Gillibrand on Trump Nomination

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today released the following statement regarding President Donald J. Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States:

“If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, he would tip the balance of the Supreme Court even more against workers’ rights, civil rights, and women’s rights for decades to come. I do not think he is the right choice for our country, and I am going to vote against him and urge my colleagues to do the same.

“This new judge could be the deciding vote in whether insurance companies can charge people more, or don’t have to cover them at all anymore, if they have preexisting conditions — and nearly half of all New Yorkers have a preexisting condition. He could be the deciding vote to uphold the disastrous Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations to pour unlimited money into our politics. And he could be the deciding vote in overturningRoe v. Wade, which is what President Trump said he wanted his new Supreme Court Justice to do. “I strongly oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination and I urge all New Yorkers to raise their voices and join me in opposing him. We need a justice who will protect the rights of all people in our state — not just some.”

]]>

Related articles

Sunday News: 50 kinds of cherries await fans in U-pick orchards

With U-pick season under way in Western New York,...

Why it’s taking LA so long to rebuild

Sisters Emilee and Natalee De Santiago sit together on...

‘Very unusual:’ Court stalls on contempt charges against Trump lawyers



More than three months after a federal judge threatened to hold representatives of the Donald Trump administration in contempt for delaying an order to halt deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants, the case remains stalled with no explanation, the New York Times reported Tuesday.

“It’s very unusual,” Stephen Vladeck, law professor at Georgetown University, told the Times. “An appeals court may need hours or days to figure out an administrative stay, but it doesn’t need weeks and certainly not months.”

The case stems from an emergency order in March by Judge James Boasberg, who instructed the Trump administration to halt flights deporting more than 100 Venezuelans to El Salvador. Alleged to have ties to the Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua, the migrants were mid-flight when Boasberg ordered the planes turned around.

According to a DOJ whistleblower's account, the deportations went forward despite the order. Boasberg pressed the DOJ for weeks in an effort to determine whether the administration had deliberately ignored his ruling and, on April 16, warned that the government would either need to provide the deported individuals with due process or face a contempt investigation that could result in criminal charges.

Two days later, however, an appeals court issued an administrative stay pausing Boasberg’s proceedings, with the court having taken no action since.

“Justice (Amy Coney) Barrett said administrative stays could be problematic because they can be issued quickly and without delving into the merits of a case,” wrote Alan Feuer with the New York Times Tuesday. “If left to linger, she suggested, they could be used as a way to freeze a case in place without discussing any of its underlying facts.”

Buffalo Central Terminal presents some of Buffalo’s hottest jazz

Are you ready for Jazz at the Central Terminal? Jazz has long been part of the fabric of Buffalo, and we’re excited to honor that