SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
raphael warnock
Suspect in Custody After Five Soldiers Shot at Georgia's Fort Stewart
Sen. Raphael Warnock said he was "heartbroken to see the news of an active shooter incident at Fort Stewart today" and that he would "join all of Georgia as we pray for the safety of our service members, staff, and their families."
Aug 06, 2025
A U.S. Army sergeant is in custody as a suspect in a mass shooting at Fort Stewart, Georgia.
As reported by The Associated Press, the suspect opened fire on Wednesday morning and shot five of his fellow military personnel at Fort Stewart, one of the largest military bases in the U.S.
At this time, law enforcement officials have not identified the name of the suspect nor have they released specifics about the current conditions of the five soldiers who were shot. However, the base announced in a social media post that those wounded in the shooting have since been treated and transferred to Winn Army Community Hospital.
The shooting caused the entire base to go into lockdown for roughly an hour before law enforcement officials apprehended the suspect and determined there was no further threat to the community.
Several elected officials weighed in on the shooting shortly after the news broke. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) said he was "heartbroken to see the news of an active shooter incident" and that he would "join all of Georgia as we pray for the safety of our service members, staff, and their families."
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) also commented on the shooting in a post on X.
"My heart is with the loved ones of the victims from the shooting that took place at Fort Stewart in Georgia," he said . "Our service members deserve to be safe in the country they sacrifice so much for. We must work to end the gun violence epidemic that has reached every corner of our society."
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) said he was "heartbroken" to learn of the shooting and that his thoughts were "with the injured soldiers, their families, and the entire military community during this difficult time."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voting Rights Act 'On Life Support' Amid Right-Wing Attacks
"It's time for Congress to restore its full protections by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Aug 06, 2025
As the Voting Rights Act turned 60 on Wednesday, advocates highlighted right-wing attacks on the landmark legislation and called on Congress to pass a long-stagnant bill aimed at restoring and strengthening one of the most important civil rights laws in U.S. history.
The VRA, signed into law in 1965 by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson amid a groundswell of civil rights activism, was meant to ensure that state and local governments could not "deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."
However, the law has been eroded in recent decades by Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country, including through racially rigged and other gerrymandered congressional maps, restrictions on voter registration, reduction in early voting options, and voter identification laws. These measures disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters, and some GOP officials have admitted that they are intended to give Republican candidates an electoral edge.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the VRA in Shelby County v. Holder, which eviscerated a key section of the law that required jurisdictions with a history of racist disenfranchisement to obtain federal approval prior to altering voting rules. In 2021, the nation's high court voted 5-4 in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee to uphold Arizona's voting restrictions—even as Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that they disproportionately affect minorities.
"Instead of anniversary toasts, election law experts are preparing eulogies for the landmark legislation."
Now, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority is poised to "end voting rights as we know them," as Mother Jones reporter Pema Levy put it Tuesday. That's because the justices said last week that they would rehear a case that could result in them striking down Section 2 of the VRA, what University of California, Los Angeles legal scholar Richard L. Hasen calls "the last remaining pillar" of the law.
"Instead of anniversary toasts, election law experts are preparing eulogies for the landmark legislation, which conservative lawyers have attacked on multiple fronts in recent years, after the U.S. Supreme Court took square aim at the statute's constitutionality last week," Jim Saksa wrote Tuesday for Democracy Docket.
As Hasen explained:
Louisiana v. Callais, the case that was the subject of last Friday's order, is a voting case over the drawing of the state's six congressional districts. Louisiana has a one-third Black population, but after the 2020 census the state Legislature drew a districting plan, passed over a Democratic governor's veto, that created only one district in which Black voters would be likely to elect their candidate of choice.
Before Callais, Black voters had successfully sued Louisiana in a case called Robinson v. Ardoin, arguing that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required drawing a second congressional district giving Black voters that opportunity. Section 2 says minority voters should have the same chance as other voters to elect their candidates of choice, and courts have long used it to require new districts when there is a large and cohesive minority population concentrated in a given area, when white and minority voters choose different candidates, and when the minority has difficulty electing its preferred representatives.
However, a group of non-Black voters argued in a lawsuit that the consideration of race in creating a second minority-majority district violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the 15th Amendment's ban on federal and state governments denying citizens the right to vote based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
"To me, this is it," Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, a law professor at Indiana University Bloomington, told Democracy Docket. "I would bet my left arm that they will tell us that Section 2 is in violation of the 15th Amendment."
Civil rights defenders including numerous Democratic lawmakers urged Congress to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation first introduced in 2021 whose sponsors said will "update and restore critical safeguards of the original Voting Rights Act."
"Sixty years ago today, the Voting Rights Act became law thanks to the perseverance of civil rights activists. Today, our sacred right to vote remains under attack," Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), one of the bill's primary sponsors, said on social media Wednesday. "We must protect our democracy and honor those who risked everything by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act."
Although the bill passed the then-Democrat controlled House of Representatives in 2021, it failed to pass the Senate and a subsequent bid to advance the legislation failed the following year.
Calling for passage of the bill, Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.)—whose home state played a critical role in the civil rights struggle—said on the social media site Bluesky that the VRA "is on life support after being gutted by the Supreme Court and far-right judges."
The Voting Rights Act was signed into law exactly 60 years ago. But today, it is on life support after being gutted by the Supreme Court and far-right judges.It’s time for Congress to restore its full protections by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. 🗳️
[image or embed]
— Rep. Terri A. Sewell (@sewell.house.gov) August 6, 2025 at 6:35 AM
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said on Bluesky that "60 years ago today, the Voting Rights Act became law. Now, we have an administration conducting voter suppression in real time. In Texas, Republicans are trying to gut our democracy by redrawing maps to erase five Democratic seats—before a single vote is cast."
"The fight continues," Crockett added. "We owe it to those who marched, bled, and believed to keep pushing until every voice is heard and every vote counts."
The ACLU said: "Democracy can't wait. Congress must protect our voting rights at the federal level by passing the reintroduced John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act."
However, passing the bill will be next to impossible, given Republican control of both houses of Congress and President Donald Trump in the White House. That doesn't mean voting rights defenders should give up, Legal Defense Fund president and director-counsel Janai Nelson stressed Wednesday.
"If we are to continue the pursuit of the multiracial democracy that the VRA set in motion 60 years ago and if we are to honor our republican form of government founded on representation by the people, we must be unwavering in our commitment to fulfill the promise of Selma, refuse to cede any further ground, and mobilize in support of equal voting rights and fair elections," Nelson said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'While No One Is Watching,' Senate GOP Makes It Easier for Wall Street Banks to Gouge Working Families
Sen. Warren decried Republicans for helping "squeeze" struggling families and warned that the "latest attack on the CFPB would let big banks rake in huge profits by slamming working people with outrageous overdraft fees."
Mar 27, 2025
All but one Republican in the U.S. Senate voted Wednesday night to advance a joint resolution that would nullify a cap on overdraft fees, a protection put in place by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to prevent Wall Street banks from making billions more in profits on the backs of vulnerable American consumers.
"Republicans in the Senate voted tonight while no one is watching to fatten Wall Street profits by jacking up overdraft fees on you," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, following the 52-47 vote that fell almost strictly along party lines. "So much for lowering costs," she added.
Not one Democrat voted in favor pushing the rule forward, while only Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) voted against and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) did not vote.
In a speech on the Senate floor ahead of the vote, Sen. Warren decried Republicans for helping Wall Street "squeeze" struggling families and warned the "latest attack on the CFPB would let big banks rake in huge profits by slamming working people with outrageous overdraft fees."
Senate Republicans’ latest attack on the CFPB would let big banks rake in huge profits by slamming working people with outrageous overdraft fees.
I spoke on the Senate floor to fight back—because American families deserve a system that works for them, not just Wall Street. pic.twitter.com/W0VzO3cX1I
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 26, 2025
The draft rule was put in place in the final months of the Biden administration as a way to curb excessive fees and provide reasonable protections for consumers who overdraft their accounts. As The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:
In 2023, big banks made $5.8 billion from overdraft and non-sufficient fund fees, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. CFPB announced a new rule capping those fees in December, shortly before [President Joe] Biden left office, that is slated to take effect in October.
The rule gave banks three options: cap overdraft fees at $5; if offering overdraft as a service, rather than for profits, charge a fee that covered the bank's costs and losses; or if looking to make a profit off an overdraft loan, disclose the loan terms to consumers beforehand.
For households that pay overdraft fees, the rule was expected to save them $225 a year.
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) joined Warren in slamming his Republican colleagues over the vote.
"If we leave this $5 cap for overdraft fees in place, guess what, [the banks will] still be doing just fine,” Warnock told the Journal-Constitution. "But if we overturn it, families that are already being squeezed by inflation and by tariffs and a whole range of bad policies that are putting them in jeopardy are going to be squeezed even more."
According to the watchdog group Accountable.US, lifting the rule will allow large Wall Street banks and other financial institutions "to continue exploiting American families" with little or no recourse for relief from such predatory and profit-seeking practices.
"Senate Republicans are siding with big banks to make it easier for them to trick their customers into paying excessive fees," said Tony Carrk, the group's executive director, on Thursday. "The CFPB's overdraft rule limits abusive fees and puts money back in the pockets of consumers. Any vote against the rule is a gift to Wall Street special interests at our expense."
With the
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular