Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) begged his colleagues on the Senate floor yesterday to do something to stop gun violence.
How many more innocents must die before the 50 Republican senators stop blocking reasonable background checks and a ban on assault weapons of war supported by 90% of the American people?
This slaughter madness must end now!
Please share widely!
Nothing. And we will continue to do nothing as long as the filibuster remains in place and rural states get overrepresented in the Senate.
There’s a lot we should do that Nicholas Kristof recommended back in 2017 that is worth revisiting. Again though, it requires electing more Democrats and naming names. If they GOP can run ads that morph a decorated Vietnam veteran into Osama bin Laden, how hard is it for us to name actual truths?
That the GOP would rather arm terrorists and white supremacists and unleash them on the populace than engage in a good faith effort to balance safety with liberty.
So I’m done with pathetically begging for GOP cooperation as Murphy is here. I think most Americans are. Time to fight back and elect more and better Democrats. If we cannot control violence and cannot control inflation, we are toast in the fall.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/24/us/shooting-robb-elementary-uvalde
Not sure the filibuster is the issue here. Manchin won’t vote for the necessary measures so I’m not sure we get a majority right now. However, nobody who supports people carrying these weapons has any business calling themselves pro-life and should be called on that at every opportunity.
At the height of the Vietnam conflict, radical anti-war groups like SDS and the Weathermen were bombing ROTC and similar Army offices. The bombings were always at night while the offices were empty and they were always preceded by multiple notices warning people to stay away. So far as I know, nobody was injured.
The anti-abortion movement vandalized thousands of facilities that provided abortion services. Buildings were firebombed, locks glued, windows broken, offensive graffiti, and so on. The same anti-abortion movement killed and wounded abortion providers.
In 1970, untrained, terrified and heavily armed National Guard members opened fire on a peaceful protest at Kent State — killing four (two of whom were more than 300 feet away) and wounding nine. Those soldiers fired 67 rounds in 13 seconds. Nobody was ever charged in those murders.
The civil rights movement was chock-full of violence, much of against blacks. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, union violence (for and against workers) was widespread.
I cite these to suggest that “violence” spans a range of actions and targets.
With all due respect to Christopher, most of the important protections Democrats have always championed came at the price of at least a perceived threat of violence. The notion that any significant change can occur without “actual disruption” is fantasy.
The right wing has ALWAYS been willing disrupt, threaten, and practice violence to achieve its ends.
The right wing has spent decades of time and billions of dollars (much of it from Russian organized crime) arming those who comprise the Trumpist/Putinist insurrection. Do not expect anybody in today’s GOP to walk away from that investment.
At least some of this insurrection might well be fought with economic and cyber weapons.
Anybody who thinks we are not already in the midst of a civil war is not paying attention.
Two wrongs don’t make a right and if I read your first paragraph correctly as condoning, accepting, or supporting what it describes I could not disagree more. You do NOT make change by threatening violence, just by threatening forced retirements at the ballot box. For all your talk of civil war you almost seem to be seeking that! Violence IMO is only justified in war or direct defense of self or others.
I do not seek violence and I do not advocate threatening violence.
When authorities explicitly, openly, and effectively close the ballot box so that voting is immaterial, then “forced retirements at the ballot box” is yet another empty bromide — reminding me, at the moment, of “hopes and prayers”.
The most effective way to avoid violence in the current insurrection is for the DoJ to take immediate and effective steps to put down the current insurrection.
We are losing. We are playing fair. We are getting shellacked.
Again, the Right is paranoid in its belief that The Media is Liberal.
And, the Left is delusional in its belief that the Media is Liberal.
We need to elect more and more progressive Democrats, and we need do so even right here in Massachusetts.
And where we cannot elect a progressive Democrat in the USA, we need to elect ANY Democrat, no matter who.
Finally, we need to balance the Supreme Court and add at least two judges, although I would prefer to add four. Thirteen has a nice patriotic ring to it, like the Thirteen Original Colonies.
This is how you confront them. Good on Beto.
The degree to which Republican politicians are emphasizing the point that guns have nothing to do with this is truly remarkable. It’s a failure of the community, it’s mental illness, it’s a lack of fathers involvement, it’s video games, it’s lowered attendance at church….it’s anything EXCEPT the guns.
Never been a fan of actual disruption, and a candidate for Governor ought to do better.
A different phrasing with the same result is “Never been a fan of actual change”.
It isn’t possible to accomplish actual change without actual disruption.
Please don’t put words in my mouth and I adamantly disagree. I was taught from the earliest age that absent an imminent emergency (like the fire or medical variety) you DO NOT INTERRUPT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE IS SPEAKING! Beto should be pushing for debates and agitating to vote Abbott out (and until then to flood his office with calls and emails demanding change). His behavior in this case was unbecoming of one who is, was, or wants to be an elected official. The teacher and parliamentarian in me both say he was out of order.
I fear you miss my point.
I agree that he was out of order. The human in me says that there are times when the misdemeanor of being out of order is demanded in order to stop a much larger felony.
As I observed elsewhere, the first round of Jim Crow laws was dissolved only because people were “out of order”.
I also think at an elemental level it shows he has a pair while Murphy looks pathetic begging the GOP to do the honorable thing he surely knows, we all know, and the country should know they will never do. They will never vote for gun restrictions. Ever. So time to run them out of office by making this issue salient with the public.
Sure enough here are Murphy, Schumer, and Biden following McConnell’s lead on bipartisan negotiations like Charlie Brown following Lucy to place her football.
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/05-26-2022/bipartisan-group-talks-guns/
Well, at the moment something bipartisan, even if not ideal or everything we might want, is the only thing that has any prayer of passing.
You’re right about Republicans, but I don’t think the swipe at Murphy was necessary.
If we do not have control, or even a smidgen of influence in the US Supreme Court, where one justice has a wife who is an admitted insurrectionist sympathizer, does anything else even matter?
No, it does not matter.
This is why it is past time to step outside the lines of courtesy and decorum.
Actual prosecution by the DoJ could make a difference, if it ever comes to pass.
Clarence Thomas violated long-standing federal law that prohibits ANY member of the federal judiciary from participating in a matter involving his or her direct family members. There is therefore no ex post facto issue with the DoJ taking steps against Mr. Thomas. Lawrence Tribe has already written about the specifics. There is ZERO indication that the DoJ will do anything at all about this clear violation of federal law by Clarence Thomas.
It is striking to me that Merrick Garland’s DoJ is currently prosecuting Michael Sussman, an attorney who raised legitimate concerns about Donald Trump. The same DoJ just announced that it will NOT prosecute FBI agents who ignored multiple complaints about sexual assaults on women gymnists by a prominent and well-connected doctor.
The DoJ under Merrick Garland continues show no evidence of any action against flagrant, brazen, and well-connected criminals while continuing a vendetta — started by Donald Trump — against a courageous and legitimate attorney who attempted to investigate well-founded concerns about Donald Trump’s ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Are you sure about federal law in the Thomas situation? My understanding is that it would be an ethics violation if a lower court judge had not recused in those circumstances, but those rules don’t apply to SCOTUS. I’m also not sure it is against the law to not act on complaints as it happens I just read an article about previous Court decisions saying there is no affirmative duty for law enforcement to protect. Regarding Sussman, that is being handled by a special prosecutor that the AG is supposed to keep at arms length and Biden has made the deliberate decision not to ask Garland to fire him so it won’t look like he’s covering for the Clinton campaign.
I’m sure that Lawrence Tribe says that it was illegal (
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/laurence-tribe-what-clarence-thomas-did-was-illegal-136538693588, starting at 2:30)
Of COURSE there’s no law that says that the complaints against the doctor had to be pursued. The point is that Merrick Garland’s DoJ has chosen to ignore the complaints.
I understand that Mr. Sussman is being pursued by a special prosecutor. That’s my POINT!
We end up in a place where repeated, obvious, flagrant, and brazen violations are ignored when the perpetrators are well-connected, while conscientious public servants courageously doing their duty continue to be subject to groundless political prosecutions and harassment.
It is a violation of federal law for ANY election overseer to be threatened. There have been countless reports of attacks, harassment, and abuse of volunteer poll workers and election counters by GOP operatives across the country. NONE of those have been prosecuted or even investigated.
The fact that “nothing can be done” about Clarence Thomas and his wife is a clear failure of our legal system.
The fix is in. Civilized people who hate seeing children murdered by the score don’t count. Civilized people who hate seeing a sitting Supreme Court justice do all in his power to obstruct an investigation into the seditious behavior of his wife don’t count.
We can “vote” all we want — it is crystal clear that those votes don’t amount to a bucket of spit.
If you acknowledge that no law requires complaints against the doctor be pursued then how can you suggest someone be prosecuted for not pursuing it? You can only prosecute those who break an actual law.
You miss my point entirely. The doctor SHOULD have been prosecuted. The DoJ chose to not do so. I’m talking about who does and does not get prosecuted by DoJ.
Those who are wealthy and powerful are not prosecuted, even when they commit their crimes in full public view (such as the GOP seditionists).
The FBI agents broke the law by lying to DoJ investigators about their handling of the case. There are widely published and well-documented reports of their crimes (cf https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/27/doj-will-not-prosecute-fbi-agents-for-lying-about-larry-nassar-case/).
You seem so focused on defending the status quo — whatever it is — that you entirely miss the forest for the trees.
This DoJ is protecting the wealthy and powerful. Period.
Well OK, I think you were less clear than you could have been originally, or assumed I knew more about the case you were referring to than I actually did. Your original comment on this matter was,
There was nothing here about agents lying to the DOJ. You also in this comment did not appear to be complaining about the lack of prosecution of the doctor himself, so I didn’t know that he had not been prosecuted. I absolutely agree that if evidence presented itself against the doctor, FBI inaction notwithstanding, he should be prosecuted and the agents are also liable if they committed actual crimes of commission or omission. I’m sorry, but until this recent comment I had no idea what specific case you were referring to and could only go by your vague reference.
I apologize for being unclear about the specifics of the case.
As I understand it, Larry Nassar (the physician in question) was a trainer for the US Gymnastics team who abused hundreds of women over a span of nearly two decades.
Multiple victims report that the FBI refused to pursue their complaints against Mr. Nassar. Several reports say that Mr. Nassar assaulted as many as 100 additional victims after the first victim made her complaint to the FBI.
The FBI already fired the lead investigator, and there is mounting evidence that various FBI agents lied to other DoJ investigators pursuing these complaints.
Three separate DoJ investigations have come to the same conclusion — that no charges against any of the agents involved are warranted.
It appears to be yet another case where the FBI cannot bring itself to prosecute the wealthy and powerful.
Thank you for the rundown, but I guess my other question is why is this federal jurisdiction at all?
Mr. Nassar abused hundreds of young women and children (some as young as 10 years old) across multiple states and over a period of nearly 20 years.
Mr. Nassar was affiliated with the US Women’s Artistic Gymnastics team and the US Olympics.
He was convicted in federal court of multiple violations of federal child pornography laws. He was convicted of abusing hundreds of women in both Michigan and Texas. He was convicted of illegally practicing medicine without a license in Texas (one of the team training sites is in Huntsville, TX).
If he is ever released from state prison, he will be transferred to federal prison — those sentences begin AFTER he completes his Michigan incarceration.
My understanding is that federal jurisdiction applies to any crimes that cross state lines.