buzzfeed--2020-09-09--Trump’s New List Of Supreme Court Nominees Includes A Judge Who Served In His White House And Three

Trump’s New List Of Supreme Court Nominees Includes A Judge Who Served In His White House And Three Republican Senators

Trump is hoping to repeat his 2016 strategy of using the courts to motivate his base and win over skeptics .
Democrats are still figuring out how to make courts a priority for liberal voters .
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Wednesday released the latest version of his US Supreme Court short list , hoping to once again make the courts an issue that even his critics on the right can rally behind in November .
Trump announced 20 new names to add to the list that he ’ s pledged to choose from if another seat opens up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additions are a who ’ s who of the conservative legal world , a mix of federal judges confirmed during his first term , including former White House lawyer and DC Circuit Judge Greg Katsas ; Republican Sens .
Tom Cotton , Ted Cruz , and Josh Hawley ; current White House deputy counsel Kate Comerford Todd ; Christopher Landau , Trump 's US Ambassador to Mexico ; and current and former Justice Department officials .
Trump ’ s strategy is the same as it was in 2016 , but the political landscape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell kept the late justice Antonin Scalia ’ s seat open in the hopes of a Republican win in the fall by blocking President Barack Obama ’ s nominee , Judge Merrick Garland .
Now , there is no pending Supreme Court vacancy to create a sense of urgency for Republican voters ; there isn ’ t the same backlog of lower court openings to fill either .
The Senate has confirmed more than 200 federal judges under Trump .
The president cited an inflated version of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican National Convention in August and in his remarks at the White House announcing the new list on Wednesday — he said that more than 300 judges would be confirmed by the end of his first term — but his message to Republican voters was clear : Reshaping the ideological makeup of the courts was , and would continue to be , central to accomplishing the broader conservative political agenda .
In announcing the new list on Wednesday , Trump said that appointing Supreme Court justices was “ the most important decision an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason , candidates for president owe the American people a specific list of individuals they consider for the United States Supreme Court.
” It ’ s still not clear if the Biden campaign will put the future of the Supreme Court and judicial nominations front and center in the same way .
Joe Biden didn ’ t talk about courts in his Aug. 20 speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination .
Earlier in the summer , he pledged to nominate a Black woman for the Supreme Court but hasn ’ t publicly elaborated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump on Wednesday explicitly called on Biden to release his own list .
A spokesperson for Biden ’ s campaign declined to comment on whether they would release a list of Biden ’ s Supreme Court contenders .
Liberal advocacy groups , meanwhile , are ramping up election messaging around the courts and pouring millions of dollars into ad campaigns trying to connect top voting issues for Democrats — like healthcare , voting rights , and abortion rights — to the future of the federal bench .
At the Democratic National Convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the first time supported “ structural ” changes to the Supreme Court .
Liberals frustrated that the left has fallen behind Republicans in making the courts a priority for the base saw it as a watershed moment .
The reference to “ structural court reforms ” in the platform was vague , though — it didn ’ t address specific ideas being batted around , such as term limits for justices or adding seats to the Supreme Court and lower courts ( known as “ packing the court ” ) , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree with .
“ There ’ s still a lot of work to be done to connect the courts to the issues that matter for voters on the left and generally , except for the far right , where they have a really deep appreciation for how important the courts are , ” said Caroline Fredrickson , a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and past president of the liberal lawyers group the American Constitution Society .
Still , she said , the momentum on the left around the courts during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party elites and the Biden campaign were paying more attention .
“ It ’ s a big step forward from 2016 when there wasn ’ t really anything at all , ” she said .
Mike Davis , head of the Article III Project , a group that backs Trump ’ s judicial nominees , said he thought judicial nominations would still unite Republican voters behind the president this year .
Trump ’ s success in reshaping the federal bench with conservative-leaning appointees — roughly a quarter of all active federal judges have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ biggest accomplishment ” of his first term , Davis said .
In making the case against a Biden presidency in a speech at the Republican National Convention , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell picked up on the court reform push on the left , claiming Democrats “ want to pack the Supreme Court with liberals intent on eroding our constitutional rights.
” “ In 2016 , conservatives were motivated by the fact that they were going to lose a conservative majority on the Supreme Court with Justice Scalia ’ s passing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , conservatives should also be concerned they ’ re also going to lose a conservative majority ... with Democrats threatening to pack the Supreme Court.
” A recent report from the Pew Research Center showed that the future of the Supreme Court is a higher priority for voters this year compared with a similar report the group published in July 2016 .
Supreme Court appointments ranked third on a list of issues that the registered voters who were surveyed considered “ very important , '' after the economy and health care ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The report also showed a narrower gap between the percentage of Biden and Trump voters who considered Supreme Court appointments a top issue , compared with Clinton and Trump voters polled in 2016 .
Absent an open seat , Trump ’ s pitch to his base this year is that even the current conservative-majority court isn ’ t conservative enough .
He announced via Twitter on June 18 that he would release an updated Supreme Court short list by Sept. 1 .
On the day of the tweet , the court issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration violated federal law when it rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program ; Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion , to the dismay of conservatives .
“ Based on decisions being rendered now , this list is more important than ever before ( Second Amendment , Right to Life , Religous [ sic ] Liberty , etc . )
— VOTE 2020 !
” Trump tweeted at the time .
As part of his reelection pitch , Trump has highlighted decisions where Roberts sided with the court ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his administration .
As part of a string of tweets the day the DACA decision came down , the president also tweeted : “ The recent Supreme Court decisions , not only on DACA , Sanctuary Cities , Census , and others , tell you only one thing , we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court.
” In an interview earlier this month with the Christian Broadcasting Network , Vice President Mike Pence said Roberts “ has been a disappointment to conservatives.
” Trump last released a version of the list in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including then-DC Circuit judge Brett Kavanaugh , who became Trump ’ s second appointee to the Supreme Court .
Trump turned to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation for guidance on his first Supreme Court short list , which he released in May 2016 .
He added names in September 2016 , including then-10th Circuit judge Neil Gorsuch , who became his first Supreme Court nominee .
Some of the new names on the president ’ s updated list were featured in a recent article pitching new Supreme Court contenders by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was recently nominated by Trump to serve on the US Sentencing Commission and who wrote a similar piece in 2016 after Scalia died , and Zack Smith .
Malcolm and Smith told BuzzFeed News shortly before Trump revealed his updated list that they hadn ’ t been in touch with the White House or the campaign about the additions .
“ To the extent the voters cared about the Supreme Court in 2016 , they ’ re still going to very much care about the Supreme Court now , ” Smith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an open seat that ’ s waiting to be filled , but the potential for a vacancy certainly exists.
” The 20 new additions to Trump ’ s Supreme Court short list are : Judge Bridget Bade was confirmed in March 2019 to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit .
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron is the first Black attorney general in the state and has served in that position since December .
Former US solicitor general Paul Clement served under the George W. Bush administration and has since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behalf of conservative causes .
Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton clerked for a federal judge and briefly worked as a lawyer before joining the US Army and later embarking on his political career .
Right after Trump announced his name as a Supreme Court contender Cotton tweeted , `` It 's time for Roe v. Wade to go , '' referring to the court 's landmark abortion rights decision .
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz clerked for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist , worked in the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general .
Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan was confirmed to the 5th Circuit in April 2018 .
He worked as general counsel for the conservative legal advocacy group the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty , and as a senior lawyer in the Louisiana attorney general ’ s office .
US Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel is the head of the Justice Department ’ s Office of Legal Counsel , the section that sets legal policy for the executive branch .
Under his tenure , the office has issued memos backing the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House officials from testifying in Congress , rejecting congressional Democrats ’ demands for Trump ’ s tax returns from the Treasury Department , and concluding the acting director of National Intelligence wasn ’ t required to transmit to Congress a whistleblower complaint about Trump ’ s July 25 , 2019 , call with the president of Ukraine that became the basis of impeachment proceedings .
Former US Solicitor General Noel Francisco was Trump 's first solicitor general and stepped down in July .
Francisco oversaw the numerous legal fights that defined Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel ban executive orders ; efforts to roll back the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and use federal funds that Congress didn ’ t approve to pay for border wall construction ; and Trump ’ s fights with Democrats and prosecutors in New York over access to his financial records .
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley previously served as the attorney general of Missouri and clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts Jr .
He worked for the conservative legal advocacy group the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty , and in that role and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act .
Judge James Ho was confirmed to the 5th Circuit in December 2017 , where he has staked out strong positions on protections for police accused of misconduct , gun rights , and abortion .
Judge Greg Katsas served as a senior official in the White House Counsel ’ s Office under Trump before his confirmation to the DC Circuit at the end of 2017 .
He recused himself from some of the big political legal fights between Trump and congressional Democrats that have come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smith highlighted an opinion Katsas wrote rejecting a challenge to the administration ’ s decision to resume federal executions by lethal injection .
Katsas was also one of the judges involved in drafting a letter signed by more than 200 federal judges opposing a proposed judicial ethics rule that would limit judges ’ involvement in the Federalist Society ; the rule was never adopted .
Judge Barbara Lagoa was confirmed to the 11th Circuit at the end of 2019 ; she ’ d previously served as a state judge in Florida since 2006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve on the Florida Supreme Court .
She recently denied a request by voting rights groups that she recuse herself from a fight over a Florida law that the challengers said would affect the right to vote of approximately 750,000 Florida residents with previous felony convictions .
US Ambassador to Mexico Chris Landau is a longtime Washington lawyer .
Trump had previously considered him for a seat on the DC Circuit and for US solicitor general before tapping him for the ambassador post .
Florida Supreme Court Justice Carlos Muñiz has served on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was appointed by Gov .
Ron DeSantis in January 2019 .
He ’ s long been involved in Republican politics in Florida and served in the Trump administration as general counsel for the Department of Education .
Judge Martha Pacold was confirmed to the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in July 2019 .
She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas and served in the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration .
Judge Peter Phipps was confirmed to the 3rd Circuit in July 2019 after briefly serving as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He spent the bulk of his career at the Justice Department , both during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations .
Judge Sarah Pitlyk was confirmed to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in December 2019 after working for the Thomas More Society , a conservative legal advocacy group .
She clerked for Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was still a judge on the DC Circuit .
She received a rare “ not qualified ” rating from the American Bar Association committee that vets federal court nominees prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she ’ d worked as a lawyer for less than 12 years and had no substantive litigation experience .
Judge Allison Rushing was confirmed to the 4th Circuit in March 2019 .
She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch when he was a judge on the 10th Circuit , and then spent several years in private practice .
She was 36 years old when she joined the court , making her Trump ’ s youngest nominee at the time , and faced questions from Democrats and Republicans on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough experience to serve on a federal appeals court .
White House deputy counsel Kate Todd previously worked as chief counsel for the US Chamber Litigation Center and as a lawyer in the George W. Bush administration .
She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas .
Judge Lawrence VanDyke was confirmed to the 9th Circuit in December 2019 , after serving as a senior official in the Justice Department ’ s Environment and Natural Resources Division .
He received a rare “ not qualified ” rating from the American Bar Association committee that vets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee found he had enough experience , but reported that interviewees described him as “ arrogant , lazy , an ideologue , and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice.
” A few names were notably missing from the list , including DC Circuit Judge Neomi Rao , who was a top Trump administration official overseeing the rollback of federal regulations before she was confirmed in March 2019 , and Judge Justin Walker , who will join the DC Circuit this fall after just a year as a district judge in Kentucky and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world — he ’ s only 38 years old — has been backed by McConnell .
When Trump released his original list of Supreme Court contenders in May 2016 , it was an unusual move .
The nomination process is usually shrouded in secrecy , save for the occasional leak .
But then-candidate Trump touted the Supreme Court as a reason for Republicans to rally around him , even if they disagreed with other parts of his campaign or simply disliked him .
“ If you really like Donald Trump , that 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you have to vote for me anyway .
You know why ?
Supreme Court judges .
Supreme Court judges , ” Trump said at a rally in July 2016 , arguing that the next president “ will probably have three , could be four , could even be five ” seats to fill on the court .
It was a successful pitch .
More than a quarter of Trump voters surveyed in a Washington Post poll said the Supreme Court was the most important factor in their decision .
Trump got two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both of whom came from his public short list — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
Trump is using the same rhetoric this year .
At an Aug. 21 event , he repeated his line that whoever won in November “ could have anywhere from two to four , to maybe even five — just based on statistics , statistically — Supreme Court justices to pick.
” ( His math assumes some of the court ’ s younger , right-leaning members would step down along with octogenarian Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running on his success getting hundreds of judges confirmed to the federal district and appeals courts during his first term .
There are currently 81 lower court vacancies .
It ’ s a sizable number , although none are for the more powerful appeals courts .
In a move that surprised some of the president ’ s allies , the “ 2nd Term Agenda ” released by Trump ’ s campaign a few weeks ago didn ’ t mention judicial vacancies .
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley tweeted his disappointment , saying the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election.
” A spokesperson for Grassley told BuzzFeed News in an email that the White House had since consulted with Grassley about Trump ’ s Supreme Court short list , “ so he knows judges will remain a priority in the second term.
” Grassley tweeted his support for Trump ’ s list after it was announced on Wednesday .
Leonard Leo , who has advised Trump on judicial nominations since his first campaign , told BuzzFeed News that he didn ’ t share Grassley ’ s concern .
The president making a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short list was “ a major inflection point , ” he said .
“ He is undertaking a singular , very focused effort to inform people , ” Leo said .
Leo stepped down as a senior executive with the Federalist Society earlier this year to launch CRC Advisors , a group involved with a multimillion-dollar advocacy campaign in support of Trump ’ s judicial nominees , along with other conservative causes .
( He is still cochair of the Federalist Society ’ s board . )
Leo said he provided “ advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and about particular judicial nominations ” to the White House , adding , “ and that ’ s the role I ’ m happy to play now when asked.
” He declined to share details about those discussions .
He is also listed as a member of the campaign-affiliated “ Lawyers for Trump ” but declined to comment on whether he ’ s been active in that effort .
Brian Fallon , executive director of liberal advocacy group Demand Justice , said he hoped Biden would release a list to counter Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic Party platform was a “ big milestone , ” he said , but he wants Biden to lean in on the issue more and for Democrats to “ stop pretending that it ’ s not the case that we have two liberal justices that are over 80 years old.
” “ Democrats have often made the mistake that the issue only galvanizes Republicans and less so Democrats , and you know what makes that inevitable ?
Continuing to cede the field to Republicans , ” Fallon said .
Regardless of whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shakir told BuzzFeed News , the nascent Biden transition team was mindful of liberals ’ frustration with the Obama administration ’ s slow pace on nominations and was working on a plan to start filling vacancies “ on day one.
” He declined to say who was involved in those discussions .
There ’ s more financial firepower behind pitching the courts as a voting issue for Democrats in 2020 than there was in 2016 .
Demand Justice and Take Back the Court , which has led the push to add seats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of 2018 and have each spent millions of dollars in courts-focused messaging over the last two years .
In July , Demand Justice launched a new political advocacy arm called the “ Supreme Court Voter ” project and announced a $ 2 million initial ad campaign in battleground states .
They also bought ad time during the Democratic National Convention .
Take Back the Court has spent $ 1.5 million trying to get the party to support court expansion since launching in 2018 .
Director Aaron Belkin said Democrats had moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that the Center for American Progress had come out this year in favor of term limits and more Democratic politicians and candidates were talking publicly about court reform .
Biden ’ s opposition to changing the size of the Supreme Court earned him an “ F ” grade from Take Back the Court .
Still , Belkin said he was happy with the progress they ’ d made in getting the issue in the party platform , even without specifics .
He said it was a warning to Roberts that Democrats were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drastic changes to the court if the justices stood in the way of their policy agenda .
“ What the party said was historically unprecedented and an incredibly powerful signal to John Roberts that he needs to keep his grubby fingers off bills that allow Black people to vote , off bills that will save climate change , off bills that will end gun violence , ” Belkin said .
“ And if he is not getting that signal , there will be a price to pay.
” Groups like Demand Justice and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan ahead for a potential Biden victory .
Fallon said they ’ re working with other liberal groups to come up with a plan for identifying and pitching judicial nominees to a Biden White House .
They ’ ll be pushing for greater professional diversity — more public defenders and civil rights lawyers , and fewer former prosecutors and corporate lawyers — and less deference to home state senators , he said .
They ’ re also strategizing around how to convince Congress to back legislation to expand the Supreme Court and add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is something the federal judiciary has wanted for years to meet increased caseload demands .
“ We see a huge opportunity in the next four years to reset things in a positive way , ” Fallon said .

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Wednesday released the latest version of his US Supreme Court short list, hoping to once again make the courts an issue that even his critics on the right can rally behind in November.
Trump announced 20 new names to add to the list that he’s pledged to choose from if another seat opens up on the Supreme Court. The latest additions are a who’s who of the conservative legal world, a mix of federal judges confirmed during his first term, including former White House lawyer and DC Circuit Judge Greg Katsas; Republican Sens. Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley; current White House deputy counsel Kate Comerford Todd; Christopher Landau, Trump's US Ambassador to Mexico; and current and former Justice Department officials.
Trump’s strategy is the same as it was in 2016, but the political landscape is dramatically different. Four years ago, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell kept the late justice Antonin Scalia’s seat open in the hopes of a Republican win in the fall by blocking President Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. Now, there is no pending Supreme Court vacancy to create a sense of urgency for Republican voters; there isn’t the same backlog of lower court openings to fill either.
The Senate has confirmed more than 200 federal judges under Trump. The president cited an inflated version of that statistic in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in August and in his remarks at the White House announcing the new list on Wednesday — he said that more than 300 judges would be confirmed by the end of his first term — but his message to Republican voters was clear: Reshaping the ideological makeup of the courts was, and would continue to be, central to accomplishing the broader conservative political agenda.
In announcing the new list on Wednesday, Trump said that appointing Supreme Court justices was “the most important decision an American president can make. For this reason, candidates for president owe the American people a specific list of individuals they consider for the United States Supreme Court.”
It’s still not clear if the Biden campaign will put the future of the Supreme Court and judicial nominations front and center in the same way. Joe Biden didn’t talk about courts in his Aug. 20 speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination. Earlier in the summer, he pledged to nominate a Black woman for the Supreme Court but hasn’t publicly elaborated on whom he may have in mind.
Trump on Wednesday explicitly called on Biden to release his own list. A spokesperson for Biden’s campaign declined to comment on whether they would release a list of Biden’s Supreme Court contenders.
Liberal advocacy groups, meanwhile, are ramping up election messaging around the courts and pouring millions of dollars into ad campaigns trying to connect top voting issues for Democrats — like healthcare, voting rights, and abortion rights — to the future of the federal bench. At the Democratic National Convention, the party adopted a platform that for the first time supported “structural” changes to the Supreme Court. Liberals frustrated that the left has fallen behind Republicans in making the courts a priority for the base saw it as a watershed moment.
The reference to “structural court reforms” in the platform was vague, though — it didn’t address specific ideas being batted around, such as term limits for justices or adding seats to the Supreme Court and lower courts (known as “packing the court”), which Biden has said he doesn’t agree with.
“There’s still a lot of work to be done to connect the courts to the issues that matter for voters on the left and generally, except for the far right, where they have a really deep appreciation for how important the courts are,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and past president of the liberal lawyers group the American Constitution Society.
Still, she said, the momentum on the left around the courts during this election cycle was a sign that party elites and the Biden campaign were paying more attention.
“It’s a big step forward from 2016 when there wasn’t really anything at all,” she said.
Mike Davis, head of the Article III Project, a group that backs Trump’s judicial nominees, said he thought judicial nominations would still unite Republican voters behind the president this year. Trump’s success in reshaping the federal bench with conservative-leaning appointees — roughly a quarter of all active federal judges have been confirmed since 2017 — was the “biggest accomplishment” of his first term, Davis said.
In making the case against a Biden presidency in a speech at the Republican National Convention, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell picked up on the court reform push on the left, claiming Democrats “want to pack the Supreme Court with liberals intent on eroding our constitutional rights.”
“In 2016, conservatives were motivated by the fact that they were going to lose a conservative majority on the Supreme Court with Justice Scalia’s passing,” Davis said. “In 2020, conservatives should also be concerned they’re also going to lose a conservative majority ... with Democrats threatening to pack the Supreme Court.”
A recent report from the Pew Research Center showed that the future of the Supreme Court is a higher priority for voters this year compared with a similar report the group published in July 2016. Supreme Court appointments ranked third on a list of issues that the registered voters who were surveyed considered “very important," after the economy and health care; it was ranked 9th in the 2016 report. The report also showed a narrower gap between the percentage of Biden and Trump voters who considered Supreme Court appointments a top issue, compared with Clinton and Trump voters polled in 2016.


buzzfeed--2020-09-09--Judges Confirmed Under Trump Are Splitting With Other Republican Appointees In Cases Against Police

WASHINGTON — In October 2010 , police officers responded to a report that a teenager was walking through a neighborhood in Garland , Texas , with a handgun .
When officers found the 17-year-old , he was holding the gun to his head .
The teenager ’ s family and police disagree about what happened next , but the encounter ended with officers shooting the young man ; he was hit twice , and one shot caused him to involuntarily pull the trigger and shoot himself as well , according to court records .
The teen survived but has permanent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The teen and his family sued , accusing the officers of using excessive force and fabricating evidence .
They argued that even though the young man was armed , the circumstances didn ’ t justify deadly force , and they accused one officer of lying about the teen aiming a gun at the police .
In August 2019 , the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit denied immunity to the officers , meaning the case would go to a jury .
The decision was one of a growing number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tapped for lifetime appointments by President Donald Trump split not only with colleagues appointed by Democratic presidents , but also those confirmed under previous Republican administrations .
The 5th Circuit judges who ruled against the officers included Reagan and George W. Bush appointees .
The judges who dissented — they would have granted police immunity against the family ’ s claims — included four of Trump ’ s appointees .
“ No member of this court has stared down a fleeing felon on the interstate or confronted a mentally disturbed teenager who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Judges Andy Oldham and James Ho , both Trump nominees , wrote in a dissenting opinion .
Judges confirmed during Trump ’ s first term have staked out positions farther to the right on a variety of issues where liberals and conservatives have long seen the courts as a battleground , according to a BuzzFeed News review of dozens of cases in which the president ’ s nominees have participated .
They have taken more conservative positions than their Republican peers on issues including policing , guns , abortion , immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Trump and administration officials have exercised their power .
Taken together , the cases illustrate how Trump ’ s successes in getting conservative judges on the bench are moving the courts to the right in ways that will dovetail with his politics long after he has left office .
Just last month , a majority of the DC Circuit rebuffed efforts by Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Justice Department to force a judge to dismiss Flynn ’ s criminal case .
Judge Neomi Rao , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , joined by a George H.W .
Bush appointee , Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson .
Rao wrote that the majority ’ s decision — to allow a judge to probe DOJ ’ s decision to drop the prosecution — “ ducks our obligation to correct judicial usurpations of executive power.
” The majority included Judge Thomas Griffith , a George W. Bush appointee who has since retired .
He wrote separately in Flynn ’ s case to argue it was wrong to assume judges ’ legal analysis was “ a cover for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges , including Trump ’ s nominees , have made similar comments arguing they are not political actors whose decisions are rooted in the party of the president who appointed them .
In a rare public statement , Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said in November 2019 : “ We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges , Bush judges or Clinton judges.
” But Trump has made clear that he sees judges he ’ s put on the bench as a means to carrying out a conservative political agenda .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tweet : “ Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts , but you do indeed have ‘ Obama judges.
’ ” In tweets on June 18 — the day the US Supreme Court blocked the administration from rolling back the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — Trump pledged to release an updated list of “ conservative ” nominees he ’ d choose from for the Supreme Court .
“ Based on decisions being rendered now , this list is more important than ever before ( Second Amendment , Right to Life , Religous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , ” the president tweeted .
He hasn ’ t released a new list of names yet , but previous versions of his list have been dominated by judges he ’ s nominated to the federal appeals courts .
In the face of nationwide protests against police brutality , especially the use of force toward Black people , Trump has opposed calls to get rid of qualified immunity , the legal doctrine that can shield police from lawsuits over their conduct ; White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called it a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued for immunity , Trump ’ s nominees haven ’ t just split with their fellow Republican appointees on how to apply the law — they ’ ve expressed full-throated support for law enforcement and made clear they believe courts should do more to shield officers from lawsuits .
“ If we want to stop mass shootings , we should stop punishing police officers who put their lives on the line to prevent them , ” Ho wrote in another case in October 2019 .
He dissented from his colleagues — a mix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied immunity to officers accused of using excessive force when they responded to reports of an armed man walking through a neighborhood and shot and killed the suspect .
“ [ These judges are ] clearly trying to take it exactly where President Trump wants it to be , which is to make it virtually impossible to hold police accountable for what could be blatant misconduct , often directed against minorities , but not exclusively , ” said Elliot Mincberg , a senior fellow at the liberal advocacy group People for the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how judges confirmed under Trump have split with their colleagues on the bench .
Mincberg reviewed more than 400 federal appeals court rulings since 2017 , and found that in a quarter of cases a Trump appointee wrote an opinion or dissent where they broke with another Republican appointee .
Jay Schweikert , a policy analyst at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute , cautioned that most of Trump ’ s nominees likely would have been nominated under any Republican president .
Disagreements among Republican appointees in qualified immunity cases reflected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said ; modern conservative legal decision-making is often defined by a focus on the text and historical meaning of laws , but that gets tricky with doctrines like qualified immunity that weren ’ t created by Congress and evolved over time in the courts .
But Schweikert , who has advocated against qualified immunity , acknowledged that the heated rhetoric some judges had used in support of police could be “ confusing ” and suggest to the public that these judges were making “ results-oriented ” decisions .
He said it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on policy issues as long as it was clear they were reaching conclusions based on the law , and not trying to achieve a specific outcome .
“ What ’ s more important than provocative lines in certain opinions is the way judges are actually deciding cases .
In that respect , I think the bulk of Trump ’ s appointees are doing their best to follow what they see as these neutral principles of judicial decision-making , ” he said .
Qualified immunity for police accused of using excessive force or otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t come from any federal law — it grew out of broader protections established by the Supreme Court that shield government employees generally from being sued for carrying out their official duties .
Law enforcement officers can be sued , but they can claim immunity by arguing that they didn ’ t violate “ clearly established ” laws or constitutional rights that a “ reasonable ” officer would have been aware of at the time .
In some cases , judges have found that police did violate someone ’ s rights , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t “ clearly established ” at the time .
It ’ s a standard that leaves too much room for interpretation by judges and makes it too easy for police to avoid accountability for abuses of power , opponents say .
Conservative , libertarian , and liberal groups have joined forces in the past to petition the Supreme Court to take up the issue and get rid of qualified immunity , or at least limit when police can claim it , but so far the justices have declined to step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court — the justices voted this year against hearing a cluster of qualified immunity cases , including the 5th Circuit case involving the 17-year-old in Texas who was shot — the federal appeals courts will continue to have the final word on when people can sue police and when they can ’ t .

WASHINGTON — In October 2010, police officers responded to a report that a teenager was walking through a neighborhood in Garland, Texas, with a handgun. When officers found the 17-year-old, he was holding the gun to his head.
The teenager’s family and police disagree about what happened next, but the encounter ended with officers shooting the young man; he was hit twice, and one shot caused him to involuntarily pull the trigger and shoot himself as well, according to court records. The teen survived but has permanent injuries that include paralysis and brain damage.
The teen and his family sued, accusing the officers of using excessive force and fabricating evidence. They argued that even though the young man was armed, the circumstances didn’t justify deadly force, and they accused one officer of lying about the teen aiming a gun at the police. In August 2019, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit denied immunity to the officers, meaning the case would go to a jury.
The decision was one of a growing number of cases reviewed by BuzzFeed News where judges tapped for lifetime appointments by President Donald Trump split not only with colleagues appointed by Democratic presidents, but also those confirmed under previous Republican administrations. The 5th Circuit judges who ruled against the officers included Reagan and George W. Bush appointees. The judges who dissented — they would have granted police immunity against the family’s claims — included four of Trump’s appointees.
“No member of this court has stared down a fleeing felon on the interstate or confronted a mentally disturbed teenager who is brandishing a loaded gun near his school,” Judges Andy Oldham and James Ho, both Trump nominees, wrote in a dissenting opinion.
Judges confirmed during Trump’s first term have staked out positions farther to the right on a variety of issues where liberals and conservatives have long seen the courts as a battleground, according to a BuzzFeed News review of dozens of cases in which the president’s nominees have participated. They have taken more conservative positions than their Republican peers on issues including policing, guns, abortion, immigration, and discrimination, as well as how Trump and administration officials have exercised their power.
Taken together, the cases illustrate how Trump’s successes in getting conservative judges on the bench are moving the courts to the right in ways that will dovetail with his politics long after he has left office.
Just last month, a majority of the DC Circuit rebuffed efforts by Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn and the Justice Department to force a judge to dismiss Flynn’s criminal case. Judge Neomi Rao, one of Trump’s appointees, dissented, joined by a George H.W. Bush appointee, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson. Rao wrote that the majority’s decision — to allow a judge to probe DOJ’s decision to drop the prosecution — “ducks our obligation to correct judicial usurpations of executive power.”
The majority included Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee who has since retired. He wrote separately in Flynn’s case to argue it was wrong to assume judges’ legal analysis was “a cover for the exercise of raw political power.” Other judges, including Trump’s nominees, have made similar comments arguing they are not political actors whose decisions are rooted in the party of the president who appointed them. In a rare public statement, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said in November 2019: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
But Trump has made clear that he sees judges he’s put on the bench as a means to carrying out a conservative political agenda. He even responded to Roberts’ statement with a tweet: “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges.’”
In tweets on June 18 — the day the US Supreme Court blocked the administration from rolling back the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — Trump pledged to release an updated list of “conservative” nominees he’d choose from for the Supreme Court.
“Based on decisions being rendered now, this list is more important than ever before (Second Amendment, Right to Life, Religous [sic] Liberty, etc.),” the president tweeted. He hasn’t released a new list of names yet, but previous versions of his list have been dominated by judges he’s nominated to the federal appeals courts.
In the face of nationwide protests against police brutality, especially the use of force toward Black people, Trump has opposed calls to get rid of qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that can shield police from lawsuits over their conduct; White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called it a “nonstarter.”
In cases where police have argued for immunity, Trump’s nominees haven’t just split with their fellow Republican appointees on how to apply the law — they’ve expressed full-throated support for law enforcement and made clear they believe courts should do more to shield officers from lawsuits.
“If we want to stop mass shootings, we should stop punishing police officers who put their lives on the line to prevent them,” Ho wrote in another case in October 2019. He dissented from his colleagues — a mix of Republican and Democratic appointees — who denied immunity to officers accused of using excessive force when they responded to reports of an armed man walking through a neighborhood and shot and killed the suspect.
“[These judges are] clearly trying to take it exactly where President Trump wants it to be, which is to make it virtually impossible to hold police accountable for what could be blatant misconduct, often directed against minorities, but not exclusively,” said Elliot Mincberg, a senior fellow at the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way who published a report this month about how judges confirmed under Trump have split with their colleagues on the bench.
Mincberg reviewed more than 400 federal appeals court rulings since 2017, and found that in a quarter of cases a Trump appointee wrote an opinion or dissent where they broke with another Republican appointee.
Jay Schweikert, a policy analyst at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, cautioned that most of Trump’s nominees likely would have been nominated under any Republican president. Disagreements among Republican appointees in qualified immunity cases reflected broader disagreements within the conservative community, he said; modern conservative legal decision-making is often defined by a focus on the text and historical meaning of laws, but that gets tricky with doctrines like qualified immunity that weren’t created by Congress and evolved over time in the courts.
But Schweikert, who has advocated against qualified immunity, acknowledged that the heated rhetoric some judges had used in support of police could be “confusing” and suggest to the public that these judges were making “results-oriented” decisions. He said it was appropriate for judges to share their views on policy issues as long as it was clear they were reaching conclusions based on the law, and not trying to achieve a specific outcome.
“What’s more important than provocative lines in certain opinions is the way judges are actually deciding cases. In that respect, I think the bulk of Trump’s appointees are doing their best to follow what they see as these neutral principles of judicial decision-making,” he said.
Qualified immunity for police accused of using excessive force or otherwise violating people’s rights doesn’t come from any federal law — it grew out of broader protections established by the Supreme Court that shield government employees generally from being sued for carrying out their official duties.
Law enforcement officers can be sued, but they can claim immunity by arguing that they didn’t violate “clearly established” laws or constitutional rights that a “reasonable” officer would have been aware of at the time. In some cases, judges have found that police did violate someone’s rights, but they still granted immunity because the violation wasn’t “clearly established” at the time.
It’s a standard that leaves too much room for interpretation by judges and makes it too easy for police to avoid accountability for abuses of power, opponents say. Conservative, libertarian, and liberal groups have joined forces in the past to petition the Supreme Court to take up the issue and get rid of qualified immunity, or at least limit when police can claim it, but so far the justices have declined to step in.
Absent a decision from the Supreme Court — the justices voted this year against hearing a cluster of qualified immunity cases, including the 5th Circuit case involving the 17-year-old in Texas who was shot — the federal appeals courts will continue to have the final word on when people can sue police and when they can’t.


buzzfeed--2020-09-10--For Those Of You Who Are Having More Bad Days Than Good Right Now

“ I HOPE THIS finds you well .
But if it doesn ’ t , I 'm so sorry for whatever you 're carrying right now .
You must be tired.
” That ’ s how the first draft of this post began — and this final one , too , I guess — before it went some ways into trying to convince you that you are wonderful , and that I know it , despite not ever having met you .
I pointed to little moments I cherish , given to me by people who will not now recall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surely , you are the catalyst for similar moments without your knowing so .
It went as follows : “ I know you ’ re wonderful , because I once was sitting alone in a cafe , in a city not my own , and a woman came up to me , just to tell me she liked my freckles .
There ’ s no way she could ’ ve sensed , but I ’ ve always been fond of them and it felt wonderful to have someone think they ’ re lovely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I still remember my Year 8 English teacher , who spared some minutes after school to read my awful poetry , which I look back on with gratitude , though she will never know .
And a nurse , in the final hours of a night shift , made me laugh through my labouring pain , while we waited for my obstetrician to arrive — before going home and probably never thinking of me again .
But it made all the difference to me in my fear .
I am not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; no doubt Mrs White encountered so many more aspiring teenage writers ; and there have since been so many first-time mothers in that mint green birthing suite .
But for me , there will only be those three who could ’ ve given me those specific moments of joy and comfort .
”

“I HOPE THIS finds you well.
But if it doesn’t, I'm so sorry for whatever you're carrying right now. You must be tired.”
That’s how the first draft of this post began — and this final one, too, I guess — before it went some ways into trying to convince you that you are wonderful, and that I know it, despite not ever having met you. I pointed to little moments I cherish, given to me by people who will not now recall I exist, and that just as surely, you are the catalyst for similar moments without your knowing so. It went as follows:
“I know you’re wonderful, because I once was sitting alone in a cafe, in a city not my own, and a woman came up to me, just to tell me she liked my freckles. There’s no way she could’ve sensed, but I’ve always been fond of them and it felt wonderful to have someone think they’re lovely, too.
Over a decade later, I still remember my Year 8 English teacher, who spared some minutes after school to read my awful poetry, which I look back on with gratitude, though she will never know.
And a nurse, in the final hours of a night shift, made me laugh through my labouring pain, while we waited for my obstetrician to arrive — before going home and probably never thinking of me again. But it made all the difference to me in my fear.
I am not the last stranger with freckles in Downtown LA; no doubt Mrs White encountered so many more aspiring teenage writers; and there have since been so many first-time mothers in that mint green birthing suite. But for me, there will only be those three who could’ve given me those specific moments of joy and comfort.”


buzzfeed--2020-09-10--This Vet Went Viral For His Explainer On Popular Items To Avoid From The Pet Store

Both Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Hunter agreed that , when it comes to dog and cat treats and food , all myths are related to marketing .
Dr. Hunter said , `` Just because something has meat as the first ingredient , contains no grains , or is completely raw , does not mean that item is superior compared to others .
In fact , whenever a client asks me about nutritional advice , I always recommend they research the company they are using and make sure they have a full-time , board-certified veterinary nutritionist on their staff .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foods and treats can be placed on the market with pretty minimal testing requirements .
In my opinion , this leads to businesses spending more money and time on advertisement than actually developing a safe product for our fur babies . ''
`` I would say the biggest myth of this day and age for dogs is the continued marketing campaign that grain is bad for dogs .
There is nothing in medical literature to support that it is harmful for pets , but it has created a market for boutique and exotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to owners .
Recent findings have actually linked it with a heart disease called dilated cardiomyopathy , '' added Dr. Emanuel .

Both Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Hunter agreed that, when it comes to dog and cat treats and food, all myths are related to marketing. Dr. Hunter said, "Just because something has meat as the first ingredient, contains no grains, or is completely raw, does not mean that item is superior compared to others. In fact, whenever a client asks me about nutritional advice, I always recommend they research the company they are using and make sure they have a full-time, board-certified veterinary nutritionist on their staff. People don’t realize that many pet foods and treats can be placed on the market with pretty minimal testing requirements. In my opinion, this leads to businesses spending more money and time on advertisement than actually developing a safe product for our fur babies."


buzzfeed--2020-09-10--Young Latino Voters Say The Fight For Racial Justice Is Pushing Them To Vote In November

People hold placards at the Lincoln Memorial at a protest against racism and police brutality , on August 28 , in Washington , DC .
Young Latinos are being pushed to vote in the upcoming election by the protests that have gripped the country throughout the summer over the fight for racial justice , according to new data from a national survey of Latino voters between the ages of 18 and 34 .
The survey , conducted by Telemundo and BuzzFeed News earlier this summer , also found that young Latinos are motivated by the coronavirus pandemic 's outsize influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s renewed push for racial justice after the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor , the effects of the pandemic , and immigration reform have pushed young Latino voters to become engaged in the upcoming election , according to the survey .
The protests that have taken place across the country have become a focal point of the presidential race .
The Republican National Convention heavily featured segments against widespread demonstrations and in favor of “ law and order , ” including an address from a Missouri couple who had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after aiming guns at a group of protesters in their neighborhood .
President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden both visited Kenosha , Wisconsin , last week after protests erupted following the police shooting of Jacob Blake .
According to the survey , 55.8 % of young Latino voters said they ’ d actively participated in racial equality or Black Lives Matter movements by protesting or boycotting , and half of young Latino people said protests across the country have motivated them to vote in the upcoming election .
“ Racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of young Latino voters , according to the survey and 57 % said reducing police brutality has pushed them to turn out for the election .
“ Racial and ethnic social equality ” was identified as the most important social or political issue for their generation by a majority of the Latino voters , with 16.6 % identifying it as the top overall issue .
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed racial inequities in how communities across the country are affected by its consequences , and it ’ s motivating Latino voters ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of young Latino voters “ somewhat or strongly approve ” of the president ’ s response to the pandemic , compared to 35.6 % of young non-Latino voters .
In the survey , 41.1 % of Latino voters indicated that the pandemic has strongly motivated them to vote in the upcoming election .
Part of that motivation comes from their own experiences : 13 % of Latino voters said they have worked in a high-risk job without enough protection over the course of the pandemic , compared to 11.3 % of non-Latino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people said that they had lost their job because of the coronavirus , compared to 10.3 % of young non-Latino people .
The upcoming election has created conflicting feelings for many young Latino voters , with wide support for Biden matching a belief that Trump will ultimately win .
The survey found that 53 % of young Latino Biden supporters believe he ’ ll win the election , compared to the 52 % of young Latino Trump supporters who believe that Trump will win .
While 60 % of young Latino voters say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , recent polling has shown the former vice president lagging behind with Latinos overall compared to where Hillary Clinton was in 2016 .
A recent poll from Equis Research , which surveyed 1,081 Latinos in Florida , found that while Biden led Trump 53 % to 37 % among Latino voters , Biden was still behind where Clinton performed , according to 2016 exit polling from CNN .
Despite the Biden campaign ’ s lagging performance among Latino voters in Florida compared to Clinton ’ s 2016 performance , 75.3 % of young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll indicated that they believe it is more important to vote in this election than the 2016 election .
The survey questioned 638 people who identified as Latino and 685 non-Latino people between the ages of 18 and 34 .
It was conducted from June 5 to June 22 .

Young Latinos are being pushed to vote in the upcoming election by the protests that have gripped the country throughout the summer over the fight for racial justice, according to new data from a national survey of Latino voters between the ages of 18 and 34.
The survey, conducted by Telemundo and BuzzFeed News earlier this summer, also found that young Latinos are motivated by the coronavirus pandemic's outsize influence on their community.
The country’s renewed push for racial justice after the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, the effects of the pandemic, and immigration reform have pushed young Latino voters to become engaged in the upcoming election, according to the survey.
The protests that have taken place across the country have become a focal point of the presidential race. The Republican National Convention heavily featured segments against widespread demonstrations and in favor of “law and order,” including an address from a Missouri couple who had been charged with unlawful use of a weapon after aiming guns at a group of protesters in their neighborhood. President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden both visited Kenosha, Wisconsin, last week after protests erupted following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
According to the survey, 55.8% of young Latino voters said they’d actively participated in racial equality or Black Lives Matter movements by protesting or boycotting, and half of young Latino people said protests across the country have motivated them to vote in the upcoming election. “Racial and ethnic social equality” motivates 62.7% of young Latino voters, according to the survey and 57% said reducing police brutality has pushed them to turn out for the election.
“Racial and ethnic social equality” was identified as the most important social or political issue for their generation by a majority of the Latino voters, with 16.6% identifying it as the top overall issue.
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed racial inequities in how communities across the country are affected by its consequences, and it’s motivating Latino voters ahead of the general election. Just 24.6% of young Latino voters “somewhat or strongly approve” of the president’s response to the pandemic, compared to 35.6% of young non-Latino voters.
In the survey, 41.1% of Latino voters indicated that the pandemic has strongly motivated them to vote in the upcoming election. Part of that motivation comes from their own experiences: 13% of Latino voters said they have worked in a high-risk job without enough protection over the course of the pandemic, compared to 11.3% of non-Latino voters. And 12.5% of Latino people said that they had lost their job because of the coronavirus, compared to 10.3% of young non-Latino people.
The upcoming election has created conflicting feelings for many young Latino voters, with wide support for Biden matching a belief that Trump will ultimately win. The survey found that 53% of young Latino Biden supporters believe he’ll win the election, compared to the 52% of young Latino Trump supporters who believe that Trump will win.
While 60% of young Latino voters say they are supporting Biden’s campaign, recent polling has shown the former vice president lagging behind with Latinos overall compared to where Hillary Clinton was in 2016. A recent poll from Equis Research, which surveyed 1,081 Latinos in Florida, found that while Biden led Trump 53% to 37% among Latino voters, Biden was still behind where Clinton performed, according to 2016 exit polling from CNN.
Despite the Biden campaign’s lagging performance among Latino voters in Florida compared to Clinton’s 2016 performance, 75.3% of young Latino voters surveyed in the Telemundo–BuzzFeed News poll indicated that they believe it is more important to vote in this election than the 2016 election.
The survey questioned 638 people who identified as Latino and 685 non-Latino people between the ages of 18 and 34. It was conducted from June 5 to June 22.


buzzfeed--2020-09-11--This Vet Went Viral For His Explainer On Popular Items To Avoid From The Pet Store


buzzfeed--2020-09-11--13 Celeb Moms Who Proudly Showed Off Their Postpartum Bodies And Were Refreshingly Honest About It

Former Bachelor contestant Bekah Martinez shared the below photo of herself two months after giving birth to her and Grayson @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Every mom bod is different .
Some are thin and some are round @ @ @ @ @ some are hairy .
Some are light and some are brown .
No one ’ @ @ @ @ @ If you think otherwise , kindly fuck off or unfollow , '' she captioned .

11.
Former Bachelor contestant Bekah Martinez shared the below photo of herself two months after giving birth to her and Grayson Leonard's daughter, Ruthie. "Every mom bod is different. Some are thin and some are round. Some are wrinkly and some are hairy. Some are light and some are brown. No one’s body is 🤢. If you think otherwise, kindly fuck off or unfollow," she captioned.


buzzfeed--2020-09-10--Here Are The Best Trader Joe's Snacks According To Nutritionists

`` I ’ ve been loving these jicama wraps all summer long !
Jicama is high in fiber and has @ @ @ @ @ That means it does n't have much of an impact on your blood sugar , @ @ @ @ @ comes to our health .
It also contains prebiotic fiber that can help restore good @ @ @ @ @ and it 's rich in vitamins B6 , C , E , and beta-carotene .
@ @ @ @ @ versatile : I fill them with hummus , chunky guacamole , TJ 's pico de @ @ @ @ @ them off with fresh veggies .
So refreshing , yet so filling ! ''
—Rachel @ @ @ @ @ , dietitian nutritionist , CEO of the Beller Nutritional Institute , and author of Power @ @ @ @ @ 3-Week Weight-Loss Plan

BuzzFeed Bring Me
Obsessed with travel? Discover unique things to do, places to eat, and sights to see in the best destinations around the world with Bring Me!


buzzfeed--2020-09-11--Judges Blocked The Trump Administration From Excluding Undocumented Immigrants From The Census Count

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump violated federal law when he ordered officials to exclude undocumented immigrants from census data used to calculate how many seats in Congress each state should get , a panel of federal judges ruled on Thursday .
The decision is the latest setback to Trump 's efforts to try to use the 2020 census to target undocumented immigrant communities — the US Supreme Court and a slew of lower courts previously blocked the administration 's attempt at adding a citizenship question , a move that even the Census Bureau said would depress the count in immigrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear one of several pending challenges to Trump 's July order excluding undocumented immigrants from counting when congressional districts are redrawn ruled Thursday that federal law requires the Commerce Secretary to report a total count of all people living in the United States to the president .
The president , in turn , is required to submit those same numbers to Congress , which are used to divide up seats in the US House of Representatives ; there ca n't be two sets of numbers in play , the court held .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the judges continued , undocumented immigrants living in the United States at the time of the count fall under the Constitution 's requirement that all `` persons '' in a `` State '' should be included .
The opinion is 86 pages , but the judges made clear that in the end , it was not a hard call in ruling against the Trump administration .
`` The merits of the parties ’ dispute are not particularly close or complicated , '' the judges wrote in a joint opinion .
Trump 's July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from being counted when congressional districts are redone following the decennial census this year .
The move could put some states at risk of losing representation in Congress , and Trump made it clear in the text of the order that the policy was intended to punish states with large populations of undocumented immigrants that politically also lean Democratic , such as California .
“ States adopting policies that encourage illegal aliens to enter this country and that hobble Federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws passed by the Congress should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Representatives , ” the memo stated .
The census has historically included undocumented immigrants , a fact the judges noted in Thursday 's decision .
`` Throughout the Nation ’ s history , the figures used to determine the apportionment of Congress — in the language of the current statutes , the 'total population ' and the 'whole number of persons ' in each State — have included every person residing in the United States at the time of the census , whether citizen or non-citizen and whether living here with legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
The court barred Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross from including any information about citizenship status in the population numbers reported to the president at the end of the count .
Although the Supreme Court blocked a citizenship question on the census form , it did n't stop the administration from trying to use other data sources to determine how many undocumented immigrants live in the United States .
The judges agreed with New York and the other states that sued that Trump 's memo would have a `` chilling effect '' that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` In short , the record supports a conclusion that the Presidential Memorandum has created , and is likely to create , widespread confusion among illegal aliens and others as to whether they should participate in the census , a confusion which has obvious deleterious effects on their participation rate , '' the judges wrote .
The panel featured two judges from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit , Judges Richard Wesley and Peter Hall , and US District Judge Jesse Furman of New York .
Federal law requires the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that deal with how congressional districts are drawn .
New York Attorney General Letitia James , who led a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in filing the case decided on Thursday , said in a statement , `` We can not allow the White House ’ s constant fearmongering and xenophobia to stop us from being counted .
We urge everyone to fill out the census , if they have not already , and we will continue to take every legal action available to ensure all communities are counted , all communities are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal funding they need and deserve . ''
A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment .
The Trump administration is separately fighting in court over a plan to end the 2020 census early , a move that opponents charge is aimed at depressing the count in areas with large immigrant populations , which historically require more time and in-person , door-to-door resources to get an accurate tally .
On Sept. 5 , a federal judge in California temporarily ordered the administration to halt efforts to end the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide soon whether to make that order permanent .

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump violated federal law when he ordered officials to exclude undocumented immigrants from census data used to calculate how many seats in Congress each state should get, a panel of federal judges ruled on Thursday.
The decision is the latest setback to Trump's efforts to try to use the 2020 census to target undocumented immigrant communities — the US Supreme Court and a slew of lower courts previously blocked the administration's attempt at adding a citizenship question, a move that even the Census Bureau said would depress the count in immigrant communities.
A special three-judge panel appointed to hear one of several pending challenges to Trump's July order excluding undocumented immigrants from counting when congressional districts are redrawn ruled Thursday that federal law requires the Commerce Secretary to report a total count of all people living in the United States to the president. The president, in turn, is required to submit those same numbers to Congress, which are used to divide up seats in the US House of Representatives; there can't be two sets of numbers in play, the court held.
For the purposes of the census, the judges continued, undocumented immigrants living in the United States at the time of the count fall under the Constitution's requirement that all "persons" in a "State" should be included.
The opinion is 86 pages, but the judges made clear that in the end, it was not a hard call in ruling against the Trump administration.
"The merits of the parties’ dispute are not particularly close or complicated," the judges wrote in a joint opinion.
Trump's July order would exclude millions of undocumented immigrants from being counted when congressional districts are redone following the decennial census this year. The move could put some states at risk of losing representation in Congress, and Trump made it clear in the text of the order that the policy was intended to punish states with large populations of undocumented immigrants that politically also lean Democratic, such as California.
“States adopting policies that encourage illegal aliens to enter this country and that hobble Federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws passed by the Congress should not be rewarded with greater representation in the House of Representatives,” the memo stated.
The census has historically included undocumented immigrants, a fact the judges noted in Thursday's decision.
"Throughout the Nation’s history, the figures used to determine the apportionment of Congress — in the language of the current statutes, the 'total population' and the 'whole number of persons' in each State — have included every person residing in the United States at the time of the census, whether citizen or non-citizen and whether living here with legal status or without," the judges wrote.
The court barred Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross from including any information about citizenship status in the population numbers reported to the president at the end of the count. Although the Supreme Court blocked a citizenship question on the census form, it didn't stop the administration from trying to use other data sources to determine how many undocumented immigrants live in the United States.
The judges agreed with the challengers, which included Democratic attorneys general and the American Civil Liberties Union, that Trump's memo would have a "chilling effect" that would discourage immigrants households from participating.
"In short, the record supports a conclusion that the Presidential Memorandum has created, and is likely to create, widespread confusion among illegal aliens and others as to whether they should participate in the census, a confusion which has obvious deleterious effects on their participation rate," the judges wrote.
The panel featured two judges from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, Judges Richard Wesley and Peter Hall, and US District Judge Jesse Furman of New York. Federal law requires the appointment of a three-judge panel in cases that deal with how congressional districts are drawn.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in filing one of a group of cases decided on Thursday, said in a statement, "We cannot allow the White House’s constant fearmongering and xenophobia to stop us from being counted. We urge everyone to fill out the census, if they have not already, and we will continue to take every legal action available to ensure all communities are counted, all communities are properly represented, and all communities get the federal funding they need and deserve."
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
The Trump administration is separately fighting in court over a plan to end the 2020 census early, a move that opponents charge is aimed at depressing the count in areas with large immigrant populations, which historically require more time and in-person, door-to-door resources to get an accurate tally. On Sept. 5, a federal judge in California temporarily ordered the administration to halt efforts to end the count early, and is set to decide soon whether to make that order permanent.


buzzfeed--2020-09-10--GOP Senate Nominee Jason Lewis Founded A Social Network Where People Promoted A Pro-Hitler Documenta

GOP Senate Nominee Jason Lewis Founded A Social Network Where People Promoted A Pro-Hitler Documentary

Galt let its community decide what was most important to them .
This is what they chose .
A members-only social media network founded in 2013 by former representative Jason Lewis , the current Republican nominee for Senate in Minnesota , hosted message boards that promoted a pro-Hitler documentary , called for migrants to be put in camps , and raised money for an ad campaign that paid Lewis and his business partners .
In 2014 , Lewis sat down with Fox Business host John Stossel to promote the network , which he called Galt.io , after the hero of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still a talk radio host , explained that Galt.io would be a closed community whose members could invest using a digital currency earned with their participation or bought with real money .
The Galtcoins functioned like Reddit upvotes , signaling which topics people cared the most about as they invested into “ causes ” or “ missions.
” “ We ’ re not going to tell people what causes are going to win , ” Lewis told Stossel .
“ That ’ s going to be a function of the marketplace .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what people are interested in is going to be determined on Galt.io.
” According to archives and screenshots , what people on Galt were interested in was doubting climate change , scapegoating immigrants , and promoting a pro-Hitler documentary that denied the Holocaust .
Lewis stepped away from the site in 2015 and Galt.io went offline in the summer of 2020 .
Lewis left his talk radio job in 2014 to devote himself to the site , which he cofounded with financial strategist Kurt Lieberman and entrepreneur Alex Huff .
In the code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a secret society ” and evoked the movie Fight Club saying , “ First Rule of Galt.io : Do not talk about what goes on in Galt !
” Lewis claimed to have raised $ 590,000 for Galt , a number that could not be verified .
Records filed with the House of Representatives in 2016 show he defaulted on a $ 25,000 loan to the company and transferred ownership of the site to undisclosed parties .
During his time running it , Lewis touted the site 's popularity , saying in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12.8 million pageviews in 2014 .
That number couldn ’ t be independently verified , but the Facebook page for Galt.io has just over 1,000 likes and little activity .
Despite the lack of clarity , a review of Galt.io 's archive and screenshots revealed deeply troubling material .
“ Blaming Jason Lewis for comments made by others on a public website is akin to blaming Mark Zuckerberg for everything that ’ s said on Facebook , even less so when you consider Jason Lewis has had no involvement with this website for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , communications director for the Lewis campaign , told BuzzFeed News .
She added , “ the Minnesota Senate race has been ranked a toss-up and Jason Lewis is statistically tied in numerous polls , so right on cue , Democrat-aligned Buzzfeed trots out a boring and pathetic hit job in an attempt to distract from Tina Smith ’ s full-on embrace of radical positions like her affinity for the defund the police movement.
” Lewis has a history of controversial comments and views of his own , including comparing gay people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmed by having gay parents .
But the content that his site hosted was even more extreme .
Among the causes people on Galt.io promoted was a six-hour pro-Hitler documentary , which BuzzFeed News is choosing not to name , that denies the Holocaust .
BuzzFeed News could not determine when this post was made .
“ To understand the dangers in the world at this time , just watch this film , ” the poster said .
“ One can see the facts , indisputable facts , of what happened before , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's no evidence that the documentary raised any money or attracted attention .
But another discussion topic certainly did .
A group called De-Migrantize Zone was started in 2018 after President Donald Trump seized on news of people from South America traveling to the US border .
On Galt.io , people condemned those migrants , with one person saying they should be placed in camps .
“ When the DMZ base camp has been secured at location , move to mobilize and capture as many of the invaders as possible by encircling them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their future destinations , ” wrote a person with the username Scarecrow .
The anti-migrant post was made after Lewis gave up ownership of the site .
But he seemed to know the person who created the post .
In an earlier comment to members about a real-life meetup at a Minnesota pizza shop while he was active , Lewis thanked Scarecrow and a few other members “ for doing the legwork.
” In another post , Lewis started a topic called Save Our Streets , where he criticized the anti-NRA stance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Isla Vista massacre , in which Elliot Rodger killed six people .
“ What is the complete and accurate history of the suspect ’ s use of psychotropic drugs , ” Lewis wrote .
“ Are anti-depressants doing more harm than good ?
I don ’ t profess to know , but they seem to be omnipresent in a modern era marked by these bizarre and dangerous outbursts .
Should we reconsider their use ?
” While on the site , Lewis used it to promote his audiobook , organize a letter-writing campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise money for ads opposing a state gas tax , which he funneled to himself and his business partners .
That campaign appears to be the only one of the site 's fundraisers that successfully received money .
Lewis raised just over $ 6,000 , promising the money would go toward an advertising campaign .
Although the ads were produced , documents show Lewis moved the funds to himself and his associates to carry them out .
Galt.io had its own PAC , which purchased the ads , including two billboards , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Galt.io PAC was created by a firm run by Dan Backer , a pro-Trump fundraiser .
But those donations ran through a complex structure : Rather than donors giving directly to the PAC , the money came from Loximity , a company started by Huff , one of the Galt cofounders , possibly to shield the identity of the donors .
Most of the PAC ’ s expenditures were tied back to entities connected to Lewis .
The largest cut , $ 2,000 , went to Lewis ’ s former employer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , $ 1,500 , went to Jon Foss Productions .
Foss runs a YouTube channel that hosts promotional videos for Lewis and Galt .
The Jason Lewis Show also received $ 500 , records show .
The hike did not pass .
Lewis departed the company soon after , winning a seat in the House in the 2016 election , which he lost two years later .
“ For the last couple of years with you in Galt , I was amazed with the ideas , activity , and community that is developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note published on the site .
“ Although there ’ s no shortage of uninformed critics , we have created something amazing together , mostly under the radar .
It is my sincere belief that the network will be a force for liberty going forward.
” That force stayed in motion .
Since he departed , members of the site have called anti-fascist activists “ rats , ” railed against the “ deep state , ” and opposed vaccinations .
In discussions , the site 's participants mixed racism and conspiracy theories about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delusional bitch '' Hillary Clinton , with Lewis 's attempts at self-promotion .
One post read “ Is ISIS good for the jews.
” Another warned of a “ sharia invasion ” and the “ Muslims that our Globalist handlers are allowing into our country.
” Another post complained about the movie Black Panther , writing , “ I find it interesting that this movie is gushed about as a triumph of diversity when the premise of the movie is an ethnostate that wants to protect its borders from other ‘ cultures ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gee , that doesn ’ t sound diverse .
In fact richard spencer talks about the same thing and yet he is called racist and supremacist , but in this movie they are lauded .
Hypocrisy , thy name is liberal !
” Members also rallied around their love for golf .
“ The audience for the golf tournament was probably conservative , ” one member posted under the “ I love golf ” cause .
“ I doubt if there are any illegals watching and the normal lib probably can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different numbers .
”

A members-only social media network founded in 2013 by former representative Jason Lewis, the current Republican nominee for Senate in Minnesota, hosted message boards that promoted a pro-Hitler documentary, called for migrants to be put in camps, and raised money for an ad campaign that paid Lewis and his business partners.
In 2014, Lewis sat down with Fox Business host John Stossel to promote the network, which he called Galt.io, after the hero of an Ayn Rand novel. Lewis, still a talk radio host, explained that Galt.io would be a closed community whose members could invest using a digital currency earned with their participation or bought with real money. The Galtcoins functioned like Reddit upvotes, signaling which topics people cared the most about as they invested into “causes” or “missions.”
“We’re not going to tell people what causes are going to win,” Lewis told Stossel. “That’s going to be a function of the marketplace. So once that cause is out there, what people are interested in is going to be determined on Galt.io.”
According to archives and screenshots, what people on Galt were interested in was doubting climate change, scapegoating immigrants, and promoting a pro-Hitler documentary that denied the Holocaust. Lewis stepped away from the site in 2015 and Galt.io went offline in the summer of 2020.
Lewis left his talk radio job in 2014 to devote himself to the site, which he cofounded with financial strategist Kurt Lieberman and entrepreneur Alex Huff. In the code of conduct, they compared it to “a secret society” and evoked the movie Fight Club saying, “First Rule of Galt.io: Do not talk about what goes on in Galt!”
Lewis claimed to have raised $590,000 for Galt, a number that could not be verified. Records filed with the House of Representatives in 2016 show he defaulted on a $25,000 loan to the company and transferred ownership of the site to undisclosed parties.
During his time running it, Lewis touted the site's popularity, saying in a post on Galt.io that it received 12.8 million pageviews in 2014. That number couldn’t be independently verified, but the Facebook page for Galt.io has just over 1,000 likes and little activity. Despite the lack of clarity, a review of Galt.io's archive and screenshots revealed deeply troubling material.
“Blaming Jason Lewis for comments made by others on a public website is akin to blaming Mark Zuckerberg for everything that’s said on Facebook, even less so when you consider Jason Lewis has had no involvement with this website for nearly six years," Christine Snell, communications director for the Lewis campaign, told BuzzFeed News.
She added, “the Minnesota Senate race has been ranked a toss-up and Jason Lewis is statistically tied in numerous polls, so right on cue, Democrat-aligned Buzzfeed trots out a boring and pathetic hit job in an attempt to distract from Tina Smith’s full-on embrace of radical positions like her affinity for the defund the police movement.”


buzzfeed--2020-09-11--I Bet You Don't Know What Kind Of Medicine These -Ologists Specialize In — Can You Prove Me Wrong?

I Bet You Do n't Know What Kind Of Medicine These -Ologists Specialize In — Can You Prove Me Wrong @ @ @ @ @ difference between a dermatologist and a podiatrist ?


buzzfeed--2020-09-12--Here Are 19 Really Easy Things You Can Do To Boost Your Mood

`` Sign up to be a bone marrow donor via DKMS ( they operate in the US , UK , @ @ @ @ @ .
You sign up online , they send you a swab to your house , @ @ @ @ @ ... Knowing that you could save someone 's life from an action so small makes @ @ @ @ @ happy . ''

14.
"Sign up to be a bone marrow donor via DKMS (they operate in the US, UK, and most of Europe). You sign up online, they send you a swab to your house, and you mail it back. Knowing that you could save someone's life from an action so small makes you feel a little bit happy."


buzzfeed--2020-09-11--Charli D'Amelio Said She Has An Eating Disorder And Admitted She Was "Afraid" To Speak About It Publ

Charli D'Amelio Said She Has An Eating Disorder And Admitted She Was "Afraid" To Speak About It Publicly

`` It 's not your place to tell me if I 'm losing weight or gaining weight , '' Charli @ @ @ @ @ comments led her to delete a bikini photo from Instagram .
`` Why do n't @ @ @ @ @ and understand that we should just be kind and uplift everyone instead of trying to @ @ @ @ @ She opened up about the situation further in an interview with her family last month @ @ @ @ @ have followers , people just see you as an object `` to judge and objectify @ @ @ @ @ . ''

"For anyone that is struggling with this, I know some days can be worse than others," she wrote. "I need you to know you are not alone. Remember it's OK to reach out and get help. We all need help sometimes."


buzzfeed--2020-09-12--13 Celeb Moms Who Proudly Showed Off Their Postpartum Bodies And Were Refreshingly Honest About It


buzzfeed--2020-09-11--A Federal Court Has Denied Voting Rights To Ex-Felons In Florida Who Can’t Pay Off Court Fees

A federal appeals court has upheld a law denying voting rights to former felons in Florida if they have not paid off their court fees , even if they can not afford to .
Opponents of the law argue it creates a “ pay to vote ” system akin to the poll taxes outlawed in the 24th Amendment of the Constitution .
But in a 6–4 decision , the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that the requirement is not a tax and is constitutional .
Like in many states , felons are not able to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial swing state in the upcoming 2020 election .
But in 2018 , the people of Florida voted in a referendum to amend the state constitution and restore voting rights to former felons .
Since then , at least 85,000 people have applied to have their voting rights reinstated .
Advocates say the total number of people whose rights are affected by the case is about 750,000 .
In May 2019 , the Republican-controlled Florida legislature passed Senate Bill 7066 .
The legislation only restores voting rights to former felons who complete all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are defined to include paying off all financial obligations .
These obligations include court fees , fines , and restitution orders that can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars .
Some applicants then sued .
They won an initial victory when a district court issued a preliminary injunction .
On Friday , the 11th Circuit overruled that decision .
In Florida , there are virtually no exemptions for people who are unable to pay court fees .
Even hiring a public defender , a constitutionally required service set aside for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 50 application fee .
In one county , the fees for each defendant who is represented by a public defender total at least $ 700 .
The district court found that the “ overwhelming majority ” of felons who have not paid off their fees but are otherwise eligible to vote “ are genuinely unable to pay the required amount.
” The state did not refute this finding .
Writing in dissent , Judge Jill Pryor accused the legislature of crafting a bill that would maximally undercut the will of voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — or deliberately shut their eyes to — both the extent of the financial obligations Florida courts impose and the fact that most people convicted of felonies in Florida genuinely can not afford to pay these obligations , ” she wrote .
The majority opinion , authored by Chief Judge William Pryor , found the Florida law did not violate the 24th Amendment because repayment of fees does not amount to a tax on voting .
`` This classification does not turn on membership in a suspect class : the requirement that felons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , religion , or national origin , ” the majority wrote .
The majority argued the repayment requirements do not make affluence an electoral standard but rather apply a different standard : “ To regain the right to vote , felons , rich and poor , must complete all terms of their criminal sentences.
” Two Trump appointees refused calls to recuse themselves from the case .
That ended up being the difference , as they argued for upholding the law in the 6–4 split decision .
The Campaign Legal Center vowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means many former felons will not be able to vote in the November election .
“ We will continue this fight for all Florida voters , so the full benefits of ( the referendum ) will someday be realized , ” said CLC Vice President Paul Smith .
“ Nobody should ever be denied their constitutional rights because they can ’ t afford to pay fines and fees.
” More Than a Vote , an organization founded by LeBron James and other Black athletes , announced in July it would raise $ 100,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fees in partnership with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition in order to help people restore their voting rights .

A federal appeals court has upheld a law denying voting rights to former felons in Florida if they have not paid off their court fees, even if they cannot afford to.
Opponents of the law argue it creates a “pay to vote” system akin to the poll taxes outlawed in the 24th Amendment of the Constitution. But in a 6–4 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that the requirement is not a tax and is constitutional.
Like in many states, felons are not able to vote in Florida, which is considered a crucial swing state in the upcoming 2020 election.
But in 2018, the people of Florida voted in a referendum to amend the state constitution and restore voting rights to former felons. Since then, at least 85,000 people have applied to have their voting rights reinstated. Advocates say the total number of people whose rights are affected by the case is about 750,000.
In May 2019, the Republican-controlled Florida legislature passed Senate Bill 7066. The legislation only restores voting rights to former felons who complete all “terms of service,” which are defined to include paying off all financial obligations. These obligations include court fees, fines, and restitution orders that can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Some applicants then sued. They won an initial victory when a district court issued a preliminary injunction. On Friday, the 11th Circuit overruled that decision.
In Florida, there are virtually no exemptions for people who are unable to pay court fees. Even hiring a public defender, a constitutionally required service set aside for people without means, comes with a $50 application fee. In one county, the fees for each defendant who is represented by a public defender total at least $700.
The district court found that the “overwhelming majority” of felons who have not paid off their fees but are otherwise eligible to vote “are genuinely unable to pay the required amount.” The state did not refute this finding.
Writing in dissent, Judge Jill Pryor accused the legislature of crafting a bill that would maximally undercut the will of voters. “In short, the legislators knew — or deliberately shut their eyes to — both the extent of the financial obligations Florida courts impose and the fact that most people convicted of felonies in Florida genuinely cannot afford to pay these obligations,” she wrote.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Judge William Pryor, found the Florida law did not violate the 24th Amendment because repayment of fees does not amount to a tax on voting.
"This classification does not turn on membership in a suspect class: the requirement that felons complete their sentences applies regardless of race, religion, or national origin,” the majority wrote.
The majority argued the repayment requirements do not make affluence an electoral standard but rather apply a different standard: “To regain the right to vote, felons, rich and poor, must complete all terms of their criminal sentences.”
Two Trump appointees refused calls to recuse themselves from the case. That ended up being the difference, as they argued for upholding the law in the 6–4 split decision.
The Campaign Legal Center vowed to fight the decision but acknowledged it likely means many former felons will not be able to vote in the November election.
“We will continue this fight for all Florida voters, so the full benefits of (the referendum) will someday be realized,” said CLC Vice President Paul Smith. “Nobody should ever be denied their constitutional rights because they can’t afford to pay fines and fees.”
More Than a Vote, an organization founded by LeBron James and other Black athletes, announced in July it would raise $100,000 to help pay off outstanding court fines and fees in partnership with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition in order to help people restore their voting rights.