Connect with us

Politics

Confederate monuments bill appears to topple

Published

on


Legislation that could have required governments to preserve Confederate monuments once again appears in limbo.

The Senate Government Oversight and Accountability Committee declined to take up the bill (SB 1816) following a contentious hearing. While the Senate President’s Office said the legislation can still be taken up at a future meeting, no time was granted to extend the committee even though all public testimony was taken.

Critics of the legislation burst into cheers as the committee gaveled to a close without hearing the bill, and Senators in opposition to the legislation cheered its apparent death.

“Good Riddance!” said Sen. Tina Polsky, a Boca Raton Democrat who sits on the committee. “After two years of this hateful bill failing, let’s finally be done with wasting our time in committees over this nonsense that no one needs or wants. I imagine we never see it again. Back to real issues.”

A similar bill last year was passed in a committee, but with multiple Republican Senators voicing discomfort about the legislation in its form. Within a day, then-Senate President Kathleen Passidomo made clear the bill would not move forward.

But the bill resurfaced this year, now sponsored by freshman Sen. Stan McClain, an Ocala Republican.

The Government Oversight committee was the first to hear the “Protection of Historic Monuments and Memorials” bill this year, and it’s unusual to go through a presentation and public testimony without taking action on legislation. If the bill cannot make it through a first committee stop next week, that likely precludes it being considered this Legislative Session.

Sen. Randy Fine chaired most of the Tuesday meeting, though he left for much of the monuments bill discussion to present campus carry legislation that was shot down in another committee. Due to his resignation to run for Congress, he will vacate his Senate seat after Monday, and said it will likely fall to a new committee Chair to decide whether to take up the bill again.

That decision will likely belong to Sen. Nick DiCeglie, a Pinellas Republican and the committee Vice Chair. DiCeglie led the meeting through most of the Confederate bill discussion. Florida Politics has asked if he has any plans to revive the bill and will update this story when we receive a response.

McClain, for his part, presented the bill as an attempt to preserve all Florida military history that has been on display for more than 25 years.

The bill would create the Historic Florida Monuments and Memorials Protection Act to prevent the removal, damage or destruction of a monument or memorial located on public property falling into that age range. It would allow individuals with a special interest in monuments to bring civil actions against cities that try to remove such monuments.

A House companion bill (HB 1599) filed by Rep. Dean Black, a Jacksonville Republican, has not been slated for consideration in a committee in the lower chamber.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Auburn Tigers take on the Florida Gators in Final 4

Published

on


The game is tonight.

Florida Gators (34-4, 17-4 SEC) vs. Auburn Tigers (32-5, 16-4 SEC)

San Antonio; Saturday, 6:09 p.m. EDT

BETMGM SPORTSBOOK LINE: Gators -2.5; over/under is 159.5

BOTTOM LINE: No. 4 Auburn and No. 3 Florida meet in the NCAA Tournament Final Four.

The Tigers’ record in SEC play is 16-4, and their record is 16-1 against non-conference opponents. Auburn scores 83.2 points while outscoring opponents by 14.0 points per game.

The Gators’ record in SEC action is 17-4. Florida has a 2-1 record in games decided by 3 points or fewer.

Auburn averages 9.1 made 3-pointers per game, 2.4 more made shots than the 6.7 per game Florida gives up. Florida has shot at a 47.3% rate from the field this season, 6.7 percentage points above the 40.6% shooting opponents of Auburn have averaged.

The teams meet for the second time this season. The Gators won 90-81 in the last matchup on Feb. 8.

___

Republished with permission of the Associated Press.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Donald Trump makes big bet on tariffs

Published

on


Not even 24 hours after his party lost a key Wisconsin race and underperformed in Florida, President Donald Trump followed the playbook that has defined his political career: He doubled down.

Trump’s move on Wednesday to place stiff new tariffs on imports from nearly all U.S. trading partners marks an all-in bet by the Republican that his once-fringe economic vision will pay off for Americans. It was the realization of his four decades of advocacy for a protectionist foreign policy and the belief that free trade was forcing the United States into decline as its economy shifted from manufacturing to services.

The tariff announcement was the latest and perhaps boldest manifestation of Trump’s second-term freedom to lead with his instincts after feeling his first turn in the Oval Office was restrained by aides who did not share his worldview. How it shakes out will be a defining judgment on his presidency.

The early reviews have been worrisome.

Financial markets had their worst week since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, foreign trade partners retaliated and economists warned that the import taxes may boost inflation and potentially send the U.S. into a recession. It’s now Republican lawmakers who are fretting about their party’s future while Democrats feel newly buoyant over what they see as Trump’s overreach.

He has promised that the taxes on imports will bring about a domestic manufacturing renaissance and help fund an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. He insisted on Thursday as the Dow Jones fell by 1,600 points that things were “going very well” and the economy would “boom,” then spent Friday at the golf course as the index plunged 2,200 more points.

In his first term, Trump’s tariff threats brought world leaders to his door to cut deals. This time, his actions so far have led to steep retaliation from China and promises from European allies to push back.

As Trump struggles with the economy, Democrats are beginning to emerge from the cloud of doom that has consumed their party ever since their election drubbing in November.

They scored a decisive victory in Wisconsin’s high-profile state Supreme Court election on Tuesday, even after Elon Musk and his affiliated groups poured more than $20 million into the contest. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker then breathed new life into the Democratic resistance by delivering a record 25-hour-long speech on the Senate floor that centered on a call for his party to find its resolve.

___

Republished with permission of the Associated Press.


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

State can enforce DEI general education course ban while litigation plays out

Published

on


The state of Florida may enforce a law eliminating general education courses that teach “identity politics” at Florida’s institutions of higher education pending resolution of a lawsuit filed by professors, a federal judge has ruled.

In January, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida filed suit on the professors’ behalf alleging that SB 266, a 2023 law limiting general education course classifications and funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, harmed the professors’ academic ambitions. General education courses are required for students to graduate.

Days after a preliminary injunction hearing in Tallahassee in front of U.S. District Chief Judge Mark Walker, he ruled Wednesday that the professors had not established they would suffer any harm.

“This ruling is disappointing, but also offers a clearer path forward to prove this law is unconstitutional,” said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida in a news release. “The law is a blatant effort to control the content of higher education, muzzle Florida’s scholars, and erase perspectives the state finds politically inconvenient. We remain committed to fighting alongside faculty, students, and the broader academic community until this undemocratic law is struck down.”

Among the plaintiffs is University of Florida political science professor Sharon Austin, who complains she was denied funding to present at a 2024 conference hosted by Diversity Abroad, which the school had paid for her to present at in 2023. The school specifically cited SB 266 in refusing to pay for her to appear subsequently, the suit alleges.

“As for Plaintiff Austin, her declaration demonstrates that she has already suffered a denial of state funding to attend conferences in 2024. However, to obtain prospective relief, she must demonstrate an unambiguous intention to seek funding to attend conferences at a reasonably foreseeable time in the future. That she has not done,” Walker wrote.

Professors who have had their courses removed from general education requirements, or fear it may happen, say their injury is chilled speech and potential repercussions in post-tenure review.

“To the extent these Plaintiffs claim their classroom speech associated with courses for which they have no stated plans to teach at a reasonably foreseeable time in the future will be chilled, such a hypothetical future chill is both too remote and speculative to amount to a cognizable injury in fact,” Walker wrote.

ACLU will continue
The plaintiffs allege viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment; that the law is over-broad; and that it violates Florida’s Campus Free Expression Act.

State University System Chancellor Ray Rodrigues said in January that the law has helped address a Gallup poll that found “political agendas” as Americans’ Number One reason they have lost confidence in higher education.

Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. said the law helps students who can be “overwhelmed by the number of courses that are out there,” and that students can take whatever classes they wish, “but the easier we can make it for them when it comes to general education and making sure that they’re getting what they need there I think is very important.”

Walker did not rule on merits of the underlying case and the ACLU said it will continue its challenge.

“Plaintiffs’ evidence does not demonstrate that any Plaintiff faces an imminent injury — namely, chilled speech — that is traceable to any Defendant’s enforcement of the general education requirements,” Walker wrote.

“For what it’s worth, Plaintiffs’ existential concerns about the survival of their academic departments and the future viability of their areas of expertise in the state of Florida are certainly understandable. However, these concerns, as described at length in Plaintiffs’ declarations, do not give rise to a concrete, imminent, and non-speculative injury in fact sufficient to permit Plaintiffs to seek a preliminary injunction against Defendants’ enforcement of the general education requirements.”

___

Jay Waagmeester reporting. Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: [email protected]


Post Views: 0



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.