motherjones--2020-09-22--The Left Wasn’t Ready to Fight Brett Kavanaugh. That Isn’t the Case This Time.

Almost two years ago to the day , Ana Maria Archila wedged herself between the doors of an elevator in the bowels of the US Senate ’ s serpentine basement corridors and forced Sen. Jeff Flake ( R-Ariz. ) to listen as she detailed her sexual assault experience and criticism of his support for Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation to the Supreme Court .
CNN captured her upbraiding on camera , and the encounter went viral—a series of events after which Flake called for an additional FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations made against Kavanaugh .
Archila had spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of immigration rights and now as the co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy , a New York-based progressive advocacy group .
But her encounter with Flake marked the first time she and CPD had mobilized around a Supreme Court nomination .
The group hadn ’ t gotten involved when President Donald Trump nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch to the court , Archila explains , channeling its energies instead to mass disruptions to defend the Affordable Care Act against the GOP-held Congress ’ efforts to dismantle it .
But in April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed a lawsuit that threatened to undermine the constitutionality of the ACA—a lawsuit that would be settled by the Supreme Court .
“ We came to protect our health care , save our families from deportation , and protect our right to abortion , ” Archila says of CPD ’ s decision to engage in the Kavanaugh fight .
Over the last few months , CPD has teamed up with Demand Justice , a liberal group focused on judicial advocacy and reform , to hold a series of webinars about how a Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a progressive agenda .
As part of the series , Archila hosted a conversation with lawyers , policy experts , and young immigrants who were plaintiffs on the DACA case before the Supreme Court last term .
It was the “ first time people were talking about the centrality of the Supreme Court to immigrant youth , ” Archila explains .
“ Laying down the groundwork for embracing the fight around the [ Supreme ] Court is really important.
” And in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s passing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education efforts as they embark on a mass mobilization effort to stop the Senate from confirming Trump ’ s third Supreme Court nominee .
The story of Kavanaugh as a galvanizing force is a one repeated across the progressive movement .
The Working Families Party had focused each of its state-based organizations to electing candidates at local , state , and federal levels who would champion a progressive agenda .
Indivisible had trained its more than 1 million members on congressional advocacy , touching upon the judiciary only in the context of House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevertheless , both mobilized during the Kavanaugh confirmation—an effort that relied on a fair degree of “ spontaneity , ” Maurice Mitchell , the national director of the Working Families Party , tells me .
“ In the past , progressives have treated these court fights as insider battles among the larger , DC-based legal institutions , ” he explained .
“ This felt very different—it was a resistance moment.
” It ’ s been the right ’ s base , not the left ’ s , that ’ s trained its electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ On our side , there hasn ’ t been that level of clear political education , ” Mitchell says , but the Trump presidency has been “ a crash course in our courts.
” Though decisions the 5-4 conservative majority made this term on abortion , indigenous rights , and LBGTQ rights steered clear of liberals ’ worst fears , much of the Democratic agenda still rests in its hands : A case on the constitutionality of the ACA , for example , will appear before the Supreme Court just a week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s confirmation just before the House-flipping 2018 midterms and the 2020 Democratic presidential primary , groups like Demand Justice stepped in to formalize progressives ’ education .
It took the lead in pressing both progressive voters and the candidates to focus on the Supreme Court as an electoral issue .
In February , Demand Justice teamed up with reproductive rights groups NARAL Pro-Choice and the Center for Reproductive Rights for the first-ever presidential forum focused exclusively on the federal judiciary .
( Every Democratic candidate besides Joe Biden included a plan for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their policy platforms , according to a Buzzfeed News analysis from last September . )
In the spring , Demand Justice conducted focus groups and polling that found concern among progressive and moderate voters over Trump ’ s appointments to the Supreme Court and a perception that it had become too politicized under him .
That prompted the group to launch the Supreme Court Voter project to inform liberals about how the Supreme Court interacts with issues near and dear to them .
So far , the project has trained 600 activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s focus on court appointments and how the rulings from the Roberts Court have railroaded the progressive agenda .
The end goal is to have Supreme Court “ evangelists ” who are equipped to energize their fellow progressives on the issue , says Tamara Brummer , a senior advisor and director of outreach and engagement with Demand Justice .
“ When RBG passed , we had already been building a muscle , and activists were ready to go , ” Brummer says .
“ We ’ re not having to tell folks ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ” Demand Justice , which has vowed to spend $ 10 million on the cause , is continuing with trainings and organizing events to mobilize against Trump ’ s nominee , who he says he ’ ll announce at the end of the week .
The group teamed up with Center for Popular Democracy , Working Families Party , and five other progressive groups to host an organizing call with Democratic senators on Sunday evening to encourage supporters to ramp up both electoral outreach and pressure GOP senators to not support a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Ginsburg ’ s death , Indivisible volunteers flooded voters with half a million phone calls and text messages , breaking the group ’ s single-day record for voter contact attempt .
Progressives ’ willingness to donate their time had been matched by those willing to open their wallets : On Friday night , donors shattered fundraising records on ActBlue , a liberal donation processing site , as they rushed to support Democratic candidates and causes , giving at a rate that topped $ 100,000 per minute in the hours immediately following Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenberg says the outpouring is “ a culmination of several trends , ” an education in the Supreme Court ’ s importance being just one of them .
With only six weeks before Election Day , volunteers had already been thinking about electoral implications—unlike 2018 , the Senate map is much more favorable to Democrats , and concerns that progressives wouldn ’ t mobilize around Joe Biden proved to be shortsighted .
The passing of a liberal icon like Ginsburg , too , is its own motivating force .
“ People who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the phone bank here and there ’ are now saying ‘ I want to phone bank as much as possible , ’ ” says Emily Phelps , Indivisible ’ s communications director .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Almost two years ago to the day, Ana Maria Archila wedged herself between the doors of an elevator in the bowels of the US Senate’s serpentine basement corridors and forced Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to listen as she detailed her sexual assault experience and criticism of his support for Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. CNN captured her upbraiding on camera, and the encounter went viral—a series of events after which Flake called for an additional FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations made against Kavanaugh.
Archila had spent two decades as an organizer, first on behalf of immigration rights and now as the co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, a New York-based progressive advocacy group. But her encounter with Flake marked the first time she and CPD had mobilized around a Supreme Court nomination. The group hadn’t gotten involved when President Donald Trump nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch to the court, Archila explains, channeling its energies instead to mass disruptions to defend the Affordable Care Act against the GOP-held Congress’ efforts to dismantle it. But in April 2018, Texas and 19 other states filed a lawsuit that threatened to undermine the constitutionality of the ACA—a lawsuit that would be settled by the Supreme Court. “We came to protect our health care, save our families from deportation, and protect our right to abortion,” Archila says of CPD’s decision to engage in the Kavanaugh fight.
Over the last few months, CPD has teamed up with Demand Justice, a liberal group focused on judicial advocacy and reform, to hold a series of webinars about how a Supreme Court stacked with GOP appointees could railroad a progressive agenda. As part of the series, Archila hosted a conversation with lawyers, policy experts, and young immigrants who were plaintiffs on the DACA case before the Supreme Court last term. It was the “first time people were talking about the centrality of the Supreme Court to immigrant youth,” Archila explains. “Laying down the groundwork for embracing the fight around the [Supreme] Court is really important.”
And in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, progressives are ready to capitalize on those education efforts as they embark on a mass mobilization effort to stop the Senate from confirming Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee.
The story of Kavanaugh as a galvanizing force is a one repeated across the progressive movement. The Working Families Party had focused each of its state-based organizations to electing candidates at local, state, and federal levels who would champion a progressive agenda. Indivisible had trained its more than 1 million members on congressional advocacy, touching upon the judiciary only in the context of House Democrats’ landmark democracy reform bill. Nevertheless, both mobilized during the Kavanaugh confirmation—an effort that relied on a fair degree of “spontaneity,” Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the Working Families Party, tells me. “In the past, progressives have treated these court fights as insider battles among the larger, DC-based legal institutions,” he explained. “This felt very different—it was a resistance moment.”
“When RBG passed, we had already been building a muscle, and activists were ready to go.”
It’s been the right’s base, not the left’s, that’s trained its electoral and activism focus on court appointments. “On our side, there hasn’t been that level of clear political education,” Mitchell says, but the Trump presidency has been “a crash course in our courts.” Though decisions the 5-4 conservative majority made this term on abortion, indigenous rights, and LBGTQ rights steered clear of liberals’ worst fears, much of the Democratic agenda still rests in its hands: A case on the constitutionality of the ACA, for example, will appear before the Supreme Court just a week after Election Day.
With Kavanaugh’s confirmation just before the House-flipping 2018 midterms and the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, groups like Demand Justice stepped in to formalize progressives’ education. It took the lead in pressing both progressive voters and the candidates to focus on the Supreme Court as an electoral issue. In February, Demand Justice teamed up with reproductive rights groups NARAL Pro-Choice and the Center for Reproductive Rights for the first-ever presidential forum focused exclusively on the federal judiciary. (Every Democratic candidate besides Joe Biden included a plan for the Supreme Court or federal courts as part of their policy platforms, according to a Buzzfeed News analysis from last September.)
In the spring, Demand Justice conducted focus groups and polling that found concern among progressive and moderate voters over Trump’s appointments to the Supreme Court and a perception that it had become too politicized under him. That prompted the group to launch the Supreme Court Voter project to inform liberals about how the Supreme Court interacts with issues near and dear to them. So far, the project has trained 600 activists on the history of the right’s focus on court appointments and how the rulings from the Roberts Court have railroaded the progressive agenda. The end goal is to have Supreme Court “evangelists” who are equipped to energize their fellow progressives on the issue, says Tamara Brummer, a senior advisor and director of outreach and engagement with Demand Justice. “When RBG passed, we had already been building a muscle, and activists were ready to go,” Brummer says. “We’re not having to tell folks ‘this is something you need to do.’”
Demand Justice, which has vowed to spend $10 million on the cause, is continuing with trainings and organizing events to mobilize against Trump’s nominee, who he says he’ll announce at the end of the week. The group teamed up with Center for Popular Democracy, Working Families Party, and five other progressive groups to host an organizing call with Democratic senators on Sunday evening to encourage supporters to ramp up both electoral outreach and pressure GOP senators to not support a confirmation before Inauguration Day. The day after Ginsburg’s death, Indivisible volunteers flooded voters with half a million phone calls and text messages, breaking the group’s single-day record for voter contact attempt. Progressives’ willingness to donate their time had been matched by those willing to open their wallets: On Friday night, donors shattered fundraising records on ActBlue, a liberal donation processing site, as they rushed to support Democratic candidates and causes, giving at a rate that topped $100,000 per minute in the hours immediately following Ginsburg’s death.
Indivisible co-founder Leah Greenberg says the outpouring is “a culmination of several trends,” an education in the Supreme Court’s importance being just one of them. With only six weeks before Election Day, volunteers had already been thinking about electoral implications—unlike 2018, the Senate map is much more favorable to Democrats, and concerns that progressives wouldn’t mobilize around Joe Biden proved to be shortsighted. The passing of a liberal icon like Ginsburg, too, is its own motivating force. “People who were thinking, ‘I want to pick up the phone bank here and there’ are now saying ‘I want to phone bank as much as possible,’” says Emily Phelps, Indivisible’s communications director.


motherjones--2020-09-22--Mike Pompeo Has Turbocharged the State Department’s War on LGBTQ Rights

Last month , in a video seemingly devoid of irony , former ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell declared that “ President Trump is the most pro-gay president in American history.
” Believable perhaps if one ’ s head has been buried in sand for three years , Grenell ’ s video was part of an outreach effort by Log Cabin Republicans and other right-leaning groups hoping to persuade LGBTQ voters to back Trump .
Left out was any mention of the steady , faith-based crusade taking place in Trump ’ s State Department , where anti-LGTBQ views and policies have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pompeo .
Pompeo , who took over at Foggy Bottom in April 2018 , has long opposed same-sex marriage and once described homosexuality as a “ perversion.
” He ’ s maintained close ties with the Family Research Council—a Christian lobbying group that believes “ every person is defined by their immutable , in-born biological sex ” —and frequently sits for interviews with its leader , Tony Perkins .
Pompeo has made no secret of his reliance on conservative Christian values to guide his decisions at State .
Last year , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian leader ” to members of a Christian mental health counseling organization that , in its code of ethics , says , “ Christian counselors do not condone or advocate for the pursuit of or active involvement in homosexual , bisexual or transgendered behaviors and lifestyles.
” But even by Pompeo ’ s standards , the State Department ’ s recent anti-LGBTQ agenda has been shocking .
Last year , he unveiled a specious Commission on Unalienable Rights , charged with separating what he described as “ unalienable ” rights from the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The commission ’ s final report , released last month , unsurprisingly deemed marriage equality and abortion as “ divisive social and political controversies , ” not rights worthy of the same esteem as , say , religious freedom .
Since the publication of the report , Pompeo has pushed the commission ’ s findings internally and set up an event centered on the report at the United Nations General Assembly .
With the commission ’ s views underpinning department policy , State officials have barred embassies from flying Pride flags , denied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on US passports , and refused to sign several international statements recognizing the human rights of LGBTQ people .
“ I think there has been a steady drumbeat of anti-LGBTI efforts , ” says Mark Bromley , chair of the Council for Global Equality , which advocates for global LGBTQ rights as a central part of American foreign policy .
“ There was a steady trickle of that over the past three years , ” he added , “ but it seems to be coming to a head in a number of different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of several government bodies in the Trump era that has become more hostile to LGBTQ people , especially transgender people .
The Defense Department banned trans people from serving openly in the military—and then falsely claimed it hadn ’ t done so .
The Department of Education rescinded Obama-era guidance allowing trans students to use their preferred bathroom , while the Health and Human Services Department attempted to roll back protections that prevent insurers and medical providers from engaging in anti-trans discrimination .
( A federal judge blocked the HHS proposal last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the breadth and shamelessness of its attacks on LGBTQ rights .
The US delegation to the United Nations has spent the last three years pushing to remove neutral descriptors like “ gender ” from documents promoting human rights and rights for women .
In one draft report on human trafficking from October 2018 , the United States wanted to replace the phrase “ gender-based violence ” with “ violence against women , ” the Guardian reported .
A State Department spokesperson said at the time that the move was not part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But at a UN conference the following year , US negotiators again sought to amend a document about gender equality to clarify that it “ was referring only to women and girls , ” Foreign Policy reported .
As if there was any ambiguity about the motivation behind the effort , Ambassador Cherith Norman Chalet , Trump ’ s acting deputy representative to the UN , removed any doubt when she defended the US position in a March 2019 speech .
“ Let ’ s be clear—we are not about gender jargon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about women .
Women and girls .
The life of all women and girls.
” The department has been engulfed by internal controversies , as well .
A State employee told the department ’ s inspector general that Mari Stull—a former wine blogger who joined State ’ s International Organization bureau—had “ raised objections ” to a candidate for the role of deputy director for the Office of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs because of that candidate ’ s past work on Palestinian refugee issues and “ on gay and lesbian rights.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s report , other employees said they ’ d “ heard similar criticism ” of the candidate by Stull , who left the department last year .
Another employee contacted the IG ’ s office after being “ disturbed ” by a conversation with former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Kevin Moley , who had allegedly said Stull did not find the candidate to be “ trustworthy ” because of the candidate ’ s Palestinian rights work and “ relationship with the gay and lesbian community.
” In an interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing Stull criticize the staffer ’ s ties to the LGBTQ community .
Stull declined to speak with the IG ’ s office for its report and did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones .
For his part , Pompeo has done little to combat anti-LGBTQ attitudes among his subordinates .
“ State is led by someone who unabashedly opposes marriage for same-sex couples , who has elevated other anti-LGBTQ people to positions of power within his agency , where they are then able to ingrain their discriminatory views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of Equity Forward , an advocacy group that promotes reproductive rights and equality for LGBTQ people .
Even ostensible efforts by the State Department to support LGBTQ people have run into headwinds under Pompeo .
Months before he praised Trump as the “ most pro-gay president in American history , ” Grenell launched an international push to decriminalize homosexuality .
Even though Trump at first appeared not to know the effort even existed , he eventually warmed to it and tweeted approvingly of this “ global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiative has not accomplished much .
As I reported last year , Grenell ’ s work in Berlin did not seem to be well-coordinated with the officials working under Pompeo in Washington .
Any effort to decriminalize homosexuality abroad would likely need to be run through State ’ s Bureau of Democracy , Human Rights and Labor .
But the bureau ’ s staff was left out of the loop , and its Senate-confirmed leader , Robert Destro , seems to be aligned more with Pompeo ’ s worldview than with Grenell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that same-sex couples are not protected under sex discrimination laws and once described marriage between a man and woman as “ the very institution on which the entire natural , legal and social order depends.
” When asked if Grenell ’ s initiative was still ongoing , a State spokesperson said the department “ works tirelessly ” to protect the human rights of all people , adding , “ The United States advances LGBTI rights through bilateral and multilateral channels , raising official concerns with governments both publicly and privately , coordinating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offering emergency assistance to LGBTI persons at risk.
” If the State Department under Trump was actually serious about helping LGBTQ people , it could start by reversing discriminatory policies created under past administrations .
Animosity toward Obama-era regulations is , after all , a defining feature of the current administration .
But State has actually waged a series of bitter legal battles to preserve anti-LGBTQ policies left over from Trump ’ s predecessors .
In one such case , Dana Zzyym , an intersex Navy veteran , sued the State Department in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide them with a passport that identified their gender as neither male nor female .
After a federal judge in Colorado ruled in Zzyym ’ s favor in 2018 , the State Department , by then under Pompeo ’ s leadership , appealed .
In May , a federal appeals court noted that requiring Zzyym to select a gender that ’ s not their own “ injects inaccuracy into the data ” and ordered the department to reconsider Zzyym ’ s application .
Late last month , the department appealed a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child who had been born outside the country to a gay couple via a surrogate .
Under a policy that predates the Trump administration , the State Department does not consider children born abroad to be citizens unless they have a genetic relationship to an American parent .
Just over a year ago , Roee Kiviti and his husband , Adiel , sat in a federal building in West Los Angeles , waiting for their daughter ’ s passport to be approved .
She had been born via a surrogate in Canada , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Having already gone through the same process when their first child—a son who had been born using Roee ’ s genetic material—they didn ’ t expect much trouble .
But the process quickly turned into a nightmare .
After initially granting her a passport , the State Department ended up denying her application .
The Kivitis soon became one of several recent couples to sue over the policy , which they believe is needlessly discriminatory against same-sex parents and their children .
Roee told me that straight couple after straight couple walked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while he and Adiel were questioned about their daughter ’ s parentage .
Even though the Kivitis are married and are both US citizens , their child was considered by State officials to be “ born out of wedlock.
” Under the department ’ s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 , Adiel would have needed to reside in the United States for five years prior to their daughter ’ s birth for her to be considered a citizen at birth .
Because he had not , State officials denied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , a federal judge concluded that the department ’ s interpretation of the law “ appears to advantage certain opposite-sex couples as compared to same-sex couples ” and ordered that the Kivitis ’ daughter be considered a US citizen by birth .
The State Department insists that its policy is meant to be neutral and is not targeted at same-sex couples .
And Grenell , when pressed for his views on the matter , claimed it has “ nothing to do with being gay.
” Congressional Democrats disagree .
Last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinly veiled attack on L.G.B.T.Q .
Americans ” and urged Pompeo to rescind it .
Three federal judges have now ruled against the administration on the matter .
But the State Department has chosen to continuing fighting in court , filing an appeal that could result in the Kivitis ’ daughter losing her passport .
“ It ’ s infuriating , ” Roee Kiviti told me .
“ Not just to me as the parent , as the plaintiff , as an LGBTQ parent , but as an American whose tax dollars are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Last month, in a video seemingly devoid of irony, former ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell declared that “President Trump is the most pro-gay president in American history.” Believable perhaps if one’s head has been buried in sand for three years, Grenell’s video was part of an outreach effort by Log Cabin Republicans and other right-leaning groups hoping to persuade LGBTQ voters to back Trump.
Left out was any mention of the steady, faith-based crusade taking place in Trump’s State Department, where anti-LGTBQ views and policies have increasingly become standard under the leadership of Mike Pompeo.
“There has been a steady drumbeat of anti-LGBTI efforts.”
Pompeo, who took over at Foggy Bottom in April 2018, has long opposed same-sex marriage and once described homosexuality as a “perversion.” He’s maintained close ties with the Family Research Council—a Christian lobbying group that believes “every person is defined by their immutable, in-born biological sex”—and frequently sits for interviews with its leader, Tony Perkins. Pompeo has made no secret of his reliance on conservative Christian values to guide his decisions at State. Last year, he gave a speech on “being a Christian leader” to members of a Christian mental health counseling organization that, in its code of ethics, says, “Christian counselors do not condone or advocate for the pursuit of or active involvement in homosexual, bisexual or transgendered behaviors and lifestyles.”
But even by Pompeo’s standards, the State Department’s recent anti-LGBTQ agenda has been shocking. Last year, he unveiled a specious Commission on Unalienable Rights, charged with separating what he described as “unalienable” rights from the kind created by “politicians and bureaucrats.” The commission’s final report, released last month, unsurprisingly deemed marriage equality and abortion as “divisive social and political controversies,” not rights worthy of the same esteem as, say, religious freedom. Since the publication of the report, Pompeo has pushed the commission’s findings internally and set up an event centered on the report at the United Nations General Assembly.
With the commission’s views underpinning department policy, State officials have barred embassies from flying Pride flags, denied intersex and non-binary people a gender-neutral option on US passports, and refused to sign several international statements recognizing the human rights of LGBTQ people. “I think there has been a steady drumbeat of anti-LGBTI efforts,” says Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, which advocates for global LGBTQ rights as a central part of American foreign policy. “There was a steady trickle of that over the past three years,” he added, “but it seems to be coming to a head in a number of different places.”
The State Department is just one of several government bodies in the Trump era that has become more hostile to LGBTQ people, especially transgender people. The Defense Department banned trans people from serving openly in the military—and then falsely claimed it hadn’t done so. The Department of Education rescinded Obama-era guidance allowing trans students to use their preferred bathroom, while the Health and Human Services Department attempted to roll back protections that prevent insurers and medical providers from engaging in anti-trans discrimination. (A federal judge blocked the HHS proposal last month.)
What distinguishes Foggy Bottom is the breadth and shamelessness of its attacks on LGBTQ rights. The US delegation to the United Nations has spent the last three years pushing to remove neutral descriptors like “gender” from documents promoting human rights and rights for women. In one draft report on human trafficking from October 2018, the United States wanted to replace the phrase “gender-based violence” with “violence against women,” the Guardian reported. A State Department spokesperson said at the time that the move was not part of an effort to exclude transgender people. But at a UN conference the following year, US negotiators again sought to amend a document about gender equality to clarify that it “was referring only to women and girls,” Foreign Policy reported. As if there was any ambiguity about the motivation behind the effort, Ambassador Cherith Norman Chalet, Trump’s acting deputy representative to the UN, removed any doubt when she defended the US position in a March 2019 speech. “Let’s be clear—we are not about gender jargon,” she said. “We are about women. Women and girls. The life of all women and girls.”
The department has been engulfed by internal controversies, as well. A State employee told the department’s inspector general that Mari Stull—a former wine blogger who joined State’s International Organization bureau—had “raised objections” to a candidate for the role of deputy director for the Office of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs because of that candidate’s past work on Palestinian refugee issues and “on gay and lesbian rights.” According to a 2019 inspector general’s report, other employees said they’d “heard similar criticism” of the candidate by Stull, who left the department last year. Another employee contacted the IG’s office after being “disturbed” by a conversation with former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Kevin Moley, who had allegedly said Stull did not find the candidate to be “trustworthy” because of the candidate’s Palestinian rights work and “relationship with the gay and lesbian community.” In an interview with the IG, Moley denied ever hearing Stull criticize the staffer’s ties to the LGBTQ community. Stull declined to speak with the IG’s office for its report and did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.
For his part, Pompeo has done little to combat anti-LGBTQ attitudes among his subordinates. “State is led by someone who unabashedly opposes marriage for same-sex couples, who has elevated other anti-LGBTQ people to positions of power within his agency, where they are then able to ingrain their discriminatory views into policy,” Molly Bangs, director of Equity Forward, an advocacy group that promotes reproductive rights and equality for LGBTQ people.
Even ostensible efforts by the State Department to support LGBTQ people have run into headwinds under Pompeo. Months before he praised Trump as the “most pro-gay president in American history,” Grenell launched an international push to decriminalize homosexuality. Even though Trump at first appeared not to know the effort even existed, he eventually warmed to it and tweeted approvingly of this “global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality.” But outside of a few meetings, this initiative has not accomplished much.
As I reported last year, Grenell’s work in Berlin did not seem to be well-coordinated with the officials working under Pompeo in Washington. Any effort to decriminalize homosexuality abroad would likely need to be run through State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. But the bureau’s staff was left out of the loop, and its Senate-confirmed leader, Robert Destro, seems to be aligned more with Pompeo’s worldview than with Grenell’s. Before entering government, Destro argued that same-sex couples are not protected under sex discrimination laws and once described marriage between a man and woman as “the very institution on which the entire natural, legal and social order depends.”
When asked if Grenell’s initiative was still ongoing, a State spokesperson said the department “works tirelessly” to protect the human rights of all people, adding, “The United States advances LGBTI rights through bilateral and multilateral channels, raising official concerns with governments both publicly and privately, coordinating our response with like-minded countries, and offering emergency assistance to LGBTI persons at risk.”
If the State Department under Trump was actually serious about helping LGBTQ people, it could start by reversing discriminatory policies created under past administrations. Animosity toward Obama-era regulations is, after all, a defining feature of the current administration. But State has actually waged a series of bitter legal battles to preserve anti-LGBTQ policies left over from Trump’s predecessors.
In one such case, Dana Zzyym, an intersex Navy veteran, sued the State Department in 2015 over the department’s refusal to provide them with a passport that identified their gender as neither male nor female. After a federal judge in Colorado ruled in Zzyym’s favor in 2018, the State Department, by then under Pompeo’s leadership, appealed. In May, a federal appeals court noted that requiring Zzyym to select a gender that’s not their own “injects inaccuracy into the data” and ordered the department to reconsider Zzyym’s application.
Late last month, the department appealed a federal court ruling that granted citizenship to a child who had been born outside the country to a gay couple via a surrogate. Under a policy that predates the Trump administration, the State Department does not consider children born abroad to be citizens unless they have a genetic relationship to an American parent.
Just over a year ago, Roee Kiviti and his husband, Adiel, sat in a federal building in West Los Angeles, waiting for their daughter’s passport to be approved. She had been born via a surrogate in Canada, using Adiel’s genetic material. Having already gone through the same process when their first child—a son who had been born using Roee’s genetic material—they didn’t expect much trouble. But the process quickly turned into a nightmare. After initially granting her a passport, the State Department ended up denying her application. The Kivitis soon became one of several recent couples to sue over the policy, which they believe is needlessly discriminatory against same-sex parents and their children.
Roee told me that straight couple after straight couple walked by him to get the necessary paperwork, while he and Adiel were questioned about their daughter’s parentage. Even though the Kivitis are married and are both US citizens, their child was considered by State officials to be “born out of wedlock.” Under the department’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Adiel would have needed to reside in the United States for five years prior to their daughter’s birth for her to be considered a citizen at birth. Because he had not, State officials denied the request.
In the Kivitis’ case, a federal judge concluded that the department’s interpretation of the law “appears to advantage certain opposite-sex couples as compared to same-sex couples” and ordered that the Kivitis’ daughter be considered a US citizen by birth.
The State Department insists that its policy is meant to be neutral and is not targeted at same-sex couples. And Grenell, when pressed for his views on the matter, claimed it has “nothing to do with being gay.” Congressional Democrats disagree. Last year, they blasted the policy as “a thinly veiled attack on L.G.B.T.Q. Americans” and urged Pompeo to rescind it.
Three federal judges have now ruled against the administration on the matter. But the State Department has chosen to continuing fighting in court, filing an appeal that could result in the Kivitis’ daughter losing her passport.
“It’s infuriating,” Roee Kiviti told me. “Not just to me as the parent, as the plaintiff, as an LGBTQ parent, but as an American whose tax dollars are being wasted to fight our family.”


motherjones--2020-09-22--Romney Backs a Vote on Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Before the Election

Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) announced his support to move forward with a Senate vote on President Donald Trump ’ s pick to replace the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , essentially clearing the path for Trump to confirm his third nominee to the high court .
Romney ’ s backing comes seven months after his vote to impeach the president .
“ My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘ fairness ’ which , like beauty , is in the eye of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement on Tuesday .
“ It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law , which in this case is the Constitution and precedent.
” “ I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president ’ s nominee.
” he continued .
“ If the nominee reaches the Senate floor , I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.
” If Democrats stand united in their opposition to Trump ’ s nominee , four Republican senators are needed in order to successfully block a vote .
But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) and Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) —have said that they wouldn ’ t support a vote .
“ I will be announcing my Supreme Court Nominee on Saturday , at the White House !
” Trump said in a tweet Tuesday .
“ Exact time TBA .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) announced his support to move forward with a Senate vote on President Donald Trump’s pick to replace the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, essentially clearing the path for Trump to confirm his third nominee to the high court.
Romney’s backing comes seven months after his vote to impeach the president.
“My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder,” Romney said in a statement on Tuesday. “It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent.”
“I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee.” he continued. “If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”
BREAKING: GOP Sen. Mitt Romney announces that he will support a vote on President Trump's expected Supreme Court nominee this year, saying, "at this stage, it's appropriate to look at the Constitution." https://t.co/gWbBdqaaE2 pic.twitter.com/6fqIavmNiS — ABC News (@ABC) September 22, 2020
If Democrats stand united in their opposition to Trump’s nominee, four Republican senators are needed in order to successfully block a vote. But as of Tuesday, only two Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)—have said that they wouldn’t support a vote. “I will be announcing my Supreme Court Nominee on Saturday, at the White House!” Trump said in a tweet Tuesday. “Exact time TBA.”


motherjones--2020-09-23--Trump Is Trashing the Constitution to Stay in Power

Before there was a United States of America , there was a postal system .
Revolutionaries like Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson hatched their plans using underground postal networks known as committees of correspondence .
In 1775 , a year before the Declaration of Independence , the Continental Congress created the Post Office Department and named Benjamin Franklin the first postmaster general .
American democracy expanded with the postal system , one of the only institutions that bound the new nation together and aimed to serve the many rather than the few .
The Post Office Act of 1792 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mailing of newspapers , laying the groundwork for an informed citizenry .
It also made it a crime for the government to interfere with the mail .
When the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s , he marveled at the young country ’ s postal system—it had twice as many post offices as Great Britain and five times as many as France .
The United States ’ progressive ideals traveled with the mail .
Abolitionists sent anti-slavery publications to the South before the Civil War .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had the right to vote , and hired 243 Black postmasters during the 19th century .
Ten of the pallbearers at Frederick Douglass ’ funeral were mail carriers .
There ’ s a reason why the United States Postal Service remains the most popular government institution , with a 91 percent approval rating .
At a time of widening inequality , it costs the same amount to mail a domestic letter no matter where you live .
Even in the digital age , the mail remains essential for businesses to serve customers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and for Americans of all stripes to get pandemic supplies like masks—and cast their ballots .
Winifred Gallagher , author of How the Post Office Created America , calls it “ the central nervous system of American democracy.
” Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast : Subscribe using Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or your favorite podcast app .
The post office has often been politicized ; presidents , most notoriously Andrew Jackson , appointed loyalists as postmaster general and rewarded supporters with postal jobs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever sought to sabotage the institution ’ s workings to win reelection .
Nor has any president installed a postmaster general like Louis DeJoy , the Republican megadonor who in record time instituted a dizzying array of changes—eliminating overtime , displacing 23 top executives , reducing post office hours—that seem designed to further the GOP ’ s long-term goal of privatizing the post office and its short-term goal of suppressing mail-in votes cast by Democrats .
( Following public outcry , he agreed to suspend some of the changes until after the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes , calling them “ an intentional effort on the part of the current Administration to disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local , state , and federal elections.
” ) Earlier this year , before DeJoy took over , the USPS delivered 590 million pieces of mail to households across the country for the 2020 census , the largest first-class mailing in its history .
The census sets the course for the next decade of American democracy : It determines how $ 1.5 trillion in federal funding is allocated , how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states receive , and how state and federal legislative districts are drawn .
Like the USPS , the census has been around since the country ’ s founding .
Barely 100 words into its first article , the Constitution calls for an “ enumeration ” of the “ whole number of free persons ” every 10 years .
( Native Americans were excluded from the census until 1860 , and Black Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person until the 14th Amendment declared that the “ whole number of persons in each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And like the post office , the census is in unprecedented danger from an administration determined to ignore the Constitution to preserve its own power .
Whom the census counts and doesn ’ t count has always been politically charged .
After the 1920 tally revealed that the majority of Americans lived in cities , the rural-dominated House of Representatives refused to use census data for congressional reapportionment for the first and only time in US history .
Instead , Congress passed sweeping curbs on immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe to preserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , the Census Bureau has failed to accurately count communities of color .
The 2010 census was the most accurate yet , but it still overcounted white people while missing millions of Latinos , Black people , and Native Americans .
Until now , however , no administration has sought to manipulate the census to deliberately distort the results .
In 2018 , the Trump administration announced that it would add a question to the census about citizenship status , a move that seemed certain to depress immigrant participation until the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Undeterred , the administration said it would not count undocumented immigrants for congressional apportionment , a move constitutional experts called a violation of the 14th Amendment .
The administration ’ s efforts to undermine the census have repeatedly been thwarted in court .
In September , federal judges temporarily restored the full enumeration period and blocked Trump ’ s scheme to exclude undocumented immigrants from congressional apportionment .
But the damage may have already been done .
Experts are warning that the census data could be so skewed that Congress chooses to reject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time not for sinister reasons , but for the good of the country .
“ I ’ m really concerned there might be some really serious errors with the census , ” says John Thompson , who directed the Census Bureau from 2013 to 2017 .
“ It ’ s definitely a possibility .
It could be seriously flawed.
” In early August , as the Census Bureau was finally dispatching workers to knock on doors in hard-to-count areas after months of delay due to COVID-19 , the administration announced that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That gave enumerators less than eight weeks to track down the 40 percent of households that had not yet filled out the census form—disproportionately in communities of color .
Trump defended his move to exclude undocumented immigrants from congressional apportionment by claiming that it “ reflects a better understanding of the Constitution.
” What the administration ’ s actions really reflect is an emphatic repudiation of the Constitution .
The census and the postal service are two of the essential domestic governmental operations specifically mentioned in the founding document .
Over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it more difficult to vote , but Trump ’ s war on the USPS and the Census Bureau represents a dramatic escalation of his party ’ s anti-democratic agenda ; rather than pursuing disenfranchisement of people of color and Democrats within the bounds of the Constitution , he ’ s seeking to eviscerate those limits .
He is working to transform long-standing nonpartisan institutions into explicitly partisan ones , shifting their essential mission from serving all Americans to furthering only the interests of a shrinking minority : white conservatives .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the benefit of his ruling clique bears an eerie resemblance to the slide toward authoritarianism in other countries .
“ The practice of taking highly legitimate , effective institutions of the state and politicizing and using them for short-term political advantage is page one of the authoritarian playbook , ” says Steven Levitsky , a professor of government at Harvard and co-author of How Democracies Die .
By eroding Americans ’ confidence in the census , the administration may already be accomplishing its goal of rigging the count in its favor .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that people sit it out because they don ’ t trust the administration , ” says Vanita Gupta , who led the Justice Department ’ s Civil Rights Division under Barack Obama and is now president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights .
The same thing could happen with the post office : If voters are afraid to vote in person yet believe that postal delays will cause their mail-in ballots not to be counted , they may decide not to vote at all .
( More than 550,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s primaries , a huge increase from 2016 . )
During a testy congressional hearing in August , DeJoy promised , “ I am not engaged in sabotaging the election.
” The same day , Trump delivered an ominous speech at the Republican National Convention in which he accused Democrats of “ using covid to steal an election ” by expanding mail-in voting and said , “ The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election.
” If the census and postal service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power are the bedrock principles that define it .
Trump has already signaled he may not abide by either .
The extraordinary efforts to undermine the mail and census should prepare us for the possibility of an even more egregious abuse of power to keep Trump in office .
“ A lot of this is laying the groundwork for calling into question the legitimacy of the election in November , ” Gupta says .
It ’ s not difficult to imagine an Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on his lead among in-person votes , which are quicker to tally than mail-in votes in many states and are expected to lean more Republican .
Trump then seeks to invalidate the mail-in ballots that favor Democrats before they ’ re counted .
Republican-controlled legislatures in Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin intervene on his behalf .
In a Bush v. Gore redux , the Supreme Court ’ s conservative majority cuts the count short or invalidates enough votes to install Trump for a second term .
If that happens , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy can survive Trump .
We ’ ll already know that it hasn ’ t .

Before there was a United States of America, there was a postal system. Revolutionaries like Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson hatched their plans using underground postal networks known as committees of correspondence. In 1775, a year before the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress created the Post Office Department and named Benjamin Franklin the first postmaster general.
American democracy expanded with the postal system, one of the only institutions that bound the new nation together and aimed to serve the many rather than the few. The Post Office Act of 1792, signed by George Washington, heavily subsidized the mailing of newspapers, laying the groundwork for an informed citizenry. It also made it a crime for the government to interfere with the mail. When the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, he marveled at the young country’s postal system—it had twice as many post offices as Great Britain and five times as many as France. The United States’ progressive ideals traveled with the mail. Abolitionists sent anti-slavery publications to the South before the Civil War. The postal system employed women before they had the right to vote, and hired 243 Black postmasters during the 19th century. Ten of the pallbearers at Frederick Douglass’ funeral were mail carriers.
There’s a reason why the United States Postal Service remains the most popular government institution, with a 91 percent approval rating. At a time of widening inequality, it costs the same amount to mail a domestic letter no matter where you live. Even in the digital age, the mail remains essential for businesses to serve customers, for seniors and veterans to receive medicine, and for Americans of all stripes to get pandemic supplies like masks—and cast their ballots. Winifred Gallagher, author of How the Post Office Created America, calls it “the central nervous system of American democracy.”
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
The post office has often been politicized; presidents, most notoriously Andrew Jackson, appointed loyalists as postmaster general and rewarded supporters with postal jobs. But no president before Donald Trump has ever sought to sabotage the institution’s workings to win reelection. Nor has any president installed a postmaster general like Louis DeJoy, the Republican megadonor who in record time instituted a dizzying array of changes—eliminating overtime, displacing 23 top executives, reducing post office hours—that seem designed to further the GOP’s long-term goal of privatizing the post office and its short-term goal of suppressing mail-in votes cast by Democrats. (Following public outcry, he agreed to suspend some of the changes until after the election. A federal judge later blocked other changes, calling them “an intentional effort on the part of the current Administration to disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local, state, and federal elections.”)
Earlier this year, before DeJoy took over, the USPS delivered 590 million pieces of mail to households across the country for the 2020 census, the largest first-class mailing in its history. The census sets the course for the next decade of American democracy: It determines how $1.5 trillion in federal funding is allocated, how many congressional seats and Electoral College votes states receive, and how state and federal legislative districts are drawn.
Like the USPS, the census has been around since the country’s founding. Barely 100 words into its first article, the Constitution calls for an “enumeration” of the “whole number of free persons” every 10 years. (Native Americans were excluded from the census until 1860, and Black Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person until the 14th Amendment declared that the “whole number of persons in each state” must be counted.) And like the post office, the census is in unprecedented danger from an administration determined to ignore the Constitution to preserve its own power.
Whom the census counts and doesn’t count has always been politically charged. After the 1920 tally revealed that the majority of Americans lived in cities, the rural-dominated House of Representatives refused to use census data for congressional reapportionment for the first and only time in US history. Instead, Congress passed sweeping curbs on immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe to preserve rural white Protestant power. Throughout its history, the Census Bureau has failed to accurately count communities of color. The 2010 census was the most accurate yet, but it still overcounted white people while missing millions of Latinos, Black people, and Native Americans.
Until now, however, no administration has sought to manipulate the census to deliberately distort the results. In 2018, the Trump administration announced that it would add a question to the census about citizenship status, a move that seemed certain to depress immigrant participation until the Supreme Court struck it down last year. Undeterred, the administration said it would not count undocumented immigrants for congressional apportionment, a move constitutional experts called a violation of the 14th Amendment.
The administration’s efforts to undermine the census have repeatedly been thwarted in court. In September, federal judges temporarily restored the full enumeration period and blocked Trump’s scheme to exclude undocumented immigrants from congressional apportionment. But the damage may have already been done. Experts are warning that the census data could be so skewed that Congress chooses to reject it, like it did in 1920—this time not for sinister reasons, but for the good of the country. “I’m really concerned there might be some really serious errors with the census,” says John Thompson, who directed the Census Bureau from 2013 to 2017. “It’s definitely a possibility. It could be seriously flawed.”In early August, as the Census Bureau was finally dispatching workers to knock on doors in hard-to-count areas after months of delay due to COVID-19, the administration announced that it was cutting census operations short by a month. That gave enumerators less than eight weeks to track down the 40 percent of households that had not yet filled out the census form—disproportionately in communities of color.
Trump defended his move to exclude undocumented immigrants from congressional apportionment by claiming that it “reflects a better understanding of the Constitution.” What the administration’s actions really reflect is an emphatic repudiation of the Constitution. The census and the Postal Service are two of the essential domestic governmental operations specifically mentioned in the founding document. Over the past decade, Republicans have passed laws making it more difficult to vote, but Trump’s war on the USPS and the Census Bureau represents a dramatic escalation of his party’s anti-democratic agenda; rather than pursuing disenfranchisement of people of color and Democrats within the bounds of the Constitution, he’s seeking to eviscerate those limits. He is working to transform long-standing nonpartisan institutions into explicitly partisan ones, shifting their essential mission from serving all Americans to furthering only the interests of a shrinking minority: white conservatives.
The extraordinary efforts to undermine the mail and census should prepare us for the possibility of an even more egregious abuse of power to keep Trump in office.
Trump’s effort to corrupt core institutions for the benefit of his ruling clique bears an eerie resemblance to the slide toward authoritarianism in other countries. “The practice of taking highly legitimate, effective institutions of the state and politicizing and using them for short-term political advantage is page one of the authoritarian playbook,” says Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard and co-author of How Democracies Die.
By eroding Americans’ confidence in the census, the administration may already be accomplishing its goal of rigging the count in its favor. “The most disastrous thing for the census is that people sit it out because they don’t trust the administration,” says Vanita Gupta, who led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under Barack Obama and is now president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The same thing could happen with the post office: If voters are afraid to vote in person yet believe that postal delays will cause their mail-in ballots not to be counted, they may decide not to vote at all. (More than 550,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during this year’s primaries, a huge increase from 2016.)
During a testy congressional hearing in August, DeJoy promised, “I am not engaged in sabotaging the election.” The same day, Trump delivered an ominous speech at the Republican National Convention in which he accused Democrats of “using covid to steal an election” by expanding mail-in voting and said, “The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election.”
If the census and Postal Service are central functions of the Constitution, free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power are the bedrock principles that define it. Trump has already signaled he may not abide by either. The extraordinary efforts to undermine the mail and census should prepare us for the possibility of an even more egregious abuse of power to keep Trump in office. “A lot of this is laying the groundwork for calling into question the legitimacy of the election in November,” Gupta says.
It’s not difficult to imagine an Election Day scenario in which Trump prematurely declares victory based on his lead among in-person votes, which are quicker to tally than mail-in votes in many states and are expected to lean more Republican. Trump then seeks to invalidate the mail-in ballots that favor Democrats before they’re counted. Republican-controlled legislatures in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin intervene on his behalf. In a Bush v. Gore redux, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority cuts the count short or invalidates enough votes to install Trump for a second term.
If that happens, the question won’t be whether American democracy can survive Trump. We’ll already know that it hasn’t.
Additional reporting by Abigail Weinberg