middle-income Americans , would not take away their health insurance and not bankrupt America with a Green New Deal , ” Norquist said in a public statement , adding : While serving as California ’ s attorney general , Becerra was on the front lines of progressives ’ legal resistance to Trump through the courts .
Among the lawsuits , Becerra sued over the Trump administration ’ s reducing Title IX funding for Planned Parenthood .
Becerra also sued to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections , a policy applied to doctors and nurses who declined to perform abortions because the procedure violated their religious beliefs .
He also sued the administration when the Justice Department withheld grants to the state because of its status as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants , in which it refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities .
By late 2018 , Becerra led 44 lawsuits against Trump administration policies , costing Californian taxpayers $ 9 million , The Sacramento Bee reported .
“ When you put into perspective that less than 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend our people , our values and our resources , I think most people would say ‘ Don ’ t stop , ’ ” Becerra told the Bee .
Becerra ’ s litigation to stop the Trump administration ’ s religious exemptions for Obamacare ’ s contraception mandate eventually led to suing the Little Sisters of the Poor , a Catholic order of nuns that serves the impoverished .
The Obama administration ’ s HHS previously targeted the Little Sisters of the Poor for noncompliance .
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sisters of the Poor , combining that case with a similar legal challenge out of Pennsylvania .
“ Becerra spent years tormenting the Little Sisters of the Poor in court , trying to force them to pay for things like abortion pills against their consciences , ” Ashley McGuire , senior fellow at The Catholic Association , said in a public statement , adding : Becerra , as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus , had a small role in the House information technology scandal that came to light in late 2016 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that first led to charges against an IT employee , which the Justice Department dropped , and an $ 850,000 settlement by the House for wrongful termination of the employee .
Information technology specialist Imran Awan , a Pakistani national , did IT work for several Democrats on Capitol Hill .
The Justice Department investigated and cleared Awan of allegations he was a spy for Pakistan .
However , Awan pleaded guilty to bank fraud .
Becerra employed Awan on his staff while chairman of the House ’ s Democratic caucus .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 5,000 log-ins by Awan and five associates on a single computer server dedicated to Becerra , Fox News and other outlets reported .
The IG report said 40 or more members of Congress had all of their data moved off their office servers and onto Becerra ’ s server without their knowledge .
Capitol Police got involved in the case .
Awan and his five associates subsequently were fired .
In the summer of 2018 , the Justice Department announced in a court filing that after examining servers dedicated to House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interviewing dozens of witnesses , investigators found “ no evidence ” that Awan illegally removed data , stole House information , or destroyed House equipment , nor did he access sensitive information .
However , after being cleared , Awan and his associates sued the House for wrongful termination and it settled for $ 850,000 to avoid a costly court battle , the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported .
House Democrats blamed Trump and conservative media outlets that reported on the IG findings , the newspaper reported .
In April 2019 , Becerra , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said illegal immigration should be decriminalized .
“ They haven ’ t committed a crime against someone , and they are not acting violently or in a way that ’ s harmful to people , ” Becerra said .
“ And I would argue they are not harming people indirectly either.
” “ If you call them criminals , it ’ s a lot easier to get people to turn against them than if you call them undocumented immigrants , ” Becerra said .
As attorney general , Becerra asserted that illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as children were “ badass ” in supporting continuation of the Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals .
Opposed by the Trump administration , DACA shielded these so-called Dreamers from deportation and allowed them to get work permits .
“ I suspect in the revolutionary days the Founders were looking for people like them to join their fight , ” Becerra said , adding : “ Good thing I ’ m an optimist .
I believe that DACA ‘ Dreamers ’ are here to stay.
” Before defending California ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress strongly opposed a 2015 measure to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities .
“ We can do the so-called ‘ Donald Trump Act , ’ which simply denies the cities and towns their dollars to hire police officers while attacking immigrant communities , ” Becerra said at the time , when Trump was running for president .
“ Or we can actually do things that improve the lives of Americans.
” Also in Congress , Becerra voted to repeal certain restrictions on green cards .
He voted against the Secure Fence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border .
He also voted against the Real ID Act of 2005 , which allowed the Department of Homeland Security to set some requirements for state driver ’ s licenses and ID cards .
In October 2019 , the progressive legal group Demand Justice released a “ short list ” of the names of 32 candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court that the next president should consider appointing .
Becerra made the list after becoming known for his litigation against Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ list were not judges , with only eight currently on the bench .
Others on Demand Justice ’ s list are American Civil Liberties Union lawyers Michelle Alexander , Brigitte Amiri , and Dale Ho ; Nicole Berner , legal counsel for the Service Employees International Union ; U.S. Rep. Katie Porter , D-Calif. ; perennial New York political candidate Zephyr Teachout ; and Vanita Gupta , president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights .

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, with a record in that state office and Congress that conservatives consider extreme, is headed for a rocky confirmation battle to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, in announcing Sunday his intent to nominate Becerra for HHS secretary, cited Becerra’s leadership in defending Obamacare as a state attorney general and his support for passing the health care law while in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Pro-life activists, however, point to Becerra’s record of trying to muzzle, and even prosecute, political opponents on the abortion issue.
Becerra, 62, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992 and reelected 11 times. A Sacramento native, he got his law degree from Stanford Law School in 1984.
Then-California Gov. Jerry Brown, a fellow Democrat, appointed Becerra as state attorney general in 2017 when the incumbent, Kamala Harris, won election to the U.S. Senate in November 2016. Becerra was elected to the attorney general’s job in 2018.
Harris, Biden’s running mate, will become vice president Jan. 20 if Biden prevails against President Donald Trump’s legal challenges to election results in several states.
Here are seven things to know about Becerra.
1. Telling Faith-Based Groups to Post Abortion Ads
After becoming California’s attorney general in January 2017, Becerra tried to force faith-based, pro-life pregnancy centers to post abortion information.
This move alone is enough for Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., to oppose the nomination.
“Xavier Becerra spent his career attacking pro-life Americans and tried to force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortions,” Cotton said on Twitter. “He’s been a disaster in California and he is unqualified to lead HHS. I’ll be voting no, and Becerra should be rejected by the Senate.”
Xavier Becerra spent his career attacking pro-life Americans and tried to force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortions.
He’s been a disaster in California and he is unqualified to lead HHS.
I’ll be voting no, and Becerra should be rejected by the Senate. https://t.co/mEvpMrqPeH — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) December 7, 2020
In a 5-4 decision in the 2018 case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the California law requiring pregnancy centers to promote abortion, which the Legislature enacted before Becerra became state attorney general.
“[H]e went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to force California’s pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise and refer for abortion—a policy the court rejected as unconstitutional,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said Sunday in a public statement about the Becerra nomination. “In Congress, he even voted in favor of partial-birth abortion.”
The secretary of health and human services has authority over the nation’s health care and medical policy, which includes matters related to abortion—such as whether taxpayers should fund abortions in any circumstances.
The California law, passed in 2015, required crisis pregnancy centers (and any center licensed to provide medical services such as pregnancy tests and ultrasounds) to provide information about abortion.
The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates argued that the law, which included civil penalties for failure to comply, violated the First Amendment by requiring the centers to tell women about procedures that violate their faith.
Writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas said the California law “targets speakers, not speech, and imposes an unduly burdensome disclosure requirement that will chill their protected speech.”
After the June 2018 ruling, Becerra griped that women deserve information on abortion options.
“When it comes to making their health decisions, all California women—regardless of their economic background or ZIP code—deserve access to critical and non-biased information to make their own informed decisions,” Becerra said after the high court’s decision. “Today’s court ruling is unfortunate, but our work to ensure that Californians receive accurate information about their health care options will continue.”
2. Prosecuting Activists Who Exposed Planned Parenthood
Becerra also brought criminal charges against two undercover representatives of the Center for Medical Progress who caught Planned Parenthood officials on video describing a desire to sell body parts of aborted babies.
Harris, Becerra’s predecessor, first pursued the case; he took over after being appointed as attorney general when she won election to the Senate.
“Becerra is aggressively pro-abortion and a foe of free speech. As attorney general of California, he continued what his predecessor Kamala Harris started by persecuting citizen journalists who exposed Planned Parenthood’s role in baby parts trafficking,” SBA List’s Dannenfelser said.
David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, and employee Sandra Merritt told Planned Parenthood executives in a series of sting videos that they worked for a biomedical research company. The videos showed regional Planned Parenthood officials talking freely about selling baby body parts for profit, although Planned Parenthood later claimed the videos were heavily edited.
Shortly after becoming California attorney general in March 2017, Becerra announced that his office was charging Daleiden and Merritt with 15 felony counts related to invading the privacy of Planned Parenthood executives who didn’t know they were on video.
“The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California’s Constitution, and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society,” Becerra said after bringing the charges. “We will not tolerate the criminal recording of confidential conversations.”
The criminal complaint said that from October 2013 through July 2015, on 14 occasions, the duo filmed Planned Parenthood officials without their permission in the counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and El Dorado.
The criminal case is ongoing. Daleiden sued the state of California, Becerra, and Harris.
The editorial board of the left-leaning Los Angeles Times called the criminal charges a “disturbing overreach” by Becerra. The liberal Mother Jones magazine published a fan article that said Becerra was “chilling” a “legitimate investigation” regardless of one’s abortion views.
3. Supporting ‘Medicare for All’
During the presidential campaign, Biden said repeatedly that he opposed a “Medicare for All” health care plan, which would be a single-payer insurance system.
Becerra repeatedly has stated his support for the Medicare for All program proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who ran for president a second time in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Asked whether he supported the plan introduced by Sanders, Becerra said on Oct. 22, 2017: “Absolutely. I’ve been a supporter of Medicare for All for the 24 years that I was in Congress.”
The conservative Americans for Tax Reform found and provided the comments from Becerra.
Becerra repeated his support on Oct. 2, 2019.
“I would scrap all of that and move us toward a system where everyone has access to health care, a single-payer system, a Medicare for All system,” he said.
As far back as March 21, 2010, Becerra said that Obamacare didn’t go far enough, though he still voted to pass the Affordable Care Act, the 2009 legislation creating it.
“We need to reform the system. My solution would have been Medicare for All,” he said.
The choice of Becerra to lead HHS doesn’t reflect well on what Biden presented during his campaign as a moderate agenda, said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
“Biden’s presidential campaign told America he would not raise any tax on middle-income Americans, would not take away their health insurance and not bankrupt America with a Green New Deal,” Norquist said in a public statement, adding:
His Cabinet picks—now including Becerra—shout loudly that he does want to take away your health insurance and replace it with a top down, one size fits all government program, burden middle class Americans with an energy tax and spend without limit in the name of a Green New Deal.
4. Filing Anti-Trump Lawsuits
While serving as California’s attorney general, Becerra was on the front lines of progressives’ legal resistance to Trump through the courts.
Among the lawsuits, Becerra sued over the Trump administration’s reducing Title IX funding for Planned Parenthood.
Becerra also sued to reverse the Trump administration’s conscience protections, a policy applied to doctors and nurses who declined to perform abortions because the procedure violated their religious beliefs.
He also sued the administration when the Justice Department withheld grants to the state because of its status as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, in which it refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
By late 2018, Becerra led 44 lawsuits against Trump administration policies, costing Californian taxpayers $9 million, The Sacramento Bee reported.
“When you put into perspective that less than 1% of our budget is going to defend our people, our values and our resources, I think most people would say ‘Don’t stop,’” Becerra told the Bee.
Becerra’s litigation to stop the Trump administration’s religious exemptions for Obamacare’s contraception mandate eventually led to suing the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns that serves the impoverished. The Obama administration’s HHS previously targeted the Little Sisters of the Poor for noncompliance.
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the nuns in State of California v. Little Sisters of the Poor, combining that case with a similar legal challenge out of Pennsylvania.
“Becerra spent years tormenting the Little Sisters of the Poor in court, trying to force them to pay for things like abortion pills against their consciences,” Ashley McGuire, senior fellow at The Catholic Association, said in a public statement, adding:
He also led efforts to force pro-life pregnancy resource centers to advertise for abortion. Thankfully both of his efforts failed at the Supreme Court. But Becerra is outright hostile to religious liberty and Biden’s choice of someone so openly anti-Catholic is an affront to the faith that [Biden] so frequently invoked as part of his campaign.
5. Playing Role in House IT Scandal
Becerra, as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, had a small role in the House information technology scandal that came to light in late 2016 and early 2017.
This was a matter that first led to charges against an IT employee, which the Justice Department dropped, and an $850,000 settlement by the House for wrongful termination of the employee.
Information technology specialist Imran Awan, a Pakistani national, did IT work for several Democrats on Capitol Hill. The Justice Department investigated and cleared Awan of allegations he was a spy for Pakistan. However, Awan pleaded guilty to bank fraud.
Becerra employed Awan on his staff while chairman of the House’s Democratic caucus.
The House Office of Inspector General found more than 5,000 log-ins by Awan and five associates on a single computer server dedicated to Becerra, Fox News and other outlets reported.
The IG report said 40 or more members of Congress had all of their data moved off their office servers and onto Becerra’s server without their knowledge. Capitol Police got involved in the case.
Awan and his five associates subsequently were fired.
In the summer of 2018, the Justice Department announced in a court filing that after examining servers dedicated to House Democrats, reviewing other digital records, and interviewing dozens of witnesses, investigators found “no evidence” that Awan illegally removed data, stole House information, or destroyed House equipment, nor did he access sensitive information.
However, after being cleared, Awan and his associates sued the House for wrongful termination and it settled for $850,000 to avoid a costly court battle, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.
House Democrats blamed Trump and conservative media outlets that reported on the IG findings, the newspaper reported.
6. Protecting Illegal Immigration
In April 2019, Becerra, the son of working-class immigrants from Mexico, said illegal immigration should be decriminalized.
“They haven’t committed a crime against someone, and they are not acting violently or in a way that’s harmful to people,” Becerra said. “And I would argue they are not harming people indirectly either.”
It’s in part about messaging, California’s attorney general added.
“If you call them criminals, it’s a lot easier to get people to turn against them than if you call them undocumented immigrants,” Becerra said.
As attorney general, Becerra asserted that illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children were “badass” in supporting continuation of the Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Opposed by the Trump administration, DACA shielded these so-called Dreamers from deportation and allowed them to get work permits.
“I suspect in the revolutionary days the Founders were looking for people like them to join their fight,” Becerra said, adding: “Good thing I’m an optimist. I believe that DACA ‘Dreamers’ are here to stay.”
Before defending California’s sanctuary status as attorney general, Becerra in Congress strongly opposed a 2015 measure to withhold federal money from sanctuary cities.
“We can do the so-called ‘Donald Trump Act,’ which simply denies the cities and towns their dollars to hire police officers while attacking immigrant communities,” Becerra said at the time, when Trump was running for president. “Or we can actually do things that improve the lives of Americans.”
Also in Congress, Becerra voted to repeal certain restrictions on green cards. He voted against the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border.
He also voted against the Real ID Act of 2005, which allowed the Department of Homeland Security to set some requirements for state driver’s licenses and ID cards.
7. Making Supreme Court ‘Short List’
In October 2019, the progressive legal group Demand Justice released a “short list” of the names of 32 candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court that the next president should consider appointing.
Becerra made the list after becoming known for his litigation against Trump.
Like Becerra, most others on the list were not judges, with only eight currently on the bench.
Others on Demand Justice’s list are American Civil Liberties Union lawyers Michelle Alexander, Brigitte Amiri, and Dale Ho; Nicole Berner, legal counsel for the Service Employees International Union; U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif.; perennial New York political candidate Zephyr Teachout; and Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.


dailysignal--2020-12-08--‘Aggressively Pro-Abortion’: Pro-Life Activists, Lawmakers Denounce Biden HHS Pick Xavier Becerra

Pro-life groups and lawmakers denounced former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s choice of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services .
“ Far from ‘ uniting ’ the country , Biden has proven yet again he is an extremist on abortion , ” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement following Biden ’ s Monday announcement .
“ Becerra is aggressively pro-abortion and a foe of free speech.
” Dannenfelser accused Becerra of persecuting “ citizen journalists who exposed Planned Parenthood ’ s role in baby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Daleiden .
“ Not only that , he went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to force California ’ s pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise and refer for abortion—a policy the Court rejected as unconstitutional , ” Dannenfelser said .
“ In Congress , he even voted in favor of partial-birth abortion.
” Sen. Tom Cotton , R-Ark.
, tweeted that he will be voting “ no ” on Becerra ’ s appointment , and that Becerra should be “ rejected by the Senate.
” “ Xavier Becerra spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortions , ” Cotton said .
“ He ’ s been a disaster in California and he is unqualified to lead HHS.
” Ashley McGuire , senior fellow with The Catholic Association , called Biden ’ s choice of Becerra “ a gross insult to Catholics , ” similarly citing Becerra ’ s action against the Little Sisters of the Poor and pro-life pregnancy resource centers .
“ Thankfully both of his efforts failed at the Supreme Court , ” she said .
“ But Becerra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s choice of someone so openly anti-Catholic is an affront to the faith that he so frequently invoked as part of his campaign.
” Becerra and the Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities for this original content , email [ email protected ] .

Pro-life groups and lawmakers denounced former Vice President Joe Biden’s choice of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
“Far from ‘uniting’ the country, Biden has proven yet again he is an extremist on abortion,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement following Biden’s Monday announcement. “Becerra is aggressively pro-abortion and a foe of free speech.”
With his choice of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for HHS Secretary, Joe Biden has proven yet again he is an extremist on abortion@marjoriesba (1/3)https://t.co/oUK2LkoRMJ — Susan B. Anthony List (@SBAList) December 7, 2020
Dannenfelser accused Becerra of persecuting “citizen journalists who exposed Planned Parenthood’s role in baby parts trafficking” such as pro-life activist David Daleiden.
“Not only that, he went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to force California’s pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise and refer for abortion—a policy the Court rejected as unconstitutional,” Dannenfelser said. “In Congress, he even voted in favor of partial-birth abortion.”
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., tweeted that he will be voting “no” on Becerra’s appointment, and that Becerra should be “rejected by the Senate.”
“Xavier Becerra spent his career attacking pro-life Americans and tried to force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortions,” Cotton said. “He’s been a disaster in California and he is unqualified to lead HHS.”
Xavier Becerra spent his career attacking pro-life Americans and tried to force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortions.
He’s been a disaster in California and he is unqualified to lead HHS.
I’ll be voting no, and Becerra should be rejected by the Senate. https://t.co/mEvpMrqPeH — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) December 7, 2020
Ashley McGuire, senior fellow with The Catholic Association, called Biden’s choice of Becerra “a gross insult to Catholics,” similarly citing Becerra’s action against the Little Sisters of the Poor and pro-life pregnancy resource centers.
“Thankfully both of his efforts failed at the Supreme Court,” she said. “But Becerra is outright hostile to religious liberty and Biden’s choice of someone so openly anti-Catholic is an affront to the faith that he so frequently invoked as part of his campaign.”
ADF had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to stop Becerra from forcing religious pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortions. He is an extremist who has no regard for conscience or protecting life. There’s nothing moderate about this pick. Nothing. https://t.co/4dD3npBO5v — Kristen Waggoner (@KWaggonerADF) December 7, 2020
Becerra and the Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.