Harry Reid
Revision as of 20:26, 4 July 2017 by MaintenanceBot (talk | contribs) (Job data addition: United States Senator from Nevada (end). Extra Job: Chair of the Nevada Gaming Commission.)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Born | Harry Mason Reid 1939-12-02 Searchlight, Nevada, U.S. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alma mater | Southern Utah University, Utah State University | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Religion | The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Children | • Lana • Rory • Leif Josh • Key | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Spouse | Landra Gould | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member of | Banned from Russia 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Party | Democratic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gun control
Citing mass shootings, Harry Reid was "pushing for a vote on gun-control measures, including expanded background checks".[1]
Legal Case
Name | Plaintiff(s) | Defendant(s) | Start | End | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hedges v. Obama | Daniel Ellsberg Chris Hedges Noam Chomsky Jenifer Bolen Kai Wargalla Birgitta Jónsdóttir Alexa O'Brien | Barack Obama Leon Panetta John McCain John Boehner Harry Reid Eric Cantor Nancy Pelosi US Department of Defense Mitch McConnell United States of America | 13 January 2012 | 28 April 2014 | The plaintiffs challenged the 2012 NDAA contending that indefinite detention on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban was so vague as to allow unconstitutional, indefinite detention of civilians based on vague allegations. The Court of Appeals struck down an initial agreement, and the US Supreme Court concurred, arguing that the plaintiffs could not prove they would be affected by the law, so had no standing to contest it. |
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.