newyorker--2020-10-27--Justice Amy Coney Barrett Is Sworn In Under Darkness at the White House

They had treated the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , just five weeks earlier , as the starting bell in a bitterly exuberant race .
She had been dead only a few hours when Mitch McConnell , the Majority Leader , announced that his party would toss aside both decorum and its own rationale for blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland , after Justice Antonin Scalia had died nearly nine months before the 2016 election .
The Republican senators had , in this final stretch , worked through the weekend and staged an overnight session on Sunday so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be squeezed into as few days as possible—since , in the end , it didn ’ t matter whether anyone was listening .
And now , a week and some hours before Election Day , and two weeks before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act , the Republicans had their Justice , losing only one of their number ( Susan Collins , of Maine , who is running in a close race ) in the final vote .
It was time to celebrate .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the South Lawn of the White House ; the Trump Administration wanted Barrett not only confirmed but sworn in before the night was out .
The White House Rose Garden had been the setting , in September , for Trump ’ s announcement of Barrett ’ s nomination , a Saturday afternoon fête that appears to have been something of a superspreader event , with everyone from the president of Notre Dame ( where Barrett graduated from law school and later taught ) to the President of the United States testing positive for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps the feeling , on Monday , was that the darkness and the different angle on the White House would help to avoid reminders of that event .
( A new spate of cases in the offices of Vice-President Mike Pence , and of Senator Kelly Loeffler , of Georgia , had already brought back those memories , and prompted Chuck Schumer , the Minority Leader , to tell the Democrats not to linger on the Senate floor ; most cast their votes quickly and left . )
This time , more people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee , of Utah , who had tested positive as part of the Rose Garden outbreak , were wearing masks , which mitigated the infection risk but not the shamelessness .
The President and Melania Trump , and Barrett and her husband , Jesse , did not wear masks .
Neither did Justice Clarence Thomas , who was there to swear in his new colleague .
Trump said that Thomas had earned the “ respect and gratitude of all Americans , ” which is pushing the truth .
Thomas was only forty-three when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also by a vote of 52–48 , after contentious hearings in which he was accused of sexual harassment .
( He denied the accusations . )
Almost thirty years later , he is the current Court ’ s longest-serving Justice , and one of its most conservative .
Barrett is forty-eight and , in the Republican vision , she , as well as Trump ’ s other appointees—Neil Gorsuch , who is fifty-three , and Brett Kavanaugh , fifty-five—will inherit the Court .
The baseline conservative majority is now 6–3 , counting Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasional swing vote , and 5–4 without him .
Trump , in his remarks on the South Lawn , claimed that the country “ owes a great debt of thanks ” to McConnell , and he also thanked Senator Lindsey Graham , the chair of the Judiciary Committee , who had done his part in staging the breakneck confirmation hearings .
Trump reeled off the names of ten senators who had made it to the South Lawn , including Martha McSally , of Arizona , who is behind in her race and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up ground by issuing Trump-style personal attacks against her opponent , Mark Kelly ; she apparently didn ’ t want to pass up an opportunity to appear in the President ’ s vicinity .
When Trump said that Barrett ’ s seven children had become “ very , very popular in this nation , ” Barrett laughed appreciatively .
He added that he was sure she would make people “ very , very proud.
” As if there hadn ’ t been enough hollow gestures in the course of the day , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That he did so served only to highlight how sour and cynical the process has been .
In the overnight Senate session , John Cornyn , Republican of Texas , said that Ginsburg had been confirmed despite being “ far outside of the mainstream of American law.
” And at a press conference after the vote , Senator Marsha Blackburn , Republican of Tennessee , said that the Democrats opposed Barrett because “ she would not submit to the women ’ s agenda that the leftists think that a woman has to submit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accomplished , as fully female.
” Then Barrett ’ s husband held the Bible as Thomas administered the oath .
In remarks afterward , the new Justice thanked McConnell , Graham , and the White House staff for guiding her through the confirmation—and there , at least , the debt is genuine .
She said that the “ rigorous ” confirmation process had made clearer to her than ever the difference between the legislative and the judicial branches : the former , she said , could take into account “ policy goals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a judge to resist her policy preferences.
” She continued , “ A judge declares independence not only from the Congress and the President but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her.
” Perhaps an optimist would see this as a sign that Barrett might surprise her sponsors , to whom her policy preferences are well known .
They don ’ t seem very worried , though ; McConnell and his allies know empty words when they hear them .
Senator Josh Hawley , Republican of Missouri , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation vote , said , “ This is the most openly pro-life judicial nominee to the Supreme Court in my lifetime .
This is an individual who has been open in her criticism of that illegitimate decision Roe v. Wade.
” She was not open about it in the hearings , of course , in which she declined to say even if a President ought to be committed to a peaceful transfer of power .
It is more likely that Barrett was making the same rote protestation that other jurists who , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do about how they meekly defer to the political branches , and refuse to read anything into the Constitution , until they don ’ t—as when , to cite one example from Barrett ’ s career , a case involving gun control came before her .
She might just as easily have been telegraphing that , while she would be sorry on a personal level for anyone who might be hurt if the Court strikes down significant parts of the Affordable Care Act , it really wasn ’ t her business .
Either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more clarity about Barrett ’ s judicial and policy preferences when she asks her first question in the oral arguments in the A.C.A .
case , on November 10th .
Or it may come sooner .
Even as her confirmation was concluding , her new colleagues issued a 5–3 ruling , with the conservatives in the majority , limiting the time for counting mail-in ballots in Wisconsin .
There will be more such cases in the days to come .
Trump , whom Barrett , smiling and chatting , joined on the balcony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ceremony , wouldn ’ t have it any other way .

Just after 8 P.M. on Monday, at the end of a thirty-one-hour session of the Senate, Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who was presiding, peered from the podium and asked if any senators still needed to vote. Hearing that none did, he said, “The ayes are fifty-two. The nays are forty-eight. The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is confirmed! ” He said it as if he were announcing the winner on a game show, and the Republican senators in the room reacted accordingly, standing and cheering. Barrett wasn’t so much the victor as the prize—their prize.
They had treated the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just five weeks earlier, as the starting bell in a bitterly exuberant race. She had been dead only a few hours when Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader, announced that his party would toss aside both decorum and its own rationale for blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland, after Justice Antonin Scalia had died nearly nine months before the 2016 election. The Republican senators had, in this final stretch, worked through the weekend and staged an overnight session on Sunday so that the hours required procedurally for debate could be squeezed into as few days as possible—since, in the end, it didn’t matter whether anyone was listening. And now, a week and some hours before Election Day, and two weeks before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans had their Justice, losing only one of their number (Susan Collins, of Maine, who is running in a close race) in the final vote. It was time to celebrate.
President Obama’s New Memoir Read an excerpt in this week’s issue.
The seats were already being set up on the South Lawn of the White House; the Trump Administration wanted Barrett not only confirmed but sworn in before the night was out. The White House Rose Garden had been the setting, in September, for Trump’s announcement of Barrett’s nomination, a Saturday afternoon fête that appears to have been something of a superspreader event, with everyone from the president of Notre Dame (where Barrett graduated from law school and later taught) to the President of the United States testing positive for the coronavirus in the following week. Perhaps the feeling, on Monday, was that the darkness and the different angle on the White House would help to avoid reminders of that event. (A new spate of cases in the offices of Vice-President Mike Pence, and of Senator Kelly Loeffler, of Georgia, had already brought back those memories, and prompted Chuck Schumer, the Minority Leader, to tell the Democrats not to linger on the Senate floor; most cast their votes quickly and left.) This time, more people in the crowd, including Senator Mike Lee, of Utah, who had tested positive as part of the Rose Garden outbreak, were wearing masks, which mitigated the infection risk but not the shamelessness.
The President and Melania Trump, and Barrett and her husband, Jesse, did not wear masks. Neither did Justice Clarence Thomas, who was there to swear in his new colleague. Trump said that Thomas had earned the “respect and gratitude of all Americans,” which is pushing the truth. Thomas was only forty-three when he was confirmed, in 1991, also by a vote of 52–48, after contentious hearings in which he was accused of sexual harassment. (He denied the accusations.) Almost thirty years later, he is the current Court’s longest-serving Justice, and one of its most conservative. Barrett is forty-eight and, in the Republican vision, she, as well as Trump’s other appointees—Neil Gorsuch, who is fifty-three, and Brett Kavanaugh, fifty-five—will inherit the Court. The baseline conservative majority is now 6–3, counting Chief Justice John Roberts, who is an occasional swing vote, and 5–4 without him.
Trump, in his remarks on the South Lawn, claimed that the country “owes a great debt of thanks” to McConnell, and he also thanked Senator Lindsey Graham, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, who had done his part in staging the breakneck confirmation hearings. Trump reeled off the names of ten senators who had made it to the South Lawn, including Martha McSally, of Arizona, who is behind in her race and has, lately, been trying to make up ground by issuing Trump-style personal attacks against her opponent, Mark Kelly; she apparently didn’t want to pass up an opportunity to appear in the President’s vicinity. When Trump said that Barrett’s seven children had become “very, very popular in this nation,” Barrett laughed appreciatively. He added that he was sure she would make people “very, very proud.”
As if there hadn’t been enough hollow gestures in the course of the day, Trump also mentioned Ginsburg’s legacy. That he did so served only to highlight how sour and cynical the process has been. In the overnight Senate session, John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said that Ginsburg had been confirmed despite being “far outside of the mainstream of American law.” And at a press conference after the vote, Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, said that the Democrats opposed Barrett because “she would not submit to the women’s agenda that the leftists think that a woman has to submit to in order to be recognized as accomplished, as fully female.”
Then Barrett’s husband held the Bible as Thomas administered the oath. In remarks afterward, the new Justice thanked McConnell, Graham, and the White House staff for guiding her through the confirmation—and there, at least, the debt is genuine. She said that the “rigorous” confirmation process had made clearer to her than ever the difference between the legislative and the judicial branches: the former, she said, could take into account “policy goals,” while it was “the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences.” She continued, “A judge declares independence not only from the Congress and the President but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her.”
Perhaps an optimist would see this as a sign that Barrett might surprise her sponsors, to whom her policy preferences are well known. They don’t seem very worried, though; McConnell and his allies know empty words when they hear them. Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, in remarks in the marathon session before the confirmation vote, said, “This is the most openly pro-life judicial nominee to the Supreme Court in my lifetime. This is an individual who has been open in her criticism of that illegitimate decision Roe v. Wade.” She was not open about it in the hearings, of course, in which she declined to say even if a President ought to be committed to a peaceful transfer of power.
It is more likely that Barrett was making the same rote protestation that other jurists who, like her, are textualists and originalists, do about how they meekly defer to the political branches, and refuse to read anything into the Constitution, until they don’t—as when, to cite one example from Barrett’s career, a case involving gun control came before her. She might just as easily have been telegraphing that, while she would be sorry on a personal level for anyone who might be hurt if the Court strikes down significant parts of the Affordable Care Act, it really wasn’t her business. Either way, the country will likely have more clarity about Barrett’s judicial and policy preferences when she asks her first question in the oral arguments in the A.C.A. case, on November 10th. Or it may come sooner. Even as her confirmation was concluding, her new colleagues issued a 5–3 ruling, with the conservatives in the majority, limiting the time for counting mail-in ballots in Wisconsin. There will be more such cases in the days to come. Trump, whom Barrett, smiling and chatting, joined on the balcony of the South Portico after Monday’s ceremony, wouldn’t have it any other way.


newyorker--2020-10-26--We May Need the Twenty-fifth Amendment if Trump Loses

On October 9th , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a new bill to establish a Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office , which would help carry out the Twenty-fifth Amendment process in the event that the President becomes incapable of doing his job .
( Sponsored by the Democratic representative and former constitutional-law professor Jamie Raskin , of Maryland , the House bill is similar to one he introduced in 2017 . )
Announcing the bill only a week after disclosure of the President ’ s COVID-19 diagnosis and three weeks before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ path for preserving stability if a President suffers a crippling physical or mental problem.
” She added , “ This is not about President Trump .
He will face the judgment of the voters , but he shows the need for us to create a process for future Presidents.
” Section four of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides two distinct avenues for removing a President against his will .
In one , the Vice-President joins with a majority of the Cabinet to send Congress a written declaration that the President is unable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Vice-President does so along with a majority of “ such other body as Congress may by law provide.
” The purpose of the House bill is to provide the congressionally appointed body that the Amendment contemplates , by creating a commission of seventeen members to be chosen by both parties , consisting of physicians and former high executive-branch officials .
According to the Twenty-fifth Amendment , once Congress receives a declaration of the President ’ s incapacity , both houses could then decide , by two-thirds votes , to replace him with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to unveil the bill so close to the election may be , as Republicans have claimed , intended to harm Trump at the polls by drawing more attention to concerns about his health .
On October 19th , Senator Kelly Loeffler , a Republican from Georgia , introduced a nonbinding Senate resolution to condemn House Democrats for “ politicizing the Twenty-fifth Amendment ” and the President ’ s health “ during a global pandemic in order to influence the upcoming November election.
” In truth , it is all too easy , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of immense crisis and fear , to transform vehement political or moral disapproval of a leader into a conviction that he or she is mentally unsound and therefore dangerous—and should be overthrown through non-electoral means .
That is likely why the Twenty-fifth Amendment has been invoked only in temporary and limited ways , and only in cases of physical incapacity .
George W. Bush invoked it twice for colonoscopies , each time making Vice-President Dick Cheney the acting President .
When Ronald Reagan was shot and in surgery , in 1981 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George H. W. Bush but soon decided against it .
Four years later , Reagan did transfer power to his Vice-President before surgery for colon cancer .
In the realm of mental incapacity , as Richard Nixon faced likely impeachment , his staff feared that his unravelling state might lead him to order a nuclear launch , and his Defense Secretary went so far as to tell the Joint Chiefs not to execute such a military order if it came directly from the President .
But Nixon ’ s Cabinet did not seek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Twenty-fifth Amendment .
Reagan ’ s staff considered invoking the Amendment when his dementia became evident to them , late in his second term , but decided against it .
In 2017 , Rod Rosenstein , then Trump ’ s Deputy Attorney General , reportedly suggested that the Cabinet invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment , shortly after Trump fired the F.B.I .
director , James Comey .
The questioning of Trump ’ s fitness has persisted throughout his Presidency , as members of his party and his close associates fed the narrative of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then Senator Bob Corker , a Republican from Tennessee who was then the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee , called the White House an “ adult day care center ” ; he went on to say , “ I know for a fact that every single day at the White House , it ’ s a situation of trying to contain him.
” In “ A Warning , ” published in 2019 , an anonymous senior Trump official reported : “ He stumbles , slurs , gets confused , is easily irritated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not occasionally but with regularity.
” Similarly to Corker , the Administration official added that working with Trump was “ like showing up at the nursing home at daybreak.
” Other senior officials have said that Trump , who is seventy-four , appeared to be suffering from some form of dementia .
Trump ’ s former White House adviser Omarosa Newman stated in her book “ Unhinged , ” in 2018 , that Trump ’ s “ mental decline could not be denied.
” Trump ’ s former White House communications director Anthony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump “ has declining mental faculties.
” Others , including Trump ’ s niece Mary L. Trump , a clinical psychologist , have said that Trump ’ s behavior shows the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder .
A number of mental-health experts have also suggested that he may suffer from malignant narcissism , a term that was coined by the psychologist Erich Fromm , in 1964 , in order to describe Hitler and Stalin .
John Gartner , the psychologist who spearheaded the Duty to Warn movement in 2017 and has advocated removing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me that malignant narcissism is a “ psychiatric condition that makes you evil , ” combining narcissism ( which features the extremes of poor self-esteem and distorted self-enlargement ) , paranoia ( which Gartner sees in “ the crazy conspiracy theories , sense of victimization , and demonization of minorities ” ) , psychopathy ( “ lying and exploiting people ” ) , and sadism .
The condition is considered dangerous because the combination of aggression , suspiciousness , lack of empathy , and a fragile ego might result in vindictive and destructive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shortly before Trump ’ s impeachment trial , in February , more than eight hundred mental-health professionals signed a letter to Congress , warning that “ failing to monitor or to understand the psychological aspects ” of humiliating Trump “ could lead to catastrophic outcomes.
” Trump has repeatedly flipped the conversation about mental deterioration onto his opponent , who many have claimed also shows signs of senility .
At a March rally , Trump said , of Biden , “ They ’ re going to put him in a home , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country.
” Talk of Biden ’ s mental decline began during the Democratic primary campaign last year , as other candidates observed that Biden garbled sentences , misspoke , and failed to finish trains of thought in some debates .
( Biden has spoken about having a lifelong stutter . )
Last spring , Bernie Sanders ’ s surrogates and supporters promoted the hashtag # WhereIsJoe , implying that Biden ’ s campaign was keeping him out of sight to hide mental infirmity .
Glenn Greenwald , founder of the Intercept and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the steadfast , wilful refusal of Dem political & media elites to address what is increasingly visible to the naked eye — Biden ’ s serious cognitive decline — is frightening.
” Biden , who has said he would not seek a second term as President , released his physician ’ s report that he is healthy and “ fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency ” but offered nothing specific about his cognitive health .
As a result , the theme of the two septuagenarian presidential candidates ’ fitness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season .
Susan Page , the moderator of the Vice-Presidential debate , even asked both Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris about whether they had “ had a conversation , or reached an agreement with ” their running mates “ about safeguards or procedures when it comes to Presidential disability.
” Pence and Harris both completely dodged the question .
If a President were , in fact , impaired to a serious degree , it would , of course , be responsible for lawmakers to treat that as a grave threat to national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stable transition of power to the Vice-President .
That is the reason the Twenty-fifth Amendment is in the Constitution in the first place .
How we have dealt with Trump thus far , though , has only strengthened the constitutional norm that even widespread and persistent public alarm about a President ’ s mental fitness does not warrant the use of the Amendment to remove him .
More to the point , the bar for mental acuity and stability for Presidents has lowered along with much else in the past four years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Times , “ Please tell me why I should care whether Joe Biden is declining mentally when Donald Trump bottomed out morally long ago.
” Trailing Biden in polls , Trump has continually triggered shock waves around election integrity , claiming election fraud , attacking confidence in the process ’ s legitimacy , urging his supporters to “ go into the polls and watch very carefully , ” and , most alarmingly , at times refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power .
( When pressed by NBC News ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did commit to a peaceful transfer of power . )
If , as seems likely , voters deliver a loss for Trump , the Twenty-fifth Amendment comes into different focus , as an essential support to the democratic electoral process rather than an end run around it .
In the event that the President ’ s mental state leads him to try to circumvent the election result in order to stay in power , having Congress remove him via the Twenty-fifth Amendment as “ unable to discharge the powers and duties of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ function of constitutional democracy as can be imagined .

Throughout the past four years, there has been chatter about Donald Trump’s mental health and stability, but little political will to make use of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows Congress to deem a President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and remove him from power. The discussion resurfaced more seriously this month, however, in light of Trump’s hospitalization for COVID-19 and the White House’s lack of transparency around his treatment. The news that he was medicated with the steroid dexamethasone, used for seriously ill COVID-19 patients, also alarmed many because its known side effects include aggression, agitation, and “grandiose delusions”—behaviors that, judging from the President’s Twitter account, at least, he already seemed to exhibit.
On October 9th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a new bill to establish a Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office, which would help carry out the Twenty-fifth Amendment process in the event that the President becomes incapable of doing his job. (Sponsored by the Democratic representative and former constitutional-law professor Jamie Raskin, of Maryland, the House bill is similar to one he introduced in 2017.) Announcing the bill only a week after disclosure of the President’s COVID-19 diagnosis and three weeks before the election, Pelosi invoked the Amendment as a “path for preserving stability if a President suffers a crippling physical or mental problem.” She added, “This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future Presidents.”
Section four of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides two distinct avenues for removing a President against his will. In one, the Vice-President joins with a majority of the Cabinet to send Congress a written declaration that the President is unable to serve. In the other, the Vice-President does so along with a majority of “such other body as Congress may by law provide.” The purpose of the House bill is to provide the congressionally appointed body that the Amendment contemplates, by creating a commission of seventeen members to be chosen by both parties, consisting of physicians and former high executive-branch officials. According to the Twenty-fifth Amendment, once Congress receives a declaration of the President’s incapacity, both houses could then decide, by two-thirds votes, to replace him with the Vice-President.
Pelosi’s decision to unveil the bill so close to the election may be, as Republicans have claimed, intended to harm Trump at the polls by drawing more attention to concerns about his health. On October 19th, Senator Kelly Loeffler, a Republican from Georgia, introduced a nonbinding Senate resolution to condemn House Democrats for “politicizing the Twenty-fifth Amendment” and the President’s health “during a global pandemic in order to influence the upcoming November election.”
In truth, it is all too easy, in a fragile democracy, especially in a time of immense crisis and fear, to transform vehement political or moral disapproval of a leader into a conviction that he or she is mentally unsound and therefore dangerous—and should be overthrown through non-electoral means. That is likely why the Twenty-fifth Amendment has been invoked only in temporary and limited ways, and only in cases of physical incapacity. George W. Bush invoked it twice for colonoscopies, each time making Vice-President Dick Cheney the acting President. When Ronald Reagan was shot and in surgery, in 1981, his Administration took steps to install Vice-President George H. W. Bush but soon decided against it. Four years later, Reagan did transfer power to his Vice-President before surgery for colon cancer.
In the realm of mental incapacity, as Richard Nixon faced likely impeachment, his staff feared that his unravelling state might lead him to order a nuclear launch, and his Defense Secretary went so far as to tell the Joint Chiefs not to execute such a military order if it came directly from the President. But Nixon’s Cabinet did not seek to set in motion his removal under the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Reagan’s staff considered invoking the Amendment when his dementia became evident to them, late in his second term, but decided against it. In 2017, Rod Rosenstein, then Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, reportedly suggested that the Cabinet invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment, shortly after Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James Comey.
The questioning of Trump’s fitness has persisted throughout his Presidency, as members of his party and his close associates fed the narrative of a deteriorating mind. In 2017, then Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee who was then the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, called the White House an “adult day care center”; he went on to say, “I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain him.” In “A Warning,” published in 2019, an anonymous senior Trump official reported: “He stumbles, slurs, gets confused, is easily irritated, and has trouble synthesizing information, not occasionally but with regularity.” Similarly to Corker, the Administration official added that working with Trump was “like showing up at the nursing home at daybreak.” Other senior officials have said that Trump, who is seventy-four, appeared to be suffering from some form of dementia. Trump’s former White House adviser Omarosa Newman stated in her book “Unhinged,” in 2018, that Trump’s “mental decline could not be denied.” Trump’s former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said, in 2019, that Trump “has declining mental faculties.”
Others, including Trump’s niece Mary L. Trump, a clinical psychologist, have said that Trump’s behavior shows the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. A number of mental-health experts have also suggested that he may suffer from malignant narcissism, a term that was coined by the psychologist Erich Fromm, in 1964, in order to describe Hitler and Stalin. John Gartner, the psychologist who spearheaded the Duty to Warn movement in 2017 and has advocated removing Trump through the Twenty-fifth Amendment, told me that malignant narcissism is a “psychiatric condition that makes you evil,” combining narcissism (which features the extremes of poor self-esteem and distorted self-enlargement), paranoia (which Gartner sees in “the crazy conspiracy theories, sense of victimization, and demonization of minorities”), psychopathy (“lying and exploiting people”), and sadism. The condition is considered dangerous because the combination of aggression, suspiciousness, lack of empathy, and a fragile ego might result in vindictive and destructive acts when the sufferer is wounded. Shortly before Trump’s impeachment trial, in February, more than eight hundred mental-health professionals signed a letter to Congress, warning that “failing to monitor or to understand the psychological aspects” of humiliating Trump “could lead to catastrophic outcomes.”
Trump has repeatedly flipped the conversation about mental deterioration onto his opponent, who many have claimed also shows signs of senility. At a March rally, Trump said, of Biden, “They’re going to put him in a home, and other people are going to be running the country.” Talk of Biden’s mental decline began during the Democratic primary campaign last year, as other candidates observed that Biden garbled sentences, misspoke, and failed to finish trains of thought in some debates. (Biden has spoken about having a lifelong stutter.)
Last spring, Bernie Sanders’s surrogates and supporters promoted the hashtag #WhereIsJoe, implying that Biden’s campaign was keeping him out of sight to hide mental infirmity. Glenn Greenwald, founder of the Intercept and an outspoken Sanders supporter, tweeted that “the steadfast, wilful refusal of Dem political & media elites to address what is increasingly visible to the naked eye — Biden’s serious cognitive decline — is frightening.” Biden, who has said he would not seek a second term as President, released his physician’s report that he is healthy and “fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency” but offered nothing specific about his cognitive health.


newyorker--2020-10-28--Why I’m Leaving the Republican Party

Why I’m Leaving the Republican Party

For decades , I have been known as one of the most significant voices in the Republican Party .
I have advised the Bushes .
I ’ ve aided the Quayles .
I ’ ve tenderly kissed the Cheneys .
But today I come to you to reveal that I am leaving this beloved party of mine—the party that educated me , housed me , tickled me , and dressed me up as a donkey and forced me to run drunkenly through the streets of Iowa to scare voters in the 1984 Presidential election .
It is not easy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ G.O.P .
raised me .
I grew up being fed fresh-baked cookies by George H. W. Bush every day after school .
I was burped as a baby by Ronald Reagan .
Dr. Henry Kissinger himself delivered me and slapped my rear in the delivery room .
My mother and my father were Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon .
Yet I can not stand idly by and watch as these crooks take over the party I love .
I can not abide this coarsening of discourse , and so on and so forth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reasons that I am leaving the Republican Party .
Firstly , our country is being ruthlessly divided by the Commander-in-Chief .
Brother pitted against brother , cat against dog , exterminator against cockroach , sentient robot against mad inventor .
Americans must accept that , no matter our particular beliefs , we are all citizens of the United States—whether we be Republican or Democrat , Canadian or Bulgarian , Mesopotamian or Sumerian .
Secondly , as an elder statesman , I recall a kinder , more genteel time in Congress , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but were , in fact , fused into a single amorphous entity , composed of writhing flesh and gravel-grasping tendrils , which governed the entire nation through fear and its hive-mind-like consciousness .
Did we live in abject horror of that grotesque bipartisan creature , as it rolled through the Senate , destroying podiums and devouring congressional aides to sate its blind lust for power ?
Yes .
But did we respect it ?
Of course , we did .
Its psychosonic mental energy commanded us to do just that .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Finally , I must impress upon my former colleagues that real Americans do not pledge fealty to a strongman .
They do not get down on their knees to kiss the boots of an elected official while crying , “ Oh , I love you so much , mwah , mwah , mwah , such a nice boot , I love this boot , ” until , out of embarrassment , an aide has to slowly pry them off the guy ’ s leg .
And then everyone is just kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hell is that guy ’ s problem ?
Is he just obsessed with shoes , or what ?
Americans don ’ t do that .
They don ’ t even like shoes that much .
Ultimately , the rank partisanship of our current era is what the Founding Fathers feared most .
Well , except for John Jay .
He was terrified of goblins .
Benjamin Franklin also thought goblins were real , and James Madison was scared of goblins , too .
Also , John Hancock and Alexander Hamilton really talked about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Come to think of it , almost all of the Founding Fathers were really scared of goblins .
But after that came hatred of partisanship .
And fear of vampires .
In closing , today I depart from the party I once loved so much with great anxiety for the future of our country but also an abiding faith in the ability of our citizens to rise above their petty disagreements and give me a multimillion-dollar contract at a cable news network .
We , as a nation , have blindly forgiven far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I sincerely believe we can do it again .
All that it takes is everyone suffering severe head trauma and forgetting the past forty years of my actions and beliefs .
Then , and only then , can we transcend the divisiveness of the current moment and move on to a glorious new world in which I can afford a nice renovation of my kitchen , with one of those refrigerators that ’ s built right into the wooden cabinetry .

For decades, I have been known as one of the most significant voices in the Republican Party. I have advised the Bushes. I’ve aided the Quayles. I’ve tenderly kissed the Cheneys. But today I come to you to reveal that I am leaving this beloved party of mine—the party that educated me, housed me, tickled me, and dressed me up as a donkey and forced me to run drunkenly through the streets of Iowa to scare voters in the 1984 Presidential election.
It is not easy for me to say this, because the G.O.P. raised me. I grew up being fed fresh-baked cookies by George H. W. Bush every day after school. I was burped as a baby by Ronald Reagan. Dr. Henry Kissinger himself delivered me and slapped my rear in the delivery room. My mother and my father were Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon.
Yet I cannot stand idly by and watch as these crooks take over the party I love. I cannot abide this coarsening of discourse, and so on and so forth, etc., etc. Here are the reasons that I am leaving the Republican Party.
Firstly, our country is being ruthlessly divided by the Commander-in-Chief. Brother pitted against brother, cat against dog, exterminator against cockroach, sentient robot against mad inventor. Americans must accept that, no matter our particular beliefs, we are all citizens of the United States—whether we be Republican or Democrat, Canadian or Bulgarian, Mesopotamian or Sumerian.
Secondly, as an elder statesman, I recall a kinder, more genteel time in Congress, when Democrats and Republicans not only worked together but were, in fact, fused into a single amorphous entity, composed of writhing flesh and gravel-grasping tendrils, which governed the entire nation through fear and its hive-mind-like consciousness. Did we live in abject horror of that grotesque bipartisan creature, as it rolled through the Senate, destroying podiums and devouring congressional aides to sate its blind lust for power? Yes. But did we respect it? Of course, we did. Its psychosonic mental energy commanded us to do just that.
That’s what being American used to mean.
Finally, I must impress upon my former colleagues that real Americans do not pledge fealty to a strongman. They do not get down on their knees to kiss the boots of an elected official while crying, “Oh, I love you so much, mwah, mwah, mwah, such a nice boot, I love this boot,” until, out of embarrassment, an aide has to slowly pry them off the guy’s leg. And then everyone is just kind of standing around, wondering, What the hell is that guy’s problem? Is he just obsessed with shoes, or what? Americans don’t do that. They don’t even like shoes that much.
Ultimately, the rank partisanship of our current era is what the Founding Fathers feared most. Well, except for John Jay. He was terrified of goblins. Benjamin Franklin also thought goblins were real, and James Madison was scared of goblins, too. Also, John Hancock and Alexander Hamilton really talked about goblins a lot in their journals. Come to think of it, almost all of the Founding Fathers were really scared of goblins. But after that came hatred of partisanship. And fear of vampires.
In closing, today I depart from the party I once loved so much with great anxiety for the future of our country but also an abiding faith in the ability of our citizens to rise above their petty disagreements and give me a multimillion-dollar contract at a cable news network. We, as a nation, have blindly forgiven far worse than what I’ve done, and I sincerely believe we can do it again. All that it takes is everyone suffering severe head trauma and forgetting the past forty years of my actions and beliefs. Then, and only then, can we transcend the divisiveness of the current moment and move on to a glorious new world in which I can afford a nice renovation of my kitchen, with one of those refrigerators that’s built right into the wooden cabinetry.
God bless you all.


newyorker--2020-10-28--Will Florida Decide the Presidential Race or Throw It Into Confusion?

In Florida , election officials say there ’ s a good chance that they will have the overwhelming majority of ballots counted by midnight on November 3rd .
And while pollsters believe that Biden can plausibly win the Presidency without winning Florida ’ s twenty-nine electoral votes , they are confident that President Donald Trump can not .
Jim Messina , who ran President Obama ’ s reëlection campaign , in 2012 , told me that he has run simulations of some sixty-six thousand possible electoral outcomes , and in none of them did Trump win without capturing Florida .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ If Biden can win Florida early on Election Night , it ’ s over.
” Many of the big swing states , like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin , may need several hours , or even days , to declare a winner .
That ’ s because state laws do not allow mail-in and absentee ballots to be counted until Election Day—even as mail-in ballots are surging amid the COVID-19 pandemic .
But in Florida mail-in ballots are being counted as they arrive—meaning that , unless an unexpectedly large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day , state officials will post the tally of mail-in votes shortly after the polls close , at 7 P.M. At the request of county election supervisors , Governor Ron DeSantis agreed to allow them to begin counting ballots weeks earlier than usual .
The volume has already set records : more than three million mail-in ballots have been received , in addition to about two million early votes cast in person .
In all likelihood , more than half of Florida ’ s ballots will be cast before Election Day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast in person should proceed quickly .
Wesley Wilcox , the supervisor of elections in Marion County , in the northern part of the state , hopes that most will be counted by late Tuesday evening .
“ The vast majority will be done by 9 P.M. , and that will be true of most counties , ” Wilcox , who is the incoming president of the state ’ s association of election supervisors , told me .
“ Usually , by 11 P.M. we are out of here—that ’ s my hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , where the tabulation of mail-in ballots won ’ t begin until Election Day , things may not be so simple .
Ever since the pandemic began , Democratic leaders have feared that a substantial majority of Republican voters would cast ballots in person on Election Day .
( In Florida , Democrats lead Republicans by a huge margin in mail-in votes , and Republicans have a sizable lead in early voting . )
If Trump endorses the tally of in-person votes and dismisses the mail-in ballots as fraudulent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could claim victory that night .
Such an outcome could set the stage for a bitter and protracted postelection dispute .
If Trump has already lost Florida , though , those complaints are likely to carry much less weight , even with his supporters .
It was precisely the desire to deliver such a decisive blow that prompted Michael Bloomberg , the businessman and former mayor of New York , to pledge a hundred million dollars to support Biden ’ s candidacy in Florida .
“ He doesn ’ t want there to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a prominent Democratic lawyer in Fort Lauderdale , told me .
So far , the Bloomberg organization is spending a large chunk of its money to pay an army of people to canvass for Biden door to door .
But the knockout scenario assumes two things : Biden wins Florida by a convincing margin , and there are no major disputes about the tally .
Although Biden is ahead in most statewide polls , his lead is typically not much larger than the margin of error .
And Florida has experienced balloting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2000 , when George W. Bush and Al Gore finished with nearly identical totals , initiating a long and vicious fight .
Florida remains deeply polarized , and statewide races have continued to be decided by razor-thin margins .
The other factor that has strained Florida elections is voter suppression , which has been a key component in the Republican Party ’ s quest to become the state ’ s dominant party .
In the past decade , G.O.P .
leaders have learned that lower turnouts usually help their candidates , and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people to vote .
In 2019 , the Republican-dominated legislature eviscerated an amendment to the state constitution that granted voting rights to most nonviolent felons who had completed their sentences .
On October 14th , the office of Laurel Lee , the secretary of state , sent a letter to county election supervisors informing them that every early-voting drop box should be protected by a security guard around the clock .
( County governments have placed hundreds of boxes around the state ; most are emptied and locked at the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic leaders claimed that Lee , a Republican appointee , is trying to reduce the number of early-voting sites , because many counties do not have the manpower to protect them .
In any case , many election supervisors appear to have ignored her missive .
Voting by mail has gone smoothly so far .
Under state law , voters must place their completed ballot in a signed envelope and drop it in the mail .
When the ballot is received , the signature on the envelope is compared with the voter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the signatures match , the envelope is opened and the ballot counted .
If the signatures seem mismatched , the unopened ballot is set aside and the voter is contacted and given a chance to fix the problem .
If the voter can not be reached , the ballot is examined by the local canvassing board—made up of the county election supervisor , a judge , and a county commissioner .
An adviser from each of the campaigns is also allowed to express an opinion .
The ballot is thrown out only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is invalid .
“ Unless there is a good reason to reject a ballot , we don ’ t reject a ballot , ” Mark Earley , the supervisor of elections in Leon County , which includes Tallahassee , told me .
According to Earley , more than fifty thousand early ballots have been checked in his county , and only a hundred have issues awaiting resolution .
Lawyers for Trump have been more aggressive than Biden ’ s lawyers in challenging ballots , but they have been ineffective .
When I spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me that the Trump lawyers had contested signatures on ten ballots so far ; all ten were examined and counted , he said .
In Broward County , which includes Fort Lauderdale , lawyers for the Trump campaign challenged fifteen random signatures , in what they described as an effort to test the system .
All fifteen were accepted .
But there are troubling signs ahead .
In Duval County , which includes Jacksonville , the Republican-dominated canvassing board has been barring people from filming while it considers problematic ballots .
Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such contested issues—but in Florida more than two decades of solid Republican control has made that route deeply uncertain .
Berger , the Democratic lawyer in Fort Lauderdale , said that the Biden campaign will deploy hundreds of lawyers around the state to handle challenges on Election Day .
“ We are trying to prevent things from becoming totally insane , ” he said .
The likeliest cause of insanity will be a very tight election .
Trump has to win in Florida , and , if he ’ s within reach , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One possibility is that all votes will not be counted .
Nearly four million people in Florida have already voted by mail , but some two million more have requested ballots and not yet returned them .
There is a real possibility that their ballots won ’ t be delivered by November 3rd , not least because of Trump ’ s attempt to cripple the U.S .
Postal Service .
In 2018 , when Rick Scott ran for a U.S. Senate seat against the incumbent , Bill Nelson , some fifteen thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Election Day—a number larger than Scott ’ s margin of victory .
If the vote count is close this year , fights will likely arise from every kind of ballot anomaly , including mismatched signatures and missing postmarks .
In 2018 , some eleven thousand ballots were rejected for such problems .

By the time Election Day is over, all the votes may not be counted. But there may be at least one way to know whether Joe Biden will be President—if he decisively wins the state of Florida.
In Florida, election officials say there’s a good chance that they will have the overwhelming majority of ballots counted by midnight on November 3rd. And while pollsters believe that Biden can plausibly win the Presidency without winning Florida’s twenty-nine electoral votes, they are confident that President Donald Trump cannot. Jim Messina, who ran President Obama’s reëlection campaign, in 2012, told me that he has run simulations of some sixty-six thousand possible electoral outcomes, and in none of them did Trump win without capturing Florida. “It’s just the math,” he said. “If Biden can win Florida early on Election Night, it’s over.”
Many of the big swing states, like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, may need several hours, or even days, to declare a winner. That’s because state laws do not allow mail-in and absentee ballots to be counted until Election Day—even as mail-in ballots are surging amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
But in Florida mail-in ballots are being counted as they arrive—meaning that, unless an unexpectedly large wave of ballots arrives by mail on Election Day, state officials will post the tally of mail-in votes shortly after the polls close, at 7 P.M. At the request of county election supervisors, Governor Ron DeSantis agreed to allow them to begin counting ballots weeks earlier than usual. The volume has already set records: more than three million mail-in ballots have been received, in addition to about two million early votes cast in person. In all likelihood, more than half of Florida’s ballots will be cast before Election Day.
In theory, the tabulation of ballots cast in person should proceed quickly. Wesley Wilcox, the supervisor of elections in Marion County, in the northern part of the state, hopes that most will be counted by late Tuesday evening. “The vast majority will be done by 9 P.M., and that will be true of most counties,” Wilcox, who is the incoming president of the state’s association of election supervisors, told me. “Usually, by 11 P.M. we are out of here—that’s my hope and prayer.”
But, in states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where the tabulation of mail-in ballots won’t begin until Election Day, things may not be so simple. Ever since the pandemic began, Democratic leaders have feared that a substantial majority of Republican voters would cast ballots in person on Election Day. (In Florida, Democrats lead Republicans by a huge margin in mail-in votes, and Republicans have a sizable lead in early voting.) If Trump endorses the tally of in-person votes and dismisses the mail-in ballots as fraudulent before they are even counted, he could claim victory that night. Such an outcome could set the stage for a bitter and protracted postelection dispute.
If Trump has already lost Florida, though, those complaints are likely to carry much less weight, even with his supporters. It was precisely the desire to deliver such a decisive blow that prompted Michael Bloomberg, the businessman and former mayor of New York, to pledge a hundred million dollars to support Biden’s candidacy in Florida. “He doesn’t want there to be any doubt,” Mitchell Berger, a prominent Democratic lawyer in Fort Lauderdale, told me. So far, the Bloomberg organization is spending a large chunk of its money to pay an army of people to canvass for Biden door to door.
But the knockout scenario assumes two things: Biden wins Florida by a convincing margin, and there are no major disputes about the tally. Although Biden is ahead in most statewide polls, his lead is typically not much larger than the margin of error. And Florida has experienced balloting problems in nearly every statewide election since 2000, when George W. Bush and Al Gore finished with nearly identical totals, initiating a long and vicious fight. Florida remains deeply polarized, and statewide races have continued to be decided by razor-thin margins.
The other factor that has strained Florida elections is voter suppression, which has been a key component in the Republican Party’s quest to become the state’s dominant party. In the past decade, G.O.P. leaders have learned that lower turnouts usually help their candidates, and they have pushed laws to make it harder for people to vote. In 2019, the Republican-dominated legislature eviscerated an amendment to the state constitution that granted voting rights to most nonviolent felons who had completed their sentences. On October 14th, the office of Laurel Lee, the secretary of state, sent a letter to county election supervisors informing them that every early-voting drop box should be protected by a security guard around the clock. (County governments have placed hundreds of boxes around the state; most are emptied and locked at the end of the day’s voting.) Democratic leaders claimed that Lee, a Republican appointee, is trying to reduce the number of early-voting sites, because many counties do not have the manpower to protect them. In any case, many election supervisors appear to have ignored her missive.
Voting by mail has gone smoothly so far. Under state law, voters must place their completed ballot in a signed envelope and drop it in the mail. When the ballot is received, the signature on the envelope is compared with the voter’s signature on her registration record. If the signatures match, the envelope is opened and the ballot counted. If the signatures seem mismatched, the unopened ballot is set aside and the voter is contacted and given a chance to fix the problem. If the voter cannot be reached, the ballot is examined by the local canvassing board—made up of the county election supervisor, a judge, and a county commissioner. An adviser from each of the campaigns is also allowed to express an opinion. The ballot is thrown out only if the canvassing board decides that it is invalid. “Unless there is a good reason to reject a ballot, we don’t reject a ballot,” Mark Earley, the supervisor of elections in Leon County, which includes Tallahassee, told me.


newyorker--2020-10-28--On Climate Change, We’re Entirely Out of Margin

We didn ’ t , of course , and we have poured more carbon into the atmosphere since 1988 than in all the years before .
The atmospheric concentration of CO has topped four hundred and fifteen p.p.m.—that ’ s much too high , something that we know from a thousand indicators .
Last week came the news that the Arctic is stubbornly refusing to refreeze at its normal rate as the long northern night descends .
The second biggest fire in Colorado history has closed Rocky Mountain National Park .
California is white-knuckling its way through yet another siege @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season that refuses to end .
Tropical Storm Zeta formed in the Gulf of Mexico—and the next big storm will take us deeper into the Greek alphabet than we ’ ve ever gone before .
And that ’ s just in the one per cent of the planet ’ s surface that ’ s covered by the continental United States .
It ’ s a lot worse in a lot of other places , because they lack the money that keeps us fairly resilient .
In Vietnam this week , rainfall described as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —so heavy that “ it far exceeded the government ’ s midrange predictions of how climate change might increase precipitation in central Vietnam by the end of this century ” —has left more than a hundred people dead .
“ Everywhere we look , homes , roads , and infrastructure have been submerged , ” the head of Vietnam ’ s Red Cross said .
We are out of space in the atmosphere , and we are out of time on the clock .
The U.S. government , and the world , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and so now we must move far faster than is comfortable or convenient .
Plenty of pundits treated it as a “ gaffe ” when , in the last Presidential debate , Joe Biden said that we would need to “ transition ” away from oil .
But that ’ s not a gaffe ; it ’ s just the mildest sort of truth-telling .
Because we ’ ve wasted so much time , that transition has to be sharp , and it has to be global .
We are capable of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of renewable energy means that , if we wanted to go all out , we could make rapid progress .
But this is not an offer that will last forever ; indeed , it won ’ t last four more years .
In the famous story of the king who offered a reward to one of his advisers , the man asked for a single grain of wheat on the first square of a chessboard , and two on the next square , and four on the next , and , by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wheat than would ever be grown on the planet .
The climate is not changing exponentially—the accelerating linear growth in heating is bad enough—but the principle is the same .
Long before you expect it , you run out of room .
The entire climate debate has unfurled in real , living time—I was born the year after that first monitor went up on Mauna Loa .
We think we always have time and space to change , but in this case we do not .
If November 3rd doesn ’ t mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transformation , subsequent November Tuesdays will be less important , not more—our leverage will shrink , our chance at really affecting the outcome will diminish .
This is it .
Climate change “ is the No .
1 issue facing humanity , and it ’ s the No .
1 issue for me , ” Biden said in an interview on Saturday .
With luck , we ’ ll get a chance to find out if the second half of that statement is true .
The first half is already clear .
Moira @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked on many fights ( and who just wrote a fascinating piece about one of her relatives , the Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett ) , is the climate and finance director at the N.G.O .
Amazon Watch .
She has dedicated her career to human-rights and climate-justice advocacy , with a focus on supporting social movements in Latin America .
We see satellite pictures of smoke over the Amazon .
What ’ s actually going on down on the ground to set these fires in motion ?
The Amazon burning season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phenomenon now greatly exacerbated by the policies of the current Brazilian President .
Loggers and land grabbers work in tandem to plunder ancient trees ; then they torch vast forests for the benefit of a handful of powerful agribusiness interests .
The number of Amazon fires set in 2020 has already exceeded those set last year , and , while 2019 ’ s notorious blazes mostly burned previously deforested areas , 2020 ’ s fires are encroaching on primary forests .
The flames threatening the Amazon are as political and financial as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bolsonaro regime has worked to erase a generation of socio-environmental protections by slashing budgets , gutting institutions , and openly targeting communities that defend the rain forest .
Violence , land invasions , arson , and illegal logging and mining have spiked on indigenous lands and other protected forests , driven by mafias whose actions are explicitly encouraged by Bolsonaro .
The rationale that underpins this behavior is that global consumers and investors will buy the Amazon ’ s conflict commodities no matter what .
How are corporations like Cargill , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Amazon destruction ?
Typically , cattle ranches operate for a few years after the forest is cleared by fire , then soy producers move in .
Sometimes soy is the first product grown ; a Brazilian study showed that soy-silo facilities of major U.S.-based commodity traders Cargill and Bunge overlapped with the epicenters of the 2019 fires .
Amazon destruction is not just an issue of forest loss but is inextricably linked to indigenous-rights abuses .
Our new report documents how Cargill appears to have purchased soy from producers occupying a traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the indigenous community has tried to secure a land title .
BlackRock is the world ’ s largest money manager and , as such , holds shares in almost every publicly traded company in the world , including agribusiness companies operating in the Amazon .
Despite paying lip service to the importance of environmental sustainability , BlackRock continues to be a major financier of climate-destroying industries around the world ; the Amazon is no exception .
Recent reports from Amazon Watch show it ’ s a top investor in companies linked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuses in the Amazon rain forest .
Do their execs know what ’ s happening ?
Can they be shamed into stopping ?
At Amazon Watch , we ’ re making sure the execs know what ’ s happening , both by communicating directly with leadership at these firms and by collaborating with other organizations and alliances to hold them accountable .
And it ’ s beginning to work !
Already , we ’ ve seen dozens of financial firms ( albeit not yet behemoths like BlackRock ) threaten to withdraw investments from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies like the beef producer J.B.S .
make new ( albeit not strong enough ) commitments to clean up supply chains .
We ’ ve also seen the behemoths start to shift , though still in insufficient ways .
That ’ s why Amazon Watch and our partners in the BlackRock ’ s Big Problem campaign and the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition have been turning up the heat on BlackRock all year , and we ’ re starting to see results .
In mid-October , BlackRock reversed a decade-long pattern of voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Procter & Gamble step up transparency efforts to address deforestation and forest degradation in its supply chains .
This comes after sustained public pressure from activists across the world , and shows that we can shame them into stopping .
For academics : a big new drive is under way to convince the pension giant T.I.A.A .
to divest from fossil fuels .
Why would one fund one ’ s retirement by investing in companies that guarantee that there won ’ t be a planet worth retiring on ?
I know that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person can actually listen to , but : Debra Rienstra , a creative-writing and English professor at Michigan ’ s Calvin College , hosts “ Refugia , ” which explores the overlaps between Christianity and traditions ranging from indigenous spirituality to conservation biology—and looks for quiet spots where creatures , people included , might find some peace of mind .
Few members of the U.S. Senate have been more forthright in addressing the climate crisis than Oregon ’ s Jeff Merkley .
Last week , he introduced two new bills that would stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that would use America ’ s powerful position in international financial institutions , such as the I.M.F.
, to insure that they did likewise .
“ Fossil-fuel investments play a key role in accelerating climate chaos , ” Merkley said , in a statement .
“ It ’ s time to prioritize the interests of the American people and the planet above the wishes of fossil-fuel C.E.O.s who want to hold our economy hostage.
” Speaking of senators , the writer Kate Aronoff asks a very straightforward question : Why does Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then donate lots of money to the very politicians who will do what they can to make sure progress never happens ?

In 1959, when humans began measuring the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, there was still some margin. That first instrument, set up on the side of Hawaii’s Mauna Loa volcano, showed that the air contained about three hundred and fifteen parts per million of CO 2 , up from two hundred and eighty p.p.m. before the Industrial Revolution. Worrisome, but not yet critical. In 1988, when the NASA scientist James Hansen first alerted the public to the climate crisis, that number had grown to three hundred and fifty p.p.m., which we’ve since learned is about the upper safe limit. Even then, though, we had a little margin, at least of time: the full effects of the heating had not yet begun to manifest in ways that altered our lives. If we’d acted swiftly, we could have limited the damage dramatically.
We didn’t, of course, and we have poured more carbon into the atmosphere since 1988 than in all the years before. The atmospheric concentration of CO 2 has topped four hundred and fifteen p.p.m.—that’s much too high, something that we know from a thousand indicators. Last week came the news that the Arctic is stubbornly refusing to refreeze at its normal rate as the long northern night descends. The second biggest fire in Colorado history has closed Rocky Mountain National Park. California is white-knuckling its way through yet another siege of high winds in a record fire season that refuses to end. Tropical Storm Zeta formed in the Gulf of Mexico—and the next big storm will take us deeper into the Greek alphabet than we’ve ever gone before. And that’s just in the one per cent of the planet’s surface that’s covered by the continental United States. It’s a lot worse in a lot of other places, because they lack the money that keeps us fairly resilient. In Vietnam this week, rainfall described as “extraordinarily out of the normal”—so heavy that “it far exceeded the government’s midrange predictions of how climate change might increase precipitation in central Vietnam by the end of this century”—has left more than a hundred people dead. “Everywhere we look, homes, roads, and infrastructure have been submerged,” the head of Vietnam’s Red Cross said.
We are out of space in the atmosphere, and we are out of time on the clock. The U.S. government, and the world, have done far too little on climate change, and so now we must move far faster than is comfortable or convenient. Plenty of pundits treated it as a “gaffe” when, in the last Presidential debate, Joe Biden said that we would need to “transition” away from oil. But that’s not a gaffe; it’s just the mildest sort of truth-telling. Because we’ve wasted so much time, that transition has to be sharp, and it has to be global. We are capable of doing it—the rapid fall in the price of renewable energy means that, if we wanted to go all out, we could make rapid progress. But this is not an offer that will last forever; indeed, it won’t last four more years.
In the famous story of the king who offered a reward to one of his advisers, the man asked for a single grain of wheat on the first square of a chessboard, and two on the next square, and four on the next, and, by the last doubling, he was due more wheat than would ever be grown on the planet. The climate is not changing exponentially—the accelerating linear growth in heating is bad enough—but the principle is the same. Long before you expect it, you run out of room. The entire climate debate has unfurled in real, living time—I was born the year after that first monitor went up on Mauna Loa. We think we always have time and space to change, but in this case we do not. If November 3rd doesn’t mark the start of a mighty effort at transformation, subsequent November Tuesdays will be less important, not more—our leverage will shrink, our chance at really affecting the outcome will diminish. This is it. Climate change “is the No. 1 issue facing humanity, and it’s the No. 1 issue for me,” Biden said in an interview on Saturday. With luck, we’ll get a chance to find out if the second half of that statement is true. The first half is already clear.
Passing the Mic
Moira Birss, with whom I’ve worked on many fights (and who just wrote a fascinating piece about one of her relatives, the Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett), is the climate and finance director at the N.G.O. Amazon Watch. She has dedicated her career to human-rights and climate-justice advocacy, with a focus on supporting social movements in Latin America.
We see satellite pictures of smoke over the Amazon. What’s actually going on down on the ground to set these fires in motion?
The Amazon burning season has, unfortunately, become an annual phenomenon now greatly exacerbated by the policies of the current Brazilian President. Loggers and land grabbers work in tandem to plunder ancient trees; then they torch vast forests for the benefit of a handful of powerful agribusiness interests. The number of Amazon fires set in 2020 has already exceeded those set last year, and, while 2019’s notorious blazes mostly burned previously deforested areas, 2020’s fires are encroaching on primary forests.
The flames threatening the Amazon are as political and financial as they are physical. Since taking power, the Bolsonaro regime has worked to erase a generation of socio-environmental protections by slashing budgets, gutting institutions, and openly targeting communities that defend the rain forest. Violence, land invasions, arson, and illegal logging and mining have spiked on indigenous lands and other protected forests, driven by mafias whose actions are explicitly encouraged by Bolsonaro.
The rationale that underpins this behavior is that global consumers and investors will buy the Amazon’s conflict commodities no matter what.
How are corporations like Cargill, or asset managers like BlackRock, tied in to Amazon destruction?
Typically, cattle ranches operate for a few years after the forest is cleared by fire, then soy producers move in. Sometimes soy is the first product grown; a Brazilian study showed that soy-silo facilities of major U.S.-based commodity traders Cargill and Bunge overlapped with the epicenters of the 2019 fires.
Amazon destruction is not just an issue of forest loss but is inextricably linked to indigenous-rights abuses. Our new report documents how Cargill appears to have purchased soy from producers occupying a traditional indigenous territory in the Brazilian Amazon for which the indigenous community has tried to secure a land title.
BlackRock is the world’s largest money manager and, as such, holds shares in almost every publicly traded company in the world, including agribusiness companies operating in the Amazon. Despite paying lip service to the importance of environmental sustainability, BlackRock continues to be a major financier of climate-destroying industries around the world; the Amazon is no exception. Recent reports from Amazon Watch show it’s a top investor in companies linked to deforestation, fossil-fuel production, and indigenous-rights abuses in the Amazon rain forest.
Do their execs know what’s happening? Can they be shamed into stopping?
At Amazon Watch, we’re making sure the execs know what’s happening, both by communicating directly with leadership at these firms and by collaborating with other organizations and alliances to hold them accountable.
And it’s beginning to work! Already, we’ve seen dozens of financial firms (albeit not yet behemoths like BlackRock) threaten to withdraw investments from agribusiness companies if deforestation continues, and companies like the beef producer J.B.S. make new (albeit not strong enough) commitments to clean up supply chains.
We’ve also seen the behemoths start to shift, though still in insufficient ways. That’s why Amazon Watch and our partners in the BlackRock’s Big Problem campaign and the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition have been turning up the heat on BlackRock all year, and we’re starting to see results. In mid-October, BlackRock reversed a decade-long pattern of voting against climate-friendly shareholder resolutions by insisting that Procter & Gamble step up transparency efforts to address deforestation and forest degradation in its supply chains. This comes after sustained public pressure from activists across the world, and shows that we can shame them into stopping.
Climate School
For academics: a big new drive is under way to convince the pension giant T.I.A.A. to divest from fossil fuels. Why would one fund one’s retirement by investing in companies that guarantee that there won’t be a planet worth retiring on?


newyorker--2020-10-28--What the Democrats Achieve By Threatening to Pack the Supreme Court

This week , Amy Coney Barrett begins her life-tenured appointment as the newest Supreme Court Justice .
If she lives as long as did Ruth Bader Ginsburg , whom she replaces , she could serve on the Court for four decades .
Barrett ’ s confirmation may be the last act of a Republican majority for years .
In Barrett ’ s first days as a Justice , the election results will likely flip the party of the President and of the Senate that swiftly confirmed her .
Indeed , as it became increasingly clear this fall that the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houses of Congress , it became all the more important for the Republicans to push through a Court confirmation while they could .
As Mitch McConnell , the Senate Majority Leader , put it , on Sunday , “ a lot of what we ’ ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election , ” but Democrats “ won ’ t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.
” Democrats certainly can ’ t undo Barrett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the expectation of being able to wield power soon , they have stepped up a discussion of “ court-packing , ” in order to undermine a 6–3 conservative majority that otherwise may be entrenched for a generation .
Some have protested that court-packing would be an abuse of power , but political maneuvering over Court seats dates to the beginning of the country .
When Congress established the Supreme Court , in 1789 , it stipulated that the Court should have six Justices .
Twelve years later , Thomas Jefferson won a bitterly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and control of Congress flipped from Adams ’ s Federalist Party to Jefferson ’ s Democratic-Republicans .
During the lame-duck Congress , the Federalists attempted to hold onto some power by legislating that the next Justice to retire would not be replaced , reducing the Court ’ s total number to five .
But Jefferson and the new Congress changed the number back to six and eventually added another seat .
During the following decades , the number of Justices rose to nine , and then to ten , and then came back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same number of Justices since 1869 , but it is not constitutionally fixed , and history has shown that it is Congress ’ s prerogative , subject to the President ’ s veto , to add to or subtract from the seats on the Court .
With that knowledge , President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously proposed his court-packing plan .
He did so , in 1937 , in the midst of the Great Depression , out of desperation .
In an evening radio address , F.D.R .
described the three branches of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and said that “ two of the horses are pulling in unison today ; the third is not.
” That third horse was a conservative , aging Supreme Court , which kept striking down progressive measures enacted by Congress and the F.D.R .
Administration to address the dire economy and protect vulnerable workers .
The Court had invalidated emergency New Deal legislation that authorized the President to regulate industries ’ maximum work hours and minimum wages and that affirmed labor unions ’ rights to organize .
The Court had similarly struck down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal mines and requiring railroad companies to provide retirement and pension plans for employees .
F.D.R .
declared that “ we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.
” He proposed to “ infuse new blood ” into the courts , in order to prevent “ hardening of the judicial arteries , ” by introducing legislation that would allow a new judicial appointment each time a Justice or a federal judge reached the age of seventy and chose not to retire .
What happened next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the potentially radical conservatism of a new six-Justice majority has brought court-packing ideas back into vogue .
Within weeks of F.D.R.
’ s proposal to pack the Court , one Justice who had initially sided with the conservative bloc , Owen Roberts , switched his vote in a key constitutional case , so that , instead of striking down a Washington State minimum-wage law , the Court upheld it .
In short order , the Court upheld important New Deal measures on unfair labor practices and Social Security .
Congress then failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have added as many as six Justices , and left the Court intact .
It is widely believed that what became known as the “ switch in time that saved nine ” ushered in an era in which court-packing was no longer perceived as necessary .
While the court-packing plan was being debated in Congress , Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes , a swing vote on the Court , opposed it as a menace to the integrity of the institution in a letter that was also approved by Justice Willis Van Devanter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a liberal .
If Congress once again considers court-packing , it would not be surprising if some of today ’ s Justices voiced similar objections .
One likely candidate is Chief Justice John Roberts , who once rebuked President Trump ’ s partisan view of the courts by insisting that “ we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges , Bush judges or Clinton judges.
” If Democrats were to increase the number of Justices at this politically polarized moment , in reaction to the highly contentious and partisan events that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it would not merely dilute the power of the current conservative bloc .
It would also constitute such a frank acknowledgement of partisanship as the main determinant of the Court ’ s decisions that even the tiniest fig leaf protecting the Court ’ s remaining aura of impartiality would be ripped away .
Whether liberal or conservative , Justices have an institutional and personal interest in keeping that fig leaf .
Justice Ginsburg did not mince words when she told NPR ’ s Nina Totenberg , in 2019 , “ If anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be that—one side saying , ‘ When we ’ re in power , we ’ re going to enlarge the number of judges , so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.
’ ” Joe Biden appears to be channelling a similar mind-set in stopping short of endorsing court-packing .
In an interview on “ 60 Minutes , ” which aired on Sunday , he said , “ The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets whatever they want.
” Having previously indicated that he was “ not a fan ” of court-packing , Biden promised that , if elected , he would convene a bipartisan commission of constitutional scholars to recommend court-reform ideas , including “ a number of alternatives that go well beyond packing ” the Court .
Such other options may include term limits .
Last month , House Democrats introduced a bill that proposes a new Supreme Court appointment every two years , for a nonrenewable eighteen-year term .
The current Justices would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their life tenure , but the two-year cycle would take effect immediately without regard to their retirements .
The Constitution clearly does allow Congress to determine the number of seats on the Supreme Court .
But any proposal to limit Justices ’ terms through legislation , rather than a constitutional amendment , would have to contend with the long-established reading of Article III ’ s statement that federal judges “ shall hold their offices during good behaviour ” to require life tenure .
Another proposal that a commission might consider is a requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supermajority , rather than a bare majority of five Justices .
That reform would reduce the Court ’ s power by making it harder for it to act , but its constitutionality would also be debated if it were attempted by mere statute .
Yet another proposal , which perhaps strikes deepest into the heart of the Court ’ s power , is called “ jurisdiction stripping ” : Congress could legislate to remove certain controversial subjects from the purview of the federal courts .
The effect would be to take some power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power in the political branches , by freeing those branches to act without the prospect of the Court striking down their efforts .
The uphill climb for these proposals is that Americans tend to envision the Court as properly stepping in to protect rights from across the political spectrum , from the right to have an abortion to the right to bear arms , by invalidating legislative or executive actions that impinge on them .
And if any of these reforms are enacted , we can expect a pitched battle of constitutional litigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked to decide , self-reflexively , whether it is constitutional for other branches to strip its power to have the last word on what is constitutional .
As Justice Barrett moves into the chambers that she will occupy for as long as she wishes , she will immediately immerse herself in questions pending in the Court this term , which include the legality of the Affordable Care Act ; Trump ’ s attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from state population counts for apportioning House seats ; Trump ’ s ability to use military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and , of course , an onslaught of litigation on voting in the election , which may well include contesting the election results .
In the coming months , a jaded public will be on the lookout for signs of partisanship from Barrett in particular , and from the Court as a whole .
How the Court comports itself at this fragile time will affect its future ability to help secure the public ’ s faith in stable and democratic government under the rule of law .
The Court ’ s decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impetus for a Democratic Congress and President to push reforms to limit its power .
Biden and the Democrats have reason to fear that pursuing the court-packing path could lead Republicans to eventually retaliate , which would be to the ultimate detriment of the institution of the Court and the legitimacy of its decisions .
But a Supreme Court with a vested interest in avoiding new constraints on its own power has to take seriously the threat of growing support for court-packing or term limits .
Under this credible threat , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justices were to give legal effect to extreme views over a more moderate approach .
It would be particularly unexpected if the Court were to invalidate the entirety of the Affordable Care Act .
Arguably , the Court ’ s previous upholding of that law , in 2012 , and its decisions this past spring , with one or more conservative Justices voting with the liberal Justices , on abortion , immigration , Trump ’ s financial records , and gay and transgender rights , have already begun the longer-term maneuvers to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not any outright “ switch.
” Ironically , in order to attempt to demonstrate that the Supreme Court is independent of politics , the Justices will need to be attentive to the realities of this political moment .
F.D.R .
said that what we should want is an independent judiciary , but added that “ it does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts which are universally recognized.
” If today ’ s majority-conservative Court does not show early signs of moderation , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historic fact of the twenty-twenties .
This possibility can be seen as pressure , coercion , or threat ; regardless , it will lead to a negotiation between the Court and the other coequal branches under the power relations distributed by the Constitution , elections , and democracy .
The dialogue begins in earnest now , with the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
Read More About the 2020 Election • The fall and rise of Kamala Harris .
• When a sitting President threatens to delay a sacrosanct American ritual like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • To understand the path Donald Trump has taken to the 2020 election , look at what he has provided the executive class .
• What happens if Trump fights the election results ?
• The refusal by Mitch McConnell to rein in Trump is looking riskier than ever .
• Sign up for our election newsletter for insight and analysis from our reporters and columnists .

This week, Amy Coney Barrett begins her life-tenured appointment as the newest Supreme Court Justice. If she lives as long as did Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom she replaces, she could serve on the Court for four decades. Barrett’s confirmation may be the last act of a Republican majority for years. In Barrett’s first days as a Justice, the election results will likely flip the party of the President and of the Senate that swiftly confirmed her. Indeed, as it became increasingly clear this fall that the Democrats would probably win the Presidency and both houses of Congress, it became all the more important for the Republicans to push through a Court confirmation while they could. As Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, put it, on Sunday, “a lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election,” but Democrats “won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.” Democrats certainly can’t undo Barrett’s appointment to the Court, but with the expectation of being able to wield power soon, they have stepped up a discussion of “court-packing,” in order to undermine a 6–3 conservative majority that otherwise may be entrenched for a generation.
Some have protested that court-packing would be an abuse of power, but political maneuvering over Court seats dates to the beginning of the country. When Congress established the Supreme Court, in 1789, it stipulated that the Court should have six Justices. Twelve years later, Thomas Jefferson won a bitterly fought campaign against President John Adams, and control of Congress flipped from Adams’s Federalist Party to Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. During the lame-duck Congress, the Federalists attempted to hold onto some power by legislating that the next Justice to retire would not be replaced, reducing the Court’s total number to five. But Jefferson and the new Congress changed the number back to six and eventually added another seat. During the following decades, the number of Justices rose to nine, and then to ten, and then came back down to nine. Congress has kept the same number of Justices since 1869, but it is not constitutionally fixed, and history has shown that it is Congress’s prerogative, subject to the President’s veto, to add to or subtract from the seats on the Court.
With that knowledge, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously proposed his court-packing plan. He did so, in 1937, in the midst of the Great Depression, out of desperation. In an evening radio address, F.D.R. described the three branches of government as “a three-horse team,” and said that “two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not.” That third horse was a conservative, aging Supreme Court, which kept striking down progressive measures enacted by Congress and the F.D.R. Administration to address the dire economy and protect vulnerable workers. The Court had invalidated emergency New Deal legislation that authorized the President to regulate industries’ maximum work hours and minimum wages and that affirmed labor unions’ rights to organize. The Court had similarly struck down federal laws regulating hours and wages in coal mines and requiring railroad companies to provide retirement and pension plans for employees. F.D.R. declared that “we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.” He proposed to “infuse new blood” into the courts, in order to prevent “hardening of the judicial arteries,” by introducing legislation that would allow a new judicial appointment each time a Justice or a federal judge reached the age of seventy and chose not to retire.
What happened next is instructive today, as panic about the potentially radical conservatism of a new six-Justice majority has brought court-packing ideas back into vogue. Within weeks of F.D.R.’s proposal to pack the Court, one Justice who had initially sided with the conservative bloc, Owen Roberts, switched his vote in a key constitutional case, so that, instead of striking down a Washington State minimum-wage law, the Court upheld it. In short order, the Court upheld important New Deal measures on unfair labor practices and Social Security. Congress then failed to pass the court-packing bill, which would have added as many as six Justices, and left the Court intact. It is widely believed that what became known as the “switch in time that saved nine” ushered in an era in which court-packing was no longer perceived as necessary.
While the court-packing plan was being debated in Congress, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, a swing vote on the Court, opposed it as a menace to the integrity of the institution in a letter that was also approved by Justice Willis Van Devanter, a conservative, and Justice Louis Brandeis, a liberal. If Congress once again considers court-packing, it would not be surprising if some of today’s Justices voiced similar objections. One likely candidate is Chief Justice John Roberts, who once rebuked President Trump’s partisan view of the courts by insisting that “we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” If Democrats were to increase the number of Justices at this politically polarized moment, in reaction to the highly contentious and partisan events that brought us the past three Court appointments, it would not merely dilute the power of the current conservative bloc. It would also constitute such a frank acknowledgement of partisanship as the main determinant of the Court’s decisions that even the tiniest fig leaf protecting the Court’s remaining aura of impartiality would be ripped away. Whether liberal or conservative, Justices have an institutional and personal interest in keeping that fig leaf. Justice Ginsburg did not mince words when she told NPR’s Nina Totenberg, in 2019, “If anything would make the Court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’ ”
Joe Biden appears to be channelling a similar mind-set in stopping short of endorsing court-packing. In an interview on “60 Minutes,” which aired on Sunday, he said, “The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want.” Having previously indicated that he was “not a fan” of court-packing, Biden promised that, if elected, he would convene a bipartisan commission of constitutional scholars to recommend court-reform ideas, including “a number of alternatives that go well beyond packing” the Court. Such other options may include term limits. Last month, House Democrats introduced a bill that proposes a new Supreme Court appointment every two years, for a nonrenewable eighteen-year term. The current Justices would be exempted from the term limit and retain their life tenure, but the two-year cycle would take effect immediately without regard to their retirements. The Constitution clearly does allow Congress to determine the number of seats on the Supreme Court. But any proposal to limit Justices’ terms through legislation, rather than a constitutional amendment, would have to contend with the long-established reading of Article III’s statement that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” to require life tenure.
Another proposal that a commission might consider is a requirement that Court decisions be made by a supermajority, rather than a bare majority of five Justices. That reform would reduce the Court’s power by making it harder for it to act, but its constitutionality would also be debated if it were attempted by mere statute. Yet another proposal, which perhaps strikes deepest into the heart of the Court’s power, is called “jurisdiction stripping”: Congress could legislate to remove certain controversial subjects from the purview of the federal courts. The effect would be to take some power away from the Court and place more power in the political branches, by freeing those branches to act without the prospect of the Court striking down their efforts. The uphill climb for these proposals is that Americans tend to envision the Court as properly stepping in to protect rights from across the political spectrum, from the right to have an abortion to the right to bear arms, by invalidating legislative or executive actions that impinge on them. And if any of these reforms are enacted, we can expect a pitched battle of constitutional litigation about them, with the Court being asked to decide, self-reflexively, whether it is constitutional for other branches to strip its power to have the last word on what is constitutional.
As Justice Barrett moves into the chambers that she will occupy for as long as she wishes, she will immediately immerse herself in questions pending in the Court this term, which include the legality of the Affordable Care Act; Trump’s attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from state population counts for apportioning House seats; Trump’s ability to use military funding to pay for his border wall; and, of course, an onslaught of litigation on voting in the election, which may well include contesting the election results. In the coming months, a jaded public will be on the lookout for signs of partisanship from Barrett in particular, and from the Court as a whole. How the Court comports itself at this fragile time will affect its future ability to help secure the public’s faith in stable and democratic government under the rule of law.


newyorker--2020-10-28--Daily Cartoon: Wednesday, October 28th

Daily Cartoon: Wednesday, October 28th

© 2020 Condé Nast .
All rights reserved .
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement ( @ @ @ @ @ Policy and Cookie Statement ( updated 1/1/20 ) and Your California Privacy Rights .
may @ @ @ @ @ from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with @ @ @ @ @ this site may not be reproduced , distributed , transmitted , cached or otherwise used @ @ @ @ @ written permission of Condé Nast .
Ad Choices

“I had to wait three years, eleven months, twenty days, thirteen hours, and fifty-three minutes to vote.”


newyorker--2020-10-28--Trump Tells Stranded Omaha Supporters That Buses Are Rounding the Turn

OMAHA ( The Borowitz Report ) —Donald J. Trump told supporters who were stranded in freezing temperatures when campaign buses @ @ @ @ @ night that the buses were “ rounding the turn.
” “ The buses will be @ @ @ @ @ Trump said .
“ We are moving very powerfully on buses.
” “ One minute @ @ @ @ @ , and then , suddenly , like magic , there are buses , ” he @ @ @ @ @ ll be a miracle.
” Trump blasted the media for criticizing the absence of buses @ @ @ @ @ fantastic job I ’ ve done on buses.
” “ The other day , a @ @ @ @ @ called me , and said , ‘ Sir , you have the most amazing buses @ @ @ @ @ .
“ But CNN doesn ’ t report that , because they are horrible people.
@ @ @ @ @ the Trump campaign Web site added to the list of the President ’ s first-term @ @ @ @ @ ”

OMAHA (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump told supporters who were stranded in freezing temperatures when campaign buses failed to materialize on Tuesday night that the buses were “rounding the turn.”
“The buses will be there very soon,” Trump said. “We are moving very powerfully on buses.”
“One minute, there are no buses, and then, suddenly, like magic, there are buses,” he said. “It’ll be a miracle.”
Trump blasted the media for criticizing the absence of buses instead of emphasizing the “fantastic job I’ve done on buses.”
“The other day, a very smart and respected man called me, and said, ‘Sir, you have the most amazing buses,’ ” Trump said. “But CNN doesn’t report that, because they are horrible people.”
On Wednesday morning, the Trump campaign Web site added to the list of the President’s first-term accomplishments: “Buses.”