Connect with us

News

Far Right Republican Slammed by Raskin for Trying to Derail Respect for Marriage Bill with Failed Religious Amendment

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a former constitutional law professor, blasted U.S. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) on Monday for trying to derail the Respect for Marriage Act with a “religious liberty” amendment that had already failed in the U.S. Senate, telling him and his colleagues who claim there is no emergency for same-sex marriage, “I’m not going to accept assurances from people who are working to overturn the right of gay people to get married in America.”

Roy’s amendment is identical to one offered by U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), which failed to pass. The far-right Texas GOP lawmaker appeared before the House Rules Committee to try to convince Democrats to allow debate on his amendment, which he admitted would likely fail. But should it pass, it would also like kill the Respect for Marriage Act, forcing the legislation to be debated and voted on again in the Senate, where the clock is running out.

Democrats are trying to get the marriage protection bill complete and sent to President Joe Biden before Republicans officially take the House majority next month. It needs a final vote of approval from the House.

RELATED: George Takei Slams ‘Ignorant Inciter’ Chip Roy for Glorifying Lynchings in Hearing on Anti-Asian American Violence

The Respect for Marriage Act is designed to protect same-sex marriages should the U.S. Supreme Court strike down rulings like Obergefell. 35 states still have laws on the books, including some constitutional amendments, banning same-sex marriage. In those states, should Obergefell be struck down, the bans would likely go into immediate effect.

House Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-MA), slammed Republicans for mocking Democrats’ claim that LGBTQ Americans and same-sex couples are facing an emergency after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a call for cases that could strike down the rights to contraception, same-sex intimacy, and same-sex marriage.

Congressman Roy is a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has said: “If there’s anything we need, it’s more people like Justice Thomas.”

“I’m sorry that the my friends don’t think this is an emergency,” Chairman McGovern told the committee. “I have constituents that think it’s an emergency, and quite frankly are frightened out of their mind by the behavior of the Supreme Court after the Dobbs decision,” striking down Roe v. Wade.

READ MORE: ‘Hero’ and ‘National Treasure’ Raskin Receives Massive Praise for Speech Decimating GOP Opposition to J6 Committee

“And so, look, I mean, this may not be a big deal to some of my friends on the other side of the aisle,” McGovern added. “I assure you it is a big deal to many of us on this side of the aisle.”

Rep. Roy told the committee that a lawmaker in Finland was prosecuted for opposing same-sex marriage, trying to use that claim as a pretext to fear monger about what he claims is a loss of religious liberty in America, all in an attempt to grant far-right Christians special rights to discriminate against LGBTQ people.

“Again, I reiterate, a Member of Parliament was prosecuted in Finland for a statement made in defense of traditional marriage made 20 years ago,” Roy claimed. “Is this where we’re headed? Is this the direction that this country is going? Because if it is, we’re going to be shredding what little there is the fabric holding us together in a union in which we can agree to disagree.”

Nearly two years ago Congressman Roy appeared to threaten that if Democrats won the January, 2021 Georgia runoff election, taking control of the Senate, which they did, Republicans would declare civil war.

Congressman Raskin blasted Roy. saying, “he posed the question of whether we’re headed in the direction of Great Britain where he reports a case, which I’m unaware of, about someone being apparently prosecuted or punished for, I don’t know, anti-gay speech or something. I don’t know what he’s referring to there. But I can guarantee you that there’s nobody who’s been prosecuted, for saying that they’re opposed to the Obergefell decision, where they’re opposed to same-sex marriage that’s perfectly covered by the First Amendment.”

“In fact, you can say you’re opposed to our Constitution, which Donald Trump said yesterday, I think, and that’s completely within his First Amendment rights. Of course, you can’t incite a violent insurrection against the government as President of the United States, which is moving from speech to action, but he’s made himself clear that he’s opposed to the Constitution of the United States.”

READ MORE: Trump An ‘Enemy of the Constitution’ Declares Nicolle Wallace, Blasting Call to ‘Terminate’ Nation’s Founding Document

“I don’t know whether there are any American cases, Mr. Roy, that you were referring to but if there is one, I would love to hear about it,” Raskin offered.

“I would be far more reassured by our colleagues who keep telling us,” Raskin continued, “not to worry about the Armageddon of the Supreme Court overturning the Obergefell decision and trying to strip away the right of gay people to get married in America, if they also told us they were opposed to that.”

“But it seems like the people who keep telling us not to worry about Armageddon are the same people who are trying to make Armageddon erupt. So if any of them would say, ‘Well, don’t worry, Justice Thomas didn’t really mean it,’ or, ‘he doesn’t have the kind of influence with Alito and the other justices that we think he has, but in any event, I’m with you in standing up for Obergefell,’ then I could feel a little bit better, but I’m not going to accept assurances from people who are working to overturn the right of gay people to get married in America.”

You can watch the entire discussion below or at this link.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Comer Announces Public Hearing After Hunter Biden Closed Door Testimony

Published

on

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer announced he will hold a public hearing with Hunter Biden after the president’s son testified behind closed doors for most of Wednesday.

“I think this was a great deposition for us, it proved several bits of our evidence, that we’ve been conducting throughout this investigation, but there are also some contradictory statements that I think need further review,” Comer told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

“So this impeachment inquiry will now go to the next phase, which will be a public hearing. And that’s something that I think everyone in the media has been asking a lot of questions about. Something that I know that Mr. Biden and his attorney both demanded, just as I said, when we said we were going to do the deposition first, we will have a public hearing next.”

It’s unclear what other witnesses Chairman Comer and Chairman Jordan will present.

Comer claimed that parts of Hunter Biden’s testimony contradicted some of their previous witness’ testimony, although he refused to elaborate.

READ MORE: Court Denies Trump Request to Pause $454M Bond Requirement Amid His Cash Liquidity Claim

Hunter Biden stated in the opening remarks he released publicly Wednesday morning that Chairman Comer and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan had built their “entire partisan house of cards on lies told by the likes of Gal Luft, Tony Bobulinski, Alexander Smirnov, and Jason Galanis.”

“Luft, who is a fugitive, has been indicted for his lies and other crimes; Smirnov, who has made you dupes in carrying out a Russian disinformation campaign waged against my father, has been indicted for his lies; Bobulinski, who has been exposed for the many false statements he has made, and Galanis, who is serving 14 years in prison for fraud.”

Politico described Hunter Biden’s opening statement as “blistering.”

“I am here today,” the President’s son began, “to provide the Committees with the one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never.”

Watch Comer below or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Continue Reading

News

Court Denies Trump Request to Pause $454M Bond Requirement Amid His Cash Liquidity Claim

Published

on

A New York appeals court has denied Donald Trump’s request to issue a stay on the state Supreme Court’s ruling ordering the ex-president to pay $454 million in the civil business fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James. Trump had offered to post a bond of $100 million as he appeals the ruling, as he suggested he did not have sufficient liquid assets – namely, cash – to post the full amount required.

The judge did, however, pause a portion of the ruling barring Trump from operating a business in New York, and also paused the portion of the ruling barring him from obtaining a loan from a bank registered in the State of New York.

“It’s a mixed bag for Trump, and the former president GAINS some ability, in an interim ruling, to continue his business activities and loan-seeking. But the most crucial request, a stay of enforcement of the $450M+ judgment, has been rejected,” reports Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld.

Unless he can obtain a loan or other financing, Trump, as he admitted in his legal filing, may have to sell some of his assets, likely real estate, to come up with enough cash to satisfy the judgment.

The court “also denied Trump’s request to delay his obligation to post $454 million until his appeal of the civil fraud verdict is over,” CNN adds.

RELATED: Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Continue Reading

News

Trump Swore Under Oath He Had $400 Million in Cash – Now He’s Telling a Court a Different Story

Published

on

Attorneys for Donald Trump are arguing the ex-president and self-professed billionaire should not have to post a bond of $454 million as he appeals the New York State Supreme Court’s ruling holding him liable for civil business fraud. Instead, Trump is offering a bond of $100 million.

But as legal experts are pointing out, under oath, Trump stated he had $400 million in liquid assets. And his attorney, Alina Habba, when asked last week if he could come up with $350 million, said on-camera, “Yes, I mean, he does, of course he has money, you know, he’s a billionaire. We know that.”

Former federal and state prosecutor Ron Filipkowski, now the editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch.com, responded to Habba’s remarks, saying: “As we now know, this was also a lie.”

READ MORE: ‘How Extremism Is Normalized’: Schlapp Furious as Critics Slam CPAC Over Report of Nazis

“Trump says he doesn’t have the cash that both he and Habba told everyone he had, and that ‘properties would have to be sold’ to come up with the money,” Filipkowski adds.

He sums up the situation: “Trump under oath in his deposition: I’m worth at least $10 billion, I have over $3 billion in tangible assets, I have $400 million in cash. Trump to appellate court: I can come up with $100 million and I need more time to sell stuff to come up with the rest.”

Indeed, The New York Times reported earlier this month, “Mr. Trump claimed under oath last year that he was sitting on more than $400 million in cash.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James was quick to urge the court to deny Trump’s offer of $100 million, or, as Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld reports, “to deny Trump’s application to pause enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, including the disgorgement, monitoring, and loan prohibition.”

“Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment amount; defendants would need ‘to raise capital’ to do so,” James writes, as Klasfeld notes.

READ MORE: ‘Conspiring With Putin’: Democratic Congressman Brings the Hammer Down on Jim Jordan

Klasfeld points to this section of Trump’s motion that reads: “In the absence of a stay on the terms herein outlined, properties would likely need to be sold to raise capital under exigent circumstances, and there would be no way to recover any property sold following a successful appeal and no means to recover the resulting financial losses from the Attorney General.”

In other words, Trump’s attorneys are saying he would have to sell assets, or properties, at less than market value, and should he win his appeal, he would have no means to be compensated for the difference in value.

“Trump has less than 30 days to post the money to prevent the New York attorney general’s office from taking steps to execute the judgment, including potentially move to seize properties,” CNN adds. “It is not yet clear how he plans to cover the payment.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.