Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: Immigrant families cry, celebrate after Massachusetts legislature overrides GOP governor's veto

Published

on

Demonstrators display a banner and chant slogans during a rally in front of the Statehouse, in Boston, Thursday, June 9, 2022, held in support of allowing immigrants in the country illegally to obtain driver's licenses in Massachusetts. A bill allowing those immigrants to obtain driver's licenses in the state has become law after the state Senate voted Thursday, June 9, to override the veto of Mass. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

#Immigrant #families #cry #celebrate #Massachusetts #legislature #overrides #GOP #governor039s #veto

“Both chambers had initially passed the measure by margins wide enough to override a Baker veto,” CBS News reports. But Baker vetoed the bill late last month, citing supposed voter fraud issues that have been debunked by the bill’s proponent and state officials. In order to apply for a license, applicants must provide a number of official documents, such as a foreign passport or consular identification, and a birth certificate.

And despite the unfounded claims by Baker and other opponents, the legislation is just common sense. Roads will be safer with licensed and insured drivers, and the state will make some revenue thanks to those fees. Families in the state will be safer, because getting pulled over for a minor traffic violation may now not result in deportation. Following the state house passing the bill in February, Boston City Council Member Tania Fernandes Anderson tweeted“[t]his remains the reality for many families today.”

“In the first two years of the Trump administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests of people with no criminal convictions more than tripled,” said the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine. “The most common charges are traffic offenses. By making driver’s licenses available to all, regardless of immigration status, we can reduce the devastating impact of Trump’s deportation agenda on Massachusetts families.”

The Driving Families Forward Coalition on Thursday shared a tweet of advocates celebrating this week’s historic win. The ACLU of Massachusetts said that Movimiento Cosecha had camped out overnight in front of the state house to continue pressuring lawmakers to override Baker’s veto. In another tweet, Movimiento Cosecha shared when advocates found out they’d won.

x

x

x

Advertisement

The ACLU of Massachusetts noted, “[t]here is bipartisan support for driver’s license legislation across the U.S. … Even Republican governors—in Utah, Nevada and New Mexico—have signed laws to confer driving privileges for all, regardless of immigration status.” Minus Baker, who could have been on the right side by approving the legislation. The bill won’t go into effect for another year, yet another Republican in the state, gubernatorial candidate Geoff Diehl, is apparently campaigning on ending it, CBS News said. But if Republicans really want to run on decreasing public safety, that’s on them.

“’This gives so much relief to thousands of families here in Massachusetts,’ said a teary-eyed Roxana Rivera, a union vice president and co-chair of the coalition that advocated for the legislation,” The Boston Globe reported. “It proves ‘we can win. And we can’t give up on each other. Our lives are too important.’” Democratic Senator Brendan Crighton, a bill sponsor, called it “a well-vetted piece of legislation,” the report said. “Our roads are safer when every single driver has to have a road test, vision test, and obtain insurance. … This is something we should all want.”


Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard



Politics

Exclusive: Trump’s Social Media Company Subpoenaed by Federal Grand Jury – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Trump’s Social Media Company Subpoenaed by Federal Grand Jury

#Trumps #Social #Media #Company #Subpoenaed #Federal #Grand #Jury

A federal grand jury and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) subpoenaed President Trump’s social media company on Friday.

According to CNBC, Trump Media and Technology Group said it would comply with the subpoenas.

Although some employees received subpoenas, none were issued to Trump or TMTG CEO Devin Nunes.

“The Justice Department and the SEC, which regulates the stock market, are investigating the deal between DWAC and Trump Media. By merging with DWAC, which is a kind of shell company called a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, Trump’s firm would gain access to potentially billions of dollars on public equities markets.” CNBC reported.

TRENDING: White Failed CNN Host Says Clarence Thomas Isn’t Truly Black Because He Doesn’t Go to NBA Games

The subpoena issued to TMTG by the SEC is regarding a civil investigation.

CNBC reported:

Donald Trump’s media company was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in connection with a criminal probe, according to the company with which the former president’s firm plans to merge.

Digital World Acquisition Corp. said in a filing Friday that Trump Media and Technology Group received a subpoena from the grand jury in Manhattan on Thursday. The Trump company also received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding a civil probe on Monday, DWAC said.

Advertisement

DWAC also said some current and former TMTG employees have also recently received grand jury subpoenas. Later Friday, TMTG said it would comply with the subpoenas, and that none of them were directed at its chairman, Trump, or CEO, former U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes.

The filing came days after DWAC said the government investigations could delay or even prevent its merger with Trump’s newly formed company, which includes Truth Social, a social media app intended to be an alternative to Twitter.

Early criticism of the Trump-DWAC deal came from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. In calling for an investigation, she wrote to SEC Chair Gary Gensler in November, telling him that DWAC “may have committed securities violations by holding private and undisclosed discussions about the merger as early as May 2021, while omitting this information in [SEC] filing and other public statements.” The lawmaker’s request came shortly after The New York Times published a report that said the deal might have violated securities laws and regulations.


Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: Residential Picketing and Abortion – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

No Pseudonymity in Challenge to Federal Vaccination Mandate

#Residential #Picketing #Abortion

I’ve seen some people argue that the Supreme Court’s objection to the picketing of Justices’ homes about abortion is inconsistent with the Court’s upholding the right to picket outside abortion clinics, or stressing the right to protest more broadly.

It’s worth noting, though, that bans on residential picketing have been particularly useful to, among other people, abortion providers. Frisby v. Schultz (1988), upheld a content-neutral ban on targeted picketing that was prompted by picketing “outside the … residence of a doctor who apparently performs abortions.” That opinion was written by Justice O’Connor, and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Blackmun, Kennedy, and Scalia; Justice White concurred as to the principle. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens dissented.

Then in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center (1994), the Court considered an injunction banning picketing within 300 feet of abortion clinic employees’ homes. The Court struck that down, because

[T]he 300-foot zone around the residences in this case is much larger than the zone provided for in the ordinance which we approved in Frisby…. [That] prohibition was limited to “focused picketing taking place solely in front of a particular residence.” By contrast, the 300-foot zone would ban “[g]eneral marching through residential neighborhoods, or even walking a route in front of an entire block of houses.”

But the majority (here, Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Blackmun, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens) reaffirmed Frisby, as to “targeted residential picketing.” (Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas viewed such injunctions as unconstitutional prior restraints, but didn’t cast doubt on the correctness of Frisby as to content-neutral ordinances.)

So the rule seems clear: Content-neutral bans on residential picketing are constitutionally permissible. And that would apply whether the residence is that of an abortion provider or that of a Justice who ruled that the Constitution doesn’t secure abortion rights. Perhaps Justices Brennan and Marshall (and possibly Stevens, though his position in Frisby was more complex) were right to reject this, and to conclude that people should be free to picket outside the homes of everyone (again, abortion providers or others). But the current rule upholding residential picketing bans has been useful to abortion providers as well as others.

UPDATE: For more on whether the bans being discussed in this situation are indeed content-neutral and therefore valid, see this post as to Maryland and this post as to Virginia. (Summary: Maryland law very likely invalid, Virginia law likely invalid, Montgomery County ordinance likely valid.)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: Many GOP Primary Losers Refuse to Admit Defeat – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Compelling Television

#GOP #Primary #Losers #Refuse #Admit #Defeat

NPR: “While Trump has most notably spent the last 18 months denying his 2020 election defeat, despite clear evidence he lost, he’s not the only one. During this election cycle, candidates across the country have refused to concede – even in races that are not remotely close.”

“In all of these cases, there is no evidence to back up claims of fraud that could reverse defeats, and most of these elections were not remotely close.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.