Small Violations Of Medical Privacy Can Hurt Patients And Erode Trust\nProPublica 's Charles Ornstein talks about data breaches Listen · 3:29 3:29\n`` PPL WORLD WIDE , '' the Facebook post shouted , using text-speak for the word `` people . '' `` FRANCES ... IS HPV POSITIVE ! ''\nThe public missive from January 2014 gave Frances ' full name , along with the revelation that she had human papillomavirus , a sexually transmitted disease that can cause genital warts and cancer . It also included her date of birth and ended with a plea to friends : `` PLZ HELP EXPOSE THIS HOE ! ''\nWithin hours , a friend told Frances that a former high school pal who lived near her in northwest Indiana had shared a secret that only her family and a former boyfriend knew , she later said .\n`` My heart fell to my stomach , '' said Frances , a dental assistant in her late 20s who asked that her last name not be used . `` I started crying immediately . ''\nThe Facebook poster was a patient care technician at the local hospital where Frances was treated , but the two were no longer friends .\nFrances complained to a nursing supervisor at the hospital , which sent her a letter of apology in March 2014 .\nUnder the federal law called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act , or HIPAA , it 's illegal for health care providers to share patients ' treatment information without their permission . The Office for Civil Rights , the arm of the Department of Health and Human Services responsible for enforcing the law , receives more than 30,000 reports about privacy violations each year .\nThe bulk of the government 's enforcement — and the public 's attention — has focused on a small number of splashy cases in which hackers or thieves have accessed the health data of large groups of people . But the damage done in these mass breaches has been mostly hypothetical , with much information exposed but little exploited .\nAs Frances discovered , it 's often little-noticed , smaller-scale violations of medical privacy — the ones that affect only one or two people — that inflict the most harm .\nDriven by personal animus , jealousy or a desire for retribution , small breaches involving sensitive health details are spurring disputes and legal battles across the country :\nIn Tampa , Fla. , a nurse snooped in the medical records of her nephew 's partner , and learned that she had delivered a baby and had put the child up for adoption . She gave a printout to another family member , and the secret was announced at a family funeral in 2013 , the Tampa Bay Times reported . The nephew 's partner complained to the hospital ; the nurse admitted what she had done , was fired and relinquished her Florida nursing license .\nAnd in New Jersey , a woman sued a local hospital this fall , alleging that one of its employees shared details about her 11-year-old son 's attempted suicide with people at his school . The boy was subsequently `` bullied by his peers , called names and made fun of , '' her lawsuit says .\nEven when small privacy violations have real consequences , the federal Office for Civil Rights rarely punishes health care providers for them . Instead , the office typically settles for pledges to fix any problems and issues reminders of what the privacy law requires . It does n't even tell the public which health providers have reported small breaches — or how many .\nAsked about some of the privacy violations highlighted in this report , OCR Director Jocelyn Samuels called them `` heartbreaking stories '' and `` the kinds of harm that HIPAA is intended to address . ''\nShe insisted her agency is n't afraid to pursue formal sanctions when they are warranted , but said its primary role is helping health providers to follow the law . `` Our preference is always to promote voluntary compliance , '' Samuels said .\nFor patients , Samuels ' agency is usually the only place they can seek vindication . HIPAA does not give people the right to sue for damages if their privacy is violated . Patients who seek legal redress must find another cause of action , which is easier in some states than in others .\nAfter being attacked on Facebook , Frances contacted Indianapolis lawyer Neal Eggeson . He had won jury verdicts for people whose medical information was improperly disclosed . Eggeson contacted the hospital and , without filing suit , secured a confidential settlement for Frances . ( He asked that the facility not be named in this story . ) Frances ' former friend no longer works there , she said .\nFrances said she still has n't fully recovered . She sees a therapist and has a hard time trusting others .\n`` It 's hard to even still deal with it , '' she said . `` I 'll spend that extra gas money to go into another city to do grocery shopping or stuff like that , just so I do n't have to see anybody from around the neighborhood . ''\nEggeson , a litigator , was defending insurance companies in car accident cases when a `` friend of a friend of a friend '' referred a young man to him . The man , who is HIV positive , had been sued over a $ 326 debt by the medical group that had been treating him . The group 's court filing gave the man 's name , home address , Social Security number and date of birth — and included a billing statement containing the phrase `` Last Diagnosis : HIV . ''\n`` His first concern was getting the court record sealed , more than anything else , '' Eggeson said . `` I do n't think he had any designs or visions beyond that . ''\nAfter that victory , Eggeson represented Abigail Hinchy , who alleged that a Walgreens pharmacist had snooped in her prescription records and shared the information with the father of Hinchy 's child ( the man was dating and later married the pharmacist ) . Among the data shared : Hinchy had stopped taking birth control pills shortly before she became pregnant . A jury ordered Walgreens and the pharmacist to pay Hinchy $ 1.44 million .\nA copy of Walgreens ' check is framed on the wall of Eggeson 's home office , not far from his life-sized Batman costume and Star Wars lightsabers .\nAmong Eggeson 's current clients is a couple who claim that when their son was in an ATV accident this August , a hospital worker posted a comment on Facebook before the hospital had told them the teen had died . Panicked relatives who saw the post began calling his parents for updates , adding stress to an already wrenching time .\n`` It would n't have changed the outcome , '' said John Stuck , the boy 's father , `` but just the feeling of , 'What in the heck ? What do they know that we do n't ? ' — that 's what freaked me out I think the most . ''\nWhen Eggeson files lawsuits , he argues that privacy breaches amount to medical malpractice .\nWhile Indiana courts have been receptive to such arguments , courts in Ohio , Minnesota and other states have ruled that health providers are not liable for the actions of workers who snoop in medical records outside the scope of their jobs .\nThis summer , a Los Angeles jury ruled against a patient who sued UCLA and the Regents of the University of California after a romantic rival accessed and shared her medical records . The rival was a temporary worker in the office of a private practice physician affiliated with UCLA 's Santa Monica hospital . The doctor acknowledged improperly sharing his password and settled his part of the lawsuit .\nEggeson said it 's distressing that more states are n't like Indiana .\n`` Privacy protections should be the same regardless of what state you 're in , '' he said . `` There is something wrong with an employer providing the means , providing the access , and providing the tools by which an employee can commit this crime and then being able to hold up their hands and say , 'It 's not our fault . ' ``\nThe vast majority of the federal Office for Civil Rights ' enforcement work has been directed at large-scale medical data breaches , whether or not they result in any demonstrable real-world harm .\nHealth providers are required to notify the office within 60 days of breaches affecting at least 500 people and also must share details with the media and contact those potentially affected . OCR 's website makes public a list of these cases , highlighting them on what industry insiders dub the Wall of Shame .\nRarely do small privacy breaches get anywhere near the same attention , except when they involve celebrities or high-profile individuals .\nOrganizations have to report them to OCR only once a year . Even then , the agency does n't post them online . HHS has rejected requests under the Freedom of Information Act for information about them .\nSince 2009 , OCR has received information about 1,400 large breaches . During the same time , more than 181,000 breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals have been reported .\nIn September , the HHS inspector general issued a pair of reports that criticized the Office for Civil Rights , including its handling of small breaches . The inspector general said OCR did not investigate the small breaches reported to it or log them in its tracking system .\n`` OCR does not record that information and therefore it 's not available for staff to be able to look over time '' for repeat offenders , said Blaine Collins , regional inspector general for evaluation and inspections in San Francisco . `` Boy , that 's critical for monitoring and oversight . ''\nSamuels said that her agency is implementing the inspector general 's recommendations to improve oversight . `` We are constantly looking for ways to better serve the public and improve our operations , '' she said .\nPeter Brabeck , a 73-year-old retired petrophysicist who had worked for the oil giant BP , turned to OCR in September 2011 when he found himself in the midst of a nightmare .\nIt began a year earlier when Brabeck 's brother complained to the Medical Board of California that Dr. Steven Mangar , a pain doctor in Salinas , Calif. , had overprescribed controlled substances to Peter . The medical board accused Mangar of prescribing drugs without examining him and sought to take disciplinary action against Mangar 's license .\nMangar reacted by hiring a private investigator to dig up dirt on Brabeck — and gave the investigator all of Brabeck 's medical records . When Mangar refused to pay the investigator , he approached Brabeck 's brother and showed him the records . The investigator then offered to sell the records to Peter Brabeck , who within days complained to the Office for Civil Rights .\n`` Here we have not only a gross violation of [ HIPAA ] laws protecting the confidentiality of every patient 's medical history , but in my mind far worse , '' Brabeck wrote in his complaint . `` Here is a deliberate attempt , born of vengeance , with malice aforethought to inflict great harm on his own patient . ''\nTwo years later , the Office for Civil Rights wrote back , saying it was `` pleased to inform '' Brabeck that his complaint has been resolved . It said it had provided Mangar 's clinic , the Pacific Pain Care Institute , with guidance on how to comply with privacy rules . It said Mangar had acknowledged that he `` impermissibly disclosed '' Brabeck 's personal health information to the private investigator .\nOCR also said that Mangar had agreed to provide Brabeck with free credit monitoring .\nBrabeck , who lives near Carmel , Calif. , said he never actually received the credit monitoring . More importantly , he was left with a sense that the agency did n't take his case seriously .\n`` I made very clear in my letter that it was an act of vengeance and retaliation , '' he said . `` That 's why I was so surprised at how lightly they dismissed the whole thing . ''\nMangar did not return calls for comment . California 's medical board placed his license on probation in 2012 and is now seeking to revoke it , saying he violated his probation and provided negligent care to other patients . Earlier this year , federal and state investigators served search warrants at Mangar 's office and home . Monterey County Deputy District Attorney Amy Patterson said Brabeck 's concerns are part of a much broader investigation that she could not discuss because it is ongoing .\nOCR director Samuels said Brabeck 's case predated her arrival at the agency . But she said it was consistent with `` our general principles '' in terms of the nature of the injury , the number of individuals affected and a provider 's lack of prior HIPAA violations . She also said the doctor agreed to apologize , which `` can be very powerful in terms of remedying the damage that has been done . ''\nBrabeck said he did n't get an apology : `` No . Absolutely not . ''\nProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom based in New York . This story is part of a yearlong examination into the security of medical information . Has your medical privacy been compromised ? Help ProPublica investigate by filling out a short questionnaire . You can also read other stories in the Policing Patient Privacy series .


Get breaking news alerts and special reports . The news and stories that matter , delivered weekday mornings .\nAmazon will stop police from using its facial recognition technology for a year while it waits for federal regulation of the surveillance tool , the company said in a blog post Wednesday .\nThe announcement follows years of pressure from police reform advocates and privacy activists , including the American Civil Liberties Union , to stop marketing its facial recognition tool to police over concerns that it is racially biased and can be used to build an oppressive system to automate the identification and tracking of anyone .\n“ Face recognition technology gives governments the unprecedented power to spy on us wherever we go . It fuels police abuse , '' said Nicole Ozer , technology and civil liberties director of the ACLU of Northern California , responding to Amazon 's announcement . `` This surveillance technology must be stopped . ''\nAmazon said it has advocated for governments to put in place `` stronger regulations to govern the ethical use of facial recognition technology , '' noting that Congress `` appears to be ready to take on this challenge . ''\n`` We hope this one-year moratorium might give Congress enough time to implement appropriate rules , and we stand ready to help if requested , ” the company said .\nByers Market Newsletter Get breaking news and insider analysis on the rapidly changing world of media and technology right to your inbox . This site is protected by recaptcha\nLiz O ’ Sullivan , a privacy activist and founder or Arthur AI , described the announcement as a “ victory for activists and academics ” who have been pushing for stricter regulation of facial recognition for years . But she noted that it was an “ admission that the entire system of surveillance is flawed , biased and has racial implications . ”\n“ We need to make sure this moratorium turns into a permanent ban , ” she said , calling on activists and members of the public to apply pressure to their local policymakers to ensure any regulation “ serves the people versus corporate interests . ”\nThe one-year moratorium on police use of Amazon Rekognition does not include organizations that work closely with law enforcement to identify victims of child sexual exploitation and human trafficking , such as nonprofit Thorn , the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Marinus Analytics .\nIn July 2018 , the ACLU conducted a test of Amazon Rekognition and found it incorrectly matched 28 members of Congress , identifying them as other people who had been arrested for a crime .\nAt the time , Amazon said the ACLU had set the “ confidence rate ” in the system lower than the recommended level , leading to a higher number of false positives .\n“ Machine learning is a very valuable tool to help law enforcement agencies , and while being concerned it ’ s applied correctly , we should not throw away the oven because the temperature could be set wrong and burn the pizza , ” said the company in a July 2018 statement .\nThe announcement follows a similar pledge from IBM on Monday , when the company ’ s CEO Arvind Krishna wrote a letter to Congress stating it would no longer develop or research facial recognition technology .\nKrishna said the company “ firmly opposes ” the use of facial recognition technology for “ mass surveillance , racial profiling , violations of basic human rights and freedoms . ”\n“ We believe now is the time to begin a national dialogue on whether and how facial recognition technology should be employed by domestic law enforcement agencies , ” he said .


`` We 've reached kind of an inflection point in the privacy debate , '' says Senator Ron Wyden ( D–Ore. ) . With Americans spending more time online than ever before during the COVID-19 pandemic , he worries that government surveillance of the internet matters more now .\nBefore the Senate 's May 14 vote to reauthorize the USA Freedom Act , formerly known as the PATRIOT Act , Wyden fought a losing battle to rein in the broad authority that it gives U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on the web activities of American citizens .\n`` Americans should n't have their most intimate information…snooped over by the federal government without a warrant , '' says Wyden . `` That [ information ] is private and personal . It might be your dating history . It might be religious beliefs . It might be your fears…It 's like data mining of somebody 's thoughts . ''\nWyden , a Democrat , along with his Republican colleague Steve Daines ( Mont . ) , tried attaching an amendment to the bill that would 've explicitly banned government agents from collecting Americans ' web search histories without a warrant from a non-FISA court . It was defeated by a single vote .\nNow an anti-surveillance activist group called Fight for the Future is trying to convince Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D–Calif . ) and congressional Democrats to add the same amendment to the House version of the bill .\nBut in a political world where Democrats regularly call the president a power-abusing authoritarian in the making and Republicans bemoan a deep state plot to take down Trump , there 's still only weak support for concrete measures to rein in the post-9/11 surveillance state .\n`` Nancy Pelosi has spent the last several years saying that this administration is dangerous . She impeached the president for abuse of power , '' says Evan Greer , deputy director of Fight for the Future . `` If she does n't take this opportunity to get this amendment in place that at least puts some limit on this administration 's surveillance authority , it 's hard not to feel like the entire 'Resistance ' rhetoric has been a bit of a scam . ''\nGreer says Wyden 's introduction of the amendment could be a way of alerting the public that intelligence agencies have already been collecting U.S. citizens ' web search data . Wyden ca n't say that explicitly because that information would be classified .\n`` Senator Wyden has often been sort of a bit of a canary in the coal mine on things like this , '' says Greer . `` He 'll ask very specific questions of intelligence officials when they come to the Hill that sort of get at some of these things . ''\nOne example was Wyden 's questioning of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in 2013 about the bulk collection of Americans ' phone records . When Wyden directly asked Clapper `` does the [ National Security Agency ] collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans , '' Clapper answered , `` No , sir…not wittingly . '' Less than three months later , former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden provided journalists documents showing that the FBI and NSA collected millions of cellphone records .\nWhen ███ asked Wyden if he could provide evidence that the government has engaged in warrantless surveillance of Americans ' web searches , he said that he could not discuss classified intelligence information but that he has put in requests for public disclosure of any practices of this sort .\nSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R–Ky . ) opposed Wyden in the Senate , claiming that additional limitations to the nation 's surveillance laws would `` jeopardize important tools that keep America safe . ''\nWyden says McConnell 's claim is `` flatly inaccurate '' and that his amendment addresses McConnell 's national security concerns because , during a crisis , law enforcement agencies would still be allowed to gather intelligence before obtaining a warrant .\nA more modest Senate amendment requiring FISA courts to hear analysis from opposing parties , such as the American Civil Liberties Union , was included in the version of the bill that passed . But Republican Sen. Rand Paul 's more radical effort to eliminate the surveillance of American citizens altogether without a warrant from a non-FISA court was defeated 11-85 . Even Wyden voted against it .\n`` I think that Senator Paul started an important conversation…with respect to whether the whole framework needs to be reconsidered , '' says Wyden . `` I 've told him that right now , I think I 've got my hands full trying to make the many reforms that are needed in FISA immediately . ''\nGreer encourages anyone concerned about government surveillance of what citizens are searching for on the web to call Nancy Pelosi 's office and pressure her to put a version of the Wyden-Daines Amendment , one of which is currently being drafted by Rep. Zoe Lofgren ( D–Calif . ) and Rep. Warren Davidson ( R–Ohio ) , back in the bill .\n`` It 's really important that we remind lawmakers that the public does care about our right to be free from overly broad and intrusive surveillance , '' says Greer .\nMusic : `` Europa '' by Yehezkel Raz licensed from Artlist ; `` Ganymede '' by Yehezkel Raz licensed from Artlist ; `` Hang Drum Traveler '' by Max H. licensed from Artlist ; `` The End '' by Max H. licensed from Artlist


Story highlights Eric Holder says Edward Snowden acted illegally , but that he did a public service\nThe former Attorney General also said there is a `` race-based '' component to Trump 's campaign\nThe Axe Files , featuring David Axelrod , is a podcast distributed by CNN and produced at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics . The author works at the institute .\nChicago ( CNN ) Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a `` public service '' by triggering a debate over surveillance techniques , but still must pay a penalty for illegally leaking a trove of classified intelligence documents .\n`` We can certainly argue about the way in which Snowden did what he did , but I think that he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made , '' Holder told David Axelrod on `` The Axe Files , '' a podcast produced by CNN and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics .\n`` Now I would say that doing what he did -- and the way he did it -- was inappropriate and illegal , '' Holder added .\nHolder said Snowden jeopardized America 's security interests by leaking classified information while working as a contractor for the National Security Agency in 2013 .\nJUST WATCHED Here 's video of Holder talking about Snowden when he was in office in 2014 Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Here 's video of Holder talking about Snowden when he was in office in 2014 01:36\n`` He harmed American interests , '' said Holder , who was at the helm of the Justice Department when Snowden leaked U.S. surveillance secrets . `` I know there are ways in which certain of our agents were put at risk , relationships with other countries were harmed , our ability to keep the American people safe was compromised . There were all kinds of re-dos that had to be put in place as a result of what he did , and while those things were being done we were blind in certain really critical areas . So what he did was not without consequence . ''


The Supreme Court ’ s new move toward a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage could cement President Barack Obama ’ s claim to having presided over the most significant advances in gay rights in United States history .\nObama ’ s term has already seen the enactment of a federal law protecting gays and lesbians against hate crimes , an end to the ban on openly gay members of the U.S military and the issuance of a Supreme Court ruling striking down the law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage . Such unions have now spread to 36 states across the country . A new Supreme Court ruling declaring same-sex marriage rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution could serve as the capstone on a record of change unparalleled on any other issue in the public eye during his tenure .\nBut precisely how much credit Obama deserves for the tectonic shift on the issue during his presidency is less clear-cut .\nMany gay rights activists and historians see Obama as having been reluctant to put much muscle into gay rights causes early in his White House stay , but then warming to the topic as a result of outside pressure and a realization that rapidly changing public opinion made such moves politically advantageous . Some advocates say he ’ s added crucial momentum to the drive for “ marriage equality ” in recent years , while others say he ’ s still cautious on the subject and more inclined to be swept along by the public debate than to lead it .\nThat gay rights , and in particular same-sex marriage , could wind up as a hulking component of Obama ’ s legacy is a surprising development for a president who publicly snubbed same-sex marriage until nearly 3 1/2 years into his presidency and faced repeated complaints that he was shortchanging gay issues .\n“ He was late to the party , but he certainly made up for it , ” said Richard Socarides , a New York lawyer and longtime gay rights advocate . “ This is shaping up to be [ Obama ’ s ] most significant policy achievement of his entire presidency . He has certainly participated and , in some large measure I think , pushed forward the most significant gains in gay rights that we ’ ve seen in the history of the country .\n“ He ’ s done so sometimes begrudgingly , but I think that is the nature of the presidency , ” the activist and former Clinton White House adviser said , noting the competing demands on a president ’ s attention .\nObama and his aides “ were against it until they were for it , and then they really owned the issue and championed it in a way that was jaw-droppingly historic , and that ’ s what they ’ ll be remembered for , ” said the Human Rights Campaign ’ s Fred Sainz .\nSome historians , however , give Obama less credit and question how much the issue deserves to be seen as part of his legacy . They conclude that Obama has eased the country ’ s moves toward greater recognition of gay rights but hasn ’ t been at the forefront of them .\n“ The question is : Is he a leader or a follower ? ” asked Andrea Friedman , a history professor at Washington University in St. Louis .\n“ Obama has been carried along by public opinion and shifts in public opinion that have just accelerated so rapidly , ” she said in answer to her own question . “ I don ’ t see him necessarily as a leader or this as part of his legacy . ”\nWhen Obama marked gay pride month last year , he boasted about his record but was careful to temper the remark with an acknowledgement that the White House had often been nudged along on the issue .\n“ Because of your help , we ’ ve gone further in protecting the rights of lesbian and gay and bisexual and transgender Americans than any administration in history , ” the president said .\nThe Supreme Court potentially extended that trend Friday when it announced that it has agreed to take up a set of cases that raise the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to enter into same-sex marriages and whether states are obliged to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states .\nThe outcome of the case is far from guaranteed , but many legal analysts believe the court ’ s liberal justices are likely to join with Republican appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in a ruling that makes same-sex marriage available nationwide .\nEarly on , the president showed more timidity in his approach on gay rights . The administration ’ s strategy on the military ’ s “ don ’ t ask , don ’ t tell ” policy , for instance , involved prolonged consultations with the Pentagon . As a result , the project lingered until Democrats lost seats in the Senate and Obama ’ s overall policy agenda bogged down .\nLegislation to repeal the “ don ’ t ask , don ’ t tell ” policy passed during Congress ’ s lame-duck session at the end of 2010 , and the president claimed the bill as a triumph , but many activists quietly said the administration ’ s strategy was flawed and the measure only nosed over the finish line due to a last-minute push by the likes of departing Sen. Joe Lieberman ( I-Conn. ) .\nOnce the law passed , however , advocates generally gave Obama high marks for its implementation , as well as for his appointment of a historic number of gay and lesbian officials to senior posts and judgeships .\nGay rights activists also credit the administration for taking a bold move in 2011 to dismantle the Defense of Marriage Act , the federal law President Bill Clinton signed in 1996 barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages . Attorney General Eric Holder , acting with Obama ’ s concurrence , announced the administration would no longer defend the law in court because there was no plausible argument to support its constitutionality .\n“ That was as game-changing as anything , ” said former Rep. Barney Frank ( D-Mass . ) , the first openly gay member of Congress . “ Presidents always have to defend the constitutionality of legislation they dislike . For the president to take the position that DOMA was so blatantly unconstitutional and undesirable that he would take that unusual step [ to abandon the law ] , that was the biggest deal of anything he did , and he deserved an enormous amount of credit for it . ”\nThat decision drew howls of outrage from Republicans , but in a 5-4 ruling two years later , the Supreme Court struck the law down .\nGay rights activists welcomed Obama ’ s reversal on same-sex marriage in 2012 , but he continued until last year to hold a nuanced stance on the legalities of the issue — arguably undercutting some advocates ’ efforts to have the courts sanction same-sex marriage throughout the country .\nIn part to fend off Republican calls for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage , Obama for years declared that marriage has traditionally been a state issue . Even when Obama ’ s evolution on gay marriage reached its apogee in 2012 , he spoke of state-by-state experimentation on the issue as welcome .\n“ What you ’ re seeing is , I think , states working through this issue — in fits and starts , all across the country , ” Obama told ABC ’ s Robin Roberts in an interview designed to showcase his change of heart on the subject . “ Different communities are arriving at different conclusions , at different times . And I think that ’ s a healthy process and a healthy debate . And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level , because historically , this has not been a federal issue , what ’ s recognized as a marriage . ”\nIn that interview , Obama also declined to quibble with North Carolina voters who had just agreed to insert a new ban on gay marriage in their state ’ s constitution .\nObama ’ s stance has long struck some advocates as misguided , since federal court cases striking down state bans on interracial marriage are at the core of civil rights jurisprudence and Obama once taught that subject at the University of Chicago . The approach also seemed to evoke a thread of the history of “ states ’ rights ” resistance to federal anti-discrimination laws — an odd resonance for America ’ s first African-American president .\nWhen litigation challenging California ’ s voter-approved same-sex marriage ban reached the Supreme Court in 2013 , the Justice Department did not announce unequivocal support for a federal constitutional right to what advocates call marriage equality . Instead , Obama administration lawyers took the highly nuanced position that California could not deny same-sex couples the right to marry because the state already accorded such couples all the other privileges that go along with marriage .\nSome analysts said the brief reflected a lack of courage on the administration ’ s part . Others said it was a strategic move aimed at making sure the court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act — a decision most easily reached by deferring to states .\n“ As a Republican looking at a Democratic president , President Obama ’ s equivocation on gay equality issues has always been really puzzling , ” said Gregory Angelo of the Log Cabin Republicans , a gay GOP group that backs same-sex marriage rights .\nWhen the Supreme Court announced Friday that it plans to wade into the issue of a federal right to same-sex marriage , the White House remained silent . In fact , on the eve of the announcement , White House press secretary Josh Earnest declined to state the president ’ s views on the legal issues , though the spokesman said the president would welcome wider availability of same-sex marriage .\nHolder was more direct , announcing that the administration will urge the court to make same-sex marriage rights the law of the land .\n“ We expect to file a ‘ friend of the court ’ brief in these cases that will urge the Supreme Court to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans , ” the attorney general said in a statement Friday . “ It is time for our nation to take another critical step forward to ensure the fundamental equality of all Americans — no matter who they are , where they come from , or whom they love . ”\nGay rights advocates say politics explain much of Obama ’ s reorientation from diffidence to active embrace of their positions . As public sentiment shifted on the issue , the administration saw opportunities to appeal to important constituencies by pushing an issue that differentiated Obama from most Republican candidates .\nProminent blogger and former Obama critic John Aravosis said Friday that he believes the administration ’ s change of approach on the subject became evident during the Democratic National Convention in 2012 . Pushing gay rights there wasn ’ t just the right thing to do , or a move to satisfy gay activists , but projected tolerance in a way that appealed politically to female voters , young people and others .\n“ Since 2012 , they ’ ve been embracing it , ” Aravosis said , even describing the administration as “ grandstanding ” on the issue . “ On the left , people talk about ours as one of the only progressive issues where [ Obama ] has had great success . ”\n“ Once they understood that this was an issue that could work for them , they got fully behind it . That happened when he got reelected : They realized they could run on this , rather than run away from it , ” added Socarides .\n“ Part of being president means you get to take credit for things that happen on your watch , and [ Obama ] came around and he was there when we needed him , ” Socarides said , getting to the issue of whether Obama could claim the sweeping change on the issue as part of his legacy . “ He definitely played a big part . ”\nAngelo said Obama deserves credit for embracing same-sex marriage rights even if that move came “ later than it should have. ” However , the gay GOP leader argued that the issue has been one where most politicians lagged , not led , the public .\n“ I don ’ t think any factor has been more important in influencing public opinion — and , I dare say , the opinions of the Supreme Court — than Joe and Jane American who happen to be gay and live down the street and are living their lives openly and honestly with their friends , neighbors and family members , ” Angelo said . “ It ’ s trickled up more than it ’ s trickled down . ”\nThe advances on gay rights under Obama are so dramatic that The New Republic declared last October that he had become , in essence , America ’ s first gay president — a label that echoes author Toni Morrison ’ s branding of President Bill Clinton in 1998 as America ’ s first black president .\nHowever , it ’ s also clear that Obama ’ s rejections of same-sex marriage continued to sting his own supporters and even close staffers all the way until his election to the White House . And even in 2004 — as he ran for the U.S. Senate at the age of 43 — he was unaware of the Stonewall Riots , a watershed 1969 event in the history of the fight for gay rights , according to “ Winning Marriage , ” a book by Marc Solomon of Freedom to Marry .\nFrank said that dwelling on Obama ’ s self-described evolution on the issue misses a more basic fact : Without his nominees to the Supreme Court , the ruling expected in June wouldn ’ t even be conceivable .\n“ If he had not appointed [ Justices Sonia ] Sotomayor and [ Elena ] Kagan , and if John McCain had been president and had appointed two justices , there isn ’ t any room for doubt we would not have had the DOMA case and the issue wouldn ’ t be before them again , ” Frank said . “ None of this would ’ ve been on the boards right now . ”


A matter of `` dignity '' is how Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy cast his majority opinion upholding the right to same-sex marriage . Though Friday 's decision invoked high constitutional principles , the case had its roots in a very human , very personal crisis . Our Cover Story is reported by Martha Teichner :\nA party broke out on the steps of the Supreme Court when its ruling affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry was announced . For the record , the case was called Obergefell v. Hodges .\nAnd in the middle of the noise and jubilation , Jim Obergefell got a phone call from President Obama :\n`` Your leadership on this has changed the country , '' Mr. Obama said .\n`` I really appreciate that , Mr. President , '' Obergefell said . `` It 's really been an honor for me to be involved in this fight , and to have been able to fight for my marriage and live up to my commitments to my husband . ''\nJim Obergefell and John Arthur had been together more than 20 years when they were married in July of 2013 . Arthur was dying of ALS , Lou Gehrig 's disease , so family and friends raised $ 13,000 to fly the couple by medical jet out of Ohio ( where gay marriage was prohibited ) to Maryland , where the ceremony was performed legally , aboard the plane , on the tarmac in Baltimore .\nAll Obergefell wanted was to be listed as `` husband '' on Arthur 's Ohio death certificate .\nAs he told ███ correspondent Jan Crawford , `` I promised John . It was one more promise I made to him that I would fight for him . I would fight for our marriage wherever that led . ''\nTheir sad love story , combined with cases from Michigan , Tennessee and Kentucky , led to Friday 's historic 5-4 ruling , and to Justice Anthony Kennedy 's words , in the majority opinion : `` They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law . The Constitution grants them that right . ''\n`` The thing about the same-sex marriage issue is , it was n't started by the big gay groups -- they hated this issue , '' said Andy Humm , a long-time gay activist and journalist in New York .\n`` The big gay groups thought it was a big loser , and they were right in the beginning . ''\nWhat changed so quickly ? Because , he said , same-sex marriage in a few states happened , `` and the sky did n't fall . The law changed , and what changed for people in their lives ? Well , they just saw happiness for gay couples . ''\nGloria and Linda Bailey-Davies were married on May 17 , 2004 , the first day same-sex marriage licenses were issued in Massachusetts , the first state to legalize gay marriage .\nSince then , how much the landscape has changed is remarkable , and how fast -- over the last two years especially , the number of states has accelerated , reaching 37 -- before the Supreme Court guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide .\nIn 1996 , fewer than 3 in 10 Americans ( 27 percent ) thought same-sex marriage should be legal . Now , nearly 6 in 10 ( 57 percent ) do .\n`` I do n't think most of us who have ever read the scripture would believe that there is a division over what marriage means , '' said former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee . `` It 's still one man , one woman , life partners , and the courts can no more suspend the law of marriage any more than it can suspend the law of gravity . ''\nLike Huckabee , every Republican presidential candidate has lined up against the Supreme Court ruling .\nChief Justice John Roberts argued in his dissent that the issue should have been left to states -- voted on , not decreed by the court . `` Just who do we think we are ? '' he wrote .\n`` We have to go , obviously , by what the courts say , but I certainly can disagree with them , and I do , '' said Alabama Governor Robert Bentley . He 's willing to comply with the ruling , but there is resistance ..\nWhen Michael Robinson and his partner , Earl Benjamin , tried to get a marriage license in New Orleans after the court ruled on Friday , they were told they would have to wait . Louisiana and Mississippi claimed `` legal technicalities . ''\n`` It 's disappointing that Louisiana will not be following the movement that is happening around the country today , '' said Robinson .\nAnd in Texas , Reverend Dave Welch of the Houston Area Pastor Council vowed disobedience . `` A law that violates the law of God is no law at all , '' he said . `` There is no question : it is by the thousands and tens of thousands and the hundreds of thousands that will not bend the knee and we will not kiss the ring . We will not bow to the god of political correctness that seems to be dominating much of our court system today . ''\nAndy Humm said in response , `` This is your homophobia . This is your fear . This is your hatred of gay people , and you got ta get over it . ''\nImmediately after the Supreme Court decision , 85-year-old Jack Evans and 82-year-old George Harris , partners for more than 50 years , were the first gays to tie the knot legally in Dallas . An estimated 390,000 same-sex couples had already beaten them to it in the United States , raising this question : A generation from now , will gay marriage be a non-issue ?


The Robertson family released a statement late Thursday that raises doubts about the future of one of the most popular shows on cable television .\n“ We have had a successful working relationship with A & E but , as a family , we can not imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm , ” the Robertson family said in a prepared statement . “ We are in discussions with A & E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty . ”\nThe family said it has “ spent much time in prayer ” since learning A & E had suspended Phil Robertson , the patriarch of the Louisiana family , over comments he made about homosexuality .\nRobertson sparked a national debate on religion and tolerance in an interview with GQ magazine . The writer asked him what he considered to be sinful behavior .\n“ Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there . Bestiality , sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men , ” Robertson said .\nThen he paraphrased Paul ’ s letter to the Corinthians : “ Don ’ t be deceived . Neither the adulterers , the idolaters , the male prostitutes , the homosexual offenders , the greedy , the drunkards , the slanderers , the swindlers -- they won ’ t inherit the kingdom of God . Don ’ t deceive yourself . It ’ s not right . ”\nThe family defended Robertson ’ s comments and stressed that they are a “ family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word . ”\n“ While some of Phil ’ s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse , his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible , ” the family said . “ Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments : ‘ Love the Lord your God with all your heart ’ and ‘ Love your neighbor as yourself. ’ Phil would never incite or encourage hate . ”\nThe family also criticized A & E for its actions , saying he was placed on hiatus “ for expressing his faith , which is his constitutionally protected right . ”\nRobertson ’ s comments drew immediate condemnation from gay rights groups who pressured the network to take action . On Wednesday , A & E announced Robertson was being removed from the show indefinitely .\n`` We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson 's comments in GQ , which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty , '' the network said in a statement .\n`` His personal views in no way reflect those of A & E Networks , who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community . The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely . ''\nA & E ’ s decision to pull Robertson from the show drew strong support from the gay and lesbian rights group GLAAD .\n“ What ’ s clear is that such hateful anti-gay comments are unacceptable to fans , viewers , and networks alike , ” said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz . “ By taking quick action and removing Robertson from future filming , A & E has sent a strong message that discrimination is neither a Christian nor an American value . ”\nDuck Dynasty drew 11.8 million viewers in August for the debut of its fourth season - setting a record for a cable nonfiction series . Hundreds of thousands of outraged fans responded to the news of Robertson ’ s suspension by launching boycotts and petitions They accused the network of discriminating against Robertson because of his religious beliefs and violating his First Amendment rights .\n“ Free speech is an endangered species , ” wrote former Alaska Gov . Sarah Palin on her Facebook page . “ Those ‘ intolerants ’ hatin ’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us . ”\nLouisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal also voiced support for his embattled constituents .\n“ The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints , except those they disagree with , ” he said . “ It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh , and Phil Robertson gets suspended . ''\nTony Perkins , president of the Family Research Council , told Fox News the suspension shows Hollywood wants to avoid reality .\n“ The reality is that the Robertson family are Bible-believing Christians who don ’ t cherry pick what the Bible teaches , ” he said .\nPerkins said the Duck Dynasty patriarch was targeted “ simply because he expressed his religious beliefs but there is a clear double standard that is being applied . ”\n“ It is time for all Americans to take a stand against the cultural elites who want to destroy the livelihood of people and remove God and His truth from every aspect of public life , ” he said .\nThe Liberty Institute , a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases , condemned A & E ’ s actions and urged them to reconsider .\n“ In the spirit of American tolerance of religious diversity , A & E should reinstate Mr. Robertson and apologize for its religious bigotry , ” the statement read .


UPDATE : A federal judge has ordered a defiant Kentucky clerk to jail after she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples .\nU.S. District Judge David Bunning told Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis she would be jailed until she complied with his order to issue the licenses . Davis said `` thank you '' before she was led out of the courtroom by a U.S. marshal . She was not in handcuffs .\nBunning also warned deputy clerks around the state that they could suffer the same fate should they refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples .\nDavis has refused to issue marriages licenses for two months since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage . She argues that her Christian faith should exempt her from signing the licenses .\nI ’ m very steadfast in what I believe . I don ’ t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I ’ m not . It ’ s easy to talk the talk , but can you walk the walk ? — Kim Davis , clerk of Rowan County , Kentucky\nLiberty Counsel attorney Mat Staver , who is representing Davis , called the ruling “ outrageous . ”\n“ If this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty , ” Staver told me .\nHe said Davis will be fingerprinted and photographed “ just like a criminal . ”\n“ This can not be tolerated , ” he said . “ This is ultimately going to spark a huge debate around the country . This is not the kind of country – this is not the America that our founders envisioned . ”\nKim Davis could become the first Christian in America jailed as a result of the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage .\n“ I ’ ve weighed the cost and I ’ m prepared to go to jail , I sure am , ” Mrs. Davis told me in an exclusive interview . “ This has never been a gay or lesbian issue for me . This is about upholding the word of God . ”\n“ This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes , ” she said . “ This is a fight worth fighting . ”\nDavis is the clerk of Rowan County , Ky. – a small patch of earth in the northeastern part of the state . She was elected last November – taking the place of her mother , who held the position for nearly 40 years .\nIt ’ s fair to say that issuing marriage licenses was something of a family business – until the day the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage .\nDavis is a devout Apostolic Christian , and she knew that should gay marriage become legal , she could not and would not sign her name on a same-sex marriage certificate .\n“ I would have to either make a decision to stand or I would have to buckle down and leave , ” she said , pondering her choices . “ And if I left , resigned or chose to retire , I would have no voice for God ’ s word .\nSo when that day came , she issued an edict : No more marriage licenses would be issued in Rowan County . It was a decision that would bring down the wrath of militant LGBT activists and their supporters .\n“ They told my husband they were going to burn us down while we slept in our home , ” she said . “ He ’ s been told that he would be beaten up and tied up and made to watch them rape me . I have been told that gays should kill me . ”\nLiberty Counsel , the public interest law firm that represents Davis , says forcing her to issue same-sex marriage licenses violates her religious beliefs . But the courts don ’ t seem interested in that argument .\nA federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses , an appeals court upheld that decision and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene . Should Davis continue to defy the law , she could be fined or sent to jail .\nNo matter what the court decides , Davis says she will not violate her religious beliefs – and she will not resign her post .\n“ I ’ m very steadfast in what I believe , ” she told me . “ I don ’ t leave my conscience and my Christian soul out in my vehicle and come in here and pretend to be something I ’ m not . It ’ s easy to talk the talk , but can you walk the walk ? ”\nThe mainstream media and the activists have been ruthless . They ’ ve portrayed her as a monster – a right-wing , homophobic hypocrite . She ’ s been smeared by tabloid-style reports on her checkered past . They ’ ve written extensively about her failed marriages .\nIt ’ s true , she ’ s been married four times . But what ’ s missing in the mainstream media coverage is the context . Her life was radically changed by Jesus Christ in 2011 , and since then she has become a different person .\n“ My God in heaven knows every crack , every crevice , every deep place in my heart , ” she said . “ And he knows the thoughts that are in my mind before I even think them . And he has given me such a beautiful and wonderful grace through all of this . ”\nShe once lived for the devil , but now she lives for God . She ’ s a sinner saved by grace .\n“ I had created such a pit of sin for myself with my very own hands , ” she told me .\nSo how does she handle the reporters and talking heads who call her a hypocrite ?\n“ All I can say to them is if they have a sordid past like what I had , they too can receive the cleansing and renewing , and they can start a fresh life and they can be different , ” she said . “ They don ’ t have to remain in their sin , there ’ s hope for tomorrow . ”\nDavis did not seek the national spotlight . She had no intention of becoming a spokeswoman for religious liberty , and she bristles at the idea that she is a hero of the faith .\n“ I ’ m just a vessel God has chosen for this time and this place , ” she said . “ I ’ m no different than any other Christian . It was my appointed time to stand , and their time will come . ”


The `` Harry Potter '' author has come under fire for tweeting a message of support Thursday for Maya Forstater , a researcher who lost her job at a think tank for stating that people can not change their biological sex .\n`` Dress however you please , '' Rowling wrote . `` Call yourself whatever you like . Sleep with any consenting adult who ’ ll have you . Live your best life in peace and security . But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real ? # IStandWithMaya # ThisIsNotADrill ''\nThe “ Harry Potter ” author , otherwise known for her liberal political views , was label by many on Twitter as a TERF ( Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist ) . The hashtag `` # JKRowlingIsATerf '' was a top trending topic that day .\nA spokesperson for Rowling told ███ the author would not have any further comment .\nThe researcher was a visiting fellow at the Centre for Global Development , which in March declined to renew her contract . A London judge this week upheld her dismissal , finding that her views of sex and gender were “ absolutist '' and `` incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others . ''\nForstater shared a copy of the judge 's ruling on Twitter .\n`` I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment , '' she wrote . `` My belief as i set out in my witness statement is that sex is a biological fact & is immutable . There are two sexes . Men are male . Women are female . It is impossible to change sex . These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life . ''\nThe researcher noted she will use `` preferred pronouns '' as a `` matter of courtesy '' and that everyone `` should be free to express themselves , to break free of gender stereotypes and to live free of violence , harassment and discrimination . ''\n`` But this does not require removing people ’ s freedom to speak about objective reality , or to discuss proposed changes to law and to government policies clearly , '' she added .\nIn a statement to ███ Thursday , GLAAD 's head of talent Anthony Ramos condemned Rowling 's support for Forstater .\n`` J.K. Rowling , whose books gave kids hope that they could work together to create a better world , has now aligned herself with an anti-science ideology that denies the basic humanity of people who are transgender , '' he wrote . `` Trans men , trans women , and non-binary people are not a threat , and to imply otherwise puts trans people at risk . Now is the time for allies who know and support trans people to speak up and support their fundamental right to be treated equally and fairly . ''\nRowling 's tweet stirred controversy , with some criticizing the author and others defending her .\nAmong those criticizing her was the Human Rights Campaign , which tweeted : “ Trans women are women . Trans men are men . Non-binary people are non-binary . CC : JK Rowling . ”\nJ.K. Rowling says Dumbledore , Grindelwald had sexual relationship ; fans mourn missed opportunity\n`` This is incredibly disappointing to see , from someone whose writing espouses so much kindness , '' wrote @ LouisatheLast . `` Ms. Forstater has the right to think what she pleases , but she does not have the right to expect that employers will always be okay with that . Trans people have to go to work too . ''\n`` As a gay man that found safety in Hogwarts throughout my childhood - knowing that Trans people wouldn ’ t be able to have that safety breaks my heart , '' wrote user @ shahmiruk .\nMore : 'Harry Potter ' author JK Rowling gives $ 18.8 million gift for MS research\nSome Twitter users backed Rowling and slammed the criticism directed at her .\n`` The one time you say something reasonable and everyone ’ s canceling you , '' wrote @ MsBlaireWhite .\n`` Just in case you needed any further proof that the Left is the party of raging intolerance , cancel culture , blind hypocrisy , and the full refusal to compromise on even the most reasonable of ideas outside their 'woke ' insanity .... here we are , watching them cannibalize their own , '' wrote @ iheartmindy .\nJ.K. Rowling mocks Trump with sarcasm : His Twitter rant is study of quiet strength


CLOSE Rowan County , Kentucky clerk Kim Davis squares off with David Moore and his partner David Ermold over her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a federal court order to do so . The Courier-Journal\nMOREHEAD , Ky. — Defying the Supreme Court , a county clerk says she was acting under `` God 's authority '' Tuesday while continuing to deny marriage licenses to gay couples , whose lawyers asked a federal judge to hold her in contempt of court .\nThe Supreme Court refused Monday to allow Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis ’ office to deny the licenses because of her religious beliefs . However , on Tuesday morning , she turned away at least four couples .\n`` To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God 's definition of marriage , with my name affixed to the certificate , would violate my conscience , '' Davis said in a statement on the website of her lawyers , Orlando-based Liberty Counsel . `` It is not a light issue for me . It is a Heaven or Hell decision . For me , it is a decision of obedience . ''\nDavid Moore and his partner , David Ermold , confronted Davis over the clerk 's counter for more than 5 minutes as crowd of supporters shouted for Davis to do her job .\n`` This is overwhelming . It feels ridiculous , '' Moore said after being refused . `` Who has to go through this to get married ? This is 2015 . This is America . This is what we pay taxes for — to be treated like this , to be discriminated against ? ''\nLater in the morning , lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union filed two motions in U.S. District Court to hold Davis in contempt of court and compel her to start issuing marriage licenses again to those who apply . They want her to be severely fined , not jailed .\n“ I feel like I ’ ve been humiliated on such a national level , I can ’ t even comprehend it. ” David Ermold , Morehead , Ky .\n`` The duty of public officials is to enforce the law , not place themselves above it , '' the ACLU 's legal director , Steven R. Shapiro , said in a statement . State law requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses to all eligible applicants .\nAn hour later Davis and her deputy clerks were notified to appear at an 11 a.m . ET Thursday hearing at U.S. District Court in Ashland , Ky. , about an hour to the east . The county seat of Rowan County , Morehead , is about halfway between Lexington and Ashland and is home to 10,000-student Morehead State University ; the county itself has about 24,000 residents .\nKentucky Gov . Steve Beshear previously has told county clerks resistant to issuing same-sex marriage licenses to resign . Another couple has filed a misdemeanor official-misconduct complaint against Davis with Kentucky 's attorney general , and Jack Conway , now running as the Democratic nominee for governor in this conservative state , will decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor .\nAs an elected official , Davis can ’ t be fired , but federal Judge David Bunning , who previously ordered her to stop denying marriage licenses , can impose potentially heavy fines and jail time . She could be impeached but the state Legislature is not in session and many lawmakers support her position .\nThe Kentucky County Clerk 's Association has proposed legislation to remove the issuing of marriage licenses from county clerks ' duties , relegating it to the state . County clerks now record and keep various legal records , including vehicle , hunting , fishing and marriage licenses ; mortgages , deeds and liens ; and voter-registration forms .\nDavis won her $ 80,000-a-year office in November , running as a Democrat , and succeeded her mother who served as county clerk for 37 years , according to The Morehead News .\n`` She is basically telling Judge Bunning and the 6th Circuit and the Supreme Court that she does n't care what they say , '' said William Kash Stilz Jr. , a lawyer for one gay couple whom her office has turned away four times , including Tuesday .\n“ I 'm willing to face my consequences , and you all will face your consequences when it comes time for judgment . It 's plain and simple. ” Kim Davis , Rowan County ( Ky. ) clerk\nMat Staver , Liberty Counsel 's chairman , said the decision was Davis ' to continue denying marriage licenses .\n`` Every decision in this case has been her decision , '' he said . `` For her this is ... not a defiance-of-the-court issue . This is a conscience issue . ''\nMonday 's ruling from the Supreme Court , made without comment or apparent dissents , is an early indication that while some push-back against gay marriage on religious grounds may be upheld , the justices wo n't tolerate it from public officials . In one of the first tests of the court 's June 26 decision upholding the rights of gays and lesbians to marry , Davis had argued that her Apostolic Christian faith prevented her from recognizing such marriages .\nRather than deny only same-sex couples , which the high court had said would be unconstitutional , Davis chose to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether — and same-sex and opposite-sex couples sued her .\n“ I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will , '' she said in her statement . `` To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue . It is about marriage and God ’ s Word . ”\nBut her detractors mock her moral stand , noting that Davis was married and divorced three times before marrying her fourth husband .\nDavis argued before the courts that her refusal to issue licenses was not a major burden for any couple because Kentucky has more than 130 other marriage-licensing locations in other county clerks ' offices and branches . But federal district and appeals court judges refused to grant her wish , forcing Davis to seek the Supreme Court 's intervention .\nAt one point Tuesday , Moore and Ermold said they were not leaving without a license , and Davis told them they would be in for a long day . Then she began walking back toward her office where she remained much of the day with the door and blinds closed .\nThat 's when Moore shouted for someone to call the police .\n`` You should be ashamed of yourself , '' he yelled . `` Everyone in this office should be ashamed of themselves . Is this what you want to remember ? Is this what you want to remember — that you stood up for this ? That you children have to look at you and realize that you are a bigot and that you discriminated against people ? ''\n`` I 'm willing to face my consequences , and you all will face your consequences when it comes time for judgment , '' she said . `` It 's plain and simple . ''\nErmold and Moore have been together for 17 years . Davis has rejected their attempts to apply for a marriage license four times , and they now are among those suing Davis .\n“ I feel sad . I feel devastated , ” Ermold said outside as he stood with protesters . “ I feel like I ’ ve been humiliated on such a national level , I can ’ t even comprehend it . ”\nMoore said he hopes to obtain a license before the end of 2015 although lawyers have told him that the case could drag on for years .\nJames Yates and Willliam Smith Jr. left the courthouse hand-in-hand after they also were refused a license for the fifth time in recent weeks . Yates appeared to be fighting back tears as he said the denial was too hard to talk about .\nTheir lawyer , Stilz , said they were jeered as they left the courthouse .\n`` James said he and Will had never seen such hatred , '' Stilz said .\nRandy Smith , a local evangelist and Davis supporter , said her convictions are from God and he doubts she will reverse her policy . He was one of dozens of people backing the clerk and singing hymns in a demonstration outside .\nSome of her supporters compared her Tuesday to the Biblical figures of Paul and Silas , imprisoned for their faith and rescued by God .\n“ It ’ s because of the love of Christ that Kim is not passing out marriage licenses , '' said one man in the crowd , Jack Templeman . `` She ’ s even going against a man and woman to show the love of Christ . ... It ’ s all about the love of God . I see signs that it is about hate , but it ’ s really not . It ’ s about love . ”\nThe high court 's ruling does n't end Davis ' challenge , still pending at the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals — the same appellate court that previously allowed Kentucky , Michigan , Ohio and Tennessee to block same-sex marriage before Supreme Court justices overruled them . But it means that in the meantime , her office must issue marriage licenses .\n`` There is separation of church and state for a reason , '' said Jeanna Smith , who stood with Davis ' critics . `` My mother is a Sunday school teacher , and my mother even said Kim Davis needs to do her job or get out . ”\nChristian group holding pray outside Rowan County Courthouse pic.twitter.com/99U10i136n — Mike Wynn ( @ MikeWynn_KY ) September 1 , 2015


Part 2 Of The Martin O'Malley Interview Listen · 5:59 5:59\nMartin O'Malley , former governor of Maryland , says he 'll decide by late May whether he 's running for president . Running would put him — even he seems to acknowledge — in an uphill battle against Hillary Clinton , currently the only Democrat who has declared .\nO'Malley is positioning himself to Clinton 's left , and even President Obama 's left .\nHe 's for a much higher minimum wage , and against a major trade deal — the Trans-Pacific Partnership . In an interview with NPR 's Steve Inskeep , O'Malley also said he wants to increase Social Security benefits , even though some people would pay more taxes .\nSurveys put O'Malley far behind Clinton . But , he 's hoping his travels across the country can change that . Last month , he addressed a crowd in Iowa while standing on a chair . Last week , he gave a speech at Harvard . And this week , he 's in the early primary state of South Carolina .\n`` I 've been an executive and a progressive executive with a record of accomplishments , '' the former Baltimore mayor said of the difference between him and Clinton . `` I think contrasts will become apparent . ''\nI think what 's going on right now , Steve , is you have a competition between two theories of how our economy actually works and how we generate economic growth that lifts us all . The Republican Party is doubling down on this trickle-down theory that says thou shalt concentrate wealth at the very top of our society . Thou shalt remove regulation from wherever you find it , even on Wall Street . And thou shalt keep wages low for American workers so that we can be more competitive . We have a different theory . Our theory as Democrats and as the longer arc of our story as Americans is that we believe that a stronger middle class is actually the cause of economic growth . What ails our economy right now is 12 years of stagnant or declining wages , and we need to fix this .\nI mean , look , talk is cheap . And so there are two ways to go forward from here , and history shows this . One path is a sensible rebalancing that calls us back to our tried and true success story as the land of opportunity . The other is pitchforks .\nThere 's , history affords no other paths . We 're either going to sensibly rebalance and do the things that allow our middle class to grow , that expands opportunities and allows workers to earn more when they 're working harder . Or , we 're going to go down a very , very bad path .\nOn whether large corporations are able to deal with regulation better than small businesses\nOh , certainly . I mean , our tax code 's been turned into Swiss cheese . And certainly the concentrated wealth and accumulated power and the systematic deregulation of Wall Street has led to this situation where the economy is n't working for most of us . All of that is true . But it is not true that regulation holds poor people down or regulation keeps middle class from advancing . That 's kind of patently bulls- - - .\nYeah , I do oppose it . What 's wrong with it is first and foremost that we 're not allowed to read it before our representatives vote on it . What 's wrong with it is that right now what we should be doing are things that make our economy stronger here at home . And it 's my concern that the Trans-Pacific Partnership , this deal is a race to the bottom , a chasing of lower wages abroad , and I believe that that does nothing to help us build a stronger economy here at home .


Top House Republicans are demanding are seeking an investigation into new reports that the Census Bureau manipulated surveys that showed a steep drop in the U.S. unemployment rate shortly before the 2012 presidential election , even as the bureau said a key suspect in the matter left the bureau more than two years ago .\nHouse Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa , California Republican , sent an angry letter to the bureau this week demanding that it investigate a “ shocking ” report in the New York Post that field worker Julius Buckmon and other unnamed bureau employees faked figures that were used in the monthly unemployment report , resulting in a dramatic and puzzling plunge in the unemployment rate from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent just before last year ’ s presidential election .\nHowever , the bureau said that Mr. Buckmon left the agency in August 2011 , long before the election , apparently because of questionable procedures that he used in gathering data when he worked at the bureau ’ s Philadelphia field office . Since the bureau has more than 7,000 field representatives like Mr. Buckmon , it would be close to impossible for one employee to have a significant effect on the overall report , the Census Bureau said in a statement Tuesday .\n“ We have no reason to believe this isn ’ t an isolated incident , ” she said , adding that she could not discuss Mr. Buckmon ’ s specific reasons for leaving because of privacy laws . “ This was an employee who was willfully disobeying Census procedures and disobeying the law . ”\nThe spokesperson said that when the bureau discovers inappropriate activity , the matter is referred to the Department of Labor ’ s inspector general . The field representative would be subject to disciplinary action if the IG finds any wrongdoing , including termination , the publication Business Insider reported .\nAsked about the reports at his White House press briefing Tuesday , spokesman Jay Carney called the Post story “ obviously misleading. ” The original New York Post story , which set off Mr. Issa ’ s inquiry , cited what it called a “ knowledgeable source ” who claimed that the data manipulation “ escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today . ”\nThe Post ’ s anonymous source said that an unusual and headline-grabbing jobs report in September 2012 , which came out just before the election when Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney appeared to be closing in on President Obama in a very close contest , was “ faked ” to produce the dramatic reported decline in the unemployment to under 8 percent for the first time since the recession .\nFormer General Electric chairman Jack Welch and many Republicans at the time questioned whether the numbers had been manipulated in light of the weak job growth reported by businesses in a separate survey by the department .\nThe Post story , which cited confidential documents dating from 2010 , said Mr. Buckmon and other census employees were pressured by their supervisors to fudge surveys to fill in data gaps when they did not get the 90 percent response rate sought by the Department of Labor in compiling its monthly household survey , from which it derives the unemployment rate .\nThe Post story triggered a letter to the bureau from Mr. Issa demanding information about Mr. Buckmon , including his e-mails , his list of supervisors and any material related to a government investigation of Mr. Buckmon ’ s actions after he left the agency . Mr. Issa asked for the requested information by Dec. 3 .\n“ Since the bureau relies on the American public for its data , it is important that the Census Bureau cooperate with all investigations into this matter , ” Mr. Issa wrote . “ Any erosion of trust by the Census Bureau would have an immediate impact on other important census surveys , such as the American Community Survey , or the planning and implementation of the 2020 decennial census . ”


`` We do n't have a level playing field for our workers , '' President Donald Trump told a group of workers in Kenosha , Wisc. , on Tuesday . Truth is , if we were to ever level the playing field with countries like Mexico and China , the average American worker would be making $ 3 an hour and spending their pittance on third-world health care and decrepit housing . Please , do n't level the playing field .\nWhen few things are going your way in politics , though , it 's customary to return to rhetoric that made you successful . So , as Republicans have been unable to push forward on health care reform or tax reform—or anything not named Neil Gorsuch , for that matter—it is unsurprising that Trump would turn to protectionism as a way to bolster his political fortunes .\nOn Tuesday , the president traveled to a tool manufacturing company in Wisconsin and threw some nationalistic bromides at a blue-collar crowd ( none of which included the words `` I 'm afraid some of your jobs will be taken by robots in the future '' ) , and then signed an executive order ordering the White House to look into ways to curb guest worker visa programs and require government agencies to buy more goods and services from American companies .\nFor the past two years , over 200,000 foreigners applied for open positions each year . The U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services holds a lottery and gives out 85,000 H-1B visas to high-skilled foreign workers . It 's a program that 's most popular with the tech industry , due to a shortage of Americans trained in science and engineering . I suppose it 's a lot easier to stop talented immigrants from entering the country than to find ways to incentivize Americans to become math majors .\nOver the past couple of decades , a high number of immigrants ( which many H-1B visa holders become ) have been part of innovations and start-ups that have created jobs for American workers . Now , even if you do n't believe immigrants add economic value , how exactly is cutting down on high-tech visas going to help rehabilitate the economically depressed areas of the nation ?\nMoreover , it seems telling that many of those who are concerned about illegal immigration also seem intent on lowering numbers of legal and potentially high-achieving immigrants from entering the country . The underlying message is that there is a cultural problem , not merely an economic one . `` When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia , I think… '' White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said not long ago in a jumbled explanation of economic nationalism , `` a country is more than an economy . We 're a civic society . ''\nThe second part of the order cuts down on waivers and exemptions to President Herbert Hoover 's Buy American law . It instructs agencies to use American-made goods and services rather than saving taxpayer dollars or searching out the best deals they can . This is how we incentivize rent-seeking and cronyism . Until a couple of months ago , this is what Republicans used to call `` picking winners and losers . '' If you thought General Motors should n't be bailed out because it could n't compete in a global marketplace , why would you support a state-impelled `` Buy American . Hire American '' when it comes to steel , for example ?\nIn a political sense , the idea of `` Buy American . Hire American '' is much like fighting climate change : a comforting government-prescribed solution that people embrace in theory but rarely in practice . In the protectionist 's universe , everyone with a Samsung cellphone or a Toyota Camry ( both the best-selling brands in their categories ) would be a traitor to the American worker . In the real world , competition allows us to buy the best products at the cheapest prices—and then buy more things with the money we save . The rules of economics do n't give us waivers for being American .\nHow damaging will Trump 's trade agenda be ? Who knows ? Despite the protestations of the left—and their eight-year weakening of constitutional restrictions on executive power—Trump 's power has always been curbed by the realities of the job . But protectionism is one area where he could find willing partners in both parties .\nProtectionism , after all , is where Trump is most comfortable and effective . It 's the issue that made him , the issue he is most coherent about and the issue with which he has shown the most ideological affinity . Because of its political potency , it has also seen converts , not only among blue-collar Americans but also one-time free-market conservatives .\n`` Buy American , '' an appealing and patriotic-sounding solution , is popular across ideological lines . The protectionist impulses of the progressive left—the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing—closely align with Trump once the cultural aspects are stripped away . In American politics , both parties seem to have warmed to the idea that we can regulate the country into economic growth . The biggest risk is that protectionist rhetoric will be normalized within the GOP , which means there will be two parties with significant factions embracing mercantilism . How long will it be before that kind of support manifests in truly destructive legislation ?


This is a rush transcript . Copy may not be in its final form .\nAMY GOODMAN : For more , we ’ re joined by two guests . Here in New York , Catherine Ruetschlin is a policy analyst at Demos and author of the report , “ Fast Food Failure : How CEO-to-Worker Pay Disparity Undermines the Industry and the Overall Economy. ” And Terrance Wise joins us from KCPT , Kansas City Public Television . He ’ s worked for Burger King for nine years , plans to go on strike today as part of the international push by fast-food and retail workers to demand a living wage . He ’ s a member of the Stand Up Kansas City campaign . We last spoke with Terrance in August as the strikes were just beginning here in the U.S .\nWe welcome you both to ███ ! Terrance , let ’ s go to you . You have worked at Burger King for nine years . How much do you make an hour , if you don ’ t mind me asking ?\nTERRANCE WISE : Well , I ’ ve worked in fast food for 17 years and at Burger King for nine years , and I make $ 9.40 an hour at Burger King .\nAMY GOODMAN : I ’ m sorry , I didn ’ t catch what you said . Can you say that again ?\nTERRANCE WISE : I ’ m sorry . I ’ ve been working fast food for 17 years , and Burger King I ’ ve worked for the past nine years , and I make $ 9.40 an hour working there .\nAMY GOODMAN : And why are you going on strike today ?\nTERRANCE WISE : Well , I ’ m going on strike for my family . I raise three little girls here in Kansas City , and I need their future not to look anything like the past . We ’ ve struggled with homelessness , paying basic utilities—gas , rent , the lights . And that ’ s while working every day . The working poor is what we are .\nAMY GOODMAN : Are you concerned about retaliation if you go out today ? What has Burger King said ? Presumably , since this is being organized all over the country , Burger King and McDonald ’ s know that workers are going to be walking out .\nTERRANCE WISE : Well , me , I first spoke to you , Amy , in August . That was my first strike . And this is number four for me . So , we know that the federal laws provide us protection when we come together as workers and demand the corporations we work for to pay us a living wage and to give us the right to form a union . So with that knowledge of knowing that the federal government protects our rights to organize and go on strike , it ’ s a huge relief for fast-food workers .\nAMY GOODMAN : Terrance , how many hours a week do you work at Burger King ?\nTERRANCE WISE : Well , it ’ s—I make $ 9.40 an hour , so it ’ s like 35 , 40 hours a week . It ’ s , after taxes , maybe $ 400 every two weeks . And that ’ s working double sometimes , going in in the morning and working at night , just not bringing in enough . And we know that these companies make billions in profit . They can afford to pay us better and do better by us and give us a voice on the job . That ’ s what we ’ re demanding .\nAMY GOODMAN : Well , Catherine Ruetschlin , you ’ ve been studying this , the issue of what these fast-food companies can afford . Your report , “ Fast Food Failure : How CEO-to-Worker Pay Disparity Undermines the Industry and the Overall Economy. ” What is the disparity between the CEO , say , of Burger King and the workers , or McDonald ’ s ?\nCATHERINE RUETSCHLIN : Well , you know , when I started the study , I didn ’ t know that fast food was going to be such an extreme outlier in terms of pay disparity . The study arose kind of in this context that Terrance and other workers like him have created , where there ’ s a growing awareness that inequality is undermining the economy at several levels . But when I dug into the data , what I found was that fast food is a catalyst , with inequality that outstrips all the sectors of the economy . The CEO of a fast-food company in 2012 earned 1,200 times what the typical worker earned that year .\nCATHERINE RUETSCHLIN : Twelve hundred times . And that ’ s with a fairly generous assumption that workers in fast food are receiving benefits and work a full-time schedule , which in many cases , you know , isn ’ t true .\nAMY GOODMAN : How does that affect the industry and the economy as a whole ? You say it hurts it .\nCATHERINE RUETSCHLIN : That ’ s right . You know , there ’ s a macro-level story that ’ s just become a part of the conversation with organizations like the IMF and the World Economic Forum in Davos , pointing to inequality as a threat at the macro level because it generates instability in the economy and undermines growth . But then , at the micro level , firms are starting to wake up to the fact that it undermines their bottom lines , as well . In March , McDonald ’ s filed with the SEC and listed income inequality as one of the primary risks facing their own returns over the coming years , not just because workers are striking , but because they ’ re having a hard time satisfying their customers because they ’ ve underinvested in the front-line services that really build the brand and provide revenues to the firm .\nAMY GOODMAN : How do you respond to the companies saying , “ All right , if they increase the workers ’ wages , but then consumers have to be willing to pay more for the burgers ” ?\nCATHERINE RUETSCHLIN : Well , firms have a lot of ways that they could pay for a raise . They don ’ t necessarily have to pass the cost on to customers . They could do that , but they could also use some of the ways that they ’ re redirecting their profits right now . Firms like McDonald ’ s spend billions of dollars a year buying back their own shares of company stock on the market in order to consolidate ownership and bump up earnings per share and meet these short-term benchmarks . But that ’ s really a short-term understanding of the interest of the firm , right ? If they had a longer-term perspective , they would see that rather than investing in their share price , if they were investing in their labor force , they would generate returns—higher productivity , loyal workers with better knowledge of the company processes , you know , lower turnover rates , so lower costs associated with job search—and it would actually receive benefits through that investment that would pay off in the long run .\nAMY GOODMAN : And the issue of how these companies are subsidized , government-subsidized ?\nCATHERINE RUETSCHLIN : That ’ s right . A study came out recently that shows that fast-food employers , like McDonald ’ s , Subway , you know , Yum ! Brands , which owns Taco Bell and KFC and Pizza Hut , Domino ’ s Pizza , these are some of the highest-ranking employers in terms of working poor . So , if you can—if you look into who ’ s receiving healthcare benefits for their families and wage subsidies from the state agencies , from poverty alleviation programs , the highest-ranking firms are Wal-Mart and fast food . So , it ’ s the taxpayers who are actually paying the—for the ability for these firms to maintain a labor force at all .\nAMY GOODMAN : Terrance , how does it feel to learn that the CEO makes something like 1,200 times more than what you make ?\nTERRANCE WISE : Well , I know that workers like myself and my co-workers across the city , we go to work every day , and we ’ re the driving force behind his billions in profit he brings in . He ’ s buying new yachts and new boats and new cars , and I just want to put my kids through college . So , just to see the disparity that I ’ m making $ 9.50 an hour and he makes over $ 9,000 , and just to get that out to the public and that information to be known , it ’ s eye-opening . And it calls for change .\nAMY GOODMAN : And , Terrance , the action you ’ re going to engage in today in Kansas City , what exactly are you going to do ?\nTERRANCE WISE : Well , like I said earlier , this is my fourth time . And I ’ ll band together with the majority of the co-workers at my store and hundreds of workers from around the city , and we ’ ll go different parts of the city . We ’ ll do chants . We ’ ll hold signs . We ’ ll give speak-outs . We ’ ll try to enter some stores , like I heard them say on New York earlier . In New York City , they ’ ve been doing this , and we ’ ll be doing this here in Kansas City . It ’ s just to get the message out to the public and to our bosses in the companies , that we ’ re not afraid . We ’ re going to stand together in solidarity , and we demand better . We ’ re not asking for a minimum wage increase . It ’ s not a minimum wage drive . It ’ s for billion-dollar corporations that have the money to pay us better and give us the right to have a union in this industry .\nAMY GOODMAN : Well , Terrance Wise , I want to thank you very much for being with us , Burger King worker on strike today , part of Stand Up Kansas City , speaking to us from Kansas City Public Television . And , Catherine Ruetschlin , one more thing , not only the issue of the pay ratio of worker to CEO , 1,200 to one , CEO of course being the 1,200 , but the fast-food CEOs earnings quadrupling .\nCATHERINE RUETSCHLIN : That ’ s right . What we ’ ve seen is that at these firms that have benefited from economic growth , overall , the CEOs and top executives have been able to capture all of those gains . So , while the fast-food CEO pay grew by 470 percent since 2000 , worker earnings only grew by 0.3 percent . Now , that means that their earnings aren ’ t even keeping up with the basic cost of living , so they ’ re actually losing ground in terms of standard of living year after year .\nAMY GOODMAN : Catherine Ruetschlin , I ’ d like you to stay with us , because next up after break we ’ re going to talk about Wal-Mart . President Obama spoke at a Wal-Mart recently . Right afterwards , 1,800 warehouse workers in California settled a major wage theft lawsuit against Wal-Mart and one of its largest contractors . This is ███ ! We ’ ll be back in a moment .


LISTEN TO ARTICLE 6:10 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email\nAfter a yearlong assault on the Federal Reserve and its chairman , President Donald Trump has tapped two wildly different economists to the central bank ’ s board who seemingly have one important thing in common .\nThey ’ re both likely to support the president ’ s call for lower interest rates .\nOne , Christopher Waller , is largely a conventional choice . Drawn from within the Fed ’ s own ranks , he ’ s been consistent in his calls for a more dovish approach over the years . The other , Judy Shelton , has spent decades outside mainstream economics and recently appears to have completed a metamorphosis from proponent of returning to the gold standard -- a concept broadly espoused by those who feel monetary policy is too lax -- to an advocate of the need for more stimulus .\n“ It seems like both are going to be in favor of lower rates , and sooner rather than later , ” said Kathleen Bostjancic , an economist at Oxford Economics in New York . “ They are much more dovish , and obviously that ’ s what President Trump wants . ”\nWaller is director of research for St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard , who was the only dissenting vote in favor of a rate cut at the Fed ’ s meeting in June . Shelton , who has been an informal adviser to Trump , has publicly said the central bank should reduce rates .\nTrump , who announced his picks within minutes of each other on Twitter Tuesday , has recently struggled to find candidates for the Fed that are acceptable to senators who must confirm nominees . The president previously advanced four people for the two remaining open seats on the board of governors . None of them made it , raising questions about the White House vetting process for his picks .\n“ It was a great pleasure to meet with the president this afternoon , ” Shelton said in an email on Tuesday night . “ This president really gets it . His pro-growth economic agenda should not be undermined by wrongheaded ‘ Phillips Curve ’ thinking that punishes productive economic growth and subverts continued gains while turning a blind eye to the currency impact of ‘ additional stimulus measures ’ by other central banks . We have high employment and low inflation ; so much for the supposed trade-off . ”\nThe Phillips Curve holds that there ’ s an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation .\nThe lengthy Senate confirmation process means neither candidate is likely to join the board for months , perhaps not even until next year . Current Vice Chairman Richard Clarida ’ s nomination was announced April 18 , 2018 , and he wasn ’ t sworn in until Sept. 17 . Governor Michelle Bowman , nominated the same day as Clarida , didn ’ t take office until Nov. 26 .\nAs a high-ranking Fed staffer , Waller may have a better chance of passing muster with lawmakers than some of Trump ’ s previous contenders . As for Shelton , the Senate has already confirmed her in her current role as the U.S. executive director for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development .\nIn an interview with ███ in May , she said she was “ highly skeptical ” that the goals for the Fed set by Congress -- the pursuit of maximum employment , stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates -- were relevant .\nRead more : Fed Hopeful Shelton Questions Value of Bank ’ s Dual Mandate\nThe White House has conducted the search for Fed candidates as Trump has repeatedly blasted Fed Chairman Jerome Powell over the Fed ’ s interest rate increases . The president has told confidants that he believes he has the authority to replace Powell as Fed chairman , demoting him to the level of board governor , according to people familiar with the matter . But Trump said he doesn ’ t plan to do it . The president chose Powell as Chair , replacing Janet Yellen last year .\nTrump ’ s eagerness to get rid of Powell makes both of these nominees potential chairs-in-waiting , a factor that may also affect their confirmation process in the Senate . Powell has said he intends to serve his full four-year term and that “ the law is clear ” on that issue .\nEarlier this year , Trump advanced two supporters for the Fed board , Stephen Moore and Herman Cain , but both withdrew their names after they came under criticism .\nWaller , who declined to comment Tuesday on his nomination , is a Ph.D. economist who previously served as a professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame before joining the St. Louis Fed in 2009 . His key research focus has been on monetary and macroeconomic theory and the political economy .\nWaller was approached by the White House last month about the job and met with Trump Tuesday , said Karen Branding , a spokeswoman for the St. Louis Fed .\nThe overture came after the White House talked to his boss , Bullard , about joining the Fed board of governors himself . But Bullard told reporters last month that he ’ s happy in his current position .\nThe two men are close and have co-authored monetary-policy papers . Waller shares , and helped to develop in 2016 , Bullard ’ s dovish view that policy is in a new regime in a world with low inflation and high savings -- where higher interest rates are not needed .\nRead more : St. Louis Fed ’ s Waller Joins Bullard in a Dovish Duo at the Fed\n“ We didn ’ t see any overheating in the economy coming , and so the question was , why are we raising rates , ” Waller recalled in a June interview with ███ . “ We didn ’ t see any reason to raise rates just for the sake of raising rates . ”\nWaller also said that he doesn ’ t worry about pushing the unemployment rate too low and sparking higher prices . “ We don ’ t buy into the Phillips curve story that low unemployment causes inflation . Look at Japan , ” he said .\nShelton has a doctorate in business administration from the University of Utah with an emphasis on finance and international economics . She previously worked for the Sound Money Project , which was founded to promote awareness about monetary stability and financial privacy .\nIn her interview with ███ in May , Shelton questioned the use of the Fed ’ s basic interest-rate tool to adjust the price of money , and thereby guide an economy toward a sustainable level of growth .\n“ A Fed that is too eager to artificially put in an interest rate that isn ’ t close to what the market would be suggesting is not so good , ” she said at the time . “ I would try to be the voice saying , are you sure you know better than the markets ? ”\nShelton has also in the past argued for a return to a gold standard , fixing the value of the U.S. dollar to a weight of gold , a system the U.S. followed to varying degrees until 1976 . If appointed to the Fed , however , Shelton said she would not call for a return to the gold standard or for a sudden abandonment of other established policies .\nAfter raising interest rates last year in the face of criticism from Trump , Powell and fellow Fed colleagues are widely expected to cut rates at their next meeting at the end of this month .\n— With assistance by Steve Matthews , Christopher Condon , Craig Torres , Matthew Boesler , Kathleen Hays , Sarah McGregor , and Saleha Mohsin