Hear that tinkling? That’s the sound of the glass ceilings in corporate boardrooms shattering up and down the Golden State.
With just hours remaining before the legislative deadline on Sunday night, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 826 by state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), making California the first state in the nation to require publicly traded corporations to have women on their boards of directors.
Not many, mind you, but at least one by the end of next year. About one-fourth of the large corporations headquartered in California don’t have a single female board member. By 2021, corporate boards with five directors must add at least one more woman, and larger boards must add two more or face fines and public shaming on the Secretary of State’s website.
Moments after Gov. Jerry Brown’s office announced that he had signed a bill to restore net neutrality protections in California that the federal government abandoned, the U.S. Department of Justice sued to block the measure from going into effect. California lawmakers saw the measure (Senate Bill 822) as an important step to protect internet users in the state; the Justice Department saw it as yet another effort by the loony left state to dictate policy for the entire country.
What a party pooper! Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have allowed Los Angeles, San Francisco and seven other cities to temporarily extend alcohol service at bars and restaurants from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m.
Senate Bill 905 was San Francisco Sen. Scott Wiener’s second attempt to loosen an 80-year-old law that requires businesses licensed for on-site liquor sales to stop serving alcohol at 2 a.m. This is earlier than other states, such as New York, Illinois and Nevada, where bars are allowed to keep pouring until 4 a.m. and later.
Wiener and others argued that a 2 a.m. last call no longer makes sense for cities with thriving music and nightlife scenes that compete for investment and tourism with the likes of New York City, Las Vegas and other late-night hot spots. It also doesn’t consider the increasing availability of taxis and ride-hailing apps, such as Lyft and Uber, that give revelers more ways to get home without driving.
Voters in inland San Diego county didn’t need another reason to question Rep. Duncan Hunter’s fitness for office. The Republican from Alpine and his wife were indicted in August on charges of misusing a quarter million dollars in campaign donations for personal expenses. A poll since then shows that a lot of voters in his district think he’s guilty.
Nevertheless, Hunter gave voters another reason to reject his reelection bid on Nov. 6 with the release of a despicable campaign ad insinuating that his Democratic opponent, Ammar Campa-Najjar, is a Muslim terrorist “working to infiltrate Congress” in a “well-orchestrated plan.”
The evidence? That Campa-Najjar, who is American born and ethnically Palestinian and Mexican, changed his name from Ammar Yasser Najjar to Ammar Campa-Najjar (Campa is his Mexican mother’s maiden name) after the June primary. The ad suggests he did it to hide his familial connections. Campa-Najjar’s grandfather was one of the masterminds of the 1972 “Munich massacre,” a terrorist attack by the Palestinian Black September group on Israeli Olympic athletes.
Soon-to-be-former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a frequent and acerbic critic of President Trump’s, tapped the brakes Friday on the Senate GOP’s rush to confirm Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, in a way that won’t make anybody happy, but at least should make everyone less ticked off.
Flake said he wouldn’t support holding a final vote on Kavanaugh unless the FBI investigated the allegations that have been leveled to date against the appellate judge. The investigation should be conducted right away, Flake said, and last no more than a week.
The federal judiciary is technically a nonpartisan branch of government. On Thursday, however, one member of the federal appeals court — and a potential Supreme Court justice — spewed contempt explicitly on Senate Democrats.
That would be Brett Kavanaugh, who delivered what may be the angriest, most emotional opening statement ever by a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His intensity was understandable, considering the serious and occasionally salacious accusations leveled against him after the committee completed a lengthy round of hearings on his nomination. But Kavanaugh didn’t just defend himself. He said his accusers were engaged in a “calculated and orchestrated political hit” as “revenge” for President Trump’s victory.
In particular, he was angry that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), whom he — along with most of the committee’s Republican members — accused of sitting on Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation against him for a month in order to waylay his nomination. He also was furious at the committee for not rushing to let him testify as soon as Ford went public with her allegation that a youthful Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her, saying the delay gave others time to come forward with false accusations. And he was livid at other Senate Democrats for their more hyperbolic criticisms of his nomination.
The day before one of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats on the panel asked President Trump to “immediately” withdraw the nomination — unless, that is, Trump agreed to reopen an FBI background check of Kavanaugh to examine sexual assault allegations.
Those allegations are multiplying. They now comprise not only the claim by Christine Blasey Ford, who is scheduled to testify Thursday that Kavanaugh assaulted her when they were teenagers in the early 1980s, but also the charge by Deborah Ramirez that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when they were students at Yale and new accusations by a Washington woman named Julie Swetnick.
On Wednesday, Swetnick’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, posted a document in which Swetnick alleged, among other things, that Kavanaugh was present at a 1982 house party at which she was gang raped. (Kavanaugh said her statement was “ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone.”)
On Wednesday, a longtime federal employee and contractor named Julie Swetnick became the third woman to come forward against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, offering a sworn affidavit Wednesday accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of “inappropriate contact of a sexual nature” with women multiple times as a high-schooler.
Her lawyer — Michael Avenatti, who also represented porn actress Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) in her fight with President Trump and his former attorney, Michael Cohen — says she’s ready and willing to testify. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) left open the possibility that his panel will hold additional hearings beyond the one scheduled for Thursday with Kavanaugh and one of his earlier Kavanaugh accusers, Christine Blasey Ford.
But Swetnick’s affidavit suggests that the committee really needs to hear from someone else: Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s prep school classmate and alleged companion on the party circuit.
Don’t feel sorry for Bill Cosby, who was sentenced to three to 10 years in prison Tuesday for aggravated indecent assault.
Perhaps it seems cruel to incarcerate a doddering, nearly blind octogenarian, but the actor and comedian is a sexual predator. Now, finally, he will be treated as one.
That includes classification as a sex offender. Dozens of women have accused Cosby of sexual assault going back four decades, but many of the incidents are long past the statute of limitations and could not be prosecuted. Cosby will be listed on a sex offender registry and will be required to report regularly to authorities and undergo monthly counseling for the rest of his life.
Barring a thunderclap revelation at Thursday’s scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, senators are heading toward a confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh that will put members in an incredibly uncomfortable position.
Two women will have leveled serious allegations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh in his youth, with one of them, Christine Blasey Ford, potentially giving the details under oath of an alleged sexual assault by the nominee. Kavanaugh, for his part, has denied the allegations unconditionally and called the one made by a former Yale classmate a “smear.”
The committee is set to hear from just Ford and Kavanaugh on Thursday. Given the circumstances — Ford said she told no one of the assault until about six years ago, when she confided in a therapist — the result is likely to be two irreconcilably different accounts of an event that did or did not happen more than three decades ago.