Tag: ruling

Appeals court ruling puts hundreds of Jan. 6 felony cases in limbo

[ad_1]

But Judge Florence Pan, who wrote the majority opinion, said it was the wrong time to decide that broad question because the three defendants whose cases were before the court were all also charged with assaulting police. There’s little question that those who assaulted police that day acted with “corrupt intent.” But in Jan. 6 obstruction cases that don’t involve assault, determining “corrupt intent” is much more complicated, she said.
“It is more prudent to delay addressing the meaning of ‘corrupt’ intent until that issue is properly presented to the court,” Pan wrote, pointing to the pending appeal of Jan. 6 defendant Thomas Robertson — a former Virginia police officer who was convicted of obstruction by a jury — as one potential vehicle. Pan was appointed to the appeals court by Joe Biden.
The stakes of the lingering issue are enormous. More than 300 Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with obstructing Congress’ proceedings — many of whom are not accused of assaulting police. The obstruction charge carries a 20-year maximum sentence and is a cudgel the Justice Department has used at times in plea negotiations with rioters who surged into the Capitol’s most sensitive spaces.
The Jan. 6 select committee urged the Justice Department to charge Donald Trump with this precise crime as well, after a federal judge in California agreed that Trump “likely” committed obstruction. Any ruling narrowing the definition of “corrupt intent” could take such a charge off the table.
Pan noted that prior cases have defined corrupt intent in multiple ways. The Supreme Court has previously described acting “corruptly” as doing something “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil.” The late Justice Antonin Scalia defined “corrupt” acts as those done “to bring about either an unlawful result or a lawful result by some unlawful method, with a hope or expectation of either financial gain or other benefit to oneself or a benefit of another person.”
Pan’s 40-page opinion may not be the last word. The second judge who joined her ruling — Justin Walker, a Trump appointee — issued a concurring opinion that adopted a narrow interpretation of the definition of “corrupt intent.”
“A defendant must intend to obtain a benefit that he knows is unlawful,” Walker concluded.
Complicating the matter further: Walker contended that his interpretation may be the binding opinion of the appeals court under precedent that requires the most “narrow” interpretation to prevail when a panel is splintered. (In a footnote, Pan said she disagreed.)

Defense attorneys for Jan. 6 defendants are already poring over Walker’s analysis. Nicholas Smith, who argued the case on behalf of three Jan. 6 defendants before the appeals court panel in December, said that if Walker’s contention is correct, his narrow definition of “corrupt intent” is already the binding opinion of the court.
If the Justice Department concludes that the ruling is too problematic for the vast array of Jan. 6 cases, prosecutors could ask the full, 10-member bench of the appeals court to weigh in.
The immediate effect of the appeals court’s 2-1 vote is the reversal of a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, who determined that obstruction charges were being improperly applied to Jan. 6 defendants. But Nichols’ ruling did not dissect the “corrupt intent” aspect of the law. Rather, he contended that the obstruction charges required evidence that the defendants interfered with physical documents — computer files, papers or other tangible evidence.
More than a dozen other district court judges had rejected that premise, contending that the meaning of the obstruction law — passed in the aftermath of the Enron scandal — is clear: Obstruction includes a wide range of efforts to frustrate the official work of government, not just tampering with documents.
The appeals court panel largely agreed with that interpretation, ruling that the vast majority of the district court judges got it right. The judges also agreed that the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress — which was disrupted by rioters — should be classified as an “official proceeding” of Congress, a point that some Jan. 6 defendants had challenged. But that’s where the agreement ended.
In a dissent, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, faulted the two other judges for leaving all sorts of advocates and protesters exposed to the potential of severe criminal penalties for routine protests or even just some forms of lobbying.
“A lobbyist who successfully persuades a member of Congress to change a vote has likewise influenced an official proceeding. So has a peaceful protestor who, attempting to sway votes, holds up a sign in the Senate gallery before being escorted away,” he wrote. “Of course, this case involves rioting as opposed to peaceful advocacy, lobbying, or protest. But the construction of [corrupt intent] adopted by my colleagues will sweep in all of the above.”
Katsas argued that under his colleagues’ approach, the demonstrators who’ve gathered outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices over the past months in response to that court’s action wiping out abortion rights could face up to 20 years in prison.
Even Walker’s somewhat narrower interpretation “would continue to supercharge comparatively minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses into 20-year felonies, provided the defendant knows he is acting unlawfully in some small way,” Katsas wrote. “But even that hypothetical protestor would be protected only until the jurist, a neighbor, or the police told the protestor what the law is.”
Walker’s reading of the obstruction law still gives it “improbable breadth,” Katsas wrote.
[ad_2]
#Appeals #court #ruling #puts #hundreds #Jan #felony #cases #limbo
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 7, 2023
Pence will not appeal ruling requiring him to testify to Jan. 6 grand jury

[ad_1]

Trump and Pence had both challenged the subpoena — but on entirely distinct grounds. Trump contended that his conversations with Pence in the weeks preceding the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol should be shielded by investigators because of executive privilege, which is intended to preserve the confidentiality of some presidential communications. Trump has lost a series of sealed executive privilege fights in recent months, failing to convince federal district and appellate judges to support his privilege assertions.
Pence, however, had argued that the subpoena for his testimony was problematic for a different reason: his role as president of the Senate. The Constitution, he argued, makes the vice president a hybrid creature of the executive and legislative branch. Pence’s role on Jan. 6 — to preside over Congress’ counting of electoral votes — fell squarely within his congressional duties, entitling him to the protection of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which protects lawmakers from criminal inquiries that pertain to their official responsibilities.
As a result, Pence’s attorney contended that Pence should be shielded from the special counsel’s subpoena for any testimony related to his Jan. 6 role. Though the precise contours of Boasberg’s ruling remain unknown, a person familiar with the decision indicated that it agreed with aspects of Pence’s argument.
Boasberg found — for the first time in American history — that vice presidents do enjoy some congressional immunity for their role as president of the Senate. Pence allies say Baosberg’s decision was narrower than they preferred — opening Pence up to questions about his legislative duties they had hoped would be shielded — but they have largely treated it as a victory on the principle Pence set out to defend.
“In the Court’s decision, that principle prevailed,” O’Malley said. “The Court’s landmark and historic ruling affirmed for the first time in history that the Speech or Debate Clause extends to the Vice President of the United States.”
Though Pence’s decision means he’s likely to testify, Trump may still opt to appeal Boasberg’s ruling that executive privilege does not block Pence’s testimony.
Pence has long signaled he was willing to testify to the grand jury about topics that weren’t shielded by privilege. Smith is likely to press Pence about Trump’s weeks-long bid to convince him to single-handedly derail the transfer of power by refusing to count Joe Biden’s electoral votes on Jan. 6. Pence’s refusal to do so drew Trump’s fury and caused a mob that had gathered outside the Capitol that day to hunt for the vice president.
[ad_2]
#Pence #appeal #ruling #requiring #testify #Jan #grand #jury
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 6, 2023
Secret Pence ruling breaks new ground for vice presidency

[ad_1]

The vice president’s role as Senate president has become almost entirely ceremonial, with the occasional exception of casting tie-breaking votes and — every four years — presiding over the count of electoral votes after a presidential election. Vice presidents have long suggested they should enjoy the legal protections afforded to Congress, but Boasberg’s ruling is the first time a court has extended so-called speech-or-debate immunity to the vice presidency.
Experts say the ruling — which remains under seal but was described to POLITICO by a person familiar with its contours — is an important foray into thorny, unresolved questions about vice presidential power.
“Any such movement is significant, as it sets a precedent that potentially can expand at a later time, in a different circumstance,” said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University political scientist who specializes in executive power. “The vice president is now acknowledged to possess a form of privilege by virtue of his or her legislative role, something that a president cannot claim.”
The ruling is the latest example of how Trump’s multi-year stress test on the norms and mechanics of the federal government has forced courts to answer long-dormant questions about the separation of powers.
The immunity question arose from special counsel Jack Smith’s bid to force Pence to testify before a Washington D.C. grand jury investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Trump opposed the subpoena on executive-privilege grounds, a position Boasberg rejected.
Pence did not join Trump’s fight but mounted his own, claiming that his role presiding over Congress on Jan. 6 should afford him speech-or-debate immunity.
Boasberg, the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, agreed with Pence, at least to a limited extent: Pence must testify, he ruled, but the speech-or-debate immunity may allow him to avoid answering questions about his legislative role on Jan. 6.
Pence praised the ruling on Wednesday, even as he is considering whether to appeal it for not going far enough.

”For the first time ever, a federal court has recognized that these protections extend to a vice president,” Pence told supporters in Iowa, acknowledging the sealed ruling but saying he was “limited” in how much he could say about it. “I am pleased that the judge recognized the Constitution’s speech and debate protection applies to my work as vice president.”
The drafters of the Constitution included the speech-or-debate clause to guard against executive-branch efforts to coerce lawmakers with the threat of investigation or compelled testimony. But until this week, a court had never decided whether vice presidents — who are not members of the Senate but are officers like the parliamentarian — are covered by the protection.
The Supreme Court has said that immunity under the speech-or-debate clause covers “legislative” activities, such as voting on bills and giving speeches on the floor of Congress. For decades, the courts — particularly in Washington D.C. — have interpreted the clause to cover a broad range of activities connected to those duties, including the actions of congressional aides and officers who help facilitate the work of lawmakers.
The immunity, however, does not extend to purely “political” activities. So while Boasberg’s ruling may allow Pence to avoid testifying about his presiding role on Jan. 6, he might still have to testify about conversations he had with Trump leading up to that day, and he has indicated he is willing to do so.
Before Jan. 6, Trump pressed Pence to use his perch as president of the Senate to refuse to count Joe Biden’s electoral votes, either declaring Trump the victor or sending the election back to the states — an action Pence viewed as unconstitutional and refused to abide. He later returned to the chamber to complete the count of electors, all but sealing the Biden presidency. Trump famously attacked Pence on Twitter amid the chaos at the Capitol, an escalation that Jan. 6 committee investigators cited as a dangerous turning point in the day’s violence.
Two of Pence’s top White House aides — chief of staff Marc Short and counsel Greg Jacob — testified to the grand jury in October after then-Chief District Court Judge Beryl Howell rejected Trump’s similar bid to block their testimony via executive privilege.
Although Boasberg’s precise reasoning remains a mystery because of the secrecy surrounding the grand jury proceedings, legal experts called it a precedent-setting decision that could reshape the understanding of the vice presidency.
“Without seeing the opinion, hard to say much about it beyond the fact that it is clearly in my view correct that the VP enjoys speech-or-debate clause immunity when acting in her capacity as president of the Senate,” said Josh Chafetz, a Georgetown University constitutional law professor. “It’s also the case that the courts have consistently taken far too narrow a view, in my judgment, of what activities by members are protected under the clause, so I suspect that Boasberg ruled that Pence has to testify about some stuff that I would think ought to be privileged.”
Stan Brand, who helmed the House counsel’s office for Tip O’Neill and today represents top Trump aide Dan Scavino, said applying the speech-or-debate clause to a vice president for the first time is “a victory for the independence of Congress against an overreaching DOJ.”
The Justice Department has at least three times argued that vice presidents should enjoy speech-or-debate protection for their role presiding over the Senate — including in the context of Jan. 6, 2021, when the department adopted the position to fend off a lawsuit from then-Rep. Louie Gohmert and a separate Utah-based lawsuit filed in 2021.
The precise contours of the department’s position in the secret proceedings with Boasberg were not immediately clear.
The Pence immunity decision underscores the extraordinary volume of precedent-setting rulings that are being issued in secret — the result of the typical confidentiality afforded to the grand jury process in criminal investigations. Howell, whose seven-year term as chief judge expired on March 17, issued dozens of secret rulings in Trump-related matters that may have sweeping implications for the separation of powers.
Brand noted that some of the most significant rulings that have shaped the boundaries of the presidency, vice presidency and Congress have emerged in these sorts of proceedings as a result of national crises — from Watergate to Whitewater to the Vietnam War to Abscam.
“We are in the midst of another such episode,” he said.
[ad_2]
#Secret #Pence #ruling #breaks #ground #vice #presidency
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 30, 2023
Trump denounces ‘crime-fraud’ ruling forcing attorney to testify in documents probe

[ad_1]

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Howell’s order temporarily on Tuesday night, ordering an extraordinarily rapid series of filings in a matter of hours — including one from Trump’s team by midnight Tuesday.
The appeals court’s order — from Judges Cornelia Pillard, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, all Democratic appointees — doesn’t identify Corcoran or the case at issue but makes clear that the government was on the winning side of the case in Howell’s court.
The three-judge panel is asking Trump’s attorneys to specify the precise set of documents at issue by midnight and for Smith’s team to respond by 6 a.m. Wednesday to the Trump team’s demand for a longer stay of Howell’s ruling.
A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment Tuesday on the closed-door fight.
The appeals court order followed the filing by Trump-linked attorneys of a pair of appeals and stay requests tied to Howell’s decision, which came on the final day of her seven-year tenure as chief judge of the federal District Court in Washington.
The parallel submissions asked the appeals court to block Howell’s decision while the appeals go forward, docket entries show. The appeals were first reported by CNN. The short-term “administrative” stay granted Tuesday night does not appear to signal whether the appeals court will decide to keep Howell’s order on ice as full legal briefing proceeds in the dispute.
The Trump campaign statement issued Tuesday evening also dismissed Howell, a former Democratic Senate aide appointed by former President Barack Obama, as a “Never Trump” judge.
Howell’s secret order on Friday required Corcoran to testify about matters he and Trump had claimed were subject to attorney-client privilege. Her order relied on the “crime-fraud exception,” which permits investigators to pursue evidence that would ordinarily be privileged but contains evidence of likely criminal conduct.

As chief judge, Howell supervised all disputes arising from grand jury proceedings happening in Washington. That responsibility passed Friday to U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who succeeded Howell as chief, but only after Howell issued the potentially momentous privilege ruling in the Trump-related legal fight.
The Trump camp’s public attack on Howell appears to be its first aimed at the veteran jurist, with Trump notably avoiding attacks against her while she single-handedly presided over the numerous grand jury disputes arising from investigations into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and into the classified documents.
Even after handing off the chief’s position, however, Howell continues to hold significant sway over matters connected to Trump’s inner circle. On Tuesday, she held a hearing in a lawsuit brought by two Georgia election workers against Rudy Giuliani, chiding the longtime Trump ally and his lawyer for what she described as an inadequate approach to required exchanges of evidence in the matter.
Proceedings related to the classified-documents grand jury, including efforts by prosecutors to compel Corcoran’s testimony, are occurring under seal — typical for nearly all grand jury proceedings.
However, the appeals court’s docket shows that the rulings being appealed were issued on Friday and correspond to a dispute that was filed with the District Court on Feb. 7. That’s just days before media reports emerged of an effort by Smith to force Corcoran to appear before a grand jury investigating the handling of classified records by Trump and his aides.
Just before noon Tuesday, the appeals court consolidated the two appeals without further public explanation. Of the three judges assigned to the dispute, Pillard is an Obama appointee, while Childs and Pan are appointees of President Joe Biden.
The grand jury probe of Trump, helmed by Smith, is an outgrowth of a monthslong battle between the National Archives and Trump to obtain hundreds of government records stashed at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after leaving office. Trump’s aides returned 15 boxes of records in January 2022, including some that bore classification markings. As a result, the Archives brought in the Justice Department to pursue whether Trump had retained additional classified material.
In May 2022, the Justice Department subpoenaed Trump’s office, demanding the production of any other classified materials he might possess at Mar-a-Lago. Justice Department officials traveled in early June to Mar-a-Lago, where they briefly interacted with Trump and picked up a folder of records deemed classified. Trump’s team then certified that they had thoroughly searched the premises and turned over remaining classified documents.
But the department developed evidence suggesting that this wasn’t the case, leading to an Aug. 8, 2022, search of the property, where dozens of additional documents with classification markings were discovered.
Corcoran, who was Trump’s primary point of contact with the Archives and the Justice Department, has faced scrutiny for his involvement in efforts to certify that Trump had returned all potentially classified materials.
The legal maneuvering comes as Trump’s lawyers are also awaiting a potential indictment of their client in an unrelated case in New York, an investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg into details of a hush money payment made in 2016 to the porn actress Stormy Daniels.
[ad_2]
#Trump #denounces #crimefraud #ruling #forcing #attorney #testify #documents #probe
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 22, 2023
Jolt to Andhra’s ruling YSRCP as TDP bags three MLC seats

[ad_1]
Amaravati: In a big jolt to Andhra Pradesh’s ruling YSR Congress Party (YSRCP), the opposition Telugu Desam Party (TDP) won all three Legislative Council seats from graduates’ constituencies which went to polls on March 13.
The main opposition party received a big boost with victories in north Andhra, east Rayalaseema, and west Rayalaseema graduates’ constituencies.
In a neck-and-neck contest, the TDP bagged West Rayalaseema (Kadapa-Anantapur-Kurnool districts), which is considered a stronghold of the Jagan Mohan Reddy-led YSRCP. TDP candidate Bhumireddy Ramagopal Reddy defeated his nearest rival V. Ravindra Reddy of YSRCP by 7,543-second preference votes.
No candidate secured a majority in first preference votes but in the elimination round, there was a close contest between the TDP and the YSRCP. The opposition party candidate surged ahead in the elimination round to win the seat.
పట్టభద్రుల ఎమ్మెల్సీ ఎన్నికల్లో గెలిచిన ముగ్గురు అభ్యర్ధులకు అభినందనలు. గెలిపించిన ప్రజలకు ధన్యవాదాలు. ఎన్నికల్లో వైసీపీ అక్రమాలను ఎదిరించి నిలబడిన కార్యకర్తలకు, నాయకులకు సెల్యూట్. ఇది ప్రజా విజయం. మార్పుకు సంకేతం. మంచికి మార్గం. రాష్ట్రానికి శుభసూచకం.#ByeByeJaganIn2024 pic.twitter.com/siiKPixjz1
— N Chandrababu Naidu (@ncbn) March 18, 2023
Returning officer S. Nagalakshmi announced that TDP’s Ramgopal Reddy polled 1,09,781 votes while YSRCP’s Ravindra Reddy secured 1,02,238 votes.
The counting of votes which began at 8 a.m. on Thursday was completed around 8 p.m. on Saturday.
Alleging that there were irregularities in the counting of votes, the YSRCP candidate and other leaders demanded re-counting. The returning officer told them to give in writing if they have any objections.
Earlier, the TDP won North Andhra and East Rayalaseema seats. TDP candidate Vepada Chiranjeevi Rao won North Andhra (Srikakulam-Vizianagaram-Visakhapatnam) seat by a margin of 34,836 votes over the YSRCP candidate.

TDP’s Kancharla Srikanth Chowdhary was elected from East Rayalaseema (Prakasam-Nellore-Chittoor) with a margin of 34,110 votes over the YSRCP candidate.
The defeat in all three graduates’ constituencies is being seen as a major setback for the ruling party as they were spread in 108 of the total 175 Assembly segments.
This was also the first big defeat for the YSRCP, which had swept all the elections since 2019.
In the MLC polls, the YSRCP won both teachers’ constituencies (East Rayalaseema and West Rayalaseema) and four local body segments.
Meanwhile, TDP President and former Chief Minister T. Chandrababu Naidu described the victory of his party in three graduates’ constituencies a public victory. “A sign of change. The way to good. Auspicious for the state,” Naidu tweeted.
“Congratulations to the three candidates who won the MLC elections. Thanks to the people who won. Salute to the activists and leaders who stood against YCP irregularities in the elections,” added Naidu with hashtag #ByeByeJaganIn2024.

[ad_2]
#Jolt #Andhras #ruling #YSRCP #TDP #bags #MLC #seats
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 18, 2023
Owaisi welcomes SC ruling on appointment of CEC, ECs

[ad_1]
Hyderabad: IMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi on Thursday welcomed the Supreme Court ruling that the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners will be done by the President on the advice of a committee comprising Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.
Addressing a public meeting organised here on the occasion of AIMIM’s 65th Foundation Day, he hoped that transparency will come with the SC decision and that the Election Commissioner would be more independent.
“For democracy, it is necessary that transparency comes in the Election Commission and he (Election Commissioner) gets more independence,” he said.
During the debate on Article 324 in the Constituent Assembly, all favoured more powers to the Election Commissioner, he said.
In a landmark verdict aimed at insulating the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners from the executive’s interference, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that their appointments will be done by the President on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the CJI.
Owaisi spoke about the comments of radical preacher Amritpal Singh in Punjab, and in an apparent reference to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, he asked as to why is the latter silent on the issue.
“We would like to ask India’s Prime Minister. In Punjab, one ‘saahab’ has come from Dubai. His name is Amrit. BJP says it is ‘Amritkaal’. Who is this Amrit in ‘Amritkaal’ and why is the Amit silent?,” he said.
“If any Muslim said the same thing, our TV anchors would have shown it 24 hours. (They would have said) ‘Owaisi said this today. He spoke about the country’. But, what is this? Nothing is said on this,” he said.

The AIMIM president asked his party leaders to start preparations for the Assembly elections to be held in Telangana later this year.
The preparations should be to see that hatred ends and peace wins and the progress of Telangana continues, he said.
He said the people have to decide whether they want “Constitution or bulldozer.”
The AIMIM president said his party would increase its strength in the Telangana Assembly polls. At present, the party has seven members in the Telangana Assembly.
Alleging that the BJP is moving forward in the State with a message of hatred, he hoped that the people of Telangana would reject it.
He indicated that the AIMIM would also contest in the upcoming Karnataka and Rajasthan Assembly polls.
Reiterating his allegation on “China’s intrusions into Indian territory,” he attacked External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s reported comments that ‘China is a bigger economy than India’s”.
He said AIMIM would like to ask the Prime Minister, ‘RSS people’ and the ‘BJP-bhakts’ whether India is small.
“The country does not become big or small with economy, Modi ji. The country becomes big by having a big heart,” he said.
If a country becomes big or small on the basis of its economy, why is Ukraine fighting against Russia and why did Vietnam fight with the US, he asked.
“BJP and the PM does not have faith on the country’s army and the people. You say India is small because of economy. What ‘Vishwa guru’ the PM is talking about,” he said.
Wondering what message would have gone to the world, including US, Britain and other countries, he said the message would be that India considers China to be big and sees itself as small.
Though China is big, India cannot lose its territory, he said. India is also a nuclear power, he added.
Referring to ‘Junaid and Naseer’ (two Rajasthan men whose charred bodies were found in Haryana), he alleged that Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot did not go to console their family members. However, there is information that Gehlot may go because AIMIM is speaking about it, he said.
AIMIM condemns the deaths of Junaid and Naseer in Rajasthan and also Khadeer Khan in Telangana allegedly following police interrogation recently, he said.
[ad_2]
#Owaisi #welcomes #ruling #appointment #CEC #ECs
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 2, 2023
Karnataka govt employees to go on indefinite strike; setback to ruling BJP

[ad_1]
Shivamogga: In a setback to the ruling BJP, Karnataka Government Employees Union has announced that the government employees will go on an indefinite strike from March 1 in the state if their demand for implementation of the seventh pay commission is not met.
C. S. Shadakshari, the President of the Union, stated that all government employees have decided to not to attend duty and launch the protest across the state.
Speaking to reporters in Shivamogga, Shadakshari said, “Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai has turned a blind eye towards the government employees. The attitude of CM Bommai has saddened nine lakh government employees.”
The protest will be observed by the government employees by remaining absent from work in schools, colleges, and hospitals and other institutions, he said.
The protest would be recalled only if the government passes interim orders for implementing recommendations of the seventh Pay Commission.
“If not, we will continue the agitation,” Shadakshari added.
Subscribe us on

[ad_2]
#Karnataka #govt #employees #indefinite #strike #setback #ruling #BJP
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 25, 2023
AAP slams EC ruling on Shiv Sena factions, calls it part of BJP’s ‘Operation Lotus’

[ad_1]
Mumbai: The Aam Aadmi Party on Saturday condemned the decision of the Election Commission of India to recognise the faction led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde as the real Shiv Sena and said it was an extension of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s “Operation Lotus”.
“Operation Lotus” is a term used by opposition parties alleging foul play on the part of the BJP to topple governments in states by poaching legislators and bringing about splits in ruling parties.
The Election Commission (EC) on Friday allotted the name ‘Shiv Sena’ and its poll symbol ‘bow and arrow’ to the group led by CM Shinde, in the process delivering a big blow to Uddhav Thackeray, whose father Bal Thackeray founded the outfit in 1966.
Institutions like the EC are acting as though choreographed to singularly benefit the BJP, whose culture is one of naked power grab through any means, AAP Mumbai president Preeti Sharma Menon said in a statement here.
“The conduct of EC will even put the proverbial ‘caged parrot’ to shame. Under BJP rule, institution after institution has been destroyed and have been reduced to mere ‘puppets’ and ‘rubberstamps’. The Election Commission is no exception. We have regressed as a democracy,” she alleged.
“The EC order is an extension of Operation Lotus,” she said, adding the Modi government at the Centre and the (state) governor were dubious in their conduct to give an illegal defection (rebellion by Shinde) the colour of a party takeover.
These dangerous acts strike at the very foundations of federalism of our Constitution, she said, adding the BJP’s undemocratic nature is reflective of the RSS’ anti-constitutional psyche.
Meanwhile, the party’s national joint secretary and working president Ruben Mascarenhas said the lotus blooms in dirt and Operation Lotus succeeded with the Congress and Shiv Sena “because there was dirt there”.

He said it did not succeed with the AAP as it is clean and has a playbook to defeat the BJP.
[ad_2]
#AAP #slams #ruling #Shiv #Sena #factions #calls #part #BJPs #Operation #Lotus
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 18, 2023
Congress starts ‘flower on ear’ campaign against ruling BJP in Karnataka

[ad_1]
Bengaluru: Intensifying its election campaign in poll-bound Karnataka, the Congress on Saturday launched a ‘poster war’ against the BJP by pasting ‘Kivi Mele Hoova’ (flower on the ear) on BJP posters in Bengaluru and Dakshina Kannada districts.
The campaign was pursued aggressively a day after Congress MLAs tucked flowers on their ears inside the Assembly to show their protest against the unfulfilled promises made by the ruling BJP.
Flower on ears is a symbolic statement in Kannada, which means making someone a fool.
The Congress stepped up the ‘Kivi Mele Hoova’ campaign by taking it to the streets now, the party said in a statement.
“Posters of ‘Kivi Mele Hoova’ are seen on the top of the BJP ‘Achievement Wall’ paintings and posters in many parts of the Bengaluru city and Mangalore this morning,” it added.
The Congress’ Karnataka unit on Friday had attacked the BJP government for failing to fulfil 90 per cent of its 2018 manifesto promises and also for utilising only 56 per cent of allocated funds of the 2022-2023 budget, the statement said.
Former chief minister and Congress Legislative Party leader Siddaramaiah, Congress state president D K Shivakumar and other Congress MLAs sported flowers on their ears to highlight that BJP was making people ‘phool’ out of people, it added.
The ‘Kivi Mele Hoova’ is a pamphlet showing flowers tucked on the ear pasted on BJP posters.

The Congress poster appeared on BJP posters showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi, BJP national president J P Nadda, Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai, his predecessor B S Yediyurappa and BJP state president Nalin Kumar Kateel.
These posters were seen on Jayamahal Road in Bengaluru and Kankanadi in Dakshina Kannada district, a Congress activist said.
Reacting to it, Union Minister for Coal and Mines Pralhad Joshi said the Congress has realised that people will put flower on their ears.
“Congress leaders went to Assembly putting flowers on their ears. They have the realisation that people are going to put flowers on their ears. Already people have done the same to the Congress across the nation,” Joshi said.
Karnataka Health Minister Dr K Sudhakar said the Congress MLAs entering the Assembly with flowers on their ears shows that they had been in the habit of ‘putting flowers on the ears of the people’.
The BJP in response, started a Twitter campaign “Thatt Antha Heli” (Reply Quickly) to portray the Congress as a corrupt party.
The Congress had in the past conducted the ‘PayCM’ campaign alleging that the BJP government charges 40 per cent commission on all public works.
A wordplay on digital payments firm PayTM, the PayCM campaign had a QR code showing Bommai’s face in the middle.
[ad_2]
#Congress #starts #flower #ear #campaign #ruling #BJP #Karnataka
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 18, 2023
Biden administration braces for ruling that could ban abortion pills

[ad_1]
While the Biden administration plans to swiftly appeal any ruling against the pills — which could come any time after lawyers for both sides submit their briefs on Friday — advocates say they are not counting on federal leaders to take the sweeping actions they believe are needed to deal with the potential loss of the country’s most-used method of abortion.
“We don’t hold our breath for government action,” said Elisa Wells, the founder of the organization Plan C that helps patients order the pills online. “We know that in the absence of political support and leadership, this is what we have to do. We have to provide for ourselves and our community.”
Bracing for a decision that cuts off access to the drugs, abortion-rights supporters are giving patients and providers a crash course on a workaround that uses just the second pill in the two-pill regimen — misoprostol — and contemplating expanding clinic capacity should patients need to switch from pills to a surgical procedure. Advocates will also hold an “emergency mobilization” on Saturday near the Texas courthouse hearing the case on Saturday to draw more attention to it and pressure political leaders to act.
Since anti-abortion medical groups sued the FDA in November, Planned Parenthood, Plan C, the Women’s March, the Center for Reproductive Rights and other advocacy groups have pleaded with government officials to do more to prepare for a potential ruling blocking the sale of the pills — holding briefings with lawmakers, governors, attorneys general and health leaders.
The Biden administration has, so far, rebuffed the groups’ calls for declaring a public health emergency for abortion. And top Biden administration health officials have downplayed the prospect that the pills may be banned, with HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra telling reporters last month that he’s “very confident” the court will side with the FDA.
“The FDA took an action based solely on its statutory authority and the science — the data in front of it and the evidence behind it,” Becerra told reporters in late January. “FDA did not take this under consideration lightly. We’ve had more than 20 years of the use of this medication abortion. So we feel very confident that the work that FDA has done will stand the test — whether it’s time or the courts.”
The White House and abortion-rights groups meet regularly and are mostly aligned on policy, and advocates have praised the administration for defending abortion rights and rolling out policies in recent weeks protecting patients’ access to the pills through the mail and at retail pharmacies. But there is also an undercurrent of frustration with the scope and pace of the administration’s response to the myriad threats to abortion access around the country.
That tension was evident in reactions to Biden’s State of the Union address on Tuesday — the first since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America praised the president for pledging to veto any ban Congress passes, while other abortion rights groups like We Testify and All* Above All said they were disappointed the speech didn’t include a mention of the looming court decision on pills or details on how the administration might handle it.

“The President continues to not meet the moment with his words,” said Renee Bracey Sherman, the executive director of the advocacy group We Testify. “He’s not showing up for people who have abortions the way we need. We’re relieved to know that he is willing to veto a national abortion ban, but what will he do to make abortion accessible for everyone? We deserve a real plan.”
The White House defended its efforts to protect abortion access, pointing to a six-point strategy that HHS published in January detailing the various steps it’s taken since Roe v. Wade was struck down. Biden himself has repeatedly emphasized the only way to fully guard abortion access is for Congress to codify Roe.
The lawsuit from the anti-abortion legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, representing a group of doctors and conservative medical groups, targets the FDA’s two-decade old approval of mifepristone, arguing that the agency didn’t adequately study the safety risks of the drug.
The challenge, ADF Senior Counsel Julie Marie Blake said, is “seeking to protect girls and women from the documented dangers of chemical abortion drugs.”
The Biden administration has told the court these charges are baseless and politically motivated, and presented evidence that the drug has safely been used by millions of people over the last 23 years.
Yet, White House officials are privately worried about the far-reaching implications if the FDA’s mifepristone approval is struck down and what they see as the limited options they have for responding, according to three people familiar with internal discussions. Biden’s Gender Policy Council and intergovernmental affairs office have huddled repeatedly with White House lawyers to plan for the various possible outcomes, said one of the people familiar with the internal discussions.
The Department of Justice is also poised to quickly appeal should Kacsmaryk rule against the government, in hopes of staving off a temporary ban on the pill’s use, said another person familiar with the internal discussions. That appeal, however, would go to the right-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court — an outcome advocates fear given the high court’s ruling last year overturning Roe v. Wade.
The White House is also planning a messaging response, officials said, that would likely frame the ruling as further proof of its argument that Republicans are determined to ban abortion everywhere, part of a plan to refocus national attention on an issue that’s proven politically potent.
Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, said they’re alarmed by the case but at a loss on how to prepare for a decision given the partisan divisions on the issue.
“I’m really worried about what this means for women across the country,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who has spoken about her own abortion. “But obviously, you know, that a legislative response requires Republicans to be with us. So we’re going to keep looking for ways that we can try to do things administratively, but unfortunately, the options on legislation are blocked.”
Because the case targets the regulation of the drugs at the federal level, there is also little state officials can do to respond to the ruling, legal experts and advocates said. Abortion-rights groups say that they’re mainly urging states that support abortion rights to lobby their federal counterparts “and tell them that this can’t be allowed to stand.”
“There are lots of lawmakers and state leaders who want to be helpful right now,” said Kirsten Moore, the director of the Expanding Medication Abortion Access (EMAA) Project. “But this is about the willingness of the administration to be expansive in this moment, and they haven’t always shown a willingness to lean in and be forceful on this issue.”
Under pressure from progressive lawmakers and advocates to take more decisive action on the issue, Biden officials in recent months revisited the idea of declaring abortion access a public health emergency.
The move, supporters argue, could make it easier to dispatch federal health workers to help women obtain abortions and free up money for blue states facing higher demand from those who have to travel across state lines for the procedure.
But the White House remains deeply skeptical — unconvinced it’d be helpful practically or politically. Sending federal workers into GOP-led states to aid abortion access would likely spark a political uproar that risks backfiring, two of the people familiar with the internal discussions said, and officials doubt the flexibilities granted through a health emergency would be significant enough to make a difference.
“At this point, we don’t believe that declaring a public health emergency would provide meaningful new resources in this fight,” Jennifer Klein, who co-chairs Biden’s Gender Policy Council, told reporters last week.
The move would also invite an immediate legal challenge, with unpredictable results. The courts could strike down the declaration, potentially limiting the government’s future ability to declare emergencies for a wider set of issues, the people familiar with the internal discussions said. And even if it was upheld, a future Republican administration could conceivably use that precedent to justify declaring a public health emergency aimed at constraining abortion access.
“You’re begging for trouble,” said one adviser to the White House. “Republicans might later declare an emergency for the fetus.”
Abortion-rights groups say the high stakes of a ruling against the pills and the uncertainty around a federal response has motivated them to take matters into their own hands.
Aid Access and Plan C — two groups that help patients order pills from overseas no matter where they live in the U.S. — have made videos encouraging people to buy the medication before they are pregnant just in case they need it in the future, saying “abortion pills can be in our hands no matter what the courts and politicians decide.”
The FDA has spoken out against stockpiling — known as advance provision — arguing that it prevents doctors from assessing whether a patient is within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy when the pills are approved for use and whether there’s a risk of an ectopic pregnancy. But advance provision is something advocacy groups had been encouraging even before the lawsuit against the pills emerged, and a tool they now argue is one of the only ways to prevent the anticipated court ruling from wiping out access in much of the country.
“Why not just have it on hand so you can use it when you need it?” Wells said, noting that the pills can be stored for up to two years at room temperature. “If you’re in a state with a six-week ban, for example, having it in advance makes a lot of sense. You can take it within the six weeks very easily. But if you wait to order them until you know you’re pregnant, you could run up against that limit.”
[ad_2]
#Biden #administration #braces #ruling #ban #abortion #pills
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 9, 2023