Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/06/18/companies-federal-holiday-juneteenth-off-employees/7740121002/

Former President Obama said on Thursday that “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.” 

In a series of tweets, Obama applauded the Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling upholding the act, saying it would ensure health insurance for millions.

“The principle of universal coverage has been established, and 31 million people now have access to care through the law we passed—with millions more who can no longer be denied coverage or charged more because of a preexisting condition,” Obama said.

Obama also said that he hopes President BidenJoe BidenChinese apps could face subpoenas, bans under Biden executive order: report OVERNIGHT ENERGY:  EPA announces new clean air advisors after firing Trump appointees |  Senate confirms Biden pick for No. 2 role at Interior | Watchdog: Bureau of Land Management saw messaging failures, understaffing during pandemic Poll: Majority back blanket student loan forgiveness MORE will continue to “strengthen and expand” the measure, adding that Biden has extended the special enrollment period until Aug. 15 for families to sign up. 

“Now we need to build on the Affordable Care Act and continue to strengthen and expand it. That’s what @POTUS Biden has done through the American Rescue Plan, giving more families the peace of mind they deserve,” he said.

The Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling upheld ObamaCare on Thursday, determining that 18 Republican-led states lacked the standing to sue.

Source Article from https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/559000-obama-on-supreme-court-ruling-the-affordable-care-act-is-here-to-stay

One person is dead and a dozen people injured after an apparent drive-by shooting spree near Phoenix, authorities said.

Police are investigating at least eight different shooting incidents that occurred over the course of a 90-minute period Thursday morning throughout the West Valley, according to Sgt. Brandon Sheffert, a spokesperson for the Peoria Police Department, which is leading the investigation.

“This is an extremely complex investigation,” Sheffert said during a press briefing, noting that multiple agencies are involved, including several police departments and the FBI. The number of shooting sites “could obviously grow,” he said.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told ABC News it is working to match ballistic shell casings from the various shooting scenes and tracing the recovered gun to figure out where the shooter bought or obtained the gun. It will also search the suspect’s home for any other weapons.

At around 11:10 a.m. local time, Peoria police received a call of “a vehicle that had been shot by another vehicle” near 103rd and Northern avenues, Sheffert said.

The same suspect vehicle — a white SUV — is believed to be involved in at least eight total shooting incidents, police said. Out of 13 victims accounted for so far, four were shot, one of whom died, Sheffert said. The other injuries may have been from car crashes or broken glass, but no specifics are available at this time, he said.

The deceased victim was found with a gunshot wound in a car on the Loop 101 freeway at Thunderbird Road, Sheffert said. The other injuries are expected to be non-life-threatening.

Three Banner Health hospitals confirmed to ABC News that they received nine patients from what they referred to as Thursday’s “drive-by shooting incident.” Banner Health West Valley facilities were on a since-lifted lockdown.

The Surprise Police Department tracked down the suspect’s car after it was spotted by the Surprise Fire Department, said Sunrise Sgt. Tommy Hale. Police took the male suspect into custody without incident after he pulled over, Hale said.

“Surprise PD did a great job locating this vehicle and getting this guy into custody to stop any more damage that he could do to the community,” Sheffert said.

A weapon was recovered in the suspect’s car, according to Hale, though no additional details were available on the type of gun.

No further details on the suspect were shared. Police are still investigating a motive, Sheffert said, though they don’t believe it was related to road rage.

“We don’t normally see road rage where this much happens,” he said.

No information was available yet on charges, though there will “probably be a litany of charges,” Sheffert said.

Police do not believe there are any additional suspects in the shootings and are asking anyone with information to call 623-773-8311.

“We want more information on this so we can figure out exactly what happened,” Sheffert said.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-12-people-injured-stemming-drive-shooting-spree/story?id=78343837

Supporters of Iranian ultraconservative presidential candidate Ebrahim Raisi carry posters bearing his portrait and wave national flags as they attend a rally in the capital Tehran, on Wednesday, ahead of the presidential election on Friday. The field of candidates in Iran’s presidential election thinned today, two days before the vote in which a victory by Raisi is widely predicted.

Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images

Supporters of Iranian ultraconservative presidential candidate Ebrahim Raisi carry posters bearing his portrait and wave national flags as they attend a rally in the capital Tehran, on Wednesday, ahead of the presidential election on Friday. The field of candidates in Iran’s presidential election thinned today, two days before the vote in which a victory by Raisi is widely predicted.

Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images

Iran is holding a presidential election on Friday. A hard-liner close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is widely predicted to win, with an exceptionally low voter turnout.

The vote comes at a crossroads for the country of about 85 million people. World powers are trying to revive the Iran nuclear deal by bringing Iran and the United States back into compliance. Progress there could reinstate limits on Iran’s nuclear program while giving the country access to global markets that its economy needs.

President Hassan Rouhani by law cannot run for a third consecutive term. His successor will have a heavy to-do list. Iran is grappling with the coronavirus pandemic, and an economic crisis that’s generally blamed on a combination of mismanagement and U.S. sanctions reimposed after the Trump administration abandoned the nuclear deal.

Here is a look at some of the candidates and issues to watch in the upcoming election:

This combination of four photos shows candidates for the Iranian presidential election on Friday. From left to right: Abdolnasser Hemmati, Mohsen Rezaei, Amir Hossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi and Ebrahim Raisi.

AP


hide caption

toggle caption

AP

This combination of four photos shows candidates for the Iranian presidential election on Friday. From left to right: Abdolnasser Hemmati, Mohsen Rezaei, Amir Hossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi and Ebrahim Raisi.

AP

Who is running for president of Iran?

There are four candidates, but one expected winner: Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian judiciary chief. The state-linked Iranian Students’ Polling Agency said on Wednesday that Raisi is favored to win about 64% of the vote.

The other candidates are Abdolnasser Hemmati, former governor of Iran’s Central Bank; Mohsen Rezaei, former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; and deputy speaker of parliament Amir Hossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi.

As The Associated Press puts it, Iran’s political spectrum includes hard-liners who seek to expand the country’s nuclear program and its power in the world, moderates who generally want to maintain the status quo, and reformists who want to change the theocracy. Even though there’s voting in Iran, activists who oppose the Islamic Republic’s rulers say there aren’t free and fair elections and some view voting as a way to push for progress.

In the weeks leading up to Friday’s election, the Guardian Council approved just seven candidates out of a field of nearly 600 registered, disqualifying many more moderate contenders and dozens of women registered to run. Critics said the move was a form of ballot manipulation to secure a hard-line presidency. Three candidates have dropped out of the race this week.

Iranian presidential candidate Abdolnasser Hemmati (left) speaks as Ebrahim Raisi listens in the candidates’ final debate at a state-run TV studio in Tehran, Iran, on June 12.

Morteza Fakhri Nezhad/Young Journalists Club via AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Morteza Fakhri Nezhad/Young Journalists Club via AP

Iranian presidential candidate Abdolnasser Hemmati (left) speaks as Ebrahim Raisi listens in the candidates’ final debate at a state-run TV studio in Tehran, Iran, on June 12.

Morteza Fakhri Nezhad/Young Journalists Club via AP

What’s known about the leading candidate, Ebrahim Raisi?

Raisi is a 60-year-old Shiite Muslim cleric with close ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. He ran for president previously and lost to Rouhani in 2017. Two years later, Khamenei appointed Raisi to head the judiciary. Analyst and president of Eurasia Group Ian Bremmer writes in Time: “Raisi can fairly be described as a ‘hardliner,’ one of those Iranian officials who is openly hostile to the idea of deeper engagement with Western governments and who favors the strict application of Islamic law at the expense of personal freedom.” The U.S. Treasury sanctioned him in 2019, saying: “Raisi was involved in the regime’s brutal crackdown on Iran’s Green Movement protests that followed the chaotic and disorderly 2009 election. Previously, as deputy prosecutor general of Tehran, Raisi participated in a so-called ‘death commission’ that ordered the extrajudicial executions of thousands of political prisoners in 1988.”

A supporter of presidential candidate Ebrahim Raisi shows her hand with writing in Persian that reads “Raisi,” during a rally in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday. He is the country’s hard-line judiciary chief and is closely aligned with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ebrahim Noroozi/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Ebrahim Noroozi/AP

A supporter of presidential candidate Ebrahim Raisi shows her hand with writing in Persian that reads “Raisi,” during a rally in Tehran, Iran, Wednesday. He is the country’s hard-line judiciary chief and is closely aligned with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ebrahim Noroozi/AP

What’s the mood around the election?

Many voters are disillusioned with politics, and some in the opposition as well as dissidents at home and abroad have called to boycott the vote. The Iranian Students’ Polling Agency projected just 42% of the country’s 59 million eligible voters will cast ballots, which would be a historic low for the country, the AP reported.

“Everybody knows that Raisi is going to be the next president,” 25-year-old Mohammad Sarabi tells NPR’s Peter Kenyon in Tehran, “no need to have any election for him.”

Many Iranians are disappointed in the incumbent, Rouhani, who had broad support and entered the nuclear deal only to see Trump undermine it. Iran’s economic woes are a leading concern for voters, especially as American sanctions have battered the country’s key oil and financial sectors. Residents also say even things like food and medicine — which U.S. officials say are not targeted by sanctions — are hard to come by.

At the same time, Iran has been hit hard by the coronavirus. The country has recorded more than 3 million confirmed cases of infection and more than 80,000 deaths from COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. Less than 5% of the population is estimated to have received at least one dose since the country began coronavirus vaccinations in February. Iranian media reported a domestically developed vaccine recently got emergency authorization. For the election, authorities say there will be more voting booths and polling centers will be outdoors where possible, Al Jazeera reported.

Many commentators consider a Raisi win a foregone conclusion, but some Iranians still hold out hope for the unexpected. The predicted front-runner hasn’t always won in Iran.

“Judging from social media posting, it seems that the former governor of the Central Bank, Abdolnasser Hemmati, has emerged as sort of the hope for many moderates and reformists, considering that he’s an economist who might be able to tackle the country’s problem,” says Mehrzad Boroujerdi, director of the School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Tech.

How could the election affect U.S. ties?

Khamenei, the supreme leader, has the last word on foreign policy, although the president and senior diplomats do set the tone with other countries. The Iranian economy will certainly be a priority for the new president, and that will mean getting Washington to lift the sanctions.

President Biden wants to revive the 2015 nuclear deal — hammered out when he was vice president — that removed sanctions in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear program. The Trump administration pulled the U.S. out of the deal in 2018 before hitting Iran with tough sanctions. In turn, Iran started breaching limits in the deal, such as on the amount of enriched uranium — nuclear fuel — it produces.

International delegations have been meeting with Iranian envoys to negotiate a way back to the agreement for both the U.S. and Iran. The Biden administration recently lifted some sanctions, which media interpret as a goodwill gesture.

The “Biden administration is logically holding its breath and are deciding how it needs to react to the outcome of the Iranian election and whether there is going to be really massive change in Iran’s position — which, frankly, I do not expect,” says Boroujerdi of Virginia Tech.

Khamenei supports the talks to reenter the nuclear deal and officials in Tehran expect to reach an agreement before the next president takes office in August, according to CFR.

In the final presidential debate on June 12, the former Central Bank chief Hemmati said “Mr. Raisi, you and your friends have played in Trump’s ground with your extremist policies.”

Raisi assured viewers he would bring Iran back to the nuclear deal. But he told Hemmati: The deal “would not be executed by you, it needs a powerful government to do this.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1006848183/4-things-to-know-about-irans-election-on-friday

California regulators on Thursday approved revised workplace pandemic rules that allow employees who are fully vaccinated against the coronavirus the same freedoms as when they are off the job, including ending most mask requirements.

The revised regulations approved by the governor-appointed California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board come after weeks of confusion. The rules adopted in a 5-1 vote, with one member absent, now conform with general state guidelines that took effect Tuesday by ending most mask rules for vaccinated people.

Gov. Gavin Newsom immediately issued an executive order waiving the usual 10-day legal review. The new rules will take effect as soon as they are filed with the secretary of state.

“While I understand the proposal in front of us today is extremely controversial and inconvenient, now I don’t think is the time to let our guard down,” said David Harrison, a labor representative on the board who voted for the revised rules. “We need to do everything reasonable — and I highlight reasonable … within our power to protect employees in California and across the country.”

The rules apply in almost every workplace in the state, including offices, factories and retailers.

They are intended to ensure that workers are protected while businesses resume normal or near-normal activity, Eric Berg, deputy chief of health for California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, told the board.

Business groups had sought the changes but argued they didn’t go far enough. They supported conforming rules for businesses with state guidelines patterned after the latest federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations.

Board member Laura Stock, an occupational safety expert who cast the lone opposition vote, warned that the pandemic is not over.

“This has real consequences that people can get sick and die due to exposure in the workplace,” Stock said.

She said the rules go too far by eliminating physical distancing and workplace partitions and allowing workers to self-report their vaccination status, while relying too heavily on people to be vaccinated.

“What’s very difficult is to figure out what the balance is so that we’re doing the most good for the most people, but not at all dismissing the vulnerable in our population,” said Chris Laszcz-Davis, a management representative on the board.

The move comes after the board did a double-twisting backflip in recent weeks when it first postponed, then rejected, then adopted, then rescinded rules that would have allowed workers to forgo masks only if every employee in a room was fully vaccinated against the coronavirus.

Fully vaccinated employees will not need to wear masks, except in locations like mass transit and classrooms, where they are required for everyone, or in the event of outbreaks.

Physical distancing also will end except for certain workers during major outbreaks. Vaccinated employees won’t need to be tested or quarantine unless they show symptoms, even if they have close contact with an infected person.

Employers must document that workers who skip masks indoors are indeed fully vaccinated. But employers have the choice of requiring workers to show proof of vaccination or allowing employees to self-report their status, with the employer keeping a record of who does the latter.

They also could decide to require everyone to remain masked — vaccinated or not. And vaccinated employees will still be able to wear masks if they choose without facing retaliation.

Public comments to the board before the vote largely split along management and employee lines.

Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said the rules don’t fully conform to the state’s other standards.

That’s because of the requirement that employers provide masks and keep track of employees’ vaccination status, record-keeping that he and others said could create liability and privacy issues.

“They do remain a significant barrier to fully reopening the economy,” Lapsley said.

Loosening the masking rules while a majority of Californians are not fully vaccinated and dangerous variants spread “will sicken many and likely kill some workers” as protections ease, countered Mitch Steiger, a legislative advocate for the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.

The California Chamber of Commerce praised the move to immediately end social distancing obligations instead of waiting until July 31, as Cal/OSHA had initially proposed. And employers must now provide the most effective N95 masks for free to unvaccinated employees only upon request, under the latest revision.

Newsom promised to provide a one-month supply of the masks after business groups complained they would have to stockpile the N95s in competition with healthcare workers.

There were 700 California workplace outbreaks and more than 10,000 infections in the last 30 days, Cal/OSHA’s Berg said, but he said the N95s are the best alternative as other protections wane.

Lapsley’s organization, joined by groups representing restaurateurs, manufacturers, retailers and others, in a statement called the revised rules “a step in the right direction” but asked Newsom to end what they said are confusing differences between state rules and federal guidelines.

“There is still more work to be done and these new Cal/OSHA regulations do not ensure that the economy can ‘roar’ back,” the groups said.

Source Article from https://www.kcra.com/article/vaccinated-california-workers-no-longer-have-to-wear-masks/36753984

“Throughout history, Juneteenth has been known by many names: Jubilee Day. Freedom Day. Liberation Day. Emancipation Day. And today, a national holiday,” Vice President Kamala Harris said, introducing Mr. Biden. She also signed the legislation in her capacity as the president of the Senate.

Juneteenth commemorates the end of slavery in the United States. Its name stems from June 19, 1865, when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger in Galveston, Texas, issued General Order No. 3, which announced that in accordance with the Emancipation Proclamation, “all slaves are free.” Months later, the 13th Amendment was ratified, abolishing slavery in the final four border states that had not been subjected to President Abraham Lincoln’s order.

Momentum to establish Juneteenth as a federal holiday picked up steam last year during a summer defined by racial unrest and Black Lives Matter protests in response to the murder of George Floyd by the police. In a bid to woo Black voters during the final months of the 2020 campaign, President Donald J. Trump promised to support legislation to establish the new federal holiday if he was re-elected. Still, some right-wing activists criticized Republicans who supported the measure.

At the White House, Mr. Biden singled out Opal Lee, an activist who at the age of 89 decided to walk from her home in Fort Worth to Washington, D.C., in an effort to get Juneteenth named a national holiday. The president called her “a grandmother of the movement to make Juneteenth a federal holiday” and got down on one knee to greet her in the audience.

He reminisced about meeting her last year while campaigning in Nevada. “She told me she loved me, and I believed it,” he joked. Mr. Biden also framed the holiday as part of his administration’s efforts to address racial equity throughout the federal government.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/17/us/politics/juneteenth-holiday-biden.html

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/06/17/usps-deliver-mail-friday-and-saturday-despite-juneteenth-holiday/7737088002/

Senate Democrats repeatedly claimed that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett would strike down the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — also known as Obamacare —  if she was confirmed, but those predictions were proven false on Thursday. 

Barrett voted with the majority in a 7-2 decision to uphold Obamacare on Thursday.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS OBAMACARE LAW, DISMISSING CHALLENGE FROM RED STATES

Thursday’s ruling proved wrong several prominent Democratic senators who insisted that Barrett would kill Obamacare. 

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., claimed in a press release that “a vote by any Senator for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act and eliminate protections for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions.”

When asked for comment on his previous statements Thursday, Schumer’s office pointed to a press release that praised the court’s decision but didn’t mention Barrett or his previous claims about the justice. 

DEM SENATOR CALLS BARRETT A ‘JUDICIAL TORPEDO’ AIMED AT OBAMACARE DURING CONFIRMATION HEARING

Schumer wasn’t the only member of Democratic leadership to take a shot at Barrett — Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Md., claimed in an interview last year that the then-nominee was on an “assignment” by Trump to get rid of Obamacare.

“I asked her, not some deep, legal, philosophical questions, Durbin said of his meeting with Barrett. “We just chatted for a minute, and I really wanted to try to understand her experience as a person when it came to health care because she is being sent on assignment to the Supreme Court by President Trump.”

“And we know what that assignment is, eliminate the Affordable Care Act,” he added.

On the first day of Barrett’s confirmation hearings, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., referred to her as a “judicial torpedo” aimed at destroying Obamacare.

SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH CATHOLIC FOSTER AGENCY THAT EXCLUDES SAME-SEX COUPLES IN 9-0 RULING

“This Supreme Court nominee has signaled in the judicial equivalent of all caps that she believes the Affordable Care Act must go, and that the precedent protecting the ACA doesn’t matter,” Whitehouse said. He claimed that the “influences behind this unseemly rush see this nominee as a judicial torpedo they are firing at the ACA.”

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, claimed in an interview during Barrett’s confirmation hearings that Republicans “want her on that court to hear the Affordable Care Act case… so that she can strike it down.” 

“This nominee poses a clear and present danger, an immediate danger, to the healthcare of over 20 million Americans who have healthcare thanks to the Affordable Care Act,” Hirono also said about Barrett in the interview.

Former Democratic presidential candidate and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed that Barrett would “work to gut” the ACA and called Barrett a “right-wing ideologue who does not represent the majority of Americans.”

Additionally, Senator Bob Casey, D-Penn., indicated in a speech on the Senate floor that Barrett’s nomination was being “fast-tracked” due to the Obamacare case.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“This nominee is being fast-tracked, first of all, because this nominee has been vetted by the two groups that matter: the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation,” Casey said. “Both groups totally committed to undoing, striking down the Affordable Care Act.”

“So she’s already passed that test, and she apparently passed with flying colors as she moved very quickly to a likely confirmation,” Casey added.

With the exception of Schumer, none of the senators’ offices had returned Fox News request for comment at publishing.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-barrett-affordable-care-act-ruling-proves-democrats-wrong

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — Officers with Portland Police Bureau’s Rapid Response Team, which was at the forefront of policing protests, voted to resign from the unit en masse on Wednesday night, the mayor’s office confirmed to KOIN 6 News.

The mass resignation from the unit comes on the heels of an indictment of one of the officers in the unit on Tuesday and a state Justice Department review into another detective on the team, which was announced earlier on Wednesday.

Officer Corey Budworth was indicted on one count of fourth-degree assault by a grand jury for allegedly using a baton on a freelance photojournalist during a declared riot on Aug. 18, 2020. Meanwhile, Det. Erik Kammerer’s use of force is currently under review by the Oregon Department of Justice.

In a statement, Portland Police Bureau said the officers left the unit but will continue their regular assignments.

“Last night, all of them, the police officer, detective and sergeant members of our Rapid Response Team met and as a result of that discussion, voted to — as a group — to offer their resignation from their assignment with the Rapid Response Team,” Acting Portland Police Chief Chris Davis said during a meeting with the media late Thursday morning. “These people will all still be Portland Police Bureau employees, but the Rapid Response Team is a voluntary assignment within the police bureau. This represents approximately 50 people that we’re talking about.”

Davis told KOIN 6 the investigation and indictment factored into the officers’ decision to resign from the unit but they weren’t the sole reasons.

“I think that really this is a culmination of a long process and it’s not just an indictment that caused this to happen,” he said. “They’re not feeling like the sacrifice they’ve made necessarily has been understood very well.”

Davis said the bureau is working to ensure safety for the city following the mass resignation. If any protests devolve into riots in the coming days, he said there will still be a police response from other officers within the bureau “with as close to adequate resources as we can get.” Some groups have advertised “direct action” events starting Thursday night. Past “direct action” protests have commonly led to riots in Portland.

In an interview with KOIN 6 News on Wednesday, Daryl Turner, the Portland Police Association’s executive director, called the indictment of Budworth “100% politically charged.” Turner expressed his frustration over the number of cases connected to riots from last summer that Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt dismissed or declined to prosecuted along with issues with Portland City Hall.

“I know we’re not going to get support from City Hall; I know we’re not going to get support from the DA’s office but we surely need the support of our command structure,” he said. “During these protests, our hands were tied to what we could do, if we were using CS gas we wouldn’t have to worry about the hands-on approach or less-lethal impact munitions. But of course, that was taken away from us and the city did not fight it.”

District Attorney Mike Schmidt released a statement on the response team’s disbanding Thursday afternoon, saying that management and staffing of the Rapid Response Team falls within the purview of the leadership of the Portland Police Bureau.

“I have confidence that the Bureau will continue their mission to maintain public safety. In the meantime, my office will continue to focus on the fair and just prosecution of criminal matters. We cannot expect the community to trust law enforcement if we hold ourselves to a lower standard,” Schmidt said.

On Wednesday, Schmidt told OPB there would be more investigations into officer conduct in connection with the 2020 protests.

Mayor Ted Wheeler released the following statement Thursday afternoon on the officers’ resignation:

“Late last night, I learned that the Portland Police Bureau’s Rapid Response Team voted to resign their voluntary service on this crowd control unit.

“The City of Portland has the personnel and the resources to ensure our community’s safety. I have directed the Portland Police Bureau to prepare mobile field forces to respond to any public safety needs, including potential violence related to mass gatherings. Also, I have spoken to Governor Brown, and the Oregon State Police is making members of its Mobile Response Team available on standby. We are also coordinating with other regional law enforcement partners.

“Resigning members of the Rapid Response Team remain sworn members of the Portland Police Bureau. I want to acknowledge the toll this past year has taken on them and their families—they have worked long hours under difficult conditions. I personally heard from some of them today, and I appreciate their willingness to share their concerns about managing the many public gatherings that often were violent and destructive.

“It is my expectation, and the community’s expectation, that the City remains committed to public safety and effective police oversight. City leaders will continue working in partnership with Portlanders, community organizations and police leadership to reform our community safety system.”

Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty called for City Council to disband the Rapid Response Team following the mass resignation.

“I remain deeply concerned these RRT resignations are yet another example of a rogue paramilitary organization that is unaccountable to the elected officials and residents of Portland,” she said in a statement. “We should formally disband the RRT, but through Council action,.”

Besides policing protests, the Rapid Response Team is also trained and responsible for responding to other events such as large-scale searches and human-made and natural disasters.

Schmidt’s office has declined interview requests from KOIN 6.

Stay with us as this story develops.

Source Article from https://www.koin.com/news/portland-police-bureau-officers-resign-from-rapid-response-team/

President Joe Biden and Democratic lawmakers praised the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, in a case challenging its individual mandate.

Former President Barack Obama made a point to emphasize that this isn’t the first time the high court has upheld his presidency’s landmark legislation, which Republicans have sought to dismantle for years.

“Today, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. Again,” Obama wrote. “This ruling reaffirms what we have long known to be true: the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.”

At least one Senate Republican criticized the decision but notably made no mention of an effort to continue to challenge the law.

“The failed Obamacare system will stagger on as a result of this decision,” said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a doctor and senior member of the Senate Finance Committee who has helped lead repeal efforts in the past. “Every American’s health care has been harmed by Obamacare.”

Ahead of those reactions, the president, who was Obama’s vice president when the legislation passed, welcomed the decision in a tweet.

“A big win for the American people,” Biden wrote. “With millions of people relying on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, it remains, as ever, a BFD. And it’s here to stay.”

Biden was playfully referring to a moment in 2010 when he was caught on a microphone telling then-President Barack Obama in the East Room of the White House at the bill’s signing that the passing of the Affordable Care Act was a “big f***ing deal.”

Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, was one of the first to react from the White House and raised the famous gaffe Thursday morning.

“It’s still a BFD,” Klain tweeted.

In an official statement later, Biden expanded on the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision and what it means for everyday Americans.

“Because of this law, they don’t have to worry about being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition like diabetes or watching their coverage being capped during a cancer treatment. Because of the law, they are able to get free preventive screenings that can save their lives and improve their health,” he said in a statement.

“Today’s victory is also for all the young people who can stay on their parents’ insurance plan until they turn 26 years old, and for the millions of low-income families and people with disabilities receiving health care because their states expanded Medicaid under this law,” he continued.

At her weekly press conference on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also applauded the “historic decision” before slamming Republicans for being on the wrong side of history, she said, for supporting the lawsuit challenging the individual mandate.

“We will never forget how Republican leaders embraced this monstrous way to rip away America’s health care in the middle of a deadly pandemic,” she said.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, also warned that Republicans may continue their crusade against the legislation.

“This ruling is cause for celebration — but it must also be a call to further action, not an excuse for complacency,” she said. “While I hope this victory for families is the final chapter in Republicans’ long, damaging campaign to undermine the health care hundreds of millions of people rely on, I know our work to help patients is far from over.”

Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of GOP leadership, however, appeared to concede that the yearslong GOP repeal effort is at its end.

“The Affordable Care Act gets constantly woven deeper and deeper into the system. It’s eventually going to be pretty hard to unravel from the system,” he said at the Capitol.

A record 31 million people access health care through the law, according to the White House.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who was minority leader when the Senate saved the law from a “skinny repeal” in 2017, also greeted the news from the Senate floor.

“Today, the American people have won again! After over a decade of Republican attacks: The ACA is here to stay,” he said.

Thursday’s decision was the third time the Supreme Court has upheld the health care law against legal challenges.

Several Democrats took the opportunity to remind Americans that the special enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act is open until Aug. 15, extended due to the coronavirus pandemic.

ABC News’ Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lawmakers-react-supreme-court-decision-upholding-obamacare/story?id=78337488

The Supreme Court sided unanimously with a Catholic foster agency in a dispute against the city of Philadelphia over whether it should be banned from participating in the city’s foster program because it excludes same-sex couples. 

The group, Catholic Social Services (CSS), claimed that “Philadelphia’s attempts to exclude the Catholic Church from foster care” violated the First Amendment. Lawyers for the city, meanwhile, said that CSS “lacks a constitutional right to demand that DHS offer it a contract that omits the same nondiscrimination requirement every other FFCA must follow when performing services for the City.” 

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Catholic Social Services. 

“CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion. “The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment.”

FILE – In this April 23, 2021, file photo members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington. Seated from left are Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Standing from left are Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. All nine justices ruled for Catholic Social Services in a dispute against the City of Philadelphia Thursday. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool, File)

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS OBAMACERE LAW, DISMISSING CHALLENGE FROM RED STATES

Roberts was joined on his opinion by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. 

Barrett herself wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined fully by Kavanaugh and partially by Breyer. 

“As the Court’s opinion today explains, the government contract at issue provides for individualized exemptions from its nondiscrimination rule, thus triggering strict scrutiny,” Barrett wrote. “And all nine Justices agree that the City cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.” 

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the Fulton decision was a “great ruling” that could have gone farther. 

“It’s a pretty unequivocal statement I think that the court is gonna look really closely … any time you have religious institutions or organizations that are being disfavored. If they are treated any worse or any differently than a secular institution, the court’s gonna strike that down,” Hawley added. 

Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a concurring opinion that was joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch wrote a concurrence that Thomas and Alito joined. 

The unanimous ruling on such a hot-button issue comes as many on the left are calling for the packing of the Supreme Court and some on the right are saying the court is rejecting those calls through a series of unanimous of nearly-unanimous opinions. Hawley, however, said he doesn’t think the ruling will “deter my friends on the left from their court packing agenda. They’re very committed to this. And it will probably make them mad at Justice Breyer, I suppose.” 

The case will also be considered a massive victory for social conservatives, who say that it protects religious freedom.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

“Today, the Supreme Court rightly affirmed that the Constitution guarantees faith-based agencies freedom from government harassment and discrimination because of their religious beliefs about marriage,” Catholic Vote President Brian Burch said in a statement. 

The ACLU, however, said that the court did not recognize “a license to discriminate based on religious beliefs.”

“Opponents of LGBTQ equality have been seeking to undo hard-won non-discrimination protections by asking the court to establish a constitutional right to opt out of such laws when discrimination is motivated by religious beliefs,” Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project, said in a statement. “This is the second time in four years that the court has declined to do so. This is good news for LGBTQ people and for everyone who depends on the protections of non-discrimination laws.”

The majority opinion written by Roberts also included a citation of one of the major religious freedom rulings in recent years: the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. 

“[O]ur society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Roberts wrote, quoting the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. “On the facts of this case, however, this interest cannot justify denying CSS an exception for its religious exercise. The creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the City’s contention that its nondiscrimination policies can brook no departures. The City offers no compelling reason why it has a particular interest in denying an exception to CSS while making them available to others.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-catholic-foster-agency-ruling-religious-liberty

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson speaks during a campaign rally at a gun store in Lee’s Summit, Mo., last October. Parson has signed into law a measure that could fine state and local law enforcement officers $50,000 for helping to enforce federal gun laws.

Charlie Riedel/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Charlie Riedel/AP

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson speaks during a campaign rally at a gun store in Lee’s Summit, Mo., last October. Parson has signed into law a measure that could fine state and local law enforcement officers $50,000 for helping to enforce federal gun laws.

Charlie Riedel/AP

Missouri has new a law that claims to invalidate all federal gun control laws — and prohibits state and local cooperation with enforcement of those laws.

The bill, known as HB 85 or the Second Amendment Preservation Act, was signed into law by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson on Saturday at a gun store and shooting range called Frontier Justice.

The law declares federal laws and regulations “that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment … must be invalid in this state.”

Parson, a Republican, said in a press release that the legislation “draws a line in the sand and demonstrates our commitment to reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property.”

But can a state actually invalidate a federal law?

No.

“They can pass a law that says that there are 46 planets, they can pass a law that says that there are 16 days in the week. It doesn’t make it so,” explains Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and an expert on federal courts and constitutional law. “It has no effect legally because the Constitution specifically says you can’t do that.”

“If I am a resident of Missouri, I am no less subject to federal gun laws today than I was yesterday,” Vladeck tells NPR.

The Constitution says federal law is supreme over state law

The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause essentially says federal law is supreme over state law. And the preemption doctrine means that “valid federal law will always displace a state law, even a state constitutional provision that is inconsistent with that federal law,” Vladeck says.

He notes that after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, some states passed laws that said the ACA wouldn’t apply in those states. But that hasn’t stopped the ACA from being the law of the land in every state.

So, what sort of federal gun laws are there? There are limits on what kinds of guns you can sell across state lines, and limits on what kind of guns and accessories can be sold in the first place. There are federal background check requirements. One provision bans the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. And there are laws governing the process and substance of gun sales, Vladeck says.

The new law doesn’t change the liability of people in Missouri or exempt them from federal laws. So if you’re a Missouri gun shop owner, you’re still required to uphold federal background check requirements and other federal laws, even if the governor suggests otherwise.

Vladeck views Missouri’s new law as symbolic PR stunt. But he says it’s symbolism that can be harmful: “You run the risk that the state officials are actually sending a message to their constituents that is just incorrect, and that is exposing them to legal liability that they may not otherwise realize.”

“A Missouri gun store that thinks all of a sudden it can stop complying with federal law is going to receive a pretty unpleasant visit from federal authorities,” Vladeck says.

Daniel and Brooke Clark look at guns with their daughter at Frontier Justice gun store and shooting range in Lee’s Summit, Mo., in December 2018.

Charlie Riedel/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Charlie Riedel/AP

Daniel and Brooke Clark look at guns with their daughter at Frontier Justice gun store and shooting range in Lee’s Summit, Mo., in December 2018.

Charlie Riedel/AP

States can decide to not help federal law enforcement

While states can’t invalidate federal law, they can decide the extent to which they assist federal law enforcement.

“Under the 10th Amendment, states do have the right to withhold the use of their resources to enforce federal laws,” says Allison Anderman, senior counsel at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“We’re just simply saying we’re not going to lift a finger to enforce their rules,” Missouri state Sen. Eric Burlison, a Republican, said of the bill last month according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

In addition to claiming to invalidate federal gun laws, Missouri’s new law prohibits state and local cooperation with enforcement of those laws. Agencies whose officers knowingly enforce federal gun laws could be hit with fines of $50,000 for each violating officer.

State and local officers are not usually tasked with going out and enforcing federal law, Vladeck says – usually it happens in an ancillary fashion: “If they’re conducting a search of a home because of probable cause of a state crime, they might also find evidence of a federal crime that they’ll refer to federal authorities.”

Whether local law enforcement in Missouri will do that when it comes to guns is now in question.

The Department of Justice sent a letter on Wednesday night to Gov. Parson and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, warning that the state’s law could damage the working relationship between local and federal authorities, The Associated Press reports. Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton asked Parson and Schmitt to clarify the law and how it would work by Friday.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed the accuracy of the AP’s report. NPR has not viewed the letter.

NPR asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives whether the statute would have an impact on its enforcement in the state, but a spokesperson for ATF says it does not comment on local or state firearms law.

It could have a chilling effect on law enforcement

Missouri has one of the country’s highest rates of gun deaths per capita, and very weak gun control laws.

The law could have a chilling effect on law enforcement officers’ actions when it comes to guns, even if its provisions are unconstitutional and confusing, Anderman says.

“There is a tremendous amount of ambiguity in this bill as to what would constitute a violation, and that may inhibit law enforcement from taking action that is needed to protect the community,” she tells NPR.

Say an officer encounters someone who has a felony conviction and is in possession of a firearm.

“They may not refer that case to federal law enforcement out of fear that they would be liable for a $50,000 fine. And that in turn can result in lack of prosecution of a law that is intended to keep guns out of the hands of people who have committed society’s most serious crimes,” Anderman says.

The state is not alone in considering this kind of legislation. Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said in April he would sign a similar bill approved by the legislature there.

Other states are considering legislation to nullify federal gun laws. But Missouri’s law, Anderman says, will have real-life consequences — whether or not any law enforcement officers are actually prosecuted and fined.

“How many officers have failed to take some action that they might have otherwise taken because of this law? We will likely never know the answer,” she says, “but it’s the deterrent effect that is so concerning.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007690138/can-missouri-declare-federal-gun-laws-invalid

Exiting the meeting, the leader of the Budget Committee, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), particularly pointed out Democrats’ goal to “deal with climate change, deal with the needs of children and their parents, to deal with the affordable housing crisis, to also make sure that the wealthiest people and largest corporations in this country start paying their fair share of taxes.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/06/17/senate-democrats-biden-reconciliation/

The US supreme court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, after Republicans attempted to gut an important provision of the law during the Trump era.

In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled Republican states ultimately did not have “standing” or the right to sue. The ruling avoided the issue of whether the tax provision of the law called the “individual mandate”, and therefore the entire law, was unconstitutional.

The ACA was the most important health reform law in generations and was Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement during his time in the White House. However, the provision over which Republican states sued, the individual mandate, has long been a sore spot for many Americans.

Supporters of Obamacare, from health insurance plans to advocacy groups to the Democratic House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, quickly heralded the court’s decision as preserving a “lifeline” in a “devastating” pandemic.

“Today, the court ensured that the ACA will continue to be a critical lifeline for the people most in need by rejecting yet another frivolous challenge,” said Lambda Legal senior attorney and healthcare strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan. Lambda is a civil rights group which focuses on the LBGTQ community.

The individual mandate required tax authorities to penalize Americans with a $695 fee if they failed to buy health insurance. At the time, Congress passed the provision hoping it would expand insurance coverage, making it more affordable for insurance companies and Americans.

The mandate immediately became a target for Republicans, leading to a disastrous midterm election for Democrats, nearly a decade of rhetoric calling for the law’s repeal and sustained legal attacks.

In 2012, the supreme court also heard a challenge to the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which it upheld as part of Congress’s taxing powers. The law was again challenged in 2015.

When Donald Trump swept into power in 2016, Republicans tried to make good on promises to overturn the law. However, provisions protecting women, the disabled, the poor and sick proved too controversial to overcome, and the legislation was sunk in a dramatic vote.

As a result, Republicans attacked the individual mandate in a tax-cutting measure – they reduced the penalty from $695 to $0 in a 2017 tax cut bill that disproportionately benefited the wealthy. In turn, Republican states, led by Texas, argued the individual mandate was unconstitutional if it did not raise revenue, and sued to overturn it.

When the Trump administration declined to defend the ACA, California stepped in to try to preserve the law. As a result, the case was named California v Texas.

“We proceed no further than standing,” wrote Stephen Breyer, the court’s most senior justice and regarded as a member of the liberals of the bench.

He continued in the opinion.

“To find standing here to attack an unenforceable statutory provision would allow a federal court to issue what would amount to ‘an advisory opinion without the possibility of any judicial relief’,” Breyer wrote, referring to the $0 penalty.

Had Republicans prevailed in their attempt to strike down the entire law,

protections for an estimated 133 million Americans with “pre-existing” health conditions would have ended, potentially disqualifying them from health insurance. An estimated 21 million people might have lost health insurance, among them 12 million low-income people who obtain health insurance through the public program Medicaid. Insurance companies would also have been able to lift spending caps on expensive health treatments.

Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/17/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision