thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-25--FEAR: Witness Mandate On Mail-In Ballots Could Upend Vote In Battleground States

RALEIGH , N.C. ( AP ) — As the pandemic prompts a surge in voting by mail , voters in a handful of states , including the presidential battlegrounds of North Carolina and Wisconsin , are facing a requirement that already is tripping up thousands — the need to have a witness sign their ballot envelope .
A lack of a witness signature or other witness information has emerged as the leading cause of ballots being set aside before being counted in North Carolina , with problems disproportionately affecting Black voters in the state , according to an Associated Press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a process for fixing the omissions , voting rights advocates say the numbers are an early warning sign that the extra step is becoming a barrier that could disenfranchise voters — and a potential source of legal battles in a tight race .
“ People are confused by this whole witness requirement , ” said Barbara Beckert , an advocate for Disability Rights Wisconsin , which was part of a lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged the witness mandate .
“ Voting absentee is complicated .
To get it right , you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules.
” There are early signs that voters are struggling to follow those rules .
In North Carolina , over 200,000 ballots have been returned and processed since early voting began almost three weeks ago .
At least 1,700 couldn ’ t be counted because of lack of a witness name , signature , or address .
That number accounted for nearly half of all ballots that couldn ’ t be accepted through Tuesday , according to State Board of Elections data .
The witness requirement is relatively rare .
Before the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notary or witness signatures with their ballots .
However , several changed their laws to make it easier for voters to cast ballots remotely and avoid the risk of contracting the virus , leaving the total now at eight , including Alabama , Alaska , Louisiana , Mississippi , Missouri , Oklahoma , and Wisconsin , according to the Brennan Center for Justice .
Absentee ballot applications played a prominent role in the investigation of a 2018 congressional election in the state that required a new election .
Workers for a political operative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directed to collect blank or incomplete ballots , forge signatures on them , and even fill in votes for local candidates .
It happened during a time when North Carolina required two signatures or one notary public as a witness .
But advocacy groups say the rules unnecessarily complicate a process for older people , people who live alone , and those with disabilities or chronic health problems .
Several groups and Democrats are among those who have sued over rules in states with the requirement .
In Wisconsin , a federal judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November election .
A judge in South Carolina struck down the state ’ s witness mandate , writing it would only “ increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 ” for vulnerable populations .
On Thursday , a federal appeals court reinstated it , at least temporarily .
“ I live alone and I actually went outside and waited for the first person I saw walking their dog and asked if they could stop for a moment and be my witness , ” Baldwin said , describing her experience voting in the April presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rural community and living alone where that wouldn ’ t an option .
Or living alone and being afraid to let someone in because we ’ re in a pandemic.
” Until this week , the lack of witness information on a North Carolina absentee ballot meant the ballot was essentially canceled , and a second ballot was sent to the voter to fill out , with a witness still required .
Liberal and union-advocacy groups , bankrolled by Democratic groups to challenge absentee rules in court , argued that re-vote unfairly burdened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlement unveiled Tuesday between the board and some plaintiffs , voters now will be able to fix the problem by returning an affidavit the voter signs affirming under penalty of a felony that they actually filled out the original ballot .
Republican legislative leaders are incensed by this change and others in the agreement , which they intend to oppose in court .
The affidavit fail-safe essentially eliminates the witness requirement , said GOP state Sen. Ralph Hise .
Democrats in charge of the state board have “ rewritten election laws while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — As the pandemic prompts a surge in voting by mail, voters in a handful of states, including the presidential battlegrounds of North Carolina and Wisconsin, are facing a requirement that already is tripping up thousands — the need to have a witness sign their ballot envelope.
A lack of a witness signature or other witness information has emerged as the leading cause of ballots being set aside before being counted in North Carolina, with problems disproportionately affecting Black voters in the state, according to an Associated Press analysis of state election data.
Advertisement
While there is a process for fixing the omissions, voting rights advocates say the numbers are an early warning sign that the extra step is becoming a barrier that could disenfranchise voters — and a potential source of legal battles in a tight race.
“People are confused by this whole witness requirement,” said Barbara Beckert, an advocate for Disability Rights Wisconsin, which was part of a lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged the witness mandate. “Voting absentee is complicated. To get it right, you have to follow a lot of very specific rules.”
There are early signs that voters are struggling to follow those rules. In North Carolina, over 200,000 ballots have been returned and processed since early voting began almost three weeks ago. At least 1,700 couldn’t be counted because of lack of a witness name, signature, or address. That number accounted for nearly half of all ballots that couldn’t be accepted through Tuesday, according to State Board of Elections data.
As of Tuesday, Black voters cast 43 percent of the ballot classified as having incomplete witness information, according to the state elections data. Yet Black voters have cast roughly 16 percent of overall ballots returned to date.
Advertisement
Pat Gannon, a spokesman for the state elections board, attributed the mistakes to inexperience with the process. North Carolina is one of several states where relatively few voters cast mail-in ballots in past elections.
“Many of these voters are voting by mail for the first time and may not fully understand the requirements of the law,” Gannon said.
As part of a legal settlement this week, the state board agreed to make it easier for voters to fix the issues, streamlining the process for curing ballots.
The witness requirement is relatively rare. Before the pandemic, 12 states required voters to have notary or witness signatures with their ballots. However, several changed their laws to make it easier for voters to cast ballots remotely and avoid the risk of contracting the virus, leaving the total now at eight, including Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
A witness signature is not required in any of the five all-mail voting states in the West.
Proponents of the requirement say it’s designed to prevent voter fraud by holding others accountable for vouching for a voter.
Advertisement
Absentee ballot applications played a prominent role in the investigation of a 2018 congressional election in the state that required a new election. Workers for a political operative in a rural county testified they were directed to collect blank or incomplete ballots, forge signatures on them, and even fill in votes for local candidates. It happened during a time when North Carolina required two signatures or one notary public as a witness.
But advocacy groups say the rules unnecessarily complicate a process for older people, people who live alone, and those with disabilities or chronic health problems. Several groups and Democrats are among those who have sued over rules in states with the requirement.
In Wisconsin, a federal judge this week upheld the requirement for the November election. A judge in South Carolina struck down the state’s witness mandate, writing it would only “increase the risk of contracting COVID-19” for vulnerable populations. On Thursday, a federal appeals court reinstated it, at least temporarily.
In Wisconsin, where about 80% of votes cast in the August primary were absentee, voting groups are focused on coaching people on how to fill it out and educating voters in advance.
Even U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, said she empathizes with the challenge.
“I live alone and I actually went outside and waited for the first person I saw walking their dog and asked if they could stop for a moment and be my witness,” Baldwin said, describing her experience voting in the April presidential primary. “Imagine living in a rural community and living alone where that wouldn’t an option. Or living alone and being afraid to let someone in because we’re in a pandemic.”
Advertisement
Until this week, the lack of witness information on a North Carolina absentee ballot meant the ballot was essentially canceled, and a second ballot was sent to the voter to fill out, with a witness still required. Liberal and union-advocacy groups, bankrolled by Democratic groups to challenge absentee rules in court, argued that re-vote unfairly burdened voters during the pandemic.
Under a settlement unveiled Tuesday between the board and some plaintiffs, voters now will be able to fix the problem by returning an affidavit the voter signs affirming under penalty of a felony that they actually filled out the original ballot.
“This agreement is a victory for all eligible older voters in North Carolina,” said Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, whose North Carolina affiliate sued over the rules.
Republican legislative leaders are incensed by this change and others in the agreement, which they intend to oppose in court. The affidavit fail-safe essentially eliminates the witness requirement, said GOP state Sen. Ralph Hise. Democrats in charge of the state board have “rewritten election laws while the election is actively underway,” Hise said.
Still, the trouble of emailing, faxing or mailing an affidavit is something voters would prefer to avoid. North Carolina’s election board is highlighting the witness requirement online.
Advertisement
In Wisconsin, election officials in Madison also planned to be in all city parks for the next two weekends to accept absentee ballots and serve as witnesses if needed.
The North Carolina NAACP is assisting Black voters to work through the process by suggesting family and friends as options for witnesses, said the Rev. C. Bradley Hunt of Greensboro, the group’s political chair. The NAACP is emphasizing a can-do attitude, no matter the obstacles.
“The message to our folks is that we have to be resolute and we have to deliberate...in order to get the vote out,” Hunt said.
__


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-25--'Profound Sorrow': Biden & Pelosi Among Mourners At Capitol As Ginsburg Lies In State

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lay in state Friday at the U.S. Capitol , the first woman so honored in America , making history again as she had throughout her extraordinary life .
The flag-draped casket of Ginsburg , who died last week at 87 , in the Capitol ’ s grand Statuary Hall drew members of Congress , military officials , friends and family , some with children in tow , paying respect to the liberal icon who changed American law and perceptions of women ’ s power .
Democratic presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jill , sat quietly with other invited guests .
Biden ’ s vice presidential running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris , also attended .
“ She , first of all , made America see what leadership looks like ― in the law , in terms of public service ― and she broke so many barriers , ” Harris told reporters at the Capitol .
“ And I know that she did it intentionally knowing that people like me could follow.
” Mourners gathered under coronavirus restrictions for the service for Ginsburg amid a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is prepared to announce a conservative nominee to replace the justice on Saturday , weeks before the election .
A Senate confirmation vote is expected in late October .
She and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer welcomed Ginsburg ’ s casket , which made the short procession from the court ’ s steps , where it had been on public view for several days , to the East Front of the Capitol .
A military honor guard carried it inside the Capitol ’ s stately Statuary Hall .
It departed a few hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol steps waving goodbye .
Ginsburg , the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court , will be buried next week in Arlington National Cemetery beside her husband , Martin , who died in 2010 .
The politics of the moment , in a tense election year , have rippled through the Ginsburg commemorations this week .
But Friday ’ s ceremony focused on her life and work , with musical selections from one of her favorite opera singers , mezzo-soprano Denyce Graves .
Ginsburg is the first Jewish American to lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in stature , large in history , the Brooklyn-born Ginsburg was remembered as a bright Columbia graduate who was passed over for jobs at a time when few women entered law , only to go on to reshape the nation ’ s laws protecting women ’ s rights and equality .
Few Republicans attended the service that was filled with women and Democrats .
Sens .
Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota , both former presidential contenders , were among those attending .
Toward the end of the line of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and did three quick pushups .
It was Bryant Johnson , the justice ’ s beloved trainer .
Members of the House and Senate who were not invited to the ceremony because of space limitations imposed by the coronavirus pandemic will be able to pay their respects before a motorcade carrying Ginsburg ’ s casket departs the Capitol early in the afternoon .
The honor of lying in state has been accorded fewer than three dozen times , mostly to presidents , vice presidents , and members of Congress .
Rep. John Lewis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most recent person to lie in state following his death in July .
Henry Clay , the Kentucky lawmaker who served as speaker of the House and also was a senator , was the first in 1852 .
Rosa Parks — a private citizen , not a government official — is the only woman who has lain in honor , a separate commemoration , at the Capitol .
Ginsburg had lain in repose for two days at the Supreme Court , where thousands of people paid their respects outside , including President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday .
Spectators booed and chanted “ Vote him out ” as the president , who wore a mask , stood silently near Ginsburg ’ s casket at the top of the court ’ s front steps .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lay in state Friday at the U.S. Capitol, the first woman so honored in America, making history again as she had throughout her extraordinary life.
The flag-draped casket of Ginsburg, who died last week at 87, in the Capitol’s grand Statuary Hall drew members of Congress, military officials, friends and family, some with children in tow, paying respect to the liberal icon who changed American law and perceptions of women’s power. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, sat quietly with other invited guests. Biden’s vice presidential running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, also attended.
Advertisement
Harris said RBG, as the late justice is known by many, “absolutely” and intentionally cleared a path for women like her in civic life.
“She, first of all, made America see what leadership looks like ― in the law, in terms of public service ― and she broke so many barriers,” Harris told reporters at the Capitol. “And I know that she did it intentionally knowing that people like me could follow.”
She called Ginsburg “one of the greatest Americans.”
Mourners gathered under coronavirus restrictions for the service for Ginsburg amid a Capitol in turmoil. President Donald Trump is prepared to announce a conservative nominee to replace the justice on Saturday, weeks before the election. A Senate confirmation vote is expected in late October.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was with “profound sorrow” that she welcomed the liberal icon and opened the private service.
Advertisement
She and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer welcomed Ginsburg’s casket, which made the short procession from the court’s steps, where it had been on public view for several days, to the East Front of the Capitol. A military honor guard carried it inside the Capitol’s stately Statuary Hall. It departed a few hours later, with female lawmakers on the Capitol steps waving goodbye.
Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, will be buried next week in Arlington National Cemetery beside her husband, Martin, who died in 2010.
The politics of the moment, in a tense election year, have rippled through the Ginsburg commemorations this week. But Friday’s ceremony focused on her life and work, with musical selections from one of her favorite opera singers, mezzo-soprano Denyce Graves. Ginsburg is the first Jewish American to lie in state at the Capitol.
Small in stature, large in history, the Brooklyn-born Ginsburg was remembered as a bright Columbia graduate who was passed over for jobs at a time when few women entered law, only to go on to reshape the nation’s laws protecting women’s rights and equality.
“Brick by brick, case by case,” she changed the course of American law, said Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt of the Adas Israel Congregation in Washington.
Advertisement
“Today, she makes history again,” the rabbi said.
Few Republicans attended the service that was filled with women and Democrats. Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, both former presidential contenders, were among those attending.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is leading the push for Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg, was invited but noticeably missing. The GOP whip, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, was there.
Services were brief, with the rabbi’s reflections and prayer, before guests lined up to pass by the casket and pay their respects.
Toward the end of the line of mourners, one dropped to the ground and did three quick pushups. It was Bryant Johnson, the justice’s beloved trainer.
Members of the House and Senate who were not invited to the ceremony because of space limitations imposed by the coronavirus pandemic will be able to pay their respects before a motorcade carrying Ginsburg’s casket departs the Capitol early in the afternoon.
Advertisement
The honor of lying in state has been accorded fewer than three dozen times, mostly to presidents, vice presidents, and members of Congress. Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights icon, was the most recent person to lie in state following his death in July. Henry Clay, the Kentucky lawmaker who served as speaker of the House and also was a senator, was the first in 1852. Rosa Parks — a private citizen, not a government official — is the only woman who has lain in honor, a separate commemoration, at the Capitol.
Ginsburg had lain in repose for two days at the Supreme Court, where thousands of people paid their respects outside, including President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump on Thursday. Spectators booed and chanted “Vote him out” as the president, who wore a mask, stood silently near Ginsburg’s casket at the top of the court’s front steps.
Trump plans to announce his nomination Saturday of a woman to take Ginsburg’s place on the high court, where she served for 27 years and was the leader of the liberal justices.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-25--Stephen Colbert Reveals Trump’s Real Election Plan ... And The Key To Stopping Him

“ I ’ m not putting it past Trump to barricade the White House gates and put Eric in a @ @ @ @ @ as a human shield , ” Colbert said .
“ But what Trump really wants @ @ @ @ @ faith in the election so you go , ‘ Ah , what ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ ” he continued .
“ The point is : You vote , he goes ― @ @ @ @ @ .
We just need to bury him under a mountain of votes .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
But he said there’s still a way Americans can ensure Trump leaves office.
“I’m not putting it past Trump to barricade the White House gates and put Eric in a Baby Bjorn and use him as a human shield,” Colbert said.
Advertisement
“But what Trump really wants to do is undermine your faith in the election so you go, ‘Ah, what’s the point of voting,’” he continued. “The point is: You vote, he goes ― regardless of what he tries. We just need to bury him under a mountain of votes.”
He also had a stark warning about how Trump is preparing to use the courts to his advantage.
See his full monologue below:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-25--Federal Judge Ousts Trump's Bureau Of Land Management Chief

A federal judge on Friday blocked William Perry Pendley , the anti-public lands extremist who has overseen the federal Bureau of Land Management for more than a year , from continuing to lead the bureau .
U.S. District Judge Brian Morris in Montana ruled that Pendley has illegally served as acting director of BLM for more than 400 days .
The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed in August by Montana Gov .
Steve Bullock ( D ) , which argued that Pendley ’ s ongoing tenure violates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act .
The act limits the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an acting role to 210 days .
“ Today ’ s ruling is a win for the Constitution , the rule of law , and our public lands , ” Bullock wrote in a Twitter response .
“ Montanans can rest easy knowing that National Public Lands Day will begin with William Perry Pendley packing his desk and vacating the Director ’ s Office.
” A former property rights attorney who spent his career arguing that public lands should not even exist , Pendley has led the bureau since July 2019 via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s overseen 245 million acres of federal land ― more than 10 % of the entire U.S. landmass ― without ever having to face the scrutiny of a Senate confirmation process .
“ The President can not shelter unconstitutional ‘ temporary ’ appointments for the duration of his presidency through a matryoshka doll of delegated authorities , ” Morris wrote in his decision .
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Acting Director William Perry Pendley speaks at a conference in Fort Collins , Colorado , on Oct. 11 , 2019 .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has remained in the job .
President Donald Trump formally nominated Pendley in June to serve as BLM permanent director only to turn around and withdraw the nomination in August amid mounting public outrage .
It was later revealed that Pendley personally crafted and signed a succession order to keep himself at the helm of the bureau indefinitely .
The Interior Department , which previously dismissed Bullock ’ s legal challenge as frivolous , called Friday ’ s ruling “ outrageous ” and “ well outside the bounds of the law.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going back several administrations , ” spokesperson Connor Swanson said in an email .
“ We will be appealing this decision immediately.
” Drilling , mining and logging have been top priorities on public lands during Trump ’ s tenure , and Pendley has played a key role in working to boost development in the West .
The court could ultimately invalidate rules and plans that Pendley was involved in crafting .
“ The Court recognizes that any “ function or duty ” of the BLM Director that has been performed by Pendley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious , ” Morris wrote in his opinion .
He gave the Interior Department and Bullock 10 days to file briefs detailing which of Pendley ’ s orders should be scrapped .
The Interior Department , which oversees BLM , has tried in recent months to claim that Pendley has never served as acting chief .
“ William Perry Pendley is not , and has never been , Acting BLM Director , ” an Interior spokesperson recently told HuffPost .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A federal judge on Friday blocked William Perry Pendley, the anti-public lands extremist who has overseen the federal Bureau of Land Management for more than a year, from continuing to lead the bureau.
U.S. District Judge Brian Morris in Montana ruled that Pendley has illegally served as acting director of BLM for more than 400 days.
Advertisement
The decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed in August by Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), which argued that Pendley’s ongoing tenure violates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The act limits the amount of time Cabinet officials may serve in an acting role to 210 days.
“Today’s ruling is a win for the Constitution, the rule of law, and our public lands,” Bullock wrote in a Twitter response. “Montanans can rest easy knowing that National Public Lands Day will begin with William Perry Pendley packing his desk and vacating the Director’s Office.”
National Public Lands Day is Saturday.
A former property rights attorney who spent his career arguing that public lands should not even exist, Pendley has led the bureau since July 2019 via a series of controversial temporary reappointments. He’s overseen 245 million acres of federal land ― more than 10% of the entire U.S. landmass ― without ever having to face the scrutiny of a Senate confirmation process.
“The President cannot shelter unconstitutional ‘temporary’ appointments for the duration of his presidency through a matryoshka doll of delegated authorities,” Morris wrote in his decision.
Advertisement
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Acting Director William Perry Pendley speaks at a conference in Fort Collins, Colorado, on Oct. 11, 2019. His nomination as director was withdrawn but he has remained in the job. Matthew Brown/ASSOCIATED PRESS
President Donald Trump formally nominated Pendley in June to serve as BLM permanent director only to turn around and withdraw the nomination in August amid mounting public outrage. It was later revealed that Pendley personally crafted and signed a succession order to keep himself at the helm of the bureau indefinitely.
The Interior Department, which previously dismissed Bullock’s legal challenge as frivolous, called Friday’s ruling “outrageous” and “well outside the bounds of the law.”
“It betrays long-standing practice of the Department going back several administrations,” spokesperson Conner Swanson said in an email. “We will be appealing this decision immediately.”
Drilling, mining and logging have been top priorities on public lands during Trump’s tenure, and Pendley has played a key role in working to boost development in the West. The court could ultimately invalidate rules and plans that Pendley was involved in crafting.
Advertisement
“The Court recognizes that any “function or duty” of the BLM Director that has been performed by Pendley would have no force and effect and must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious,” Morris wrote in his opinion. He gave the Interior Department and Bullock 10 days to file briefs detailing which of Pendley’s orders should be scrapped.
The Interior Department, which oversees BLM, has tried in recent months to claim that Pendley has never served as acting chief. “William Perry Pendley is not, and has never been, Acting BLM Director,” an Interior spokesperson recently told HuffPost.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--If He Loses Election, Trump Tells Rally, 'We're Not Going To Stand For It'

The only presidential election Donald Trump will accept as legitimate is the one he wins , he told a crowd of supporters Friday night at a rally in Virginia .
If he loses in November , Trump declared , ” We ’ re not going to stand for it.
” Trump ’ s speech in Newport News was the latest ominous sign that he may refuse to leave office if he ’ s voted out .
Asked at a press conference Wednesday if he would “ commit to a peaceful transferal of power ” if he lost the November election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ re going to have to see what happens.
” Trump declared Friday that the only way he ’ ll lose the election is if the Democrats cheat .
“ We ’ re not going to lose this except if they cheat , ” Trump told the crowd .
“ Our country is at stake.
” “ We do want a very friendly transition , ” he said .
“ But we don ’ t want to be cheated , and be stupid , and say , ‘ Oh , let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go and we ’ ll do a transition , and we ’ ll know that there were thousands and thousands of ballots that made the difference through cheating .
We ’ re not going to stand for it.
” '' We 're not gon na lose this , expect if they cheat ... that 's the only way we 're gon na lose '' -- Trump pic.twitter.com/RING2wOctz — Aaron Rupar ( @ atrupar ) September 26 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The only presidential election Donald Trump will accept as legitimate is the one he wins, he told a crowd of supporters Friday night at a rally in Virginia. If he loses in November, Trump declared, ”We’re not going to stand for it.”
Trump’s speech in Newport News was the latest ominous sign that he may refuse to leave office if he’s voted out. Asked at a press conference Wednesday if he would “commit to a peaceful transferal of power” if he lost the November election, Trump said ominously: “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens.”
Advertisement
Trump declared Friday that the only way he’ll lose the election is if the Democrats cheat.
“We’re not going to lose this except if they cheat,” Trump told the crowd. “Our country is at stake.”
“We do want a very friendly transition,” he said. “But we don’t want to be cheated, and be stupid, and say, ‘Oh, let’s transit.’ We’ll go and we’ll do a transition, and we’ll know that there were thousands and thousands of ballots that made the difference through cheating. We’re not going to stand for it.”
Check it out here:
"We're not gonna lose this, expect if they cheat ... that's the only way we're gonna lose" -- Trump pic.twitter.com/RING2wOctz — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 26, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-25--Sly Lincoln Project Ad Urges Voters To Stop Lindsey Graham's 'Suffering'

The Republican-led Lincoln Project on Friday urged Americans in its latest mocking ad to end the suffering of Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) .
Graham appeared to be in a meltdown Thursday when he said in a Fox News interview that he was getting “ killed ” on fundraising in his tight race against Democratic rival Jaime Harrison because his detractors “ hate my guts.
” The Lincoln Project ad spoofed : “ Every single hour in South Carolina , Lindsey Graham is being violently out-fundraised .
But you can help stop the suffering.
” The camera in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking sad , wistful and hangdog amid a recording of Sarah McLachlan singing “ Angel.
” The song has become something of an anthem for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals .
Every single hour in South Carolina , Lindsey Graham is being violently out-fundraised .
But you can help stop the suffering .
pic.twitter.com/9rDS5naJ4V — The Lincoln Project ( @ ProjectLincoln ) September 25 , 2020 “ Lindsey Graham won in 2014 , ” the ad notes .
“ But this year , it might be too late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can save Lindsey Graham ’ s Senate race.
” The spot posts a phone number under “ SaveLindsey.com , ” which both direct contributors to The Lincoln Project .
“ Disclaimer : All of this money goes to Lincoln Project .
This is an obvious parody , ” the ad reads in fine print at the bottom .
Harrison taunted Graham as well in a tweet Friday over his overheated remarks on Fox , calling it an “ Oscar-winning performance.
” Check out the ad in The Lincoln Project tweet above .

The Republican-led Lincoln Project on Friday urged Americans in its latest mocking ad to end the suffering of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
Graham appeared to be in a meltdown Thursday when he said in a Fox News interview that he was getting “killed” on fundraising in his tight race against Democratic rival Jaime Harrison because his detractors “hate my guts.”
The Lincoln Project ad spoofed: “Every single hour in South Carolina, Lindsey Graham is being violently out-fundraised. But you can help stop the suffering.”
Advertisement
The camera in the ad tenderly pans over close-ups of Graham looking sad, wistful and hangdog amid a recording of Sarah McLachlan singing “Angel.” The song has become something of an anthem for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Every single hour in South Carolina, Lindsey Graham is being violently out-fundraised.
But you can help stop the suffering. pic.twitter.com/9rDS5naJ4V — The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) September 25, 2020
“Lindsey Graham won in 2014,” the ad notes. “But this year, it might be too late. For just pennies a day, you can save Lindsey Graham’s Senate race.”
The spot posts a phone number under “SaveLindsey.com,” which both direct contributors to The Lincoln Project. “Disclaimer: All of this money goes to Lincoln Project. This is an obvious parody,” the ad reads in fine print at the bottom.
Advertisement
Harrison taunted Graham as well in a tweet Friday over his overheated remarks on Fox, calling it an “Oscar-winning performance.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-25--What Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Nomination Would Mean For Obamacare

But California v. Texas is coming before the Supreme Court because three federal judges , one from a federal district in Texas and two on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit , already found its logic compelling .
All three are Republican appointees , which almost certainly helps explain why they ruled as they did .
Obamacare has been the subject of relentless attacks ― and the object of monomaniacal hatred ― on the political right since President Barack Obama signed it in 2010 .
If the penalty is $ 0 , then it can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue .
And if the mandate isn ’ t a tax anymore , then the mandate is an unconstitutional command to purchase insurance .
And if the mandate is unconstitutional , they say , the rest of the law is , too , because the features of the Affordable Care Act are so intertwined .
Congress , they say , did not intend for the rest of the program to operate without this essential piece .
Other Justices , Other Factors That Could Matter A ruling wiping out the Affordable Care Act would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for the sake of an argument that has provoked outright derision from much of the legal establishment .
Andrew Koppelman , a law professor at Northwestern University who has also been critical of past challenges to the law , told HuffPost on Friday that “ I can ’ t get through the logic without giggling , so maybe she can ’ t either .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Putting Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court would appear to be bad news for the Affordable Care Act and the tens of millions of Americans who depend on it.
Just how bad? That’s difficult to say.
President Donald Trump announced Barrett’s nomination on Saturday. With a quick Senate confirmation, she could be on the bench Nov. 10, when the court plans to hear California v. Texas, a lawsuit calling on the justices to wipe the Affordable Care Act off the books.
Advertisement
And although Barrett hasn’t said a lot about the health care law, her one major comment came in a 2017 law review article, when she said a previous decision upholding the law “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”
The author of that ruling was Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the four liberals in allowing most of the program to stand. It’s a pretty clear sign that, had Barrett been on the bench then, she would have voted with the other Republican-appointed justices and said Obamacare was unconstitutional.
But in predicting how Barrett would approach this challenge, there is one complicating factor. Most experts consider the new case, which comes from a group of Republican state officials and has the backing of the Trump administration, to be a lot weaker.
Finding a respectable legal expert who will vouch for it on the merits is nearly impossible. Before the death last week of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most informed observers expected the case to fail and possibly to fail big, with some and maybe even most of the other conservative justices joining Roberts and the liberals in turning it away.
Advertisement
But California v. Texas is coming before the Supreme Court because three federal judges, one from a federal district in Texas and two on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, already found its logic compelling. All three are Republican appointees, which almost certainly helps explain why they ruled as they did. Obamacare has been the subject of relentless attacks ― and the object of monomaniacal hatred ― on the political right since President Barack Obama signed it in 2010.
The question now is whether Barrett brings similar feelings to the case ― and whether she’s the kind of judge who thinks the quality of legal arguments matters.
The Bonkers Argument Now Threatening Obamacare
The issue at the heart of California v. Texas is the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate,” which was also at issue in the 2012 ruling Barrett criticized.
The Affordable Care Act initially imposed a financial penalty on people who elected not to have health insurance coverage. In the previous case, called NFIB v. Sebelius, conservative lawyers backed by the Republican Party said Congress had no authority to impose that kind of penalty. Roberts and the four liberal justices disagreed, arguing that the penalty was just another form of taxation, which the Constitution clearly permits.
That settled the issue ― or at least it did until 2017, when Trump and the Republicans in Congress eliminated the penalty as part of their tax legislation that year. It didn’t actually strike the mandate language; it simply reduced the penalty to $0.
Advertisement
“The case is based on a clever argument that sounds good at first but that unravels when you dig into it.” - Jonathan Adler, Case Western University Law School
That prompted the new lawsuit, which comes from Republican state officials across the country ― and which, in a highly unusual move, the Trump administration now supports.
If the penalty is $0, then it can’t be a tax, these Republican officials argue. And if the mandate isn’t a tax anymore, then the mandate is an unconstitutional command to purchase insurance. And if the mandate is unconstitutional, they say, the rest of the law is, too, because the features of the Affordable Care Act are so intertwined. Congress, they say, did not intend for the rest of the program to operate without this essential piece.
The flaws in the argument are not difficult to spot, even for somebody with no legal training. It’s quite a stretch to say that the mandate is now an unconstitutional command to get insurance when the consequence for defying it is literally nothing ― and when there is no mechanism of enforcement because there is no fine to collect.
As for congressional intent, the lawmakers who voted to zero out the mandate in 2017 were fully aware that they were removing a piece of the program while letting the law stand ― and they were quite obviously OK with that, because that is how they voted.
Advertisement
Several Republican lawmakers have said as much. Among them is Lamar Alexander, the retiring senator from Tennessee who is chairman of a committee with direct jurisdiction over the health care law. “I am not aware of a single senator who said they were voting to repeal Obamacare when they voted to eliminate the individual mandate penalty,” he said last year.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, with jurisdiction over the Affordable Care Act, said last year: “I am not aware of a single senator who said they were voting to repeal Obamacare when they voted to eliminate the individual mandate penalty." Carolyn Kaster/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Even if the court were to decide the mandate is now unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean the rest of the law has to go. Under well-established, widely recognized principles of “severability,” judges are supposed to do minimal damage to a law when they declare a piece of it unconstitutional.
To put it another way, whether or not the Supreme Court decides to make a statement about the constitutionality of the now-meaningless mandate, it should let the rest of the Affordable Care Act stay in place. Even lawyers who supported previous challenges are saying as much.
Barrett’s Record And Writing On Obamacare
The assumption about Barrett, based on her legal writings and the impressions of colleagues, is that she would push the court in a strongly conservative direction on issues such as abortion rights. That’s a pretty safe assumption, given her past writings and speeches.
Advertisement
Her thinking on the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act is more difficult to pin down. Her full statement in that 2017 law review article makes plain that she thinks Roberts got it wrong when he joined the liberals in 2012. Like many conservative critics, she says it was wrong to call the mandate penalty a tax when the text itself doesn’t.
“He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power,” Barrett wrote. “Had he treated the payment as the statute did ― as a penalty ― he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress’s commerce power.”
In the same article, Barrett criticized another ruling upholding the health care law on the grounds that, once again, Roberts misinterpreted the law in order to prop it up. In 2012, Barnett signed a petition protesting a provision of the Affordable Care Act guaranteeing coverage of birth control, arguing that it violates religious liberty.
Despite all of that, Barrett could still rule to uphold the Affordable Care Act this time around. She could, for example, reject the new lawsuit simply on the grounds that a mandate with no penalty attached isn’t a command at all ― and, as a result, not a constitutional problem.
“There is no legal doctrine that is too crazy to be accepted by Republican judges if it’ll stick a pin in Obamacare.” - Andrew Koppelman, Northwestern University Law School
Advertisement
Alternatively, she could agree with the plaintiffs that the mandate is unconstitutional but then say that the rest of the law can stay in place. That would give the law’s opponents a rhetorical victory of sorts but without actually changing anything in the health care system.
Barrett, a summa cum laude graduate of Notre Dame Law School, is highly regarded for her intellect ― which suggests, at the very least, she can spot a weak argument when it’s in front of her.
“The case is based on a clever argument that sounds good at first but that unravels when you dig into it,” Jonathan Adler, a Case Western University law professor, told HuffPost in an email.
Adler, who was an architect of yet another previous challenge to the Affordable Care Act, went on to say that her views on the case may ultimately reflect her sensibility of how a judge should act more than her political philosophy.
“How a judge would vote in this case is not based upon how textualist or originalist they are, but is implicated (at least in part) by their view of the proper judicial role,” Adler said.
Advertisement
Other Justices, Other Factors That Could Matter
One thing to remember is that Barrett’s vote might not be the decisive one anyway. Many legal observers think that Brett Kavanaugh hinted in a previous decision that he was inclined to let the rest of the law stand. Kavanaugh plus Roberts and the three liberals would be five votes to let the program keep going.
And if Barrett isn’t on the court in time to hear the case, there’s the possibility of a 4-4 tie with Ginsburg’s seat unfilled, which would send the case back to the lower courts for more litigation or a decision to rehear it with all nine justices in place.
All of this is taking place against the backdrop of the presidential election, which could mean a new president, a new Senate majority or both starting January ― with the power to pass a one-sentence law that would effectively render the whole case moot.
If that doesn’t happen and Barrett ends up with the case in front of her, one open question is how much she would think about the court’s standing with the public ― and whether she contemplates the consequences of a decision to strike down the health care law.
Roberts’s 2012 decision to uphold the law surprised many analysts, given his conservative credentials and past role as an official in Republican administrations. One popular theory is that he thought overturning a program that mattered to so many people and invalidating the signature achievement of a Democratic president would provoke a political backlash to the court and, perhaps, the Republican Party.
Advertisement
Such a backlash would surely be much bigger now. The Affordable Care Act has become slightly more popular with time, Democrats and their supporters are furious at Republicans for blocking Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in his final year in office, and, perhaps most important, a large portion of the population now has a direct stake in the law.
There are the millions who get subsidized private insurance through the exchanges, the millions on expanded Medicaid and then all the millions with preexisting conditions who have guarantees of coverage they would not have without the law.
A ruling wiping out the Affordable Care Act would be a blow to all of them, for the sake of an argument that has provoked outright derision from much of the legal establishment. Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University who has also been critical of past challenges to the law, told HuffPost on Friday that “I can’t get through the logic without giggling, so maybe she can’t either.”
But Barrett has a reputation as somebody unusually willing to disregard past precedents when such rulings are inconsistent with her vision of the Constitution. That makes her votes in big cases difficult to project.
Ultimately, as Koppelman warned, a lot depends on whether Barrett sees the Affordable Care Act in the same harsh light as judges who have ruled against it before. “This latest case is even clearer evidence than the others that there is no legal doctrine that is too crazy to be accepted by Republican judges if it’ll stick a pin in Obamacare.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--White House Staffers Worried About Trump Refusing To Step Down, Says Former Aide

The idea that President Donald Trump could refuse to leave the White House if he loses the election was a serious enough concern that White House staffers discussed the possibility several weeks ago , a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence told CNN Friday .
Given what Olivia Troye has seen of the president , she doesn ’ t find it surprising that Trump has been emphasizing the possibility that he may not step down if he loses in November , she told Wolf Blitzer .
Troye left the administration in August after working on the coronavirus task force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on counterterrorism and homeland security .
“ It ’ s frightening to me , because , to be honest , during my tenure at the White House , I ’ ve had conversations behind closed doors with White House staffers and other government officials — including people in the intelligence community — where we ’ ve actually discussed ‘ what if , ’ ” she said .
“ What if he loses and refuses to leave , or ... What if his plan is four more years of Donald Trump should he win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ?
” Even threats Trump later shrugs off or claims were jokes should be taken seriously , Troye warned .
“ The president when he ’ s joking , if he says that he ’ s joking , he ’ s telling you a half truth , ” Troye said .
“ And in there is something fairly frightening and scary ” in that .
Though Trump has joked about staying in the White House for more than the maximum two terms in the past , his recent warnings come at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference Wednesday if he would “ commit to a peaceful transferal of power ” if he lost the November election , Trump said : “ Well , we ’ re going to have to see what happens.
” “ Get rid of the ballots and you ’ ll have a peaceful ... there won ’ t be a transfer , frankly , there ’ ll be a continuation , ” he added .
Trump was apparently referring to mail-in ballots , which he has repeatedly claimed are rigged , without evidence .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one type of voting to be scrapped .
Troye said she left the administration in disgust because of the abysmal job the administration was doing to battle COVID-19 .
“ If the president had taken this virus seriously , or if he had actually made an effort to tell how serious it was , he would have slowed the virus spread , he would have saved lives , ” Troye said in an ad recently released by Republican Voters Against Trump .

The idea that President Donald Trump could refuse to leave the White House if he loses the election was a serious enough concern that White House staffers discussed the possibility several weeks ago, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence told CNN Friday.
Given what Olivia Troye has seen of the president, she doesn’t find it surprising that Trump has been emphasizing the possibility that he may not step down if he loses in November, she told Wolf Blitzer.
Advertisement
Troye left the administration in August after working on the coronavirus task force and serving as an adviser to Pence on counterterrorism and homeland security.
Just because Trump’s behavior might be predictable doesn’t make it any less worrisome, Troye said.
“It’s frightening to me, because, to be honest, during my tenure at the White House, I’ve had conversations behind closed doors with White House staffers and other government officials — including people in the intelligence community — where we’ve actually discussed ‘what if,’” she said. “What if he loses and refuses to leave, or ... What if his plan is four more years of Donald Trump should he win, and will he even leave after that?”
Even threats Trump later shrugs off or claims were jokes should be taken seriously, Troye warned.
“The president when he’s joking, if he says that he’s joking, he’s telling you a half truth,” Troye said. “And in there is something fairly frightening and scary” in that.
Though Trump has joked about staying in the White House for more than the maximum two terms in the past, his recent warnings come at a critical time.
Advertisement
Asked at a press conference Wednesday if he would “commit to a peaceful transferal of power” if he lost the November election, Trump said: “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens.”
“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation,” he added. Trump was apparently referring to mail-in ballots, which he has repeatedly claimed are rigged, without evidence. But it sounded as if he was encouraging one type of voting to be scrapped.
Troye said she left the administration in disgust because of the abysmal job the administration was doing to battle COVID-19.
“If the president had taken this virus seriously, or if he had actually made an effort to tell how serious it was, he would have slowed the virus spread, he would have saved lives,” Troye said in an ad recently released by Republican Voters Against Trump.
Check out Troye’s CNN interview in the clip above. The section about Trump refusing to leave the White House begins at 5:40.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--How Democrats Could Try To Delay And Derail Trump's New Supreme Court Pick

The next few weeks will set the stage for what kind of change will be possible for the foreseeable future .
Since the Supreme Court has assumed the role of final arbiter in America ’ s political system , a sixth conservative justice would shift the court to the right on abortion rights , government regulation of corporations , campaign finance regulation and voting rights laws .
Any federal government regulatory action to deal with climate change could be at threat ― as would the right to choose , antitrust actions to unravel corporate monopolies , and limits on campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It would be a seismic , generational shift .
Those tactics would include refusing unanimous consent for every item that comes to the Senate floor ; forcing Republicans to appear for quorum calls ; boycotting the nomination hearings in the Judiciary Committee ; and promising retribution , in the form of adding seats to the court and eliminating the legislative filibuster , if the nomination goes through .
These tactics , which were used to defeat the Affordable Care Act repeal vote in 2017 , could provide a chance , however small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
A post-election vote could allow Democrats to gain a vote if astronaut Mark Kelly wins his Arizona Senate race in a special election that would put him in office at the end of November .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump on Saturday announced Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his pick to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Now Democrats have less than 40 days to try to stop her appointment before the Nov. 3 election.
Trump has already said he wants a ninth justice in place because he believes the Supreme Court will decide the election, given legal challenges over ballot counting. The Senate Judiciary Committee reportedly plans to move forward with confirmation hearings on Oct. 12, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said earlier this week that he will hold a floor vote for the nominee before the election.
Advertisement
There aren’t many options available to keep this from happening. But progressive activist groups and, increasingly, members of the party’s elite are pushing Senate Democrats to deploy every tool available to fight this nomination. Democrats are also being urged to threaten retribution for this appointment, if it comes to pass, in the form of adding justices to the Supreme Court and eliminating the legislative filibuster.
The next few weeks will set the stage for what kind of change will be possible for the foreseeable future. Since the Supreme Court has assumed the role of final arbiter in America’s political system, a sixth conservative justice would shift the court to the right on abortion rights, government regulation of corporations, campaign finance regulation and voting rights laws. Any federal government regulatory action to deal with climate change could be at threat ― as would the right to choose, antitrust actions to unravel corporate monopolies, and limits on campaign contributions made by the wealthy and corporations. It would be a seismic, generational shift.
Trump’s replacement of Ginsburg before the election, or during the lame-duck period if he loses the election, would be “illegitimate,” according to former Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder said Democrats should promise to add justices to the court if they win the presidency and the Senate in November.
“Everything should be on the table,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on Monday.
Senate Democrats have already made their first move to slow down the chamber’s operation. On Tuesday afternoon, Democrats invoked the “two-hour rule,” which limits the time when committees may hold hearings while the full Senate is in session. The move caused some committees to postpone their hearings on Tuesday.
Advertisement
“Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish was that she not be replaced until a new president is installed. Republicans are poised to not only ignore her wishes, but to replace her with someone who could tear down everything that she built,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement on Saturday, vowing to oppose the nomination. “This reprehensible power grab is a cynical attack on the legitimacy of the Court.”
The move to invoke the two-hour rule suggests Schumer is willing to go to the mat to stop or slow this nomination ― and, if that fails, to make McConnell and Republicans pay for the hypocrisy of pushing to confirm a new justice four years after McConnell invented a rule that ‘forbade’ him from considering then-President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.
While McConnell claims to have the support of at least 51 members of his caucus to bring the nomination to the floor for a vote before the election, he has also already lost the votes of Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine). Could more senators decide against the nomination if the process drags on past an election where the Democratic nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, wins?
“We can’t let ourselves fall into this Mitch McConnell play,” Christopher Kang, chief counsel for the progressive judicial group Demand Justice, said.
“[The] public sentiment, it sort of feels to me a lot like the health care fight, where we just have to keep fighting this and you never know what’s going to happen,” Kang said. “You never know where you’re going to have the moment of impact.”
Advertisement
The Tactics
Democratic voters and activist groups are pressing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to use every tool available to stop Trump's Supreme Court nomination. Michael A. McCoy via Getty Images
Adam Jentleson ― who served as spokesman for the former Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), a notable procedural bruiser ― detailed some of the tactics that Democrats could deploy to slow down the nomination process in a New York Times op-ed on Monday.
Those tactics would include refusing unanimous consent for every item that comes to the Senate floor; forcing Republicans to appear for quorum calls; boycotting the nomination hearings in the Judiciary Committee; and promising retribution, in the form of adding seats to the court and eliminating the legislative filibuster, if the nomination goes through. These tactics, which were used to defeat the Affordable Care Act repeal vote in 2017, could provide a chance, however small, to extend the process past the election. A post-election vote could allow Democrats to gain a vote if astronaut Mark Kelly wins his Arizona Senate race in a special election that would put him in office at the end of November.
“Democrats’ options before the election may indeed be limited,” Jentleson writes. “But if they win, the only restraints will be their own ambition and will.”
These tactics are also laid out in a memo written by Senate procedural experts circulating among Democratic offices, first reported by The Daily Poster and The Intercept.
Advertisement
Normally, the Senate runs quickly thanks to the use of unanimous consent, which is when no senator objects to the rules for a bill’s consideration on the floor. Refusing unanimous consent would force the Senate to debate and vote on minor motions.
Demand Progress, a progressive activist group, is already running a petition calling on voters to contact their senators and demand they commit to refusing unanimous consent.
“We need Senate leadership to have a war room posture,” David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, said.
Once unanimous consent is denied, the Senate requires a quorum of 51 senators to conduct business. Activists say Democrats should force Republicans to meet that quorum requirement by themselves, without any Democratic help, each time unanimous consent is denied. This would mean Republicans would need at least 51 members in Washington, D.C., to move anything through the Senate. Since the Republican caucus has 53 members, only two of the seven senators facing difficult re-election races could be absent at any time.
Democrats could also boycott the confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee in order to deny legitimacy to the proceedings.
Advertisement
“If the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh did not change any votes, neither will these hearings,” Jentleson writes. “Attending confers legitimacy, and refusing to attend will send a powerful statement that they deem the process and the nominee illegitimate.”
The collection of progressive grassroots groups known as Indivisible are also advocating for Democrats to pull out all the stops to delay the nomination process, and for Republicans to vote against the nominee.
“We’re trying to be very clear with our members,” Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, said. “There is a pathway to victory. It is a difficult and uncertain path, but it isn’t hopeless.”
More than 80 Indivisible chapters in New York state sent a letter to Schumer demanding that Senate Democrats use every tool at their disposal to slow the nomination process. In Rhode Island, grassroots activist groups are calling on Democratic Sens. Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse to do the same. The Sunrise Movement, a youth climate change organization, is sending members to the houses of Democrats and Republicans, while flooding their offices with calls asking them to oppose the nomination and use any procedures available.
Activists are also working to target Democrats who might sit out their push for an all-out tactical assault. Demand Progress urged progressives to call the office of Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) after a spokesperson for her office stated she was “extremely frustrated” by Schumer’s use of the two-hour rule, which delayed a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday.
Advertisement
And there is talk about how the Democratic-controlled House, which does not vote to confirm Supreme Court justices, could play a role in delaying a vote in the Senate.
Ideas that have been floated by progressive groups include the House passing privileged resolutions or bills that the Senate, by law, must hold proceedings on. These could include a War Powers Resolution or a Congressional Review Act bill stripping a Trump administration regulation. It could also include the impeachment of a Trump administration official, like Attorney General William Barr, for turning the Department of Justice into an arm of the Trump campaign, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for using his office to campaign for Trump, including his speech in Jerusalem for the Republican National Convention.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said that House Democrats have “arrows in our quiver” that can be used to muck up Senate proceedings, although she has not gone into detail.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) previewed a potential push to impeach Barr at a joint press conference with Schumer on Sunday. She called the attorney general “unfit for office” and said he has engaged in “potentially law-breaking behavior.” Ocasio-Cortez had previously called for Democrats, both in Congress and the grassroots, to do everything possible to create a chance to defeat Trump’s nominee.
“We must commit to allowing, to considering, and to utilizing every single procedural tool available to us ― yet again, to buy that time,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
Advertisement
While activists on the ground are pressuring Democrats to deploy every tactic possible, they may not be necessary just yet.
“I think it’s a little bit early to see how that all plays out,” Kang said. “I don’t think it makes sense for Democrats to start objecting to unanimous consent agreements today.”
But, he added, “as we get to the hearing, I think that boycotting the hearing should be on the table. I think all options should be on the table in terms of how we might respond in this moment.”
Retribution
President Donald Trump speaks about the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after a campaign rally in Bemidji, Minnesota, Sept. 18. Evan Vucci/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The path for Democrats to defeat Trump’s nominee is admittedly slim.
“We should not fool ourselves that through these tactics McConnell will give up,” Levin said. “At the end of the day, McConnell can call a vote whenever he wants, when he has the votes. That’s it.”
Advertisement
This is why some activists believe it is necessary to explain that Democrats will not take McConnell’s baldfaced hypocrisy, or his disingenuous power play, lying down. They say Democrats should make it clear that if this pick sails through and they win the White House and the Senate, they will add seats to the Supreme Court, expand the lower courts, eliminate the Senate filibuster for legislation and admit the District of Columbia as the nation’s 51st state.
“Committing to these changes now will enable Democrats to move quickly if they take back power,” Jentleson writes.
These changes are even now being discussed. The House has already passed legislation to admit D.C. as the 51st state. Former President Barack Obama called for the Senate to eliminate the filibuster, which he called a “Jim Crow relic,” at the funeral for civil rights icon John Lewis in July. And after Ginsburg’s death, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said that Democrats should “immediately” move to expand the court if Trump’s nominee is confirmed.
So far, Biden has demurred on this issue, instead calling for pressure on Republican senators to act out of conscience not to support the president.
“Action and reaction, anger and more anger, sorrow and frustration at the way things are in this country now politically,” Biden said on Sunday. “That’s the cycle that Republican senators will continue to perpetuate if they go down this dangerous path that they put us on. We need to de-escalate, not escalate.”
Advertisement
There is an ongoing debate over whether threatening retaliatory action before the vote would do anything to help defeat the nomination.
“I don’t think posturing now will do anything to change the way Republicans will act,” Segal said. But, he added, even though it may not sway McConnell, it may be worth it “to establish a moral case for fundamental structural reform of the Senate and the courts.”
This is particularly true as McConnell has revealed that he does have the 51 votes needed to confirm whoever Trump nominates.
“It’s becoming increasingly necessary to think ahead to what the next step is,” Kang said. “And from my perspective, I think that adding seats would maybe be the only logical response.”
Still others think that Democrats should loudly trumpet their intentions to add members to the court or to enact other reforms like jurisdiction stripping. The intended audience for this wouldn’t just be McConnell and the broader public, but Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Advertisement
The court’s spring term saw Roberts emerge as the vital swing justice on nearly every issue. It was also a term that saw a number of unexpected wins for liberals, and left conservatives howling that Roberts was another traitor to the movement like former Justice David Souter. Much of the commentary after the end of that term indicated that Roberts’ moderate turn was partly a move to preserve the court’s legitimacy amid talk of court expansion.
Continuing to pressure the court with threats of expansion could be important for Democrats ahead of the election, which Trump has signaled he plans to contest and possibly steal through any legal means available.
“People are not seeing that the conversation over court expansion is about the election,” said Aaron Belkin, director of Take Back the Court, a group advocating to expand the Supreme Court.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Trump Formally Nominates Amy Coney Barrett To Supreme Court

Barrett said she was ” truly humbled ” by the nomination and pledged to ” be mindful of who came before me ” if confirmed .
Ginsburg , Barrett said , led a “ great American life ” in which she “ won the admiration of women across the country and , indeed , all over the world.
” Barrett and her would-be predecessor share few similarities .
Trump ’ s pick is widely viewed as a threat to abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act , based on past comments and details about her personal life .
In 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacksonville University that the Supreme Court could still make it easier for states to restrict access to abortion , particularly late-term procedures .
In 2017 , she argued in a law review article that the Affordable Care Act went against a textual interpretation of the Constitution .
Barrett ’ s peers reportedly described her as a constitutional originalist for whom the words in the Constitution mean what they meant to the Founding Fathers in the 18th century .
As Barrett herself put it Saturday : “ I love the United States and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also reported to be a member of a secretive Catholic group called People of Praise , whose members believe that , in marriage , husbands are decision-makers and should wield power over their wives .
People of Praise also follows practices drawn from evangelical Christianity , such as faith healing .
Barrett gave a 2006 commencement speech at Notre Dame Law School in which she said that lawyers should view their work through the lens of religion .
She expressed the hope that each graduate would “ fulfill the promise of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that is this : that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end , and as Father Jenkins told you this morning , that end is building the kingdom of God , ” she said .
“ You know the same law , are charged with maintaining the same ethical standards and will be entering the same kinds of legal jobs as your peers across the country .
But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , love , and serve God , you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.
” “ If you ’ re asking whether I take my faith seriously and I ’ m a faithful Catholic , I am , ” she said at the time .
“ Although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.
” Trump ’ s decision to press forward with the confirmation process so close to the election has triggered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind up adjudicating cases related to the outcome of the election , as it did in 2000 .
Democrats are particularly angry that Republicans are proceeding with Barrett ’ s nomination even though they refused to move ahead with President Barack Obama ’ s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 .
At that time , Republicans cited a supposed tradition against filling a Supreme Court seat during an election year .
In the last week , however , McConnell attempted to fend off accusations of hypocrisy by arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the White House and the Senate are now controlled by the same party .
He has apparently remained silent on the results of the 2018 midterms , which favored Democrats .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump on Saturday formally nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, with about five weeks left until Election Day.
“I looked, and I studied, and you are very eminently qualified for this job,” Trump told Barrett as he made the announcement. “You are going to be fantastic.”
Advertisement
Barrett, a 48-year-old judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, follows an extreme brand of conservatism that makes her a particularly polarizing choice.
Speaking from the White House Rose Garden, Trump praised Barrett’s credentials, which included a clerkship with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and noted that her confirmation would make her the first mother of school-aged children ever to serve on the Supreme Court.
“This should be a straightforward and prompt confirmation. Good luck,” Trump said. “I’m sure it will be very quick.”
Barrett said she was ”truly humbled” by the nomination and pledged to ”be mindful of who came before me” if confirmed. Ginsburg, Barrett said, led a “great American life” in which she “won the admiration of women across the country and, indeed, all over the world.”
Advertisement
Ginsburg’s final request was that her seat is filled by the winner of the Nov. 3 election ― a request Trump falsely portrayed as made up by Democrats.
Polling shows that a majority of Americans side with Ginsburg, believing that the vacancy should be filled after the election.
Barrett and her would-be predecessor share few similarities. Trump’s pick is widely viewed as a threat to abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, based on past comments and details about her personal life. In 2016, Barrett indicated during a talk at Jacksonville University that the Supreme Court could still make it easier for states to restrict access to abortion, particularly late-term procedures. In 2017, she argued in a law review article that the Affordable Care Act went against a textual interpretation of the Constitution.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden decried Barrett’s nomination based largely on her opposition to the Affordable Care Act. He urged the Senate in a statement to wait until after the election to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that Barrett could “turn back the clock” not only on health care but also on women’s, LGBTQ and immigrants’ rights.
Advertisement
“President Trump and Leader McConnell are doing what no Senate has done before: shamelessly rushing to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat less than 40 days before a presidential election,” Schumer said.
Barrett’s peers reportedly described her as a constitutional originalist for whom the words in the Constitution mean what they meant to the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. As Barrett herself put it Saturday: “I love the United States and I love the United States Constitution.”
She is also reported to be a member of a secretive Catholic group called People of Praise, whose members believe that, in marriage, husbands are decision-makers and should wield power over their wives. People of Praise also follows practices drawn from evangelical Christianity, such as faith healing.
The group is based in South Bend, Indiana, where Barrett lives with her husband and seven children. Critics worried that its ideology may influence Barrett’s decisions, a perspective conservatives regard as anti-Catholic bigotry.
Barrett gave a 2006 commencement speech at Notre Dame Law School in which she said that lawyers should view their work through the lens of religion. She expressed the hope that each graduate would “fulfill the promise of being a different kind of lawyer.”
Advertisement
“And that is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God,” she said. “You know the same law, are charged with maintaining the same ethical standards and will be entering the same kinds of legal jobs as your peers across the country. But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”
In her 2017 confirmation hearing for the circuit court, however, Barrett assured senators that she would be capable of separating her personal views from her work as a judge.
“If you’re asking whether I take my faith seriously and I’m a faithful Catholic, I am,” she said at the time. “Although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.”
Trump’s decision to press forward with the confirmation process so close to the election has triggered nationwide alarm. The Supreme Court may wind up adjudicating cases related to the outcome of the election, as it did in 2000.
Democrats are particularly angry that Republicans are proceeding with Barrett’s nomination even though they refused to move ahead with President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. At that time, Republicans cited a supposed tradition against filling a Supreme Court seat during an election year.
Advertisement
Scalia died 269 days before the 2016 presidential election; Ginsburg died just 46 days before the 2020 election.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also argued in 2016 that the results of the midterm elections, which favored Republicans, proved that American voters were dissatisfied with incumbent leadership and should make “their voices heard” before a new judge was put on the bench.
In the last week, however, McConnell attempted to fend off accusations of hypocrisy by arguing that the situation now differs from 2016 because the White House and the Senate are now controlled by the same party. He has apparently remained silent on the results of the 2018 midterms, which favored Democrats.
McConnell called Barrett an “exceptionally impressive jurist” in a statement Saturday.
Few Senate Republicans have criticized Trump’s actions to fill Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. So far, only Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have said the seat should be filled by the winner of the Nov. 3 election.
Trump’s nomination now goes to the Senate, where it appears to have just enough votes to squeak by.
Confirmation hearings are slated to begin Oct. 12, with just over three weeks for Barrett to be confirmed before Election Day.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Assistant U.S. Attorney Says William Barr 'Dishonors' Justice Department

A federal prosecutor wrote a letter expressing his opposition to Attorney General William Barr , who he said “ brought shame ” to the Department of Justice .
“ While I am a federal prosecutor , I am writing to express my own views , clearly not those of the department , on a matter that should concern all citizens : the unprecedented politicization of the office of the attorney general , ” said James D. Herbert , assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts , in a letter to The Boston Globe published Thursday .
Herbert said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the attorney general earlier this month lambasted the prosecutors who work for him .
“ The attorney general acts as though his job is to serve only the political interests of Donald J. Trump .
This is a dangerous abuse of power , ” Herbert wrote , citing Barr ’ s misleading summary of the Mueller Report and his false claims about mail-in voting .
More recently , Barr took the unprecedented step of throwing the weight of the Justice Department behind Trump in a lawsuit filed by a rape accuser .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Seattle and Portland , Oregon , “ anarchist jurisdictions ” in a bid to cut federal funding to the cities perceived as liberal .
“ William Barr has done the president ’ s bidding at every turn , ” Herbert wrote .
“ For 30 years I have been proud to say I work for the Department of Justice , but the current attorney general has brought shame on the department he purports to lead .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A federal prosecutor wrote a letter expressing his opposition to Attorney General William Barr, who he said “brought shame” to the Department of Justice.
“While I am a federal prosecutor, I am writing to express my own views, clearly not those of the department, on a matter that should concern all citizens: the unprecedented politicization of the office of the attorney general,” said James D. Herbert, assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, in a letter to The Boston Globe published Thursday.
Advertisement
Herbert said he felt compelled to speak out against Barr after the attorney general earlier this month lambasted the prosecutors who work for him.
“The attorney general acts as though his job is to serve only the political interests of Donald J. Trump. This is a dangerous abuse of power,” Herbert wrote, citing Barr’s misleading summary of the Mueller Report and his false claims about mail-in voting.
More recently, Barr took the unprecedented step of throwing the weight of the Justice Department behind Trump in a lawsuit filed by a rape accuser. Barr also recently designated New York City, Seattle and Portland, Oregon, “anarchist jurisdictions” in a bid to cut federal funding to the cities perceived as liberal.
“William Barr has done the president’s bidding at every turn,” Herbert wrote. “For 30 years I have been proud to say I work for the Department of Justice, but the current attorney general has brought shame on the department he purports to lead.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Trump To Nominate Conservative Amy Coney Barrett For Court

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump on Saturday is set to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , capping a dramatic reshaping of the federal judiciary that will resonate for a generation and that he hopes will provide a needed boost to his reelection effort .
Republican senators are already lining up for a swift confirmation of Barrett ahead of the Nov. 3 election , as they aim to lock in conservative gains in the federal judiciary before a potential transition of power .
Trump , meanwhile , is hoping the nomination will serve to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fend off Democrat Joe Biden .
An ideological heir to the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia , Barrett would fill the seat vacated after the Sept. 18 death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg , in what would be the sharpest ideological swing since Clarence Thomas replaced Justice Thurgood Marshall nearly three decades ago .
She would be the sixth justice on the nine-member court to be appointed by a Republican president , and the third of Trump ’ s first term in office .
For Trump , whose 2016 victory hinged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and white evangelicals on the promise of filling the seat vacated by the death of Scalia with a conservative , the latest nomination brings his first term full circle .
Even before Ginsburg ’ s death , Trump was running on having confirmed in excess of 200 federal judges , fulfilling a generational aim of conservative legal activists .
“ The biggest thing you can do is the appointment of judges , but especially the appointment of Supreme Court justices , ” Trump told supporters Friday night at a campaign rally in Newport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tone of the country for 40 years , 50 years .
I mean a long time.
” Trump ’ s announcement Saturday will come before Ginsburg is buried beside her husband next week at Arlington National Cemetery .
On Friday , she was the first woman to lie in state at the Capitol , and mourners flocked to the Supreme Court for two days before that to pay respects .
Within hours of Ginsburg ’ s death Trump made clear he would nominate a woman for the seat , and later volunteered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett was the early favorite , and the only one to meet with Trump .
Barrett has been a judge since 2017 , when Trump nominated her to the Chicago-based 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals .
But as a longtime University of Notre Dame law professor she had already established herself as a reliable conservative in the mold of Scalia , for whom she clerked in the late 1990s .
She would be the only justice on the current court not to have received her law degree from an Ivy League @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attended either Harvard or Yale .
The staunch conservative had become known to Trump in large part after her bitter 2017 appeals court confirmation on a party-line vote included allegations that Democrats were attacking her Catholic faith .
The president also interviewed her in 2018 for the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy , but Trump ultimately chose Brett Kavanaugh .
Trump and his political allies are itching for another fight over Barrett ’ s faith , seeing it as a political windfall that would backfire on Democrats .
Catholic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are viewed as a pivotal demographic in the swing state that Biden , also Catholic , is trying to recapture .
Barrett ’ s nomination could become a reckoning over abortion , an issue that has divided many Americans so bitterly for almost half a century .
The idea of overturning or gutting Roe v. Wade , the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion , has animated activists in both parties for decades .
Now , with the seemingly decisive shift in the court ’ s ideological makeup , Democrats hope their voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their frustration with the Barrett pick .
Increases in mail , absentee and early voting brought about by the coronavirus pandemic have already led to a flurry of election litigation , and both Trump and Biden have assembled armies of lawyers to continue the fight once vote-counting begins .
Trump has been open about tying his push to name a third justice to the court to a potentially drawn-out court fight to determine who will be sworn in on Jan. 20 , 2021 .
Meanwhile , outside conservative groups are planning to spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and his nominee .
The Judicial Crisis Network has organized a coalition that includes American First Policies , the Susan B. Anthony List , the Club for Growth and the group Catholic Vote to help confirm Barrett , and Trump ’ s campaign is expected to include the nomination in upcoming advertising .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Saturday is set to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, capping a dramatic reshaping of the federal judiciary that will resonate for a generation and that he hopes will provide a needed boost to his reelection effort.
Republican senators are already lining up for a swift confirmation of Barrett ahead of the Nov. 3 election, as they aim to lock in conservative gains in the federal judiciary before a potential transition of power. Trump, meanwhile, is hoping the nomination will serve to galvanize his supporters as he looks to fend off Democrat Joe Biden.
Advertisement
An ideological heir to the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett would fill the seat vacated after the Sept. 18 death of liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in what would be the sharpest ideological swing since Clarence Thomas replaced Justice Thurgood Marshall nearly three decades ago. She would be the sixth justice on the nine-member court to be appointed by a Republican president, and the third of Trump’s first term in office.
For Trump, whose 2016 victory hinged in large part on reluctant support from conservative and white evangelicals on the promise of filling the seat vacated by the death of Scalia with a conservative, the latest nomination brings his first term full circle. Even before Ginsburg’s death, Trump was running on having confirmed in excess of 200 federal judges, fulfilling a generational aim of conservative legal activists.
“The biggest thing you can do is the appointment of judges, but especially the appointment of Supreme Court justices,” Trump told supporters Friday night at a campaign rally in Newport News, Virginia. “It sets the tone of the country for 40 years, 50 years. I mean a long time.”
Trump’s announcement Saturday will come before Ginsburg is buried beside her husband next week at Arlington National Cemetery. On Friday, she was the first woman to lie in state at the Capitol, and mourners flocked to the Supreme Court for two days before that to pay respects.
Advertisement
Within hours of Ginsburg’s death Trump made clear he would nominate a woman for the seat, and later volunteered he was considering five candidates. But Barrett was the early favorite, and the only one to meet with Trump.
Barrett has been a judge since 2017, when Trump nominated her to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But as a longtime University of Notre Dame law professor she had already established herself as a reliable conservative in the mold of Scalia, for whom she clerked in the late 1990s.
She would be the only justice on the current court not to have received her law degree from an Ivy League school. The eight current justices all attended either Harvard or Yale.
The staunch conservative had become known to Trump in large part after her bitter 2017 appeals court confirmation on a party-line vote included allegations that Democrats were attacking her Catholic faith. The president also interviewed her in 2018 for the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, but Trump ultimately chose Brett Kavanaugh.
Trump and his political allies are itching for another fight over Barrett’s faith, seeing it as a political windfall that would backfire on Democrats. Catholic voters in Pennsylvania, in particular, are viewed as a pivotal demographic in the swing state that Biden, also Catholic, is trying to recapture.
Advertisement
While Democrats appear powerless to stop Barrett’s confirmation in the GOP-controlled Senate, they are seeking to use the process to weaken Trump’s reelection chances.
Barrett’s nomination could become a reckoning over abortion, an issue that has divided many Americans so bitterly for almost half a century. The idea of overturning or gutting Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion, has animated activists in both parties for decades. Now, with the seemingly decisive shift in the court’s ideological makeup, Democrats hope their voters will turn out in droves because of their frustration with the Barrett pick.
Trump has also increasingly embraced the high court — which he will have had an outsized hand in reshaping -– as an insurance policy in a close election.
Increases in mail, absentee and early voting brought about by the coronavirus pandemic have already led to a flurry of election litigation, and both Trump and Biden have assembled armies of lawyers to continue the fight once vote-counting begins. Trump has been open about tying his push to name a third justice to the court to a potentially drawn-out court fight to determine who will be sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021.
“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” Trump said Wednesday of the election, adding, “And I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Poll Ranks Barack And Michelle Obama As The World's Most Admired Man And Woman

Former President Barack Obama and wife Michelle are the most admired man and woman in the world , according to poll results released by YouGov on Friday .
Other prominent people high on the list included Chinese President Xi Jinping , who ranked third , the Dalai Lama , eighth , businessman and entrepreneur Elon Musk , ninth , Russian President Vladimir Putin , 12th , and President Donald Trump , 15th .
Ranking second , third and fourth on the list , respectively , were actress and social activist Angelina Jolie , Queen Elizabeth II and talk show host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee , came in 13th , while first lady Melania Trump was 19th .
Talk show host Ellen DeGeneres placed 20th ― a drop of five spots from her previous rank in 2019 , possibly due to allegations that she has overseen of a toxic work environment on her program .
YouGov , a British market research and data analytics company that has partnered with HuffPost in the past , has conducted annual polls on the world ’ s most admired individuals since 2014 .
Since its inception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had consistently won the top spot for most admired man before dropping to second place this year .
Michelle Obama topped the list of the world ’ s most admired woman in 2019 ― a title that Jolie had previously laid claim to .
According to YouGov ’ s analysis of the results , Barack Obama was notably more admired than Trump in all countries aside from Russia .
In that nation , which U.S. intelligence officials have consistently said interfered in America ’ s 2016 election and is doing so again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Obama the 15th .
On the women ’ s list , 12 of the top 20 most admired women are actors , singers or television personalities .
The majority of admired men , in contrast , are active in politics , business or sports .
YouGov ’ s finding strictly within the U.S. found that Barack Obama again ranked first among men , followed by Trump , former President Jimmy Carter , actor Tom Hanks and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) .
Here are the most popular men and women within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll .
YouGov polled across 42 countries and territories and asked respondents : “ Thinking about people alive in the world today , which [ man or woman ] do you most admire ?
” A figure ’ s “ admiration score ” was calculated by the respondents ’ answers to two questions ― whether they admired the person at all or whether the individual was the one they admired the most .

Former President Barack Obama and wife Michelle are the most admired man and woman in the world, according to poll results released by YouGov on Friday.
Other prominent people high on the list included Chinese President Xi Jinping, who ranked third, the Dalai Lama, eighth, businessman and entrepreneur Elon Musk, ninth, Russian President Vladimir Putin, 12th, and President Donald Trump, 15th.
Advertisement
YouGov, a British market research and data analytics company that has partnered with HuffPost in the past, has conducted annual polls on the world’s most admired individuals since 2014.
Since its inception, Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates had consistently won the top spot for most admired man before dropping to second place this year.
Michelle Obama topped the list of the world’s most admired woman in 2019 ― a title that Jolie had previously laid claim to.
YouGov
Advertisement
According to YouGov’s analysis of the results, Barack Obama was notably more admired than Trump in all countries aside from Russia. In that nation, which U.S. intelligence officials have consistently said interfered in America’s 2016 election and is doing so again, Trump was the 11th most popular man and Obama the 15th.
On the women’s list, 12 of the top 20 most admired women are actors, singers or television personalities. The majority of admired men, in contrast, are active in politics, business or sports.
YouGov’s finding strictly within the U.S. found that Barack Obama again ranked first among men, followed by Trump, former President Jimmy Carter, actor Tom Hanks and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Michelle Obama held her number one spot among women, follow by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Melania Trump, Queen Elizabeth II and Winfrey.
Here are the most popular men and women within the U.S., according to the new poll. YouGov
Advertisement
YouGov polled across 42 countries and territories and asked respondents: “Thinking about people alive in the world today, which [man or woman] do you most admire?”