El Tribunal Supremo de Minnesota escuchó ayer (jueves) los argumentos en un caso de alto perfil que implica los esfuerzos para mantener al expresidente Donald Trump fuera de la votación primaria del estado. Se trata de un caso similar al que se ha llevado a cabo en otros lugares del país en relación con sus acciones del 6 de enero.

Una pregunta clave relacionada con el caso es si Trump es responsable de incitar la insurrección, y si esas acciones entran en conflicto con una cláusula de la 14ª Enmienda.

El politólogo David Sturrock, de la Universidad Estatal del Suroeste de Minnesota, dice que otra cuestión es si los estados tienen autoridad para tomar la determinación, y si quieren sentar un precedente importante.


"Por lo general, los tribunales se inclinan por permitir a los votantes que puedan elegir," asegura Sturrock. "Son reacios a decirle a los votantes o a los funcionarios electorales: "No pueden incluir el nombre de un candidato en la boleta"."

Dice que ese factor pesa mucho, aunque reconoce que son aguas desconocidas y que es razonable cuestionar las acciones de Trump el 6 de enero. Los observadores de la Corte dicen que los jueces parecían escépticos ante los argumentos de los solicitantes. Sus abogados sostienen que Trump participó en una rebelión contra la Constitución de Estados Unidos y que la 14ª Enmienda está redactada para evitar que los "insurrectos" asuman el poder nuevamente. Un caso similar se está desarrollando en Colorado.

Sturrock dice que otra cosa a tener en cuenta son las posibles consecuencias si los tribunales se ponen del lado de los demandantes que quieren que Trump sea eliminado de la boleta electoral.

"Facilita que la próxima vez, cualquiera de los dos partidos pueda perseguir a un miembro del otro partido con acusaciones falsas," dice Sturrock. "Y cuanto más fácil le resulte utilizar una herramienta, más probabilidades habrá de que los miembros más exaltados la utilicen."

Dice que eso es evidente ahora mismo en el Congreso, ya que algunos miembros intentan censurar a sus colegas por asuntos que no se consideran dignos de tal disciplina.

Sturrock dice que otro desafío al que se enfrentan los peticionarios en Minnesota es la falta de tiempo antes de las primarias, especialmente si estos casos acaban ante Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos.



get more stories like this via email

Recent Supreme Court rulings on air pollution are affecting Virginia and the nation.

Climate advocates said the court overstepped its bounds in ruling the Environmental Protection Agency's Good Neighbor Rule was improperly enacted and repealing the so-called "Chevron deference." Without it, judges have to rule on ambiguous regulatory laws with no agency expertise.

Craig Segall, vice president of the advocacy group Evergreen Action, said the court is diminishing the capacity of Virginia's federal climate partners like the EPA.

"By creating room to attack, for instance, carbon standards for power plants federally, that Virginia might want to implement," Segall outlined. "Or by making it harder for U.S. EPA to move us toward electric vehicles that would create jobs in Virginia and that would, you know, clean up the air, especially in Northern Virginia where it's so congested."

He added it creates an opportunity for states to lead on climate action. But partisan opinions on climate change vary across the country. In Virginia, it means mixed efforts from utility companies and lawmakers. Dominion Energy is developing offshore wind, but it is also pressing on with a natural gas plant residents vehemently oppose.

The rulings, coupled with decisions on presidential immunity and what constitutes bribery have eroded the Supreme Court's perception of impartiality. Polls show most Americans across party lines feel the Court puts political ideology first.

Quentin Scott, federal policy director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said it opens the floodgates to government corruption.

"We can't have this blatant, open corruption or it will diminish our effectiveness of government and enforcement of some very important rules related to pollution," Scott asserted.

He stressed climate action will be a top ballot priority along with preserving democracy. Some of his group's top issues for the next presidency will be improving grid interconnection of clean energy projects and approving certain reforms for the Supreme Court.

Vice President Kamala Harris, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, delivered a powerful message in Indianapolis.

Speaking at a Zeta Phi Beta Sorority event, just days after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed her candidacy, Harris emphasized her dedication to affordable healthcare, student debt relief, and gun control measures, including universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

She also hammered home that, if she is elected president, she would restore a woman's right to choose an abortion.

"When I am President of the United States and when Congress passes a law to restore those freedoms, I will sign it into law," Harris said. "We are not playing around."

Harris expressed her belief that the current administration has made progress toward a better future by implementing such initiatives as capping insulin prices for more affordable healthcare, passing the Child Tax Credit, and forgiving student loan debt for millions of Americans.

GOP Vice-Presidential nominee J.D. Vance was also in Indiana Wednesday. He spoke at a private event in Ft. Wayne.

Criticizing Project 2025, a conservative plan drafted by the Heritage Foundation, Harris warned it would take the country backward in the areas of medical freedom and education.

"This represents an outright attack on our children, our family, and our future. These extremists want to take us back, but we are not going back. We are not going back," she said.

Harris called for unity in defending freedom and stated there are two different visions for the country. Her vision, she said, looks to the future; the other, she said, looks to the past. Harris urged the community to mobilize and vote, stressing the significance of this moment in shaping the nation's future.


get more stories like this via email

A sweeping conservative plan to shape a possible second Donald Trump presidency is making headlines, even as the GOP candidate claims to know little about it.

"Project 2025" from the conservative Heritage Foundation includes standard conservative ideas, such as slashing regulations, but also firing thousands of civil servants, dismantling the Department of Education and giving more power to the states.

David Nevins, co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder of the Bridge Alliance, a network of organizations working to promote healthy self-governance, has enlisted experts to share their thoughts on each of Project 2025's 30 sections.

"The cross-partisan approach that we believe in is, in some cases, the federal government can do certain things more effectively - in some cases not as effectively - and that's the discussion we need to have as a nation," Nevins said.

Alarming to New Mexico conservationists, Project 2025 proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and replacing carbon-reduction goals with efforts to increase energy production and energy security.

Nevins believes many on the far right want to "turn back the clock" and erase societal changes that have occurred in the last 20 to 30 years. He said people can be afraid of change - especially when things are moving fast - but thinks Project 2025 represents a lack of open-mindedness rather than seeking common ground to take democracy to its next level.

"The reality of America is that we are a diverse country, in terms of racial, ethnic, sexual preferences, religion - that is the reality. And if we're going to live into the pluralistic dream of our founding fathers and mothers, we have to learn to make that work," he explained.

While Trump has denied knowing much about Project 2025, nearly two-thirds of the authors behind the plan served in his former administration.


get more stories like this via email