The Democratic National Committee alleges in a new multimillion dollar lawsuit that the Russian government , the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks engaged in a sweeping plot to interfere in the 2016 election in President Donald Trump 's favor .\nThe lawsuit accuses top officials for the Trump campaign , Russian government officials and their military intelligence service , the GRU , of engaging in a vast , coordinated effort to inflict damage on Trump ’ s general election rival , Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton .\nThe complaint , filed on Friday , alleges the groups schemed to undermine her candidacy by breaching computer systems for the DNC and spreading materials seized on their servers .\nThe news , first reported by The Washington Post , signals the largest escalation so far of legal efforts by the Democratic Party to resolve allegations of foreign meddling by Russian operatives and possible coordination with Trump campaign officials .\n███ Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the # 1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .\n“ During the 2016 presidential campaign , Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy , and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump ’ s campaign , ” DNC Chair Tom Perez said in a statement . “ This constituted an act of unprecedented treachery : the campaign of a nominee for President of the United States in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win the presidency . ''\nThe complaint alleges that through communications between Russian operatives and top Trump campaign officials , “ Russian agents formed an agreement to promote Donald Trump ’ s candidacy through illegal means . ”\nThe Trump campaign slammed the legal maneuver as `` frivolous '' in a statement on Friday , casting it as `` a last-ditch effort to substantiate the baseless Russian collusion allegations . ''\n“ This is a sham lawsuit about a bogus Russian collusion claim filed by a desperate , dysfunctional , and nearly insolvent Democratic Party , ” said Brad Parscale , the campaign manager for Trump 's 2020 re-election bid .\nParscale added that if the suit moved forward , the Trump campaign would use the discovery process to explore `` actual corruption '' he alleges took place by the DNC to `` influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election . ''\nTrump took to Twitter to react to the lawsuit from what he called “ the Obstructionist Democrats. “ The president said the action could spell “ good news “ for his campaign because “ we will now counter for the DNC Server that they refused to give to the FBI. “\nThe DNC disputed a similar charge from Trump during the 2016 campaign , saying it provided the FBI information on the server through a third-party vendor .\nIn seeking monetary compensation for the email hacks , the Democratic Party is borrowing from the playbook it put into action during the Watergate scandal , when it sued then-President Richard Nixon 's reelection campaign for $ 1 million . The Democratic Party alleged in the 1972 filing that the damages were incurred during the break-in of the famed Watergate building .\nThe protracted legal battle , which ran concurrently with the special prosecutor ’ s probe of Watergate and the House and Senate hearings about White House involvement in the break-in ended in a 1974 settlement that netted the DNC $ 750,000 .\nIn July 2016 , WikiLeaks published a trove of roughly 20,000 emails that hackers seized from the DNC during the campaign . The breach and release fueled news cycles , resulting in a string of negative headlines for the Democratic Party . The messages appeared to show favoritism among top DNC officials of Clinton over her Democratic primary opponent , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders .\nThe leaking organization in October then released thousands of emails from Clinton ’ s campaign chairman John Podesta . Top U.S. intelligence officials said the leaks appeared to be connected to Russian intelligence operatives .\nClinton has attributed her defeat in 2016 , among several other things , to the release of the hacked DNC and Podesta emails .\nWikiLeaks and the Russian Embassy to the United States did not immediately return requests for comment on the DNC lawsuit . In a tweet , however , WikiLeaks argued its organization was `` immune '' to the legal action .\nThe White House did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit . But the president and senior White House officials have been effusive in rejecting allegations that the Trump campaign coordinated or colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election .\nOn Wednesday , the president tweeted that “ there was NO COLLUSION ( except by the Dems ) ! ”\nRussian meddling efforts continue to be investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of federal prosecutors , selected to lead the Justice Department ’ s inquiry into whether Trump campaign officials colluded with foreign operatives to affect the election .\nMueller in February unveiled charges against 13 Russian nationals and three foreign entities on charges relating to the 2016 election meddling , alleging a coordinated online campaign to sway voters in favor of Trump .\nWhile lawmakers in the Senate continue to probe the allegations , Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee said last month they found no evidence that Trump or his aides colluded with foreign officials in 2016 . Democrats on the committee panned the findings .


President Trump Donald John TrumpTrump faces high stakes in meeting with Erdoğan amid impeachment drama Democrats worry they do n't have right candidate to beat Trump Trump threatening to fire Mulvaney : report MORE 's performance this past week aside Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki sparked outrage among congressional Democrats in all ways but one : There 's been no surge in support for impeachment .\nInstead , Democratic leaders have tamped down the impeachment push in the name of political pragmatism , fending off — for now — an effort by animated caucus liberals to escalate their oust-Trump campaign following his broadly maligned joint press conference with Putin in the Finnish capital on Monday .\nNot only is impeachment highly unlikely under a GOP-controlled Congress , the leaders argue , but it could undermine the chances of Democrats winning back the House in November , when they 'll need to flip seats in conservative-leaning districts where voters may be put off by an aggressive offensive to topple the president .\n“ At this point in time it would be a distraction . There will be time for that , ” said Rep. Steny Hoyer Steny Hamilton HoyerCongress hunts for path out of spending stalemate ███ 's 12:30 Report : Washington braces for public impeachment hearings This week : House kicks off public phase of impeachment inquiry MORE ( Md . ) , the Democratic whip , who had moments before told reporters on Tuesday that Trump ’ s actions were “ treasonous . ”\n“ We need to get through this election ; we need to deal with the economic issues ; we need to deal with the health-care issues of the American people , ” Hoyer said .\nThe post-summit debate has highlighted long-standing tensions between liberal impeachment champions giving voice to the Democrats ' anti-Trump base and party leaders warning that future efforts to check the president will be lost if Republicans keep the Speaker 's gavel next year .\nThe divide has been fueled by liberal outside groups wary that Democrats have been too soft on the bombastic president and are at risk of deflating their core supporters — an argument underlined by last month ’ s stunning primary defeat of Rep. Joseph Crowley ( D-N.Y. ) to an unapologetic activist , 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Alexandria Ocasio-CortezOcasio-Cortez calls for Stephen Miller to resign over leaked emails Ocasio-Cortez meets Sasha Velour following DC performance Sanders 'very concerned about what appears to be a coup ' in Bolivia MORE , who backs impeachment .\n“ Shouldn ’ t we put our democracy before party ? ” asked Rep. Luis Gutiérrez ( D-Ill. ) , who ’ s calling for impeachment . “ Shouldn ’ t we put our country before machinations we have about how this could affect [ elections ? ] ”\nIn the eyes of Trump ’ s sharpest liberal critics , the president ’ s remarks in Helsinki — where he appeared to side with Putin over his own intelligence agencies regarding Moscow ’ s interference in the 2016 elections — were a pivotal moment reinforcing their belief that Trump is simply unfit to hold the office . And several Democrats delivered fiery speeches on the House floor to rally support for their ongoing impeachment campaign .\n“ I rise today to say to my colleagues : We have to act , ” said Rep. Al Green Alexander ( Al ) N. GreenWhy fear should not blind us to the promise of AI : A healthy dose of optimism Trump at rally says impeachment an 'attack on democracy itself ' Democrats raise stakes with impeachment vote MORE ( Texas ) , who endorsed an early impeachment resolution more than a year ago . “ Yes , we can talk about all of the atrocities imposed upon our society by this president , but that is not enough . At some point , we have to act , and more and more people are starting to say what that action is . ”\nGutiérrez , who has endorsed a separate impeachment resolution sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen Stephen ( Steve ) Ira CohenImpeachment week : Trump probe hits crucial point Boeing CEO gives up bonus over 737 Max crashes Democrat says he voted to recognize Armenian genocide because 'Turkey does n't seem to respect ' US MORE ( D-Tenn. ) , said he ’ s looking for ways to expand that proposal to include Trump ’ s “ betrayal ” in Helsinki .\n“ As a body , we must take action to relieve the president of his duties , ” Gutiérrez said .\nThe calls for removing Trump from office began even before the president was sworn in . They were lonely at first , but grew louder in subsequent months , particularly following Trump ’ s equivocal response to August ’ s deadly white nationalist march in Charlottesville , Va. , and again in January after the president debased Haiti , El Salvador and African countries as “ shitholes . ”\nThere ’ s now evidence that the Helsinki summit is another decisive moment in the recruitment efforts of impeachment enthusiasts .\nCohen said a number of congressional Democrats approached him this past week about endorsing his resolution , which accuses Trump of obstructing justice and profiting from the presidency , among other charges . Cohen predicted “ three or four ” lawmakers would add their names to the bill this month .\nRep. Beto O ’ Rourke , a Texas Democrat running to unseat GOP Sen. Ted Cruz Rafael ( Ted ) Edward CruzTrump circuit court nominee in jeopardy amid GOP opposition Trump has officially appointed one in four circuit court judges On The Money : Retirement savings bill blocked in Senate after fight over amendments | Stopgap bill may set up December spending fight | Hardwood industry pleads for relief from Trump trade war MORE ( Texas ) , also said last week that he ’ d vote for impeachment if given the chance .\nStill , the support has come in drips . Cohen ’ s resolution , introduced in November , has 17 co-sponsors within the Democrats ’ liberal-heavy , 193-member caucus . Only one , Rep. Dwight Evans Dwight ( Dewey ) EvansOvernight Health Care — Presented by National Taxpayers Union — Buttigieg targets Warren , Sanders on health care ahead of debate | Judge overturns ObamaCare transgender protections | Poll sees support drop for 'Medicare for All ' A dozen House Democrats call on EU ambassador to resign amid Ukraine scandal House Democrats blur lines on support for impeachment MORE ( D-Pa. ) , has added his name since Monday ’ s Helsinki summit .\nThe tepid support is some indication that rank-and-file Democrats , despite their virtually unanimous misgivings with Trump , are heeding the call of party leaders to channel their frustrations into less aggressive strategies for confronting the White House .\nThe more tempered approach was on display last week , as Democrats sought to increase funding for election security , force votes rebuking Trump ’ s performance in Helsinki and subpoena his interpreter from the one-on-one portion of his summit with Putin . Democrats also introduced a package of bills designed to check Russian aggression across the globe .\n“ In the Congress , we want to stay focused on honoring our oath of office to protect the and defend the Constitution and our country , ” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiGiuliani pens op-ed slamming 'unprecedented ' impeachment inquiry Brindisi , Lamb recommended for Armed Services , Transportation Committees Overnight Health Care : Top health official defends contract payments to Trump allies | Vaping advocates confident Trump will turn from flavor ban | Sanders gets endorsement from nurses union MORE ( D-Calif. ) said last week , dismissing the impeachment effort . “ That ’ s our fight . ”\nGutiérrez said he “ fully ” understands the balance party leaders are seeking .\n“ Two opposing positions can live together in the same caucus , ” he said .\nStill , impeachment supporters say they ’ re not going away . Gutiérrez said he ’ s huddling with like-minded liberals such as Cohen and Rep. Maxine Waters Maxine Moore WatersDivides over China , fossil fuels threaten House deal to reboot Ex-Im Bank Hillicon Valley : Lawmakers unleash on Zuckerberg | House passes third election interference bill | Online extremism legislation advances in House | Google claims quantum computing breakthrough On The Money : Lawmakers hammer Zuckerberg over Facebook controversies | GOP chair expects another funding stopgap | Senate rejects Dem measure on SALT deduction cap workarounds MORE ( D-Calif. ) with designs to make “ a more robust public pronouncement ” on the issue this week .\n“ We should be gathering more steam , ” he said . “ I took an oath to defend this democracy . … If we don ’ t fulfill our oath , America ’ s just going to go down the drain . ”\nWaters , echoing that message , said Helsinki should be a tipping point to end all doubts about Trump ’ s fitness to serve .\n“ He is dangerous and … he is aligned with Putin and the Kremlin — for whatever reasons we don ’ t know , ” she said . “ I ’ m hopeful that this will be clearer to some folks who may have thought that some of us who were accusing him of all of these things were not just making it up . ”


With the recent Hobby Lobby decision , one would think this legal victory for conservatives could galvanize single women into turning out for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections . It ’ s still a possibility . After all , the Daily Beast is running op-eds showing how women are driving the Democratic Party ’ s agenda :\nMy friend Doug Sosnik has forgotten more about analyzing polling data than most of us will ever know , but he mistakes the wave for the currents in his POLITICO Magazine cover story , “ Blue Crush : How the left took over the Democratic Party. ” By focusing on ideology , Sosnik ’ s analysis ignores what is driving the power shift in the Democratic electorate . The reason that Democrats have achieved a consensus supporting LGBT rights , marijuana legalization and immigration reform is because they now enjoy a double-digit lead among women , especially unmarried women . The left hasn ’ t taken over the Democratic Party . Women have . Sosnik does write that he can ’ t imagine “ a viable Democratic presidential candidate , ” much less a nominee , “ who isn ’ t willing to take clear positions on … supporting women ’ s health and their reproductive rights , ” but this core value is embedded among positions on hydraulic fracking and the minimum wage . In that word salad , it ’ s hard to tell the side dish from the entree . Put simply , when polls show a double-digit gender gap — and women turn out — we know who ’ s going to win and why .\nThe Democrat ’ s so-called “ war on women ” has surely helped mobilize these ladies into a juggernaut of a voting bloc . So , why are Democrats shying away from their signature slogan ? The National Journal reported on July 31 that this narrative may have run its course – and that Hobby Lobby might not bring it back with a vengeance ( emphasis mine ) :\nDemocrats want to talk about `` personhood '' and reproductive freedom . They want to tell voters about a stubborn pay gap and women hurt by a low minimum wage . But what they do n't want to do is talk about a `` war on women . '' Indeed , the party that so effectively deployed the `` war '' rhetoric to help defeat Mitt Romney in 2012 has now sworn off its catch phrase , dropping it almost completely from a campaign strategy that , in so many other ways , is still very much about women 's issues . `` [ Saying ] 'Republicans are waging a war on women ' actually does n't test very well , '' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake . `` Women find it divisive , political—they do n't like it . '' … `` We are on much stronger ground when we talk about the specifics than when we talk about the category , '' said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman . `` And so when we talk about Republicans who want to make abortion illegal , Republicans who want to ban equal pay for equal work … the specific policy issues matter . That 's where the power is . ''\nThe Journal piece also noted that Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes , who thinks Israel ’ s Iron Dome protects it from underground attacks , is using Senator Mitch McConnell ’ s votes against the Violence Against Women Act and Equal Pay as an example of this shift in messaging strategy . At the same time , McConnell and Grimes are polling even with Kentucky women .\nNevertheless , it still means Republicans should get more aggressive in debunking these disingenuous attacks , reaching out to single women by showing we ’ re , amongst other things , not insensitive towards their needs , and sharpening our messaging to avoid more Todd Akin moments .\nOn the other hand , there are other voting blocs that have just as much sway in elections . But , let 's not discount that `` war on women '' tactics could return in an ugly way .


Entering Final Primary Stretch , Clinton And Sanders Fight For A California Win\nCalifornia was n't supposed to be close . In early polling , Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead , but that lead has all but vanished . A new survey from the Public Policy Institute of California has Clinton in a virtual tie with Bernie Sanders among Democratic primary likely voters — 46 percent support Clinton while 44 percent support Sanders .\nThe Golden State , which holds its presidential primary June 7 , is a big , liberal , delegate-rich prize in what has been a long and increasingly bitter primary fight .\nAnd both candidates are fighting to win California . Clinton wrapped up a four-day swing Friday , while Sanders is in the midst of a weeklong barnstorming of the state .\nSanders pointed out recent polls with some glee at a rally in Santa Monica earlier this week . `` She 's looking very nervous lately , '' he said . `` And I do n't want to get her more nervous , so if you promise not to tell her , we 're going to win here in California . ''\nClinton , meanwhile , has been more focused on the general election than on the primary .\n`` Send a message , '' she said in San Francisco . `` Send a message to a demagogic , rhetorically divisive and dangerous candidate that when you think about the future you do n't see Donald Trump 's face up there . ''\nThe reality is , with all the superdelegates who have announced their support for Clinton and her very large lead in pledged delegates , Clinton will almost certainly clinch the nomination before the polls even close in California . So why is she competing so hard in the state ?\nIt 's all about psychology , says Jack Pitney , a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College .\n`` She wants to end the primary campaign on a high note , and losing California would end it on a low note , '' he said . `` She wins the nomination , but loses the psychological warfare to Bernie Sanders . ''\nAs Clinton has traveled the state , the reception has n't been entirely friendly .\nIn Salinas , a mix of what looked to be Trump and Sanders supporters gathered outside a Clinton event . They chanted and waved signs about her speech transcripts , email server and relatively hawkish foreign policy views .\n`` You 're either with Hillary or you 're with Trump , '' he said .\nSilva was wearing a black T-shirt with big white letters reading `` Dump Trump '' and admits he is more motivated against Trump than he is for Clinton . Silva initially supported Bernie Sanders , but now he plans to vote for Clinton in the primary .\n`` You know , I wish it would end so that all the concentration would be against Trump and the Democratic Party can unite against Trump , '' Silva said . `` That would be a big plus for the party , and I think for America . ''\nClinton needs more voters like Silva if she 's going to unite the party . She has started making that pitch in California .\n`` We , Sen. Sanders and I , our supporters together , have so much more in common together than we do with Donald Trump , '' she said in San Jose .\nEven a California loss for Clinton would n't really change the race , because she and Sanders would very likely split the state 's delegates , says Mo Elleithee , executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service . He worked on the Clinton campaign in 2008 .\n`` I think they would like to send a stronger message , '' he said , `` but at the end of the day the nomination process is about math much more than it is about momentum . Math beats momentum every time . ''\nThat 's probably not what Sanders and his supporters will be saying heading into the July Democratic convention if he is able to pull off a win in California . A Golden State victory would be a big part of Sanders argument to superdelegates that they should flip and support him .


A divided appeals court panel sided Friday with Ohio business owners who challenged the birth control mandate under the new federal health care law .\nThe business owners are two brothers , Francis and Philip M. Gilardi , who own Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney , Ohio. , and challenged the mandate on religious grounds . They say the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage would force them to violate their Roman Catholic beliefs and moral values by providing contraceptives such as the morning-after pill for their employees . The law already exempts houses of worship from the requirement .\nThe ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of several on the birth control issue , which likely will be resolved by the Supreme Court . There are at least three other rulings by federal appeals courts on the mandate : One sided with Oklahoma businesses ; and two sided with the Obama administration in challenges brought by Pennsylvania and Michigan companies .\nWriting for the majority , Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote that the mandate `` trammels the right of free exercise -- a right that lies at the core of our constitutional liberties -- as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act . ''\nBrown , an appointee of President George W. Bush , said that the mandate presented the Gilardis with a `` Hobson 's choice : They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith , pay a penalty of over $ 14 million , and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building , or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong . ''\nFriday 's ruling reversed a lower court ruling that had denied the Gilardis ' request for a preliminary injunction to block the Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing the mandate against them as business owners . The appeals court ruled that the lower court erred when it concluded the Gilardis were unlikely to succeed on the merits , and sent the case back to the lower court to consider other factors for an injunction .\nBut Brown upheld the lower court 's dismissal of an injunction for the brothers ' companies , writing , `` we have no basis for concluding a secular organization can exercise religion . ''\nIn an opinion dissenting from the court 's main holding in the case , Judge Harry T. Edwards wrote that legislative restrictions may trump religious exercise . He asked what , if the Gilardis ' companies were exempted from covering contraception , would stop another company from seeking an exemption from a requirement to cover vaccines ?\n`` The mandate does not require the Gilardis to encourage Freshway 's employees to use contraceptives any more directly than they do by authorizing Freshway to pay wages , '' wrote Edwards , who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter . He added that the Gilardis remain free to publicly express their disapproval of contraceptives .\nComing from the other direction , Judge A. Raymond Randolph joined Brown 's main conclusion about the Gilardis but dissented from her conclusions about Freshway companies ' exercise of religion .\n`` Why limit the free-exercise right to religious organizations when many business corporations adhere to religious dogma ? '' asked Randolph , an appointee of President George H.W . Bush . `` If non-religious organizations do not have free-exercise rights , why do non-religious natural persons ( atheists , for example ) possess them ? ''\nThe Gilardis ' lawyer , Francis Manion , senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice , an anti-abortion legal group that focuses on constitutional law , said he was pleased that the court accepted the `` bulk '' of his arguments , but will appeal the part of the ruling on the free exercise religious rights of corporations .\n`` It 's a big victory , but not total , '' he said in a telephone interview .\nIn a statement , the Rev . Barry W. Lynn , executive director of Americans United , a church-state watchdog group , said the Friday 's ruling turns `` the concept of religious freedom on its head .\n`` Religious liberty means the right to make decisions for yourself , not other people , '' Lynn said . `` Freedom of religion should never be a blank check to meddle in the personal medical decisions of others . ''\nThe Department of Health and Human Services said it was unable to comment on pending litigation .


Colorado baker Jack Phillips received a standing ovation Saturday at the Western Conservative Summit , which came as a change of pace after a week of protests and negative reviews following his Supreme Court victory .\nSince the high court ruled Monday in his favor , the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood has been faced with protesters and a deluge of one-star reviews on Yelp , but he ’ s not complaining .\nFar from it . “ It ’ s been quite a week , but God is so good , ” Mr. Phillips told the friendly crowd at the Colorado Convention Center .\nHe thanked those at the annual “ rally on the right ” hosted by the Centennial Institute who supported him during the six-year court fight over his refusal to create a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony .\n“ I ’ ve heard my faith described as despicable and my efforts to defend my religious freedom have been compared to Nazis , ” Mr. Phillips said . “ And I ’ m profoundly grateful that the court saw the injustice that our state government inflicted on me . This decision is great for my family , for our shop , and for people of all faiths who should not have to fear government hostility or unjust punishment . ”\nThe legal battle ended Monday with the high court ’ s 7-2 decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against Mr. Phillips on the basis of his religious beliefs when it ruled against him .\nGreg with Jack Philips owner of Masterpiece Bakery at Western Conservative Summit , congratulating him for fighting for religious liberty # WCS2018 # COpolitics pic.twitter.com/QJn9QDbFtK — Greg Lopez ( @ Lopez4Governor ) June 9 , 2018\nConservatives hailed the ruling as a victory for First Amendment rights , while critics held a protest hours after the decision ’ s release featuring Democratic Gov . John Hickenlooper at the state capital in Denver .\nMeanwhile , the Masterpiece Cakeshop ’ s page on Yelp has been slammed with hundreds of politically motivated one-star reviews accusing Mr. Phillips of “ bigotry , ” some with photos of same-sex marriage ceremonies .\n“ Giving a one-star review because the menu doesn ’ t include ‘ hatred and bigotry ’ as options , ” said one commenter .\nSaid another : “ Food made with hate does not taste good . This establishment is homophobic . ”\nThe traffic prompted Yelp to post an “ active cleanup alert , ” saying that “ we will ultimately remove reviews that that appear to be motivated more by the news coverage itself rather than by the reviewer ’ s own customer experience with the business . ”\nA band of activists turned up at the cakeshop Friday for a protest called “ Gay Party at Bigot Bakery , ” backed by groups including the People for Bernie Sanders and Millennials for Revolution , but they were met by dozens of counter-protesters in support of Mr. Phillips .\nThose in the pro-Phillips group waved signs with messages like “ Justice for Jack , ” “ Love Free Speech ” and “ Stand up for Religious Freedom , ” as shown on footage by Fox31 in Denver .\nMr. Phillips responded by speaking to the opposing parties — and handing out cookies .\n“ The court ’ s decision makes clear that tolerance is a two-way street , ” said Mr. Phillips at the summit . “ If we want to have freedom for ourselves , we have to extend it to others with whom we disagree . Even about important issues like the meaning of marriage . ”\nHe ’ s accustomed by now to the criticism . His shop lost 40 percent of its business after he stopped making wedding cakes following the commission ’ s ruling .\n“ The government ’ s hostility directly impacted my shop , our ability to make a living , ” he said . “ We also faced death threats and harassment , all for choosing not to design a cake that celebrates one particular event . ”


The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has served to highlight the divisions that characterize so much in Washington . First , and foremost , the Supreme Court itself has long been as divided as the country itself . Split 4-4 with a conservative-leaning swing voter — Justice Anthony Kennedy — as a frequent tiebreaker , in Scalia 's absence the court is left in a dead heat in areas ranging from affirmative action to union dues to abortion .\nScalia was a critical part of the 5-4 conservative majority in a litany of major cases . However , it is the division in the Senate that could produce the next constitutional crisis . Faced with a refusal of the Republican senators to move forward with a nominee for the court in the last year of the Obama Administration , President Obama could use the nuclear option : a recess appointment to the Supreme Court .\nUnder Article II of the U.S. Constitution a president is allowed to temporarily fill vacancies that “ may happen during the Recess of the Senate. ” I have long been a critic of recess appointments to the judiciary . While far less common than appointments to the Executive Branch , such appointments have occurred historically ( including 12 to the Supreme Court ) .Yet judicial recess appointments undermine the integrity of the courts by using the equivalent of a judicial temp for a position that was meant to be held by a jurist with lifetime tenure .\nThe framers wanted a president and the Senate to come to an accord on such appointments , including the need to compromise to achieve such goals . Obama , however , made it clear years ago that he was willing to go it alone when Congress failed to give him legislation or confirmations that he demanded . His unilateral actions have already produced a constitutional crisis over the fundamental guarantees of the separation of powers . This includes a unanimous 2014 decision of the Supreme Court that Obama violated the recess appointments clause in his circumvention of the Senate .\nFor a president who has shown a tendency to “ go it alone ” when denied action by Congress , a recess appointment may prove an irresistible temptation for Obama . The Republican leadership has already signaled that it has no intention of moving forward with such a nomination , objecting that ( in 80 years ) no president has moved such a nomination within his final year in office . While there is ample time to vote on a nominee , the president could make an appointment if his nominee is denied or if his nominee is left to languish in the Senate Judiciary Committee .\nThe Republicans may have unnecessarily tripped the wire by saying that they would not move forward on a nomination as opposed to slow walking and rejecting a nomination . The failure to even consider the nominee could give the president the rationale for a recess appointment . Ironically , the justice who tended to favor executive assertions of power and limit the ability of Congress to challenge such assertions was Antonin Scalia .\nThe president could claim that his power is in full effect with the current recess of the Senate . He could also claim such authority with the end of the annual session . Generally , the authority to make a recess appointment has been recognized with a recess of greater than three days . The Senate can avoid that trigger by remaining in technical session with little or no business being transacted . That could push the target recess to the end of the session where Obama would make the appointment before the next Congress assembles in January — an appointment made in literally the waning days of his term .\nI happen to think Obama is well within his rights to make the nomination . As hockey great Wayne Gretzky said , you miss every shot that you never take . And this is a shot most presidents would take . If blocked , however , Obama should recognize that a new president will enter office in a matter of months ( or weeks with an end-of-session appointment ) with a national mandate . Such a decision would undermine the integrity of the court with a display of raw muscle by a departing president . It would cement Obama ’ s troubling legacy as a president who waged an unrelenting campaign against the separation of powers that is the foundation of our constitutional system . The difference between a statesman and a politician is often the exercise of restraint . It is not enough to say that you can do something , but whether you should do something . This is something Obama should not do .\nJonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of ███ 's board of contributors . He has written and testified before Congress on the role and limits of recess appointments .\nIn addition to its own editorials , ███ publishes diverse opinions from outside writers , including our Board of Contributors . To read more columns like this , go to the Opinion front page .


Brett Kavanaugh ’ s Supreme Court nomination was plunged into chaos after a woman accusing him of sexual assault spoke publicly for the first time about the allegation on Sunday .\nThe fallout from the decades-old allegation is putting a spotlight on Senate Republicans , who must decide if they want to rush forward with Kavanaugh ’ s nomination with questions lingering over the Senate ’ s debate and vote .\nRepublicans have been confident for months that Kavanaugh would be confirmed by October , when the court starts its next term . But they are under intense pressure to delay a vote after Kavanaugh ’ s accuser , Christine Blasey Ford , told The Washington Post that in high school in the early 1980s , Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a party and forced himself on her .\nFord told the Post that Kavanaugh `` groped her over her clothes , grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it . ''\nSenate Judiciary Committee Republicans quickly defended Kavanaugh , noting he had undergone multiple FBI background checks , and questioned the timing of the allegations .\nTaylor Foy , a spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley Charles ( Chuck ) Ernest GrassleySpeaker Pelosi , it 's time to throw American innovators a lifeline Barr : Inspector general 's report on alleged FISA abuses 'imminent ' Pelosi aide hopeful White House will support drug-pricing bill despite criticism MORE ( R-Iowa ) , released a lengthy statement after the Post published its interview with Ford saying it was “ disturbing ” that the “ uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago , during high school , would surface on the eve of the committee vote . ”\n“ It raises a lot of questions about Democrats ’ tactics and motives to bring this to the rest of the committee ’ s attention only now rather than during these many steps along the way . Senator Feinstein should publicly release the letter she received back in July so that everyone can know what she ’ s known for weeks , ” he added .\nSen. Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham : Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower ' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE ( R-S.C. ) — who could become Judiciary Committee chairman next year — said that he aligned himself with the statement “ about the substance and process regarding the allegations in this latest claim . ”\nGraham became the first Republican to open the door to a hearing from Ford , saying he would “ gladly listen to what she has to say and compare that against all other information we have received about Judge Kavanaugh . ”\nBut he caveated that the testimony should happen within the current timeline for confirming Kavanaugh , “ so the process can continue as scheduled . ”\nAnd Sen. Jeff Flake Jeffrey ( Jeff ) Lane FlakeLindsey Graham basks in the impeachment spotlight Kelly , McSally virtually tied in Arizona Senate race : poll ███ 's 12:30 Report — Presented by Nareit — White House cheers Republicans for storming impeachment hearing MORE ( R-Ariz. ) , another member of the Judiciary Committee , said on Sunday he believes the panel shouldn ’ t vote on Kavanaugh ’ s nomination until they ’ ve had time to dig into the allegation .\n“ For me , we can ’ t vote until we hear more , ” Flake told the Post .\nA spokeswoman for Flake didn ’ t immediately respond to a request for comment . If the committee tried to move forward on Thursday and Flake joined all Democrats in voting `` no , '' that would likely result in a 10-11 vote in favor of Kavanaugh . But that would n't prohibit his nomination from coming to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote .\nThe Senate Judiciary Committee has a vote scheduled on Kavanaugh ’ s nomination on Thursday at 1:45 p.m. Republicans hold a majority on the committee , meaning if they stick together he could clear the panel this week .\nIn a move that could help stave off GOP defections , and keep Kavanaugh ’ s nomination on schedule , Grassley is working to set up calls before Thursday ’ s vote with both Kavanaugh and Ford .\n“ Given the late addendum to the background file and revelations of Dr. Ford ’ s identity , Chairman Grassley is actively working to set up ... follow-up calls with Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford ahead of Thursday ’ s scheduled vote , ” a spokesman for the Judiciary Committee said on Sunday .\nRepublican leadership showed no intention of slowing down their plan to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by the end of the month . If confirmed , he would give the party a major victory less than two months before the midterm election and is expected to help tilt the court to the right for decades .\nA spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison ( Mitch ) Mitchell McConnellGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham : Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower ' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE ( R-Ky. ) declined to comment on Sunday , but the tightlipped GOP leader has not signaled that the sexual assault allegations have changed his mind about confirming Kavanaugh before October .\nBut even as Republican leadership is indicating they want to move forward with Kavanaugh , his nomination remains short of the 50 votes needed to be confirmed .\nThe caucus ’ s two potential swing votes — GOP Sens . Lisa Murkowski Lisa Ann MurkowskiHillicon Valley : Federal inquiry opened into Google health data deal | Facebook reports millions of post takedowns | Microsoft shakes up privacy debate | Disney plus tops 10M sign-ups in first day Senators press FDA tobacco chief on status of vaping ban Federal inquiry opened into Google health data deal MORE ( Alaska ) and Susan Collins Susan Margaret CollinsLawmakers under pressure to pass benefits fix for military families Senate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges GOP senators warn against Trump firing intelligence community official MORE ( Maine ) — have yet to say how they will vote or if they want to delay the vote in the wake of the allegations , which first surfaced late last week when Senate Democrats said they had given a letter detailing the alleged incident to the FBI .\nSpokespeople for both senators didn ’ t immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday . Collins had a one-hour phone call with Kavanaugh on Friday that was previously scheduled .\n`` Well I obviously was very surprised and it 's , it 's an issue that I brought up with him last Friday and he denied as he did in his written statement , ” she told CNN on Sunday , declining to comment further .\nThe two senators are under a mountain of pressure by liberal activists and outside groups to oppose Kavanaugh in the wake of the sexual assault allegation . The two were already considered potential swing votes because they ’ ve previously broken with their party on ObamaCare repeal and abortion-related legislation .\nDemocrats would need to win over two Republican senators if they want to block Kavanaugh ’ s nomination . And the caucus began to break its days-long silence over the assault allegations on Sunday to unify behind a call for Kavanaugh ’ s vote to be delayed .\n`` Senator Grassley must postpone the vote until , at a very minimum , these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated . For too long , when woman have made serious allegations of abuse , they have been ignored . That can not happen in this case , '' Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer Charles ( Chuck ) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care : Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal | House panel advances flavored e-cig ban | Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Chad Wolf becomes acting DHS secretary Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight , seeking larger action MORE ( D-N.Y. ) said in a statement on Sunday .\nDemocrats are widely expected to oppose Kavanaugh ’ s nomination , but the sexual assault allegation comes as several red- and purple-state senators up for reelection remain on the fence .\nSens . Joe Donnelly Joseph ( Joe ) Simon DonnellyWatchdog accuses pro-Kavanaugh group of sending illegal robotexts in 2018 Lobbying world Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren , Sanders , Gillibrand MORE ( Ind . ) , Heidi Heitkamp Mary ( Heidi ) Kathryn HeitkampThe Hill 's Morning Report — Biden steadies in third debate as top tier remains the same Trump wins 60 percent approval in rural areas of key states Pence to push new NAFTA deal in visit to Iowa MORE ( N.D. ) and Joe Manchin Joseph ( Joe ) ManchinFormer coal exec Don Blankenship launches third-party presidential bid Centrist Democrats seize on state election wins to rail against Warren 's agenda Overnight Energy : Senate eyes nixing 'forever chemicals ' fix from defense bill | Former Obama EPA chief named CEO of green group | Senate reviews Interior , FERC nominees criticized on ethics MORE ( W.Va. ) previously voted for Neil Gorsuch , President Trump Donald John TrumpGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Warren goes local in race to build 2020 movement 2020 Democrats make play for veterans ' votes MORE ’ s first Supreme Court pick , and were widely seen as potential `` yes '' votes for Kavanaugh .\nBut the three are facing renewed pressure from progressives who believe Kavanaugh ’ s nomination should be withdrawn , or that senators should block him , after the sexual assault allegation . Progressives warn that voting for Kavanaugh would backfire for incumbent senators by angering base voters they need to turn out to win their tight elections .\n“ We believe Christine Blasey Ford and so should every U.S Senator , ” Demand Justice , a progressive group that opposes Kavanaugh , said shortly after The Washington Post published its story on Sunday .\nShaunna Thomas , executive director and co-founder of UltraViolet , said on Sunday that all senators must give the allegations the “ seriousness that it deserves . ”\n“ Ford ’ s accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are deeply troubling and totally disqualifying . Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination immediately . Violence against women should have no place in our society and it certainly should have no place on the highest court in the nation . ”\nHeitkamp , Manchin and Donnelly , who aren ’ t on the Judiciary Committee , didn ’ t immediately echo their colleagues on Sunday to delay Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation . Spokespeople for the three moderate senators didn ’ t respond to a request for comment .\nIt was a break from fellow red-state Sen. Doug Jones ( D-Ala. ) , who said on Twitter on Sunday that the Senate should hit “ pause ” on Kavanaugh ’ s nomination .\n`` It is more important than ever to hit the pause button on Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation vote until we can fully investigate these serious and disturbing allegations . We can not rush to move forward under this cloud , '' Jones , who is not a member of the committee , said in a tweet .\nThe allegations sparked criticism from the conservative Judicial Crisis Network . `` Judge Kavanaugh is admired in his church , in his community , and in his profession . Throughout his distinguished career in public service , he has undergone half a dozen FBI background checks , and never a whisper of misconduct . Until the eve of his confirmation , '' the group said .\n`` It does n't add up . But what does add up is that Democrats are doubling down on a strategy of character assassination , seeking to destroy the life of a distinguished public servant for the sake of appeasing their base . ''\n`` Oh boy ... the Dems and their usual nonsense games really have him on the ropes now , '' Trump Jr. added .


On this day in 1973 , the Supreme Court issued a decision that enshrined the constitutional right to an abortion in the landmark case Roe v. Wade . But with mounting attacks on abortion rights and the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history , states across the country have spent the 47th year of Roe scrambling to protect a women ’ s right to choose in the increasingly plausible event that the historic court decision is soon overturned .\n“ The reality is that the balance of the Supreme Court is not in our favor , ” says Bonyen Lee-Gilmore , who works on state media campaigns for Planned Parenthood , adding , “ We have to be prepared [ if ] Roe falls . That ’ s just part of the reality of living under the Trump administration . ”\nThe effort began exactly one year ago , when New York became the first state to enshrine the right to an abortion in its state law , effectively codifying Roe v. Wade . ( The law also ended New York ’ s ban on abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy . ) Since then , Illinois , Rhode Island , and Vermont have all passed similar laws protecting the right to an abortion . Michigan , New Jersey , and the District of Columbia are also looking at codifying the right to an abortion . In 2019 , statehouses passed more legislation protecting or expanding abortion access than in the entire previous decade .\nHowever , in the aftermath of the confirmation of two staunchly conservative justices to the Supreme Court in 2018 , red states have been doing the opposite kind of preparation for a post-Roe world . In 2019 , four states—Arkansas , Kentucky , Missouri , and Tennessee—passed legislation known as trigger laws , which would ban abortion if the Supreme Court overturned Roe , and 12 states passed abortion bans . In total , eight states now have trigger laws on the books , and 20 have laws that could be used to restrict the right to an abortion if Roe were overturned .\n“ States are going in widely divergent directions when it comes to both abortion rights and abortion access , ” says Andrea Miller , president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health . “ We have a group of states last year that were tripping over each other in a race to the bottom to try to ban abortion outright , and then we also had a real record year on the other side . ”\nAccording to Planned Parenthood , roughly 25 million women of reproductive age live in a state where abortion could be banned if Roe is overturned . Millions more are already forced to jump through hoops to access abortions , including 72-hour waiting periods , mandatory counseling , and invasive ultrasound procedures .\nIn March , the Supreme Court will hear its first abortion case since the confirmation of conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch . The case concerns a 2014 Louisiana law , which requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals , a stipulation that opponents of the bill argue would leave the state with only one provider for a population of more than 4.5 million . Although the justices are not expected to overturn Roe outright in this case , legal experts argue that if the court were to rule in favor of the law , access to abortion in states like Louisiana could exist in name only .


Washington ( CNN ) Chief Justice John Roberts is back in the spotlight .\nRoberts -- who shocked conservatives nearly three years ago by providing a pivotal vote to uphold Obamacare -- once again faces a judicial crossroads in a historic case .\nThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could decide whether gay and lesbian couples nationwide have the constitutional right to marry . The question at the core of Obergefell v. Hodges is one of the most consequential debates of the early 21st century , and one that is already helping to shape the 2016 presidential race .\nAppeals courts nationwide have moved decisively toward supporting same-sex marriage , but a split at the appellate level helped propel the issue to the nation 's highest court , led by Roberts .\nAppointed to the bench by President George W. Bush , Roberts has a solid conservative record and would seem an unlikely vote to support a constitutional right to same-sex marriage . He dissented in United States v. Windsor , a landmark case in which a narrowly divided court struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act , which denied federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples . And he 's expressed sympathy with legal arguments that would allow same-sex marriage bans .\nYet both sides see the case as a legacy-making moment for the 60-year-old chief justice , and advocates for same-sex couples hold out hope that he will emerge as their ally . They will be scrutinizing his words and actions Tuesday for clues about how he 'll vote -- and whether he will upset some conservatives once again .\n`` If the Windsor majority votes in favor of marriage equality , the ruling will be one of the most momentous decisions of the Roberts court , '' said Judith E. Schaeffer of the Constitutional Accountability Center , which is advocating for same-sex marriage . `` Will John Roberts want to be remembered as having dissented from such a historic decision ? ''\nFor some conservatives , a vote in favor of same-sex marriage in the case would be a huge disappointment . It would be akin to the type of betrayal they felt when Justice David Souter , who was nominated to the bench by George H.W . Bush and who retired in 2009 , consistently voted with the liberals or when Justice Anthony Kennedy , a Ronald Reagan appointee , disappointed them on earlier gay rights cases as well as abortion and the death penalty . Or when Roberts infuriated conservative allies by providing the crucial fifth vote to uphold Obamacare on the grounds that the law is a constitutional use of the government 's taxing authority .\nThe hope in conservative circles is that Roberts will see his legacy as ensuring that the issue of same-sex marriage gets decided by the people , not the courts .\n`` The chief surely knows that his job is to be on the right side of the Constitution , '' said Edward Whelan , president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center . `` Blatherings about the 'wrong side of history ' are an appeal to intellectual cowardice . ''\nThose hoping that he will vote to uphold the state bans see a strong signal in the Windsor case .\nIn his majority opinion , Kennedy said the `` principal purpose '' of the Defense of Marriage Act was to `` impose inequality . ''\nRoberts disagreed . He wrote separately to say he thought Congress acted constitutionally when it passed the law in 1996 in an attempt to provide `` uniformity and stability '' at a time when every state defined marriage as between a man and a woman .\nRoberts picked up on Kennedy 's language that emphasized the states ' power to define the marital relationship and said that power will someday `` come into play on the other side of the board in future cases about the constitutionality of state marriage definitions . ''\nDavid Cruz of the University of Southern California Gould School of Law said that Roberts could use that reasoning to vote in favor of state bans in the Obergefell case .\n`` Roberts is suggesting that concerns about the powers of states will support state laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage , '' Cruz said .\nIndeed , the lower court that upheld the marriage bans in Michigan , Tennessee , Ohio and Kentucky in the Obergefell case relied heavily on the argument that states have a right to define marriage .\nAnother clue to Roberts ' thinking in the Windsor dissent is that he took particular issue with any notion that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed out of a desire to harm -- noting it had the support of majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as President Bill Clinton , who signed it into law .\n`` I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry , '' Roberts wrote .\nThe comments suggest he would reject an argument in the Obergefell case that rested on the idea that same-sex marriage bans reflected animus against gay people .\nBut backers of same-sex marriage are reading some tea leaves of their own .\nSchaeffer points out that Roberts did n't join the parts of the dissents penned by Justices Antonin Scalia Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito , which clearly stated a belief that state bans on same-sex marriage do n't violate the Constitution .\n`` Roberts did n't join them in expressing those views , '' Schaeffer said .\nAt the time , Roberts simply wrote that the court `` does not have before it , and the logic of its opinion does not decide '' whether states can ban same-sex marriage .\nSchaeffer said the chief justice could have simply chosen to remain silent on an issue that was n't before the court .\n`` But I think one reasonable explanation is that Roberts was preserving a clean slate for himself on the ultimate issue of marriage equality , '' she said .\nThe Defense of Marriage Act decision overshadowed another 2013 case -- Hollingsworth v. Perry -- that could have determined whether states could ban same-sex marriage .\nThe case concerned a challenge to California 's Proposition 8 , a state constitutional amendment that barred same-sex couples from marriage . But Roberts , writing for the majority , dismissed the case , holding that the challengers did not have the legal standing to bring it to the court .\nThe ruling left in place a lower court decision that had invalidated Proposition 8 and thus paved the way for same-sex marriage in California . Roberts ' lesbian cousin , who lives in California , sat in the courtroom during arguments in the Prop 8 case .\nFew people predicted that the issue would return so quickly to the Supreme Court , but waves of lower court judges -- sometimes citing Windsor -- struck down the state bans .\nOn the first day of the term last fall , the court was presented with seven different petitions on the issue . Conventional wisdom was that the justices would garner the four necessary votes and grant one of the cases . But conventional wisdom was completely wrong .\nWithout comment , the court declined to take up any of the cases , clearing the way for thousands of additional same-sex marriages .\nThe court 's vote count in such decisions is kept a secret and may never be known . But some speculate on one possible scenario : Roberts chose not to provide the fourth vote to the conservatives who dissented in Windsor .\nThen again , even if the speculation were true , it does n't reveal much about Roberts ' thinking . There 's a big difference between voting not to take up a case , which expresses no opinions on the merits , and issuing an opinion on the merits .\nAnd even when Roberts ' actions -- such as effectively allowing same-sex marriage to proceed in California -- seem to suggest a willingness to consider such unions nationwide , his comments along the way make it much harder to gain insight into his ultimate thinking .\n`` When the institution of marriage developed historically , people did n't get around and say , 'Let 's have this institution , but let 's keep out homosexuals , ' `` Roberts said during the Proposition 8 oral arguments . `` The institution developed to serve purposes that , by their nature , did n't include homosexual couples . ''


Cam Newton finds himself in a no-win situation on matters of race these days , something he mentioned on Wednesday when asked about the shooting death of Charlotte-area resident Keith Lamont Scott by police .\n“ I ’ m in a position now where if I say something , it ’ s going to be critiqued , ” the Carolina Panthers quarterback said , “ and if I don ’ t say something , then I ’ m flawed . ”\nHe ’ s right — both sides can parse Newton ’ s words any way they want , and he typically is a lightning rod for criticism no matter what he says . After being open on some racial issues in the past , he has become more reserved and guarded most recently . The GQ interview that came out in August shocked many when Newton essentially said that America didn ’ t have a race problem .\nOn Wednesday , he did , however , offer his candid ( if not carefully chosen ) thoughts about what was happening in his community — a shooting death that has grabbed the national spotlight .\n“ I ’ m a firm believer of justice and a firm believer of doing the right thing , and I can ’ t repeat enough about just holding people accountable , ” Newton said . “ I ’ m an African-American . I am not happy with how justice has been kind of dealt with over the years .\n“ But we also , as black people , have to do right by ourselves . We can ’ t be hypocrites . I say that on one voice and also another voice that when you go public , or when things happen in the community , it ’ s not the fact that things are happening ; it ’ s the way they ’ re being treated after they ’ re happening . ”\nNewton cut to the core of what a lot people are wondering : Are police officers treated the same way by the justice system when it comes to bringing charges and/or convicting police offers who kill civilians , as a civilian would if he was the one holding the gun ?\nBeyond that , Newton touched on the effects of such a shooting , something that hit home for him as a father .\n“ When you get a person that ’ s doing unjust things or killing an innocent person or killing fathers , or killing people who have actual families , that ’ s real . I have a son and a daughter that I ’ m responsible for . So how would I be if one day they come home and there ’ s no more daddy ? ”\nBut before you read this as Newton judging the case before it ’ s been tried , he was sure to make note that he didn ’ t have enough information yet on the Scott shooting to say who was right and wrong . And this case , although it involves a police officer killing a black citizen , might not be like other stories promulgated in the recent news cycle in that the officer was black and that Charlotte police have claimed Scott was armed and warned multiple times to stand down , even if some witness accounts didn ’ t indicate that the victim made any threatening gestures .\nCam Newton ’ s right about one thing : Voicing opinions can be a lose-lose proposition for him . And he ’ s clearly playing for the tie today . — Darin Gantt ( @ daringantt ) September 21 , 2016\nStill , Newton isn ’ t completely sitting on the sideline on this story and is lending his voice — and his position — he says to help make a difference .\n“ I want to bring unity , and football gives me that opportunity , ” Newton said .


It ’ s increasingly obvious that the Democratic Party is moribund and that its members know it . In a desperate attempt to survive , they have declared war on a chimera called “ racism , ” which they insist is endemic to American culture . Left-wing Democrats call centrist members of their own caucus racist for voting their conscience . Freshman Democrats accuse the Speaker of the House of racism for requesting that they behave with decorum . All Democrats insist that all Republicans are racists while attributing all GOP election victories to racial gerrymandering , racist voters , or both . And every Republican president is racist by definition — particularly if his surname is Trump .\nMeanwhile , in order to signal that they are also on the side of the angels in this epic battle against bigotry , the “ news ” media wield their mighty pens on behalf of the noble cause . A textbook example of the assistance they offer to “ the party of Jefferson and Jackson ” can be found in a recent New Republic column titled “ Trump and His Deplorables. ” Its author , Matt Ford , begins by praising Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 observation that “ you could put half of Trump ’ s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. ” He then goes on to tell his readers that Clinton ’ s cavalier condemnation of 30 million voters was a highly nuanced argument whose wisdom has long since been vindicated :\nTwo years into Trump ’ s presidency , “ deplorable ” seems almost kind . It ’ s clear by now that racism is an animating force of Trump ’ s presidency , yet many of Trump ’ s supporters and most of the Republican Party still back him after every bigoted slight and discriminatory policy he makes . They may not be willing to admit that they agree outright with everything he says or does , but their continued political support makes the distinction meaningless .\nThe problem with this passage isn ’ t merely that it is gratuitously defamatory and demonstrably false , but that it tends to reinforce the sense of moral superiority that defines “ progressives ” like Ford and the politicians who actually take them seriously . It creates a positive feedback loop that allows both to justify outrageous behavior that neither would consider without mutual encouragement . It permits journalists to delegitimize those who disagree with them about Trump and also permits Democratic lawmakers to take the floor in the House of Representatives and accuse the president of racism — knowing full well that doing so violates a decades-old parliamentary rule .\nThis brings us to the question that very few have bothered to ask about Trump ’ s Sunday morning tweet storm : Was it actually racist ? I didn ’ t bother to read the tweets when they first appeared . Nor was I moved to do so in response to the subsequent uproar . Everything the president says or does is instantly denounced by the Democrats and their media allies as racist , cruel , crazy , or crass . So it just sounded like another day at the office for Trump . I finally got around to reading them today and fail to see the catalogue of crimes his critics claim to see . Not that mere facts matter to the Democrats or the social justice warriors of today ’ s media , as Goldie Taylor makes clear in the Daily Beast :\nThe president is a racist … On Sunday , he claimed that newly elected progressive Democrats “ originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe ” and “ the worst , more corrupt and inept anywhere in the world. ” And he told freshmen Reps. Ayanna Pressley , Rashida Tlaib , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar — outspoken Democratic women of color who have challenged the administration ’ s inhumane immigration policies — to leave the country .\nBut he didn ’ t do anything of the sort . First , none of the tweets contain any reference to the race of any congressional representative . Not a single , solitary syllable . So , how precisely can Taylor honestly denounce them as racist ? Moreover , it is by no means clear that he is referring to all four of the congresswomen she names . He pluralizes some words for general effect just as I do with “ journalists ” in paragraph four above , but this is hardly definitive . The tweets are obviously about Ilhan Omar , a Somali immigrant who routinely gripes about the “ racism , cruelty , and injustice ” of her adopted country , and throws in the occasional anti-Semitic slur to just to keep the pot bubbling .\nIn fact , her anti-Semitic comments caused so much uproar last February that considerable pressure was put on the Democratic majority in the House to pass a resolution condemning her comments . But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , the same Democrat representative who violated the rules of that body in order to call the president a “ racist , ” could not muster the votes to get it passed . Instead , the Democrats passed a generic resolution against hate speech that not only failed to mention Omar ’ s name , but also failed to mention anti-Semitism . As a clearly angry Rep. Liz Cheney put it , “ I voted against the Democrats ’ sham resolution — it was designed to protect anti-Semitic bigotry . ”\nThe very Democrats who covered for a brazen anti-Semitic bigot would have us believe they are outraged by the president ’ s “ racist ” tweets . None of this is about racism or bigotry . It ’ s about a dying animal called the Democratic Party , hatred for the man administering the lethal injection , and the voters who support him . As Goldie Taylor says , “ Trump Is a Racist . If You Still Support Him , So Are You. ” As it happens , the House held a vote Wednesday afternoon to impeach the president . It failed 332 to 95 . The increasingly shrill cries of racism are just the death throes of a political party that reviles the United States , President Trump , and the voters they can no longer fool .


When Nelson Mandela died last month , I envied South Africans who had worked alongside him for freedom : Americans haven ’ t gotten to see many of our icons of justice get that old . My immediate thought was of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. , assassinated at 39 , though Bobby and John Kennedy , Malcolm X and Medgar Evers , quickly followed .\nBut the inescapable image was King . Even if the freedom struggle of the 1960s didn ’ t end up letting King grow old like Mandela , let alone lead his country as president , it was hard not to compare the two , especially since Mandela so often declared his debt to his younger American ally .\nKing and Mandela had much in common , but one thing stands out this week : As they were lionized globally , both were deradicalized , pasteurized and homogenized , made safe for mass consumption . Each was in favor of a radical redistribution of global wealth . Each crusaded against poverty and inequality and war . Both did it with an equanimity and ebullience and capacity to forgive and love their enemies that made it easy to canonize them in a secular way . White people love being given the benefit of the doubt and/or being forgiven . I speak from experience .\nBut now , as the country turns again to issues of income inequality and poverty , and economic populism is said to be having a “ moment , ” maybe it ’ s time to remember Dr. King , the radical . The one who died trying to ignite a Poor People ’ s Movement that he saw as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement . The one who tried to branch out to fight poverty and war , but at least in his lifetime – and so far in ours – did n't succeed .\nI loved pretty much everything about the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington last year , except how the right got it so wrong . It seemed to be the beginning of a movement to reclaim the real MLK , especially among liberals . King was of course celebrated hugely , but so were lefty heroes who never get enough credit , like Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph . There were stories about “ The Socialists Behind the March on Washington , ” as well as about the media ’ s and the Kennedy administration ’ s wrongheaded fears of violence .\nComing off of that gorgeous 50th anniversary celebration , though , where we remembered the triumph of King the strategist and organizer , let ’ s remember the King who tried and , by common measures , failed . Was n't feted , wasn ’ t lionized . King was always a radical , but at the end of his life , he was something of an outcast , criticized by liberals , the left and the right .\nForget about the right , for now : King crossed some Democrats and labor leaders when he turned against the Vietnam War in 1967 , after his unparalleled Riverside Church speech . He knew the war was not only wrong , but was making Johnson 's alleged `` War on Poverty '' fiscally impossible . Meanwhile a growing black power movement mocked King 's commitment to nonviolence and integration . Even some close allies in the civil rights movement blanched when he joined Marion Wright Edelman and other organizers to start a Poor People ’ s Campaign later that year – a movement of black , white , Latino , American Indian and Asian people mired in poverty , to fight the war and get the help they deserved . They were to march on Washington and set up a camp there in April 1968 , the month King was assassinated .\nHarry Belafonte tells a story in his amazing memoir , “ My Song , ” about King being challenged by his SCLC deputies on his accelerating radicalism generally , and the Poor People ’ s Campaign specifically , just a week before he died . Describing King as a “ socialist and revolutionary thinker , ” Belafonte says he clashed with close ally and future Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador Andrew Young , over not only the Poor People ’ s Campaign , but King ’ s thoroughgoing critique of capitalism . Belafonte quotes King telling the group , gathered at the singer/actor/activist ’ s New York apartment : “ What deeply troubles me now is that for all the steps we ’ ve taken toward integration , I ’ ve come to believe that we are integrating into a burning house . ”\nWhen Belafonte asks what that means they should do , an exhausted King tells him : “ I guess we ’ re just going to have to become firemen . ”\nAssassinated a week later , King wouldn ’ t get to lead the Poor People ’ s Campaign . But almost 50 years later , most of us who think the way he did are still firemen in a burning house , constantly fighting the fires set by radical Republicans to make life worse for the people King cared most about , never getting around to building the sturdy , welcoming , capacious , fire-resistant dwelling that lives in our political imagination . King would be proud of our accomplishments , and also a little bit sad for us . Or maybe I 'm just projecting .\nSome of King ’ s closest living allies have been trying hard to right the reverend 's record . “ There have been and continue to be efforts to ‘ neuter ’ or ‘ de-radicalize ’ the Dr. King who delivered his ' I Have a Dream ' speech in August , 1963 , ” says his longtime lawyer and speechwriter Clarence B. Jones . Though the dream speech , which Jones helped write , was itself radical , he sees King ’ s April 1967 “ Beyond Vietnam : Time to Break the Silence ” speech at Riverside Church as “ the ideological turning point for King . ”\nHarry Belafonte likewise thinks much of American political culture “ is guilty of dealing with Dr. King ’ s life and story in grievously superficial ways . What gave us all strength to do what we did was his radical thinking. ” Acknowledging that King ’ s turn against the war and toward cross-racial , anti-poverty organizing was “ controversial ” among his closest colleagues , Belafonte notes : “ It was controversial , but controversy wasn ’ t something he shunned ; controversy became the system through which disagreement and debate could be heard . He was comfortable with that . He welcomed it . That aspect of his history is never really discussed .\n`` The vested interests don ’ t want us speaking of Dr. King in radical terms , '' Belafonte continues . `` The great tragedy and irony of it all is that the public hungers for voices that are driven more by these moral concerns . ”\nI ’ ve never waded into the debates over whether King was a “ socialist , ” though Belafonte and another close ally Julian Bond say he was ( to the chagrin of Glenn Beck , who of course tried to hijack the March on Washington anniversary a few years back ) . Socialism has been such a stigmatized and divisive and practically irrelevant notion in my lifetime ( even though I worked for a socialist newspaper ! ) that I 've never needed to claim King for its roster . But whatever we call King 's point of view , stripping him of his very obvious economic radicalism distorts not only his history but all of ours .\nAnd as a younger generation shows more curiosity about political solutions that aren ’ t on the agenda , it may limit King ’ s appeal , too . A 2011 Pew poll found 49 percent of Americans 18 to 29 say they have a positive view of socialism vs. 43 percent with a negative view . Capitalism is underwater among that age group , with 46 percent positive and 47 percent negative . And here 's one of King 's most famous , resonant quotes about capitalism , from his August 1967 speech : `` Where Do We Go From Here ? '' ( I like this version , because it 's punctuated by his SCLC audience 's replies ) :\nI want to say to you as I move to my conclusion , as we talk about `` Where do we go from here ? '' that we must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society . ( Yes ) There are forty million poor people here , and one day we must ask the question , `` Why are there forty million poor people in America ? '' And when you begin to ask that question , you are raising a question about the economic system , about a broader distribution of wealth . When you ask that question , you begin to question the capitalistic economy . ( Yes ) And I 'm simply saying that more and more , we 've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society . We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life 's marketplace . ( Yes ) But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring . ( All right ) It means that questions must be raised . And you see , my friends , when you deal with this you begin to ask the question , `` Who owns the oil ? '' ( Yes ) You begin to ask the question , `` Who owns the iron ore ? '' ( Yes ) You begin to ask the question , `` Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that 's two-thirds water ? '' ( All right ) These are words that must be said . ( All right ) Now , do n't think you have me in a bind today . I 'm not talking about communism . What I 'm talking about is far beyond communism . ( Yeah ) My inspiration did n't come from Karl Marx ( Speak ) ; my inspiration did n't come from Engels ; my inspiration did n't come from Trotsky ; my inspiration did n't come from Lenin . Yes , I read Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital a long time ago ( Well ) , and I saw that maybe Marx did n't follow Hegel enough . ( All right ) He took his dialectics , but he left out his idealism and his spiritualism . And he went over to a German philosopher by the name of Feuerbach , and took his materialism and made it into a system that he called `` dialectical materialism . '' ( Speak ) I have to reject that . What I 'm saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual . ( Yes ) Capitalism forgets that life is social . ( Yes , Go ahead ) And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism , but in a higher synthesis . ( Speak ) [ applause ] It is found in a higher synthesis ( Come on ) that combines the truths of both . ( Yes ) Now , when I say questioning the whole society , it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism , the problem of economic exploitation , and the problem of war are all tied together . ( All right ) These are the triple evils that are interrelated .\nLabels don ’ t matter , but solutions do . Rather than remembering King solely as a civil rights leader , we must reclaim him as a radical advocate of economic justice , looking to lead a multiracial movement of poor people to complete the unfinished business of the civil rights movement . As King put it plainly , “ What good does it do to be able to eat at a lunch counter if you can ’ t buy a hamburger ? ” Post-integration , too many black people couldn ’ t sit down at integrated lunch counters and buy a hamburger ; 50 years later , too many people of every race have the same problem .\nWe are ready for the radical King now . President Obama , perhaps belatedly , has declared income inequality `` the defining issue of our time . '' Even poverty seems back on the agenda . The man who may be doing the most to advance these issues right now is n't a politician or a rabble rouser ; it 's Pope Francis , who 's been hailed by everyone from Obama to Paul Ryan ( Ryan gets him wrong ) as helping us make the issue of poverty central to our politics . `` If Dr. King were alive today , he would be in Rome visiting Pope Francis holding a joint press conference to summoning the world to aid the poor eradicate poverty , '' Clarence Jones says . The president promises he 's going to the Vatican to meet the new pope , and that 's a start .\nFor now , though , all these years later , King 's allies and inheritors are still fighting fires in a burning house . It 's time to rebuild the house with room for everyone , and keep it safer from the fiery danger of injustice .


The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has bestowed its blessing on cancel culture–the twisted phenomenon whereby universities and public libraries cancel scheduled events just because someone claims to be offended . In Nova Scotia , cancel culture has spread to personalized license plates . Justice Darlene Jamieson ruled on January 31 , 2020 , that one anonymous complaint about Lorne Grabher ’ s personalized “ GRABHER ” license plate was enough to warrant its permanent cancellation . The Court affirmed the January 2017 decision to cancel the plate which the Grabher family had used for over 25 years , because Mr. Grabher ’ s surname could be “ misinterpreted ” as a “ socially unacceptable slogan . ”\nLorne Grabher is of Austrian-German heritage . His family immigrated to Canada from Europe in 1906 . His father served in the Canadian Armed Forces , and was stationed in Cape Breton , Nova Scotia . The family ’ s history , including their name and the heritage it signifies , is important to the Grabher family . In or around 1990 the Grabher family applied for the “ GRABHER ” plate , originally a gift to Lorne ’ s father and later used by Lorne ’ s son . For 27 consecutive years , through three generations of Grabhers , the Registrar authorized the plate for use on the family ’ s motor vehicles in Nova Scotia . Each year the Registrar of Motor Vehicles renewed the plate without issue .\nAll it took to wreck this noble family tradition was one anonymous complaint to the Registrar , in October of 2016 . Without taking into account the Grabher family ’ s pride in its Austrian-German heritage , and ignoring all prior decisions to renew the plate year after year after year , Janice Harland of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles told Lorne Grabher : “ While I recognize this plate was issued as your last name , the public can not be expected to know this and can misinterpret it as a socially unacceptable slogan . ”\nFor Lorne Grabher , this case is about more than a personalized plate . It ’ s about his family ’ s name , personal dignity , and the ongoing insult by the Nova Scotia government in its censorship of the plate .\nJustice Darlene Jamieson has effectively equated Lorne Grabher ’ s surname with EATASS , FOQME , HOTCOK , BLOWJB , BRDSHT , FSTFK , FCKPIG , 8CUNT , DCHBAG , GNGBNG , FQUALL and other objectionable terms on the Banned List of words that are prohibited by the Nova Scotia Registrar of Motor Vehicles . The court was not moved by the double standard of foul language used by another government entity , the Halifax Water Board , whose bus ads included the phrases “ Powerful Sh * t ” and “ Be proud of your Dingle. ” The court also deemed irrelevant the existence of Canadian place names like “ Dildo , Newfoundland , ” “ Swastika , Ontario , ” “ Red Indian Lake , Newfoundland , ” “ Crotch Lake , Ontario , ” “ Old Squaw Islands , Nunavut , ” and “ Cape Negro ” in Nova Scotia .\nJustice Jamieson relied heavily on a report by Carrie Rentschler ( https : //www.mcgill.ca/ahcs/people-contacts/faculty/rentschler ) a McGill University professor of “ feminist media studies ” who specializes in things like “ the construction of new political subjectivities , ” “ emergent forms of social collectivity , ” and “ the shape and practice of contemporary feminisms in social media networks and hashtag publics . ”\nProfessor Rentschler argued that the “ GRABHER ” license plate supports or increases violence against women ; that exposure to cultural slogans normalizes sexual violence against women ; that Mr. Grabher ’ s plate creates an elevated risk of rape ; and that Mr. Grabher ’ s surname is a statement in support of physical violence against women . As the Professor explains in her revised report :\n“ As an expression , the meaning of ‘ Grabher ’ could be understood to signify the support , condoning and encouragement of gendered physical violence against girls and women . ‘ Grabher ’ – read as ‘ Grab her ’ - is a speech act that can potentially contribute to the harms of gendered violence against girls and women , ‘ crossing over from expressive activity to threat ’ … As an injunction , recipients of the phrase may interpret it as encouragement to grab or grope female individuals without their consent . ”\nThere was no evidence before the court that there is less crime in Nova Scotia , or in Mr. Grabher ’ s neighborhood , since the plate was revoked . There was no evidence that anyone , including the anonymous complainant , had suffered any harm as a result of the plate .\nProfessor Rentschler claimed that Mr. Grabher ’ s plate is broadly “ offensive ” to the public , but provided no examples of any specific people or studies who find it so . Professor Rentschler is not from Nova Scotia , admitting on cross-examination that she did not know the name of the big blue ship in the background on all Nova Scotia licence plates . She provided no evidence to support her claim that the plate endangers the general public . Nor did the Nova Scotia government present any evidence to support any of Professor Renstchler ’ s assertions . There was no evidence that any roadway or motorist or citizen , female or male , was ever once endangered by the plate . There was therefore no evidence that the plate represents “ language that supports gendered violence ” or that the “ plate promotes violence against women . ”\nDespite the absence of evidence to support Professor Rentschler ’ s wild claims , Justice Jamieson actually agreed with her , ruling that “ the seven letters ‘ GRABHER , ’ without added context to indicate this is a surname , could be interpreted as promoting sexualized violence against women and girls . ”\nJustice Jamieson decreed that banning Mr. Grabher ’ s plate is justified to prevent harm , to ensure a “ safe and welcoming ” environment on Nova Scotia roads , and to protect individuals in society from the effects of offensive expression . She stated : “ Clearly the provincial government can not sanction having vehicles with government-owned plates travelling the highways of this province and country bearing messages that could be considered ‘ offensive or not in good taste ’ . ”\nWhere would we be without the government to keep us safe from the scourge of peoples ’ offensive surnames ?\nWhat actual harm Mr. Grabher ’ s personalized plate had caused from 1990 to 2017 was not explained by the Court , nor could the Registrar of Motor Vehicles point to any harm . The Nova Scotia government suggested the GRABHER plate hurt tourism , but the government ’ s witness , Peter Hackett , later admitted that there was no such evidence .\nThe Registrar provided no evidence on behalf of the person who complained , why that person complained , or even whether she or he resided in Nova Scotia . The Registrar treated an ethnically German name as an English phrase , and then attached an idiosyncratic and demeaning reading to it . Mr. Grabher ’ s claim of discrimination against Canadians of Austrian-German heritage was dismissed because , according to Justice Jamieson , persons of Austrian-German heritage do not suffer from any “ pre-existing disadvantage or stereotyping in Canadian society. ” Essentially : discrimination is only wrong if you belong to the right group .\nThe court minimized the hurt and humiliation experienced by Mr. Grabher in the past three years , claiming that he is “ free ” to “ choose another personalized plate consisting of up to seven letters or numbers . As Justice Jamieson explained it : “ He is not denied access to personalized plates , but solely access to the seven-letter , personalized “ GRABHER ” plate. ” This “ freedom ” is rather worthless because no other expression on the plate would communicate the same idea as the family surname . If you can not say what you want , there is no free expression . For a court to say “ no worries , you are allowed to say other things ” misses the whole point of free expression .\nCancel culture panders to the fragile snowflakes who file anonymous complaints . Their desire , to avoid feeling offended by their own imagination about what someone else ’ s last name could mean if translated into a different language and then distorted into something it is not , must take precedence over someone else ’ s right to display his own last name with pride .\nWhen courts promote cancel culture , they harm the free society .


The tense situation in Ferguson , Mo. , following the shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown is another test for President Obama . He has struggled at times over how to navigate long-simmering tensions between police and the African-American community .\nObama says he understands the passions and the anger that have engulfed Ferguson over the past week and a half , but he has carefully avoided taking sides . His warnings against violent confrontation have been directed equally at the protesters and the police .\n`` Ours is a nation of laws for the citizens who live under them and for the citizens who enforce them , '' he said at a news conference Monday .\nThat studied even-handedness disappoints some African-American observers . Paul Butler , who studies race and criminal justice at Georgetown Law school , wants to hear more outrage from the president about the conduct of a nearly all-white police force in a town that 's two-thirds black .\n`` With the specter of urban insurrection in an American city that looks more like Fallujah than Ferguson , this is not the time to be detached , '' he says .\nOthers , however , defended Obama 's cautious approach . Joshua Dubois , who used to head the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships , says now that the Justice Department is investigating the Ferguson shooting , it 's important that the president not appear to be putting his thumb on the scale .\n`` There are a lot of folks who want President Obama to be all sorts of things : an activist , a marcher , a poet , a race theorist . But in this case , I need him to be the president , '' Dubois says . `` I need him to make sure that this investigation is carried out in a full and fair way , and that that family and that community in Ferguson has closure in terms of the way the criminal justice system operates . ''\nA survey by the Pew Research Center finds sharp differences in the way the shooting and the police crackdown that followed are viewed by blacks and whites and Democrats and Republicans . It 's possible that a more one-sided approach from the president would simply deepen that divide . But Butler argues that 's no reason for Obama to hold back .\n`` Look , the president has his haters . And he 's always going to have his haters . I think he 's gone out of his way to try to appease them , '' Butler says . `` And that 's resulted in neglecting not just his political base , but a large sector of the American population , including African-Americans , who need his leadership on these issues . ''\nButler says he had high hopes when the first black president was elected . But Obama quickly learned the perils of speaking bluntly about race and law enforcement . Obama had been in office just six months when he was asked during a news conference about black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr . The professor had been locked out of his house and was arrested when he tried to force his way in .\n`` The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home , '' Obama said .\nThe comment was catnip for cable TV , but the president had to backtrack just two days later : `` To the extent that my choice of words did n't illuminate but rather contributed to more media frenzy , I think that was unfortunate . ''\nObama later hosted a beer summit for the professor and the policeman . Afterward , he scarcely mentioned race for the next three years .\nUntil Trayvon Martin , the black Florida teenager who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer . `` If I had a son , he 'd look like Trayvon , '' Obama said . And while he was careful not to second-guess the Florida jury that acquitted the shooter , Obama spoke in unusually personal terms about the painful suspicions that nearly every young , black man is confronted with .\n`` There are very few African-American men in this country who have n't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping at a department store , '' he said . `` That includes me . ''\nWhile Obama has generally steered clear of programs designed exclusively for African-Americans , he did launch an initiative this year focused on the challenges of young black men . He conceded this week that there 's a lot to do .\n`` In too many communities , too many young men of color are left behind and seen only as objects of fear . Through initiatives like My Brother 's Keeper , I 'm personally committed to changing both perception and reality , '' Obama said .\nObama has described the initiative as a long-term project . But observers like Lester Spence of Johns Hopkins University grow more impatient each time another young black man is killed in a place like Ferguson , Mo .\n`` I am so tired and frustrated . And I know America 's a better place than it was . But this continues to happen ? And we 've got a black guy as the president ? You 've got to be kidding me , '' Spence says .


NEW YORK ( ███ ) - Thousands of protesters stormed the security perimeter of Barclays Center in New York as protests spread across the United States over the killing of George Floyd , a Minneapolis black man who died after being pinned by the neck under a white police officer ’ s knee .\nAn Atlanta Police car burns as people protest against the death in Minneapolis police custody of African-American man George Floyd , near CNN Center in Atlanta , Georgia , U.S. May 29 , 2020 . ███/Dustin Chambers\nPolice made scores of arrests at Friday ’ s massive demonstration in Brooklyn , loading cuffed protesters onto city buses lined up on Atlantic Avenue , shutting down a major thoroughfare .\nA diverse group of protesters cheered to hip hop music and tried to argue about police brutality with police officers in riot gear , who occasionally lunged into crowds to pluck people out for arrest after bottles and other projectiles were thrown .\nThe demonstrators at a “ We can ’ t breathe ” vigil and rally in lower Manhattan were pressing for legislation outlawing the police “ chokehold ” used by a city police officer in the 2014 death of Eric Garner , who was also black .\nIn an impassioned speech , Bernice King , the youngest daughter of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. , implored people to go home after more than 1,000 protesters marched to the state capitol from the Centennial Olympic Park , blocking traffic and an interstate highway along the way .\n“ The only way we get what we really want is through non-violence , ” Bernice King said in her father ’ s hometown . “ Let ’ s do this the non-violent way to deal with the evil of our time . ”\nKing was assassinated in 1968 , a year after race riots spread across many big cities .\nThe Atlanta demonstration turned chaotic and at times violent . Fires were burning in downtown Atlanta near the CNN Center , the network ’ s headquarters .\nAt least one police car was among several vehicles burnt . Windows were smashed at the CNN building , along with store fronts . Police pushed back the crowd , but they hurled bottles at officers .\nHundreds of protesters defied an 8 p.m. curfew to gather in the streets around a police station burnt the previous night .\n“ We are out here because we , as a generation , realize things have to change , ” said one marcher , Paul Selman , a 25-year-old black man , who had just graduated with a master ’ s degree in English from Minnesota State . “ We need peace . ”\nPeter McMahon , 26 , a resident of the area around the police station and owner of two nearby properties , said , “ This is my generation and these are the people I went to high school with , ” adding , “ This is not a surprise . I have lost good friends over this Black Lives Matter shit . ”\nHundreds in the automotive capital joined a “ March Against Police Brutality ” late in the afternoon outside the Detroit Public Safety Headquarters . Many chanted , “ No justice , no peace. ” Some carried signs that read , “ End police brutality ” and “ I won ’ t stop yelling until everyone can breathe . ”\nA 19-year-old man protesting in the city was shot dead on Friday night by a suspect who pulled up to demonstrators in a sport utility vehicle and fired gunshots into the crowd , then fled , the Detroit Free Press and other local media reported . Police could not immediately be reached for comment .\nDenver saw a second day of protests after hundreds marched peacefully through its downtown demanding justice for Floyd .\nHundreds gathered on Friday in a protest organized by the group Black Lives Matter at City Hall . The crowd spilled onto Interstate 45 ’ s entrance ramp near downtown chanting , “ I can ’ t breathe , ” and “ No justice , no peace . ”\nAfter a night of violence in which at least seven people were shot , police in the Kentucky city braced for more protests over the killing of Floyd and several others , such as Breonna Taylor , shot by police in her Louisville home in March .