In the past few weeks, Congress has been doing something that feels surprising: weighing a number of bipartisan bills on issues including sexual harassment and stock trading.

Given Republicans’ willingness to block many of Democrats’ biggest priorities, this sudden influx of bipartisan activity seems unexpected. In reality, it follows longstanding historical patterns.

One of the reasons lawmakers have turned to bipartisan bills is that more partisan measures have been unable to pass in recent months. Previously, the Freedom to Vote Act, legislation focused on voting rights protections, failed on the floor because it was blocked by Senate Republicans. The Build Back Better Act, Democrats’ sweeping social spending and climate measure, is also currently on pause as lawmakers scramble to figure out what Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) will accept.

In the interim, lawmakers have focused their attention on legislation that could potentially get 60 votes in the Senate. (Since there are 50 Democrats in the Senate, they need at least 10 Republicans to vote with them to overcome a filibuster on most bills in the upper chamber.)

Today’s Democrats fancy themselves as the party that trusts the evidence — wherever it might lead. This is why they invest heavily in science and technology and set up arms of government to translate that knowledge into action. But despite claiming to prioritize new ways of improving our society, Democrats don’t always act in ways that are rooted in research.

In fact, sometimes they actively resist doing what the evidence says — especially when it comes to implementing policies that give financial benefits to people low on America’s societal totem pole. It’s not always said out loud, but the reality is that some Democrats, and American voters in general, do not think very highly of poor people or people of color — there are countless examples of how society is quick to dehumanize them and how politicians struggle to address their needs in a meaningful way. These patterns of thinking and misleading portrayals of marginalized people too often mean that the policies that could help them most are opposed time and time again.

A Republican challenge to the new congressional district map has failed.

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday voted 5-0 to side with Democrats and dismiss a GOP lawsuit that asked the court to remand the map to the redistricting commission for further consideration and require the tie-breaker commissioner, former Supreme Court Justice John Wallace, to recuse himself.

The state’s highest court ruled that for all the Republicans’ complaints about the process, the lawsuit did not challenge the map itself as unlawful or unconstitutional.

“Historically, after meeting in private with the respective partisan delegations to discuss their proposals, the independent member serves as the tiebreaker and selects one party’s preferred map,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the court. “The outcome commonly garners praise from one party and criticism from the other. This redistricting cycle was no different … This Court has no role in the outcome of the redistricting process unless the map is ‘unlawful.’”

In the past few weeks, Congress has been doing something that feels surprising: weighing a number of bipartisan bills on issues including sexual harassment and stock trading.

Given Republicans’ willingness to block many of Democrats’ biggest priorities, this sudden influx of bipartisan activity seems unexpected. In reality, it follows longstanding historical patterns.

One of the reasons lawmakers have turned to bipartisan bills is that more partisan measures have been unable to pass in recent months. Previously, the Freedom to Vote Act, legislation focused on voting rights protections, failed on the floor because it was blocked by Senate Republicans. The Build Back Better Act, Democrats’ sweeping social spending and climate measure, is also currently on pause as lawmakers scramble to figure out what Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) will accept.

In the interim, lawmakers have focused their attention on legislation that could potentially get 60 votes in the Senate. (Since there are 50 Democrats in the Senate, they need at least 10 Republicans to vote with them to overcome a filibuster on most bills in the upper chamber.)

In the past few weeks, Congress has been doing something that feels surprising: weighing a number of bipartisan bills on issues including sexual harassment and stock trading.

Given Republicans’ willingness to block many of Democrats’ biggest priorities, this sudden influx of bipartisan activity seems unexpected. In reality, it follows longstanding historical patterns.

One of the reasons lawmakers have turned to bipartisan bills is that more partisan measures have been unable to pass in recent months. Previously, the Freedom to Vote Act, legislation focused on voting rights protections, failed on the floor because it was blocked by Senate Republicans. The Build Back Better Act, Democrats’ sweeping social spending and climate measure, is also currently on pause as lawmakers scramble to figure out what Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) will accept.

In the interim, lawmakers have focused their attention on legislation that could potentially get 60 votes in the Senate. (Since there are 50 Democrats in the Senate, they need at least 10 Republicans to vote with them to overcome a filibuster on most bills in the upper chamber.)

Today’s Democrats fancy themselves as the party that trusts the evidence — wherever it might lead. This is why they invest heavily in science and technology and set up arms of government to translate that knowledge into action. But despite claiming to prioritize new ways of improving our society, Democrats don’t always act in ways that are rooted in research.

In fact, sometimes they actively resist doing what the evidence says — especially when it comes to implementing policies that give financial benefits to people low on America’s societal totem pole. It’s not always said out loud, but the reality is that some Democrats, and American voters in general, do not think very highly of poor people or people of color — there are countless examples of how society is quick to dehumanize them and how politicians struggle to address their needs in a meaningful way. These patterns of thinking and misleading portrayals of marginalized people too often mean that the policies that could help them most are opposed time and time again.

A Republican challenge to the new congressional district map has failed.

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday voted 5-0 to side with Democrats and dismiss a GOP lawsuit that asked the court to remand the map to the redistricting commission for further consideration and require the tie-breaker commissioner, former Supreme Court Justice John Wallace, to recuse himself.

The state’s highest court ruled that for all the Republicans’ complaints about the process, the lawsuit did not challenge the map itself as unlawful or unconstitutional.

“Historically, after meeting in private with the respective partisan delegations to discuss their proposals, the independent member serves as the tiebreaker and selects one party’s preferred map,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the court. “The outcome commonly garners praise from one party and criticism from the other. This redistricting cycle was no different … This Court has no role in the outcome of the redistricting process unless the map is ‘unlawful.’”

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The families of nine victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting announced Tuesday they have agreed to a $73 million settlement of a lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used to kill 20 first graders and six educators in 2012.

The case was watched closely by gun control advocates, gun rights supporters and manufacturers, because of its potential to provide a roadmap for victims of other shootings to sue firearm makers.

The families and a survivor of the shooting sued Remington in 2015, saying the company should have never sold such a dangerous weapon to the public. They said their focus was on preventing future mass shootings by forcing gun companies to be more responsible with their products and how they market them.

At a news conference, some of the parents behind the lawsuit described a bittersweet victory.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate narrowly confirmed President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday pushing past a thicket of political controversies that threatened to derail what was initially expected to be an easy confirmation.

The 50-46 vote means Dr. Robert Califf, a cardiologist and prominent medical researcher, will again lead the powerful regulatory agency, which he briefly headed during the end of President Barack Obama’s administration.

The FDA hasn’t had a permanent leader in more than a year despite playing a central role in the COVID-19 response effort, reviewing the vaccines, drugs and tests used to fight the pandemic.

The razor-thin vote underscores the increasing political polarization around the health care issues FDA oversees and contrasts with Califf’s overwhelming support just six years ago. The Senate previously confirmed him to the job by a vote of 89-4.