Politics

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s administration is working to fortify the economy amid steep inflation with efforts to shore up the supply chain and “invest in the capacity, both physical and human, of our economy to keep up with demand,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Sunday.

“The president has made clear inflation is his top economic priority, and he’s laid out a very clear strategy for doing that,” Buttigieg told “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Buttigieg said the administration will “continue to take the steps that are both on the price side and on the growth side to keep our economy strong.”

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll shows the economy and inflation are top of mind for voters ahead of the 2022 midterms. Only 37% of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of the economic recovery, according to the poll.

The current inflation rate is at 8.3%, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. An updated number will be released on Friday.

Buttigieg said on “This Week” that the president has proposed “a number of things” to help improve the economy that could be passed by Congress, including lowering the costs of insulin, child care and housing.

These measures “would make a difference no matter what’s happening macroeconomically,” Buttigieg argued. “We would make life easier for Americans who are facing these economic question marks.”

Gas prices — at a record-high after increasing for months — are also a concern. Heading into the summer travel season, the current nationwide average is about $4.84 per gallon.

About two months ago, Biden announced plans to release 1 million barrels of oil per day from the strategic petroleum reserve, saying at the time that he expected this to bring down gas prices.

But Stephanopoulos on Sunday pressed Buttigieg, saying the move “hasn’t made any difference at all.” He asked: “Was that a failure?”

“I don’t think it’s correct to say it hasn’t made any difference at all,” Buttigieg responded. “This is an action that helped to stabilize global oil prices.”

“The action the president took around ethanol, introducing additional flexibility there, that’s having an effect on prices in the Midwest,” he continued. “But we also know that the price of gasoline is not set by a dial in the Oval Office. And when an oil company is deciding, hour by hour, how much to charge you for a gallon of gas, they’re not calling the administration to ask what they should do. They’re doing it based on their goal of maximizing their profits.”

In early April, oil executives testified before Congress, disputing the argument that they are price gouging consumers. They claimed the situation is complex and that in the near term, increasing the supply of oil and natural gas could help.

Amid an increase in gun violence and several recent mass shootings, the president has also renewed his call for new gun control legislation, which has long been resisted by congressional Republicans who say it would violate gun rights. In remarks delivered Thursday night, Biden urged raising the age to buy assault weapons to 21, strengthening background checks, banning high-capacity magazines and other measures.

Stephanopoulos asked Buttigieg, former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, “If you were still mayor of South Bend right now, what would you be doing?”

“We have a horrific scourge of gun violence in this country,” Buttigieg said.

As mayor, he explained, he would do what he could on the local level. “But you’re also looking at Washington to say, ‘Will anything be different this time?'”

“Will we actually acknowledge the reasons why we are the only country, the only developed country where this happens on a routine basis?” Buttigieg said. “And the idea that us being the only developed country where this happens routinely — especially in terms of the mass shootings — is somehow a result of the design of the doorways on our school buildings is the definition of insanity, if not the definition of denial.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(COLUMBIA, S.C.) — South Carolina’s Tom Rice was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Now, as Rice fights an uphill battle for his political life in the heart of Trump country, he is standing by that choice — calling it “the conservative vote” in an interview with ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that aired Sunday on “This Week.”

“I did it then. And I would do it again tomorrow,” Rice said.

Rice said Trump deserved to be impeached for potentially endangering former Vice President Mike Pence and his family at the Capitol and not acting more quickly to stop the deadly riot as it unfolded last year.

“When he watched the Capitol, the ‘People’s House,’ being sacked, when he watched the Capitol Police officers being beaten for three or four hours and lifted not one thing or to stop it — I was livid then and I’m livid today about it,” Rice recalled. “And it was very clear to me I took an oath to protect the Constitution.”

Rice said Trump deserved to be impeached for potentially endangering former Vice President Mike Pence and his family at the Capitol and not acting more quickly to stop the deadly riot as it unfolded last year.

“When he watched the Capitol, the ‘People’s House,’ being sacked, when he watched the Capitol Police officers being beaten for three or four hours and lifted not one thing or to stop it — I was livid then and I’m livid today about it,” Rice recalled. “And it was very clear to me I took an oath to protect the Constitution.”

He also warned his party against rallying around the former president if Trump seeks the Oval Office again, as Trump has often hinted.

“I think it will hurt us,” Rice said. “We’ll get painted more in the corner of extremism, they’ll try to label us as extremist. And he’ll feed that.”

Rice criticized Republicans, including GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, of California, for quickly embracing Trump in the weeks after the Capitol attack.

He declined to say whether McCarthy should be speaker if Republicans win back the House in November.

“I’m not gonna answer that one right now,” he told ABC’s Karl. “We’ll see what happens.”

Rice praised Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who also voted to impeach Trump and now serves as the vice chair of the Jan. 6 committee, calling her a “real Republican.” Like Rice, Cheney drew Trump’s wrath for criticizing him and is contending with her own primary challenge.

“She’d be a great speaker,” Rice said. “She is very conservative and I think she’s a fearless leader.”

But before November, Rice needs to defend his seat in Congress on June 14, when he’ll face off against six other candidates — including Trump-endorsed state Rep. Russell Fry — for the Republican nomination.

The crowded field makes it unlikely that any of the candidates will win more than 50% of the vote and avoid a runoff later this month between the top two finishers, Jerry Rovner, the Republican party chairman in Rice’s district, told ABC News.

Rovner, who is officially neutral in the primary but critical of Rice’s position on impeachment, said Rice’s vote could be a “major problem with a lot of constituents” given Trump’s popularity in the area.

“He could vote 800 times the way they [want him to] vote, but the one thing he voted on that got the press, they were very upset about,” Rovner said of Rice. “And that’s really what it comes down to.”

Rice’s balancing act was on full display at a recent forum in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, where some voters who had previously supported him walked out when he defended his impeachment vote.

“He’s a traitor, and I just don’t trust him,” Lyne Vail told ABC News. “If you can’t back your party, he’s not going to back you or me.”

Billy Zevgolis, a Myrtle Beach businessman and undecided voter, said he also disagreed with Rice’s impeachment vote.

“Right now, Trump is our guy,” he told ABC News. “I don’t like his personality, but his politics are right on the money. His values are aligned with mine.”

Rice hopes he can convince enough voters to overlook his stance on Trump’s impeachment even if they don’t agree with it. He could also benefit from the state’s open primaries, which allow Democrats and independents to vote in the GOP race.

Even if he loses, Rice has “absolutely” no regrets, he said.

“You know that, like your obituary, the first sentence is going to be ‘Tom Rice, who was a Republican member of Congress, voted to impeach Donald Trump,’” Karl told him.

“So be it,” he said. “I’ll wear it like a badge. So be it.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(HARRISBURG, Pa.) — Hedge fund manager David McCormick conceded the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania to celebrity TV Dr. Mehmet Oz.

McCormick announced the decision on Friday, cutting short a recount process of the May 17 contest.

“I am so proud of what we’ve accomplished this campaign,” McCormick said. “We saw a historic turnout in the Republican primary and I’m proud to say 419,000 or so Republican voters who put their faith in my campaign.”

The Pennsylvania primary was one of the most competitive races to watch so far this midterm election cycle. McCormick and Oz were separated by less than 1,000 votes on Election Day, triggering Pennsylvania law that a recount be conducted if a candidate’s margin of victory is 0.5% or less.

The recount began last week and needed to be completed by June 7. The final results were expected to be announced on June 8.

“We spent the last 17 days making sure that every Republican vote was counted in a way that would result in the will of Pennsylvania voters being fulfilled,” McCormick said as he conceded. “That’s what it’s all about, that is what this process is all about.”

“But it’s not clear to me, with the recount largely complete, that we have a nominee,” McCormick continued, “and today I called Mehmet Oz to congratulate him on his victory.”

McCormick said he’ll work to unite Republicans and Pennsylvania behind Oz ahead of the general election.

Oz said he is “tremendously grateful” for McCormick’s promise to help his campaign.

(INSERT TWEET)

Oz shook up the race in late 2021 with the announcement that he was joining the primary field. He then garnered the coveted endorsement of former President Donald Trump in April. Trump had urged Oz to declare victory over McCormick just the day after the May 17 primary, when it was too close to call.

Oz will face off against Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who easily won the Democratic nomination last month after suffering a stroke just days before the election.

The Pennsylvania seat, held by retiring Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, is viewed as one of the Democratic Party’s best chances to flip a seat in the 50-50 divided Senate.

Fetterman revealed Friday that he nearly died from the health episode, stating he ignored warning signs for years and “should have taken my health more seriously.” Fetterman underwent surgery on the same day as the Senate primary.

“It’s not something I’m proud of, but it is something I hope that others can learn from,” Fetterman said. “So please: listen to your body, and be aware of the signs. Because ignoring them — and avoiding the doctor because you might not like what they have to tell you — could cost you your life.”

Fetterman said it may take him some time before he’s back on the campaign trail, but that he’ll be “ready” for the November general election.

Oz said Friday, “Now that our primary is over, we will make sure that this U.S. Senate seat does not fall into the hands of the radical left, led by John Fetterman.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice will not be prosecuting former Trump officials, chief of staff Mark Meadows and social media director Dan Scavino, for refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee, according to sources familiar with the correspondence.

The House committee investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol previously voted in December 2021 to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress for not appearing before the committee and a criminal referral was sent to the Department of Justice. Meadows provided the committee with over 9,000 records and emails in regards to his activities and communications with former President Trump surrounding the riot but then refused to cooperate further and give a deposition.

The House voted to hold Scavino and former Trump adviser Peter Navarro in contempt in April after they refused to comply with a subpoena to testify before the Jan. 6 committee.

Navarro was indicted by a federal grand jury Friday on two counts of contempt to Congress.

The New York Times first reported that the DOJ would not be pursuing charges against Meadows and Scavino.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), the chairman of the House Select committee investigating the attack, and Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) released the following statement on Friday evening. They declared that the indictment of Navarro was the “correct decision,” by the DOJ but did not agree with not pursuing charges against Meadows and Scavino.

“We find the decision to reward Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino for their continued attack on the rule of law puzzling. Mr. Meadows and Mr. Scavino unquestionably have relevant knowledge about President Trump’s role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the events of January 6th. We hope the Department provides greater clarity on this matter,” the statement read.

“If the Department’s position is that either or both of these men have absolute immunity from appearing before Congress because of their former positions in the Trump Administration, that question is the focus of pending litigation. As the Select Committee has argued in District Court, Mark Meadows’s claim that he is entitled to absolute immunity is not correct or justified based on the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda. No one is above the law.”

Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — One hundred days after Russia invaded Ukraine, the unexpectedly prolonged conflict has created a political headache for President Joe Biden with no end in sight.

Historic inflation and sky-high prices at the gas pump in the U.S. have driven Biden’s popularity down ahead of midterm elections this fall.

He has to a large degree risked his political fortunes on the outcome of a war that he has pledged he will not send U.S. troops to fight — and which shows no signs of abating.

Russia has made recent gains on the battlefield. Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Thursday that Russian forces now control 20% of Ukrainian territory.

Biden said Friday that “it appears” there will have to be “a negotiated settlement” to end the war.

“What that entails, I don’t know,” the president said, speaking to reporters in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. “I don’t think anybody knows at this time.”

But Biden would not say if he thought Ukraine had to cede territory to Russia to achieve peace.

“Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” he said. “It’s their territory. I’m not going to tell them what they should and shouldn’t do.”

The president has succeeded in largely keeping Western allies united, strengthening the NATO alliance in the face of Russia attempts to split it.

But as Russia continues to block Ukrainian food exports and sanctions drive up energy prices worldwide, Biden has found himself in the increasingly difficult position of balancing his desire to stop what he has called Russia’s threat to democracy, with Americans’ rising economic uncertainty.

Russia has also sought to present the conflict as a fight in which the United States is directly involved.

But while Biden insists he will not send American troops to Ukraine, as long as the war continues — and while the U.S. sends Ukraine increasingly sophisticated weaponry — the risk remains that the president could find himself more deeply involved than he wants.

The United States has sent billions of dollars in military and economic assistance to Ukraine. Last month, Biden signed legislation providing $40 billion more over the coming months.

And it has provided intelligence that the Ukrainians have used to target Russian forces.

The U.S. military assistance — combined with aid from other Western nations — have contributed to Ukraine’s successes in fending off the Russian invasion.

The level of weapons systems the U.S. has provided has become more and more advanced over time.

This week, Biden committed to sending even more powerful, longer-range missile systems useful for the battle in eastern Ukraine.

After Russia’s failures early in the war — not taking any major cities and finding itself forced to narrow its aims — it has now made steady progress in the east.

What Vladimir Putin thought might just take a matter of days — conquering all of Ukraine — didn’t happen due to Ukrainian resolve and increasing American help.

But his aggression continues, despite unprecedented heavy sanctions that Biden said would change his behavior — sanctions now in effect for months.

One hundred days in, how Biden’s face-off with Putin ends — and when — is still an open question.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro was indicted by a grand jury on contempt of Congress charges Friday for defying subpoenas from the House select committee investigating Jan. 6, the Department of Justice announced.

“Former White House advisor Peter K. Navarro has been indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of contempt of Congress stemming from his failure to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 breach of the United States Capitol,” the Justice Department said in a release.

Story developing…

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — More than 110 days after Justice Samuel Alito authored a first draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court deliberations over a final ruling have entered a critical phase, four weeks before the justices recess for summer and as an internal probe into a leak of the draft intensifies.

A decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health — the Mississippi case challenging Roe — could come as soon as Monday, but most veteran court watchers expect an opinion rolling back constitutional protection for abortion rights will likely be released in late June.

The unprecedented publication of Alito’s leaked draft last month upended the court’s traditional workflow, an iterative process marked by frank and private exchanges of ideas between justices over the course of months.

“What happened at the court is tremendously bad,” Justice Clarence Thomas said this month of the leak’s impact on court dynamics. “You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s kind of an infidelity.”

Several former Supreme Court clerks, once intimately involved in the opinion drafting process, told ABC News the Dobbs majority opinion — and related concurring and dissenting opinions — are all likely in the midst of tense and frenzied rounds of revision.

“The more everyone else’s temperature goes up, the more Chief Justice Roberts insists on business as usual — even when the building is on fire,” said Sarah Isgur, an ABC News legal analyst. “What that means for Dobbs is not clear at this point.”

How the opinion drafting process works

On Dec. 3, two days after oral arguments in the abortion rights case, the justices met for their scheduled weekly conference when preliminary votes are taken on cases heard that week. Each was asked to weigh in on the central question posed in Dobbs: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Five conservative justices — with the exception of Chief Justice Roberts — voted ‘no’ at that time, according to the leaked first draft opinion. Justice Thomas, who as the most senior among them had responsibility to assign the majority author, assigned Justice Alito to put their views into writing.

More than two months later, according to the time stamp on the leaked draft, Alito shared with his colleagues a 67-page majority opinion. Legal experts have characterized the document, dated Feb. 10, as an opening bid in the opinion writing process, as it does not reflect any input from dissenting justices and may not reflect input from other justices on Alito’s side of the case, legal experts point out.

Over the past three and a half months, the justices have likely been providing feedback to Alito in the form of electronic and paper memos between chambers, former clerks said. Only around 80 people — the justices, clerks and administrative staff — have access to draft opinions and dissents as they circulate, sources say.

“We had two different computer systems — one for internal materials where draft opinions were held, and another for research through one of the online resources,” said Thiru Vignarajah, a former clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer.

It is not clear how many subsequent draft opinions and dissents may have been circulated to date.

Roberts in a May 3 statement on the leaked Alito draft noted, however, that “it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

Revising opinions, changing votes

The Supreme Court says some opinions may be revised a dozen or more times before publication, sometimes including a dramatic shift in vote alignment on the outcome of a case.

“It is a common experience that dissents change votes, even enough votes to become the majority,” the late Justice William Brennan once said, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society.

Roberts famously changed his position several times behind the scenes in 2012 during the first major challenge to the Affordable Care Act. After initially voting to strike down the heart of the law — the individual insurance mandate — and uphold the law’s expansion of Medicaid, Roberts ultimately flipped on both late in the drafting process, CNN’s Joan Biskupic, the Chief’s biographer, reported at the time. The shift narrowly saved the ACA.

While most legal analysts expect the Court will uphold Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortions at the center of the Dobbs case — and in turn, rollback nearly 50 years of precedent, as reflected in the Alito draft — the scope of the ruling and its legal rationale could still be in flux behind the scenes.

“There may be people that after they read [Alito’s opinion] say, I don’t really agree with that, or it’s not as strong an argument as I thought, and so they may decide to write separately [in a concurrence],” said Rachel Barkow, vice dean of NYU Law School and a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Sometimes people take an even more extreme position and say, I was wrong. I thought I was going to vote to uphold this law, but I can’t do it, so I’m going to join the dissent, or I’m going to wait and see what the dissent has to say and see which one is better,” Barkow said.

Chief Justice Roberts, who has long signaled opposition to Roe and its reasoning, notably did not join the majority in the initial vote on Dobbs and has reportedly been lobbying fellow conservatives to join him in taking a narrower approach than the one advanced by Alito.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer have all previously supported constitutional protection of a woman’s right to end a pregnancy before a fetus is considered viable outside the womb, around 24 weeks. They are certain to author a vigorous dissent.

Barkow said draft dissenting opinions will likely seek to pressure the majority justices by calling out alleged inconsistencies, flawed reasoning, and overlooked impacts of their decision.

“Each side goes back and forth until everybody feels like they’re ready to release the decisions. That’s why we wait so long,” Barkow said. “The justices are usually very respectful of each other in terms of hearing the feedback, giving the other side time to respond to the extent they want to, and it’s only when everyone agrees that an opinion is ready to go out.”

Publication and release of opinions

Complicating the process in major cases is the likelihood that each justice will want to write an individual opinion — concurring or dissenting — to emphasize a special point. Those drafts are circulated along with the majority opinion and primary dissent and can evolve over time.

The Dobbs decision is also overshadowed by an ongoing internal investigation into how a first draft of the Alito opinion was leaked to Politico. The probe, ordered by Chief Justice Roberts and led by Court Marshal Army Col. Gail Curley, has strained relations inside the court and exacerbated divisions around one of the most contentious cases in years, several justices and court insiders have said publicly.

When all revisions are complete, traditionally before the end of the court’s term on June 30, a master proof of the opinions is sent to the Court’s Reporter of Decisions for final processing before release.

The Reporter writes a summary of the ruling — called a “syllabus” — and copy edits the text of the opinions before having physical copies of the case documents printed, a step that can take several additional days after a decision is technically finalized.

Prior to the pandemic, the justices would announce decisions in-person from the Supreme Court bench. Today, the releases happen electronically on the court’s website not long after physical printing is complete. It is not publicly known in advance which cases will be decided on a designated opinion release day.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As mass shootings continue to rock the nation, President Joe Biden delivered prime-time remarks on guns Thursday evening from the White House, imploring the nation to “For God’s sake, do something.”

“This time we must actually do something,” he said, calling for a ban on assault weapons.

“We need to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. And if we can’t ban assault weapons, then we should raise the age to purchase them from 18 to 21, strengthen background checks, enact safe storage law, and red flag laws. Repeal the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability, address the mental health crisis,” he said in an impassioned address.

The latest mass shooting on Wednesday in Tulsa, Oklahoma, leaving four dead, follows a massacre of 19 students and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, as well as an apparently racially-motivated attack at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, leaving 10 Black people dead.

“We spent hours with hundreds of family members who were broken, whose lives will never be the same,” Biden said. “They had one message for all of us. Do something. Just do something … After Columbine, after Sandy Hook, after Charleston, after Orlando, after Las Vegas, after Parkland, nothing has been done. This time that can’t be true.”

Biden taking the national spotlight on Thursday evening comes amid questions over why he has not yet lobbied lawmakers personally and more forcefully as they aim to find a compromise on gun control legislation.

Biden told reporters earlier this week he “will meet with the Congress on guns — I promise you,” but did not provide details on when such a meeting might take place. On Thursday, he once again made the case for legislative action.

“This isn’t about taking anyone’s rights. It’s about protecting children, ” he said. “It’s about protecting families, it’s about protecting whole communities, it’s about protecting our freedoms to go to school, to a grocery store to a church without being shot and killed. According to new data just released by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention guns are the number one killer of children in the United States of America. The number one killer. More than car accidents, more than cancer. Over the last two decades, more school-aged children have died from guns than on-duty police officers and active-duty military combined.”

“Think about that,” he said, adding, “How much more carnage are we willing to accept? How many more innocent American lives must be taken before we say enough, enough?”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre pushed back Thursday against the notion that Biden hasn’t been involved in negotiations, arguing he’s been involved since taking office and repeating a sentiment from earlier this week that he “wants to give it some space” as the talks continue.

Biden’s making the speech Thursday, Jean-Pierre said, because he wants to make sure “that his voice is still out there and that the American people know that he’s fighting for them.”

Jean-Pierre also said the president is “encouraged” by what he’s seeing on Capitol Hill, even though Biden himself cast doubt that legislation will be passed, telling reporters he’s “not confident” as he recounted his first-hand experience in the Senate.

While serving as then-President Barack Obama’s vice president, Biden was tasked in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting to lead the administration’s effort to enact tougher gun control laws — but in the nearly decade since the nation mourned for Newtown, no action on gun control has passed at a federal level.

The last meaningful gun reform legislation passed on Capitol Hill was the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004 due to a “sunset” clause in the legislation. Similar legislation has failed for decades in the Senate due in large part to the filibuster rule, which requires 60 senators for a measure to advance toward a final vote. Though Democrats hold a razor-thin majority in Congress, they cannot push legislation through the Senate without the support of at least 10 Republicans.

The American public is widely supportive of universal background checks, which have already passed through the House’s Democratic majority. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in September 2019 found 89% support for universal background checks, including at least eight in 10 Republicans and conservatives.

Ahead of Biden’s speech, Vice President Kamala Harris offered brief remarks Thursday afternoon on the mass shooting in Tulsa and urged Congress to pass gun safety laws.

“No more excuses,” Harris said. “Thoughts and prayers are important, but not enough. We need Congress to act.”

As Biden prepared for his speech on Thursday, funerals were underway in Uvalde, where he visited families of victims.

He claimed earlier this week to have visited more aftermaths of mass shootings than any other American president.

In impassioned remarks from the White House last week after the Uvalde shooting, Biden expressed outrage at lawmakers who are blocking “common-sense” gun laws and rejected the argument often heard from Republicans that gun violence is a mental health issue.

“These kinds of mass shootings never happen with the kind of frequency they happen in America. Why? Why are we willing to live with this carnage?” Biden said with outrage. “Where in God’s name is our backbone to have the courage to deal with and stand up to the lobbies?”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A spate of deadly gun attacks across the country has reignited the national debate on gun reform in the United States. Lawmakers are arguing over what to do, if anything, to regulate guns.

Many are pointing specifically to a 2008 Supreme Court decision that was the first time the Supreme Court ever held that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to gun ownership. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, has been cited as one of the reasons why big gun reform may not be possible.

“The Supreme Court had not decided before Heller whether the Second Amendment created an individual right,” said attorney John Bash, who was a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia on the landmark case.

Bash pointed to the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment as examples of other protected individual rights.

“They had never decided whether it was just the right to serve in a militia or a right to have a gun for self-defense. And what the majority decided was that it is an individual right, and it includes a self-defense component,” he added.

Kate Shaw, a professor of law at Cardozo Law School in New York and ABC News legal analyst, and Bash, an attorney in private practice in Austin, Texas, were clerks on opposing sides of the decision. On Tuesday, Shaw and Bash penned an op-ed in the New York Times titled, “We Clerked for Justices Scalia and Stevens. America is Getting Heller Wrong.”

“Kate believes in a robust set of gun safety measures to reduce the unconscionable number of shootings in this country. John is skeptical of laws that would make criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens who believe that firearm ownership is essential to protecting their families,” read the New York Times article.

Bash assisted Justice Scalia on the majority opinion and Shaw helped Justice Stevens argue the dissenting opinion. Bash and Shaw spoke to ABC News’ podcast, “Start Here” on Thursday morning.

“We’re required to say, and it’s actually true in this case, that the justices themselves did the most important work, but we did assist them in preparing their opinions,” said Shaw.

Due to the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, provisions of the District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registrations of handguns. The chief of police could issue one-year licenses for handguns. The code also contained provisions, including requiring owners of lawfully registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled, unless the firearm was located in a place of business or for legal recreational activities.

Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. special police officer, was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for the handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. In 2007, Heller sued the District of Columbia, arguing that parts of the code violated his Second Amendment right to keep a firearm in his home without a license.

The Supreme Court held that the ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violates the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion for the 5-to-4 majority.

Shaw said the Heller decision is used to argue that gun regulations impede on an individual’s right to self defense, often incorrectly. She said the decision was to protect the Second Amendment as an individual right, but the actual specific holding of the case was quite narrow.

“[The] total prohibition just wasn’t consistent with the individual right that the court announced in Heller and, as John said, had actually never been identified or identified previously,” said Shaw.

Bash agreed with Shaw that the court had explicitly left room for reasonable regulations.

“[The court] gave a lot of historical examples of what it called ‘presumptively lawful regulations.’ [What is] really relevant nowadays is prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill getting their hands on guns and they didn’t disturb those at all and essentially signaled that they were probably OK,” said Bash. “Although there may be some wiggle room or debate there, they pretty much signaled that.”

Shaw also pointed out that the Heller opinion doesn’t call into question the ban on guns in sensitive places like schools or bans on carrying other “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

“There’s been a lot of attention paid to Heller’s announcement of an individual right to own a gun, but much less attention paid to the language in Heller. Making clear the government can absolutely regulate that,” she said.

As lawmakers look to what can be done, Bash said they still have the power to create new laws about gun reform, “if crafted correctly.”

“Background check laws and what’s called ‘Red Flag laws,’ meaning you have some indication that someone’s a threat, you afford them due process and temporarily take their firearm until a fuller hearing can be had. And there are variations on that,” he said. “Some of them may be OK. Some of them may not be OK.”

For now, the country stands in the wake of tragedy. Last month, 10 people died in a shooting at a Buffalo supermarket in what law enforcement authorities described as a racially motivated attack. Last week, 19 students and two teachers were killed in a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. On Wednesday night, four people died in a Tulsa, Oklahoma, hospital shooting. Shaw said that the real question she and Bash ask in the op-ed is if legislators can pass gun legislation before the next tragedy.

“I think it’s right that reasonable minds can disagree about limitations on particular types of weapons and how those would fare under Heller… I think that our point is Congress has done nothing on guns since Heller was decided in 2008,” said Shaw. “If they want to decide to do nothing, I think they just need to take ownership of that decision as opposed to pointing to something external to themselves.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden will deliver prime-time remarks on Thursday evening “on the recent tragic mass shootings, and the need for Congress to act to pass commonsense laws to combat the epidemic of gun violence that is taking lives every day,” according to the White House.

Biden taking the national spotlight comes amid some criticism over his apparent lack of involvement with congressional lawmakers negotiating a package amid a national reckoning over gun violence.

The latest mass shooting on Wednesday in Tulsa, Oklahoma, leaving four dead, follows a massacre of 19 students and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, as well as an apparently racially-motivated attack at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, leaving 10 Black people dead.

Biden told reporters earlier this week he “will meet with the Congress on guns — I promise you,” but the White House has not provided details on when a meeting might take place.

After Biden said on Thursday he’s “not confident” Congress will be able to pass gun reform legislation, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, under questioning about the president’s involvement in the Hill negotiations, said that Biden understands that some negotiations require giving Congress “a little space.”

Biden claimed earlier this week to have visited more aftermaths of mass shooting than any other American president.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.