thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--GOP Confident Supreme Court Won't Agree With GOP Lawsuit To Strike Down Obamacare

Their stated confidence in the future of Obamacare and its health care protections for millions of Americans comes as Democrats rail against Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , pointing to her criticism of a past ruling that upheld the health care law as evidence that she would move to strike it down .
The Supreme Court is set to hear the new case just days after the presidential election .
Appearing on Fox News , Sen. John Kennedy ( R-La . )
said that anyone worried about Barrett voting to strike down the law if she is confirmed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nov. 3 election , should “ put down the bong.
” But some people clearly believe the Supreme Court might invalidate Obamacare — namely , the plaintiffs seeking to overturn it : 18 Republican state attorneys general and the Trump administration .
If they didn ’ t think it ’ s at least possible that the court would agree with them , why would they litigate over the law at all ?
The GOP lawsuit argues the entire ACA became unconstitutional when Republicans zeroed out the fines people used to face under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Nearly all legal experts view the case as frivolous , but it ’ s still coming before the court just as Barrett would potentially get her seat , and after President Donald Trump ’ s repeated promises to only nominate justices who would overturn the ACA .
Democrats believe Barrett would side with her mentor and boss , the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia , who ruled twice to strike down the law .
It ’ s an issue they ’ re tying to the coming elections , seeking to make Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court nominee so close to Election Day .
“ It ’ s been an issue in the last decade that ’ s animated Republicans in Congress in their zeal to overturn the ACA , ” Sen. Pat Leahy ( D-Vt. ) said Tuesday while questioning Barrett at her confirmation hearing .
“ Republicans in Congress voted to repeal or gut the ACA more than 70 times in the last 10 years .
When they failed , they turned to the court.
” During Tuesday ’ s hearing , Barrett dodged questions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by saying she didn ’ t want to prejudge it .
However , she acknowledged she ultimately agreed with Scalia ’ s judicial philosophy .
“ I am not hostile to the ACA .
… I apply the law , I follow the law , ” Barrett said , stressing that she had not had conversations with anyone in the White House about the case .
Barrett drew a distinction between the new case and prior Supreme Court rulings upholding the law ― which she has criticized ― because the issue at hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law is so central to its purpose that the entire rest of the law must fall .
The GOP lawsuit argues it is ; most legal experts say it is not .
It ’ s possible that the Supreme Court chooses a middle-of-the-road option , ruling that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate ― a result that could lead to some of its provisions surviving while others do not .
Congressional Republicans could have fixed this issue simply by repealing the language in the ACA about the mandate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They haven ’ t .
Moreover , nearly every Republican senator voted to sustain the Trump administration ’ s support for the lawsuit seeking to strike down Obamacare in its entirety earlier this month .
GOP senators who staunchly oppose Obamacare and believe that the Supreme Court erred in upholding it openly doubled down on that position Tuesday , blasting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for allowing its survival .
But they , too , claimed that the new lawsuit doesn ’ t present a mortal threat to Obamacare .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going through rhetorical contortions about the Affordable Care Act and their efforts to do away with it in the courts because the law ’ s popularity has never been higher , especially its protections for people with preexisting conditions .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
After 10 years of fighting the Affordable Care Act and against all evidence, Republicans are suddenly downplaying the threat that a Supreme Court case advanced by their own party could pose to the law.
Their stated confidence in the future of Obamacare and its health care protections for millions of Americans comes as Democrats rail against Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, pointing to her criticism of a past ruling that upheld the health care law as evidence that she would move to strike it down. The Supreme Court is set to hear the new case just days after the presidential election.
Advertisement
“No one believes the Supreme Court is going to strike down the Affordable Care Act,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a longtime opponent of the ACA, said Monday in Kentucky’s Senate debate against Democrat Amy McGrath.
Appearing on Fox News, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said that anyone worried about Barrett voting to strike down the law if she is confirmed, which looks all but certain prior to the Nov. 3 election, should “put down the bong.”
“That’s preposterous,” Kennedy said Tuesday.
But some people clearly believe the Supreme Court might invalidate Obamacare — namely, the plaintiffs seeking to overturn it: 18 Republican state attorneys general and the Trump administration. If they didn’t think it’s at least possible that the court would agree with them, why would they litigate over the law at all?
The GOP lawsuit argues the entire ACA became unconstitutional when Republicans zeroed out the fines people used to face under the law’s “individual mandate.” Nearly all legal experts view the case as frivolous, but it’s still coming before the court just as Barrett would potentially get her seat, and after President Donald Trump’s repeated promises to only nominate justices who would overturn the ACA.
Advertisement
Democrats believe Barrett would side with her mentor and boss, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who ruled twice to strike down the law. It’s an issue they’re tying to the coming elections, seeking to make Republicans pay a political price for advancing a Supreme Court nominee so close to Election Day.
A ruling against the ACA would have far-reaching consequences, including an estimated 20 million people losing their health coverage, the elimination of Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies, and the abolishment of the law’s protections for people with preexisting conditions.
“It’s been an issue in the last decade that’s animated Republicans in Congress in their zeal to overturn the ACA,” Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) said Tuesday while questioning Barrett at her confirmation hearing. “Republicans in Congress voted to repeal or gut the ACA more than 70 times in the last 10 years. When they failed, they turned to the court.”
“Don’t act as if we’re making this stuff up,” added Sen. Richard Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in response to GOP claims that Democrats are simply fearmongering about health care being on the line during the coming Supreme Court hearing.
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett at her confirmation hearing on Tuesday. She dodged questions about how she would rule on the forthcoming Supreme Court case about the Affordable Care Act. AP Photo/Susan Walsh, Pool
Advertisement
During Tuesday’s hearing, Barrett dodged questions about how she would rule on the case by saying she didn’t want to prejudge it. However, she acknowledged she ultimately agreed with Scalia’s judicial philosophy.
“I am not hostile to the ACA. … I apply the law, I follow the law,” Barrett said, stressing that she had not had conversations with anyone in the White House about the case.
She added: “I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. ”
Barrett drew a distinction between the new case and prior Supreme Court rulings upholding the law ― which she has criticized ― because the issue at hand involves analyzing whether a portion of the law is so central to its purpose that the entire rest of the law must fall. The GOP lawsuit argues it is; most legal experts say it is not.
It’s possible that the Supreme Court chooses a middle-of-the-road option, ruling that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate ― a result that could lead to some of its provisions surviving while others do not.
Congressional Republicans could have fixed this issue simply by repealing the language in the ACA about the mandate, which is toothless without fines now. They haven’t. Moreover, nearly every Republican senator voted to sustain the Trump administration’s support for the lawsuit seeking to strike down Obamacare in its entirety earlier this month.
Advertisement
GOP senators who staunchly oppose Obamacare and believe that the Supreme Court erred in upholding it openly doubled down on that position Tuesday, blasting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for allowing its survival. But they, too, claimed that the new lawsuit doesn’t present a mortal threat to Obamacare.
“He rewrote the Affordable Care Act. Not just once, but twice,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said of Roberts. “It is inexcusable that he did that.”
“We on this side do not believe Obamacare is the best way to provide health care over time,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) added. “We want South Carolina-care, not Obamacare.”
It’s probably safe to say Republicans are going through rhetorical contortions about the Affordable Care Act and their efforts to do away with it in the courts because the law’s popularity has never been higher, especially its protections for people with preexisting conditions.
Both Trump and GOP lawmakers have sought to reassure the public that they support such provisions, even though they’ve long opposed them and failed to produce alternatives if Obamacare is ultimately struck down.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Watching Trump Dance To 'Y.M.C.A.' Post-COVID-19 Is... Something

Young man .
Walk away from the hate .
We ’ re all human , and we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ help make America great .
We ’ re all in this together .
Our colors @ @ @ @ @ and blue .
They stand for every one of you .
Together , here ’ @ @ @ @ @ gon na do , We ’ re gon na make America great !
Everybody sing @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump’s rally in Sanford, Florida, was on Monday night for his 2020 campaign. But his moves were strictly from 1977.
The president seemed especially peppy at the rally, to the point where he told fans he was ready to kiss everyone in the audience.
Advertisement
The enthusiasm continued when Trump boogied down to the Village People’s hit song “Y.M.C.A.” Trump’s campaign frequently plays the song at his rallies ― something that doesn’t exactly thrill the 70s-era disco band.
A lot of Twitter users weren’t exactly thrilled, either.
215,000 dead Americans and he’s out there doing this... pic.twitter.com/uYUddJcvNN — Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) October 13, 2020
This video reminds me of a very ill Boris Yeltsin running for reelection in 1996. Anyone else remember his dancing? https://t.co/mrY141QJG8 — Michael McFaul (@McFaul) October 13, 2020
“I don’t care if I’m contagious! They only have to live three more weeks to be able to vote for me. An honestly, less than 5% of them will die. So... 🤷♂. Get me out there dancing. I need to dance.” - Donald Trump — John Kinnear (@askdadblog) October 13, 2020
Advertisement
While the president was getting down to a 43-year-old song about covert hookups at an all-male institution, some of his followers were grooving to a new Trumpist version of the ditty.
Supporters recorded revised lyrics to the Village People song over the weekend and retitled it “M-A-G-A!” according to Hannity.com.
Here are some of the lines:
Young man. Walk away from the hate. We’re all human, and we don’t segregate. Just like women help make America great. We’re all in this together. Our colors are red, white, and blue. They stand for every one of you. Together, here’s what we’re gonna do, We’re gonna make America great! Everybody sing ‘M-A-G-A!’
A highly edited video shows the president appearing to dance to the new version.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--FBI Agent: Groups Discussed Kidnapping Virginia Governor

Special Agent Richard Trask was part of the investigation that led to six men being arrested and charged last week with plotting to kidnap Michigan ’ s Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer .
Seven other men face state terrorism charges .
Trask did not name Virginia ’ s Democratic governor , Ralph Northam , during his testimony in a federal courtroom in Grand Rapids .
He said members of anti-government groups from multiple states attended the meeting .
“ They discussed possible targets , taking a sitting governor , specifically issues with the governor of Michigan and Virginia based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He said the people at the meeting were unhappy with the governors ’ response to the coronavirus pandemic .
The June meeting was part of the FBI ’ s investigation of various anti-government groups , leading to last week ’ s stunning announcement that six men had been arrested for an alleged plot to kidnap Whitmer .
Tuesday ’ s court hearing was to review investigators ’ evidence against Adam Fox , Ty Garbin , Kaleb Franks , Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta and whether they should be detained before trial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The FBI used confidential sources , undercover agents and clandestine recordings to foil the alleged kidnapping conspiracy .
Some defendants had conducted coordinated surveillance of the Democratic governor ’ s vacation home in northern Michigan in August and September , according to a criminal complaint .
The men were trying to retaliate against Whitmer due to her “ uncontrolled power ” amid the coronavirus pandemic , authorities said .
They said four of the men had planned to meet last week to pay for explosives and exchange tactical gear .
Whitmer , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running mate and is nearly halfway through a four-year term , has been widely praised for her response to the virus outbreak but also sharply criticized by Republican lawmakers and people in conservative areas of the state .
The Capitol has been the site of many rallies , including ones with gun-toting protesters calling for her ouster .
Whitmer put major restrictions on personal movement and the economy , although many of those limits have been lifted since spring .
Fox , who was described as one of the leaders , was living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Grand Rapids .
The owner said Fox was opposed to wearing a mask during the pandemic and kept firearms and ammunition at the store .
Seven others linked to a paramilitary group called the Wolverine Watchmen were charged in state court for allegedly seeking to storm the Michigan Capitol and providing material support for terrorist acts by seeking a “ civil war .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) — Members of anti-government paramilitary groups discussed kidnapping Virginia’s governor during a June meeting in Ohio, an FBI agent testified Tuesday during a court hearing in Michigan.
Special Agent Richard Trask was part of the investigation that led to six men being arrested and charged last week with plotting to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Seven other men face state terrorism charges.
Advertisement
Trask did not name Virginia’s Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, during his testimony in a federal courtroom in Grand Rapids. He said members of anti-government groups from multiple states attended the meeting.
“They discussed possible targets, taking a sitting governor, specifically issues with the governor of Michigan and Virginia based on the lockdown orders,” Trask said. He said the people at the meeting were unhappy with the governors’ response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Trask did not discuss further planning aimed at Northam.
The June meeting was part of the FBI’s investigation of various anti-government groups, leading to last week’s stunning announcement that six men had been arrested for an alleged plot to kidnap Whitmer.
Tuesday’s court hearing was to review investigators’ evidence against Adam Fox, Ty Garbin, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta and whether they should be detained before trial. The men are all Michigan residents.
Advertisement
A sixth man, Barry Croft, was being held in Delaware.
The FBI used confidential sources, undercover agents and clandestine recordings to foil the alleged kidnapping conspiracy. Some defendants had conducted coordinated surveillance of the Democratic governor’s vacation home in northern Michigan in August and September, according to a criminal complaint.
The men were trying to retaliate against Whitmer due to her “uncontrolled power” amid the coronavirus pandemic, authorities said. They said four of the men had planned to meet last week to pay for explosives and exchange tactical gear.
Whitmer, who was considered as Joe Biden’s running mate and is nearly halfway through a four-year term, has been widely praised for her response to the virus outbreak but also sharply criticized by Republican lawmakers and people in conservative areas of the state. The Capitol has been the site of many rallies, including ones with gun-toting protesters calling for her ouster.
Whitmer put major restrictions on personal movement and the economy, although many of those limits have been lifted since spring.
Fox, who was described as one of the leaders, was living in the basement of a vacuum shop in Grand Rapids. The owner said Fox was opposed to wearing a mask during the pandemic and kept firearms and ammunition at the store.
Advertisement
The defendants face up to life in prison if convicted.
Seven others linked to a paramilitary group called the Wolverine Watchmen were charged in state court for allegedly seeking to storm the Michigan Capitol and providing material support for terrorist acts by seeking a “civil war.”
The investigation is ongoing.
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett Faces Senators’ Questions On Second Day Of Hearings

The 48-year-old appellate court judge declared her conservative views with often colloquial language , but refused many specifics .
She declined to say whether she would recuse herself from any election-related cases involving President Donald Trump , who nominated her to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and is pressing to have her confirmed before the the Nov. 3 election .
“ Judges can ’ t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns , I hate guns , I like abortion , I hate abortion — and walk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their will on the world , ” Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee during the second day of hearings .
Trump has said he wants a full nine-member court in place for any disputes arising from the heated election with Democrat Joe Biden .
Barret testified she has not spoken to Trump or his team about that , saying to do so would be a “ gross violation ” of judicial independence .
Pressed by panel Democrats , she declined to commit to recusing herself from post-election cases .
On her second day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol Hill mostly locked down with COVID-19 protocols , the mood quickly shifting to a more confrontational tone from opening day .
She was grilled in 30-minute segments by Democrats strongly opposed to Trump ’ s nominee yet virtually powerless to stop her .
Republicans are rushing toward confirmation along party lines .
Republicans have been focused on defending Barrett and her Catholic faith against possible criticism concerning issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage , and Graham asked if she would be able to shelve her personal beliefs to adhere to law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leahy , D-Vt. , tried to put her on the spot about several details of the health care law ’ s effects .
She could not recite specifics , including that 23 million people are covered by the law or that more than 2 million young people are on their parents ’ health insurance .
Senators probed her views on gun ownership and racial equity , at one point drawing an emotional response from the mother of seven , whose children include two adopted from Haiti , as she described watching the video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hands of police .
“ Racism persists , ” she said , adding that Floyd ’ s death had a “ very personal ” effect on her family and that she and her children wept over it .
But she told Sen. Dick Durbin , D-Ill. , that “ making broader diagnoses about the problem of racism is kind of beyond what I ’ m capable of doing as a judge.
” Underscoring the Republicans ’ confidence , Graham set an initial committee vote on the nomination for Thursday , the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final approval by the panel one week later and a vote for confirmation by the full Senate on Oct. 26 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett batted back Democrats’ skeptical questions on abortion, gun rights and election disputes in lively Senate confirmation testimony Tuesday, insisting she would bring no personal agenda to the court but would decide cases as they come.
The 48-year-old appellate court judge declared her conservative views with often colloquial language, but refused many specifics. She declined to say whether she would recuse herself from any election-related cases involving President Donald Trump, who nominated her to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and is pressing to have her confirmed before the the Nov. 3 election.
Advertisement
“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee during the second day of hearings.
“It’s not the law of Amy,” she said later. “It’s the law of the American people.”
Trump has said he wants a full nine-member court in place for any disputes arising from the heated election with Democrat Joe Biden. Barret testified she has not spoken to Trump or his team about that, saying to do so would be a “gross violation” of judicial independence. Pressed by panel Democrats, she declined to commit to recusing herself from post-election cases.
“I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting that entire process,” she said.
On her second day of hearings, Barrett returned to a Capitol Hill mostly locked down with COVID-19 protocols, the mood quickly shifting to a more confrontational tone from opening day. She was grilled in 30-minute segments by Democrats strongly opposed to Trump’s nominee yet virtually powerless to stop her. Republicans are rushing toward confirmation along party lines.
A frustrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the panel, all but implored the nominee to be more specific about how she would handle landmark abortion cases, including Roe v. Wade and the follow-up Pennsylvania case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which confirmed it in large part.
Advertisement
“It’s distressing not to get a good answer,” Feinstein told the judge.
Barrett told the senator she could not pre-commit to an approach.
“I don’t have an agenda to try to overrule Casey,” the judge said. “I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”
The committee chairman, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., gaveled open the session under coronavirus protocols that kept it off limits to members of the public. Barrett and most senators arrived in masks, removing them to speak. Some senators attended remotely.
Republicans have been focused on defending Barrett and her Catholic faith against possible criticism concerning issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, and Graham asked if she would be able to shelve her personal beliefs to adhere to law.
“I have done that,” she said. “I will do that still.”
Graham praised her the best possible nominee Trump could have chosen.
“I will do everything I can to make sure that you have a seat at the table. And that table is the Supreme Court,” he said.
Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett speaks during the second day of her Senate Judiciary committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on October 13, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by SUSAN WALSH/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) SUSAN WALSH via Getty Images
Advertisement
The Senate, led by Trump’s Republican allies, is pushing Barrett’s nomination to a quick vote before Nov. 3, and ahead of the the latest challenge to the “Obamacare” Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court is to hear a week after the election.
Barrett distanced herself from her past writings perceived as critical of the Obama-era health care law, saying those pieces were not addressing specific aspects of the law as she would if confirmed to the court.
“I am not hostile to the ACA,” Barrett told the senators. “I apply the law. I follow the law. You make the policy.”
She appeared stumped when Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., tried to put her on the spot about several details of the health care law’s effects. She could not recite specifics, including that 23 million people are covered by the law or that more than 2 million young people are on their parents’ health insurance.
The Indiana judge, accompanied by her family, described herself as taking a conservative, originalist approach to the Constitution - “text as text” — and believing a judge “doesn’t infuse her own meaning into it.”
Advertisement
She told the senators that while she admires the late Justice Antonin Scalia, her conservative mentor for whom she once clerked, she would bring her own approach to the high court.
“You would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett,” she declared.
Senators probed her views on gun ownership and racial equity, at one point drawing an emotional response from the mother of seven, whose children include two adopted from Haiti, as she described watching the video of the death of George Floyd at the hands of police.
“Racism persists,” she said, adding that Floyd’s death had a “very personal” effect on her family and that she and her children wept over it. But she told Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that “making broader diagnoses about the problem of racism is kind of beyond what I’m capable of doing as a judge.”
Overall, Barrett’s conservative views are at odds with the late Ginsburg, the liberal icon whose seat Trump nominated her to fill.
Ginsburg’s legacy was felt throughout the sessions, with some Democrats wearing lapel pins with her likeness. And Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Democrat Biden’s running mate, declared during Monday’s hearing that Barrett’s nomination has put in jeopardy everything Ginsburg fought to protect.
Advertisement
Barring a dramatic development, Republicans appear to have the votes to confirm Barrett to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, and they spent their time portraying her as a thoughtful judge with impeccable credentials. She would be Trump’s third justice.
Underscoring the Republicans’ confidence, Graham set an initial committee vote on the nomination for Thursday, the last day of hearings, which would allow final approval by the panel one week later and a vote for confirmation by the full Senate on Oct. 26.
Protesters rallied outside the Senate building with the hearing room largely closed to the public.
Other issues aside, Democrats are outraged that Republicans are moving so quickly, having refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee after Scalia’s death in February 2016, well before that year’s election.
__
Associated Press writers Matthew Daly and Michael Balsamo in Washington, Elana Schor in New York and Kathleen Ronayne in Sacramento, California, contributed to this report.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Pelosi's Choice: Time Is Running Out On A Stimulus Deal

At this point , Pelosi and the White House could reach a compromise package of around $ 2 trillion that includes $ 400 a week in extra unemployment benefits , another round of stimulus checks for the majority of Americans , and hundreds of billions of dollars in state and local aid .
But Pelosi trashed the White House ’ s most recent offer in a letter to her Democratic colleagues Tuesday , saying that the president “ only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up.
” Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around or after Election Day , potentially even waiting for a Democratic majority to take over the Senate and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to take over the White House .
But if that gambit fails and Democrats don ’ t gain the Senate , Republicans could block further stimulus and doom a Biden administration to a double dip recession .
That ’ s why Pelosi ’ s next decision is crucial .
If she waits too long to reach a deal with President Donald Trump and the Republicans , they may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lag between when the legislation is signed into law and when people start feeling the positive effects .
This is the decision Pelosi faces : She can help a president she despises while also helping millions of Americans who are suffering , or she can keep holding out for something better that may never materialize .
There are plenty of reasons for Pelosi to say no .
The Republican offer still falls short of the $ 500 billion that Pelosi wants for state and local governments .
It doesn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own $ 3.4 trillion bill in May .
And Pelosi says the deal lacks enough testing and tracing money to effectively combat the continued spread of the coronavirus , which has surged in recent weeks .
Wendy Dean , who lives in Naples , Florida , has been unable to make rent since August , when Congress dropped the extra $ 600 weekly unemployment benefit that lawmakers implemented in March to help people survive the coronavirus pandemic .
Dean ’ s landlord reminded her in a text message Friday that she needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December or sooner .
Dean lost her job as a dental assistant in March when the governor ordered non-essential businesses to shut down to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
The extra $ 600 supplemented the $ 275 provided by Florida , which has one of the stingiest state unemployment systems .
Even if Congress agreed to a reduced benefit of $ 400 , Dean and everyone else who has been receiving state benefits since July would likely receive a lump sum for the weeks of extra federal payments they missed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been selling off possessions and struggling to find an affordable apartment for herself , her teenage daughters and their pets .
She ’ s got health problems , including lupus and rheumatoid arthritis , that make her hesitate to take a low-paying job that would increase her risk of coronavirus exposure .
Millions of other workers are in similar circumstances , but the national unemployment rate fell to 7.9 % in August after peaking at 14.7 % in April , which Republicans have cited as evidence the economy doesn ’ t need as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number masks some ugly stuff : Early on in the pandemic , the vast majority of people laid off expected to return to their jobs , but as of August , the situation flipped , with most unemployed workers saying they ’ ve been permanently laid off .
Economists say that if Congress doesn ’ t dial up another spending bill , the recovery could falter and unemployment could start rising again .
One of the best ways to stimulate the economy is to give money to people who lost their jobs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on necessities .
Even if Pelosi agrees to a deal with the White House , it ’ s possible Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans actually block the deal — or that Trump once again suddenly decides he ’ s not interested .
Senate Republicans have very little appetite for the larger spending package being discussed by the White House .
That could , politically speaking , be the best case for Democrats , as Trump and Republicans would take all the heat for blocking relief .
Practically speaking , an actual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and strong unemployment benefits for the millions who are struggling — would overwhelmingly be the best scenario , at least from the perspective of workers at risk of losing access to food and shelter because the pandemic has destroyed their incomes .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Just three weeks before Election Day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House are at a crucial juncture negotiating another economic stimulus package.
At this point, Pelosi and the White House could reach a compromise package of around $2 trillion that includes $400 a week in extra unemployment benefits, another round of stimulus checks for the majority of Americans, and hundreds of billions of dollars in state and local aid.
Advertisement
But Pelosi trashed the White House’s most recent offer in a letter to her Democratic colleagues Tuesday, saying that the president “only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up.”
Pelosi could hold out for a bigger deal around or after Election Day, potentially even waiting for a Democratic majority to take over the Senate and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to take over the White House. But if that gambit fails and Democrats don’t gain the Senate, Republicans could block further stimulus and doom a Biden administration to a double dip recession.
That’s why Pelosi’s next decision is crucial. If she waits too long to reach a deal with President Donald Trump and the Republicans, they may not take it, knowing there’s a lag between when the legislation is signed into law and when people start feeling the positive effects.
This is the decision Pelosi faces: She can help a president she despises while also helping millions of Americans who are suffering, or she can keep holding out for something better that may never materialize.
Advertisement
There are plenty of reasons for Pelosi to say no. The Republican offer still falls short of the $500 billion that Pelosi wants for state and local governments. It doesn’t have the hazard pay that Democrats passed in their own $3.4 trillion bill in May. And Pelosi says the deal lacks enough testing and tracing money to effectively combat the continued spread of the coronavirus, which has surged in recent weeks.
But doing nothing could mean pointless material suffering for millions of people.
Wendy Dean, who lives in Naples, Florida, has been unable to make rent since August, when Congress dropped the extra $600 weekly unemployment benefit that lawmakers implemented in March to help people survive the coronavirus pandemic. Dean’s landlord reminded her in a text message Friday that she needs to get out by the end of December or sooner.
“I will be gone one way or another,” Dean responded.
Dean lost her job as a dental assistant in March when the governor ordered non-essential businesses to shut down to slow the spread of the coronavirus. The extra $600 supplemented the $275 provided by Florida, which has one of the stingiest state unemployment systems.
Even if Congress agreed to a reduced benefit of $400, Dean and everyone else who has been receiving state benefits since July would likely receive a lump sum for the weeks of extra federal payments they missed.
Dean, 48, has been closely following political news and contacting lawmakers to encourage them to strike a deal.
Advertisement
“I never knew who these people were and now it’s my daily thing,” she said.
In the meantime, she’s been selling off possessions and struggling to find an affordable apartment for herself, her teenage daughters and their pets. She’s got health problems, including lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, that make her hesitate to take a low-paying job that would increase her risk of coronavirus exposure.
Millions of other workers are in similar circumstances, but the national unemployment rate fell to 7.9% in August after peaking at 14.7% in April, which Republicans have cited as evidence the economy doesn’t need as much help. But the improving headline number masks some ugly stuff: Early on in the pandemic, the vast majority of people laid off expected to return to their jobs, but as of August, the situation flipped, with most unemployed workers saying they’ve been permanently laid off.
Economists say that if Congress doesn’t dial up another spending bill, the recovery could falter and unemployment could start rising again. One of the best ways to stimulate the economy is to give money to people who lost their jobs, since they’ll spend it quickly on necessities.
Even if Pelosi agrees to a deal with the White House, it’s possible Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans actually block the deal — or that Trump once again suddenly decides he’s not interested. Senate Republicans have very little appetite for the larger spending package being discussed by the White House. That could, politically speaking, be the best case for Democrats, as Trump and Republicans would take all the heat for blocking relief.
McConnell announced a vote next week on a smaller bill including only aid for small businesses to give his vulnerable members more political cover ahead of the election, ignoring Trump’s calls on Twitter to “Go big or go home” on another stimulus package.
Advertisement
Practically speaking, an actual deal — with real relief for workers and strong unemployment benefits for the millions who are struggling — would overwhelmingly be the best scenario, at least from the perspective of workers at risk of losing access to food and shelter because the pandemic has destroyed their incomes.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Campaign Event For Connecticut's First Black Congresswoman Interrupted By Racists

Black women are expected to press on , to ignore this behavior ; to not talk explicitly about it because it is uncomfortable , divisive or does not reflect the sentiments of most people .
I have watched other women weather this storm and fend off these types of attacks and wonder if in their quiet places they have felt what I am feeling right now .
We have become numb to this behavior , instinct kicks in and we just move on .
So many well intentioned people say things like , ignore it , you ’ re better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it bother you .
Even as I write , I am exhausted by the fact that I am carefully choosing my words , so as to capture the experience , but not offend the reader .
We are left debating zoom security , yet not addressing the underlying issue ― that pockets of racism and hate still exist right in our own front yard .
The most painful part of it all is that no matter what you achieve in life , no matter how many degrees you earn or how good of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all some people will ever allow themselves to see is a N-word .

Black women are expected to press on, to ignore this behavior; to not talk explicitly about it because it is uncomfortable, divisive or does not reflect the sentiments of most people. I have watched other women weather this storm and fend off these types of attacks and wonder if in their quiet places they have felt what I am feeling right now. We have become numb to this behavior, instinct kicks in and we just move on. So many well intentioned people say things like, ignore it, you’re better than that or don’t let it bother you. Even as I write, I am exhausted by the fact that I am carefully choosing my words, so as to capture the experience, but not offend the reader. We are left debating zoom security, yet not addressing the underlying issue ― that pockets of racism and hate still exist right in our own front yard. The most painful part of it all is that no matter what you achieve in life, no matter how many degrees you earn or how good of a person you try to be ― all some people will ever allow themselves to see is a N-word.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Catholics For Biden Co-Chair Says Progressives Should Avoid Amy Coney Barrett’s Faith

Drew Angerer/POOL via Reuters Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett participates in the second day of her confirmation hearing @ @ @ @ @ on Capitol Hill in Washington , D.C. , on Oct. 13 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Amy Coney Barrett is a conservative. She’s also a Roman Catholic. If, as expected, Senate Republicans confirm her as President Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the seat of late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it could represent an enormous victory for conservatives. It would further solidify Republican control of the judicial branch and pose an impediment to Democratic rule, even if Democrats seize control of both the legislative and executive branches in just three weeks.
With so much on the line ― including the future of the Affordable Care Act, reproductive health care and LGBTQ rights ― some media coverage has examined Barrett’s religious beliefs and practices, exploring whether her deep faith would dictate the outcome of cases that might come before her in court.
Advertisement
Barrett has lived her life largely within Catholic environments. Until Trump nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in 2017, she was a professor at Notre Dame Law School, where she spoke at events held by student groups that opposed abortion rights and signed a newspaper advertisement opposing “abortion on demand.”
Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett participates in the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 13. Drew Angerer/POOL via Reuters
In Barrett’s confirmation hearing so far this week, Democrats have largely avoided questions directly related to Barrett’s faith. Republicans have signaled that they’re ready to pounce on any such lines of questioning, and a botched question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein during Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing ― in which the California Democrat said “the dogma lives loudly within” Barrett ― has since become a rallying cry for Catholic conservatives.
Catholic social teaching encompasses a wide range of issues in the political realm. But in modern political history, often due to the choices of the church’s leadership in America, the enormously broad scope of Catholic social teaching is often boiled down to a single political issue: the legal status of abortion.
Advertisement
I spoke with Stephen Schneck, a former professor at the Catholic University of America whom I covered during my time as an editor for the student newspaper. Schneck is a former director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies (previously known as the Life Cycle Institute), and he was on the White House Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships during former President Barack Obama’s administration. Schneck is supporting former Vice President Joe Biden in the 2020 election and serves as the national co-chair of Catholics for Biden.
We discussed Catholic social teaching, how the church’s messaging has shifted under Pope Francis, the history of anti-Catholicism in American political life, and how he thinks Democrats should approach (or avoid) issues pertaining to Barrett’s faith.
One thing you said [in 2009] that stuck with me is that there’s nothing like Catholic social teaching that makes both Republicans and Democrats cranky. We know that Catholic social teaching on abortion has been an issue for Catholic Democrats going back decades, so maybe for readers you could explain some of those Catholic social teachings that make Republicans cranky.
It’s a long list. Care for creation — in other words, you know, ecological concerns about climate change and so forth. The death penalty. Under Pope Francis, the Catechism itself has been changed so that Catholics are no longer allowed to support the death penalty.
Where do I go? The criticisms that Catholic social teaching has really launched for decades ― from Rerum Novarum [“Of Revolutionary Change” (1891)] to Quadragesimo Anno [“In the 40th Year” (1931)] to some of the most recent statements by Pope Francis ― challenging the nature of the capitalist economic order.
Advertisement
We could talk about the fact that at least since the end of the 19th century, the Catholic Church has insisted on the importance of labor unions and the ability to organize labor in all sorts of circumstances in every country, and so on and so forth.
We could talk about [how] policymaking should be preferencing the needs of the most oppressed, the poorest, the most vulnerable people. These things should be at the top of our list when we’re thinking about public policy needs. Every public policy should be assessed from our concern for the poorest and most vulnerable and most marginalized populations. And on and on.
It’s a really, really long list, and I’m not even beginning to scratch the surface. The absolute right to health care. The idea that leaders should be servants rather than masters. I don’t know where to begin, it’s a long list.
Given the importance of all those issues, how did we get to a place where, you know, so many Catholics and so many Americans see the criminalization of abortion as the only issue of importance to the church?
Actually, I don’t think that’s true. It’s difficult to say who counts as the church here, but if you look at the bishops’ guide for plumbing consciences before an election year ― their so-called Faithful Citizenship guide that came out several years ago but which has been refreshed several times ― it’s quite clear that Catholics are supposed to be thinking about all these issues and not just abortion.
Advertisement
And I think if you look at the numbers, the polling on Catholics across the United States, you see that Catholics are concerned about the economy and Catholics are concerned about health care. Catholics are concerned about all of the things that other Americans are concerned about as well. It’s too bad that they’re often ― by both the left and the right ― somehow treated as single-issue voters.
Do you think that the American bishops have devoted too much time to the issue of abortion at the expense of these key Catholic social teaching issues?
It’s not my place to actually criticize our bishops, but I would say that if you look at what bishops around the world apart from the United States are talking about in terms of public policy in their communities, it seems that in the United States, in comparison, our bishops talk about abortion much more than, say, the bishops in Asia or the bishops in Latin America or the bishops in Africa or the bishops in Europe.
I think that just shows some peculiarities about the church in the United States ... and the polarized politics of the United States.
How much does the makeup of the population of American Catholics influence what the bishops are doing in the United States compared to in other countries? American Catholics are, at this point in time in history, generally speaking, more economically advantaged than the populations in other countries that are primarily Catholic.
Advertisement
Catholics in the United States have been so thoroughly assimilated into American culture that, I would say for the vast majority of American Catholics, they look at politics through partisan lenses and their Catholic faith actually doesn’t weigh very much.
It’s a chicken-or-egg argument. Are right-wing Catholics in the United States focused on abortion because it’s an issue for the Republican Party, or are they focused on abortion because it’s an issue for the Catholic Church? And similarly, we could say just the reverse. Are left-leaning Catholics in the United States interested in topics like capital punishment because they’re driven by the concerns of their church, or are they more driven by the politics of the Democratic Party?
I think that these are legitimate questions. But I think that’s really what’s distinctive about Catholics in America — that we have become so assimilated in American culture and society that, by and large, if you look at polling of American Catholics, on any issue, it pretty much mirrors that of the general population.
I think this is something worthy of a lot more research, but it sure seems to me that we’re driven more by our domestic kind of American outlook ― whether it’s Republican or Democrat, blue state or red state ― than we’re driven by the actual church teachings on these issues.
Given what you said about assimilation of American Catholics, I was wondering if you could speak to the history of anti-Catholicism in American politics. It was obviously this major issue for the late President John F. Kennedy 60 years ago, but it seems like we’re in a much different place now.
Advertisement
Well the history, of course, is a dark one, and anti-Catholicism goes back much before the American founding. Many of these founders and framers whose original writings and original canon [Barrett] wants to decipher were profoundly anti-Catholic.
It goes way back. We could talk through the 19th century about the know-nothings and “no Irish need apply” and all of the derogatory names for various Irish immigrant populations that came to the United States, or whether it’s Italians or Poles or whatever. It’s a long, long list.
Sometimes, it was very prominent. John F. Kennedy faced real, overt prejudice because of his Catholic faith, particularly in the American South and places like West Virginia, but not just there. That prejudice was in Oregon, that prejudice was all over.
One of the great triumphs of his presidency in a sense was to kind of normalize being a Catholic in the United States. We are citizens, too. We are part of the country too. Kennedy opened the way for people like Amy Coney Barrett and Joe Biden to be pursuing the offices that they’re pursuing right now.
How do you think the racial makeup of American Catholics influenced that? Obviously, the population of Hispanic and Latinx Catholics has expanded greatly in recent years. But overall, despite Catholics’ rich history in the civil rights era, the percentage of Black Catholics is much smaller than the general U.S. population. How did that help in terms of integration and assimilation into the American political scene?
Advertisement
It’s complicated. There’s a great book, for example, about how the Irish became white, which even though it’s talking about an ethnic group, it kind of gives you a sense of how, for a while, Catholics too were often viewed in if not overtly racial terms, in cognitive racial terms. Italians were presented as swarthy, and Irish were presented as ruddy. So there was kind of a racial dimension to the concerns about Catholics, too.
But no doubt it helped for Catholics with assimilation that Catholics’ skin color looked a lot like English skin color, looked a lot like the skin color of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, so their assimilation was quite a bit easier as a result.
It’s interesting to note places where there are large Black Catholic populations, like Louisiana and a few other places in the country. These were places that during Reconstruction time there was a way in which Black Catholics could practice their faith, and the church accommodated that. But the racial history involved in all of this is very complicated and has lots of little dark chapters.
So let’s talk about Judge Amy Coney Barrett. What have you made so far of media coverage of her faith?
I have to say I was disappointed initially. It seemed as if — and, you know, the Huffington Post is somewhat responsible for this, too — it seemed as if there was an effort to sensationalize her faith practices, and I thought that was beyond the pale. And, of course, your more conservative media outlets also sort of seized on her faith but used it as a way to create zingers against the left. So I’ve been disappointed that her faith has been kind of objectified and dragged into the political arena by both Republicans and Democrats.
Advertisement
As the Constitution makes clear, there can be no religious tests for public office in the United States. And so those questions, I think, are properly out of bounds, and that kind of sensationalizing just really, really has no place. But it has occurred. And it’s occurring today as I listen to several Republican senators. Even though the Democrats haven’t said a word about Judge Barrett’s faith, nevertheless, they’re bringing out those zingers that the Republican right brought up several weeks ago.
“Handmaiden,” for example, in Catholicism is a term of respect, like a servant of God. Is that what you’re sort of referring to in some of those instances?
You and I both know this really well, Ryan. The Magnificat begins with Mary describing herself as a handmaiden of the Lord. That sort of leadership is something that is very important for understanding how authority flows through Catholic theology.
So how do non-Catholic Democrats and the media — how do you think they should walk that line in terms of discussing Judge Barrett’s faith, you know, both critically and respectfully while also exploring issues of how it could affect the greater American public through her judicial rulings?
I think her faith is out of bounds, personally. And I would counsel all sides, whether it’s a Republican questioning her about whether her Catholic faith would affect her rulings on the death penalty or a Democrat questioning whether her Catholic faith would affect her rulings on abortion, I think all of those things are out of bounds and should not be asked.
Advertisement
I think that the questioning should stick with the judge’s record and with the judge’s writings. I think it’s perfectly appropriate to explore her judicial philosophy and the sources of her judicial philosophy, her textualism and originalist approach to a jurisprudence. I think those are perfectly legitimate topics. But religion, I think, is not appropriate. We should not be exploring her religious beliefs.
There’s been a considerable shift in Francis’ papacy on issues such as climate change and poverty ― some things you’ve mentioned before. Do you think that shift has translated as much to the United States? Do you think the American bishops are speaking out as vocally as Pope Francis has on those issues?
I’d say that Pope Francis is at the vanguard of this turn of the church toward becoming a church of and by and for the poor. That’s Pope Francis. In the appointment of new bishops to the United States, I’m just seeing tremendous appointments that are bringing that message to the United States.
But it’s going to take a while. Just as we see Pope Francis struggling to transform the Curia, the church in the United States is going to be a struggle to turn around. You don’t turn the Titanic on a dime, and I think that is in a sense what we’re looking at here. Lots of bishops aren’t completely on board with Pope Francis and still have some hesitation about some of the directions that he’s going, and I don’t think that’s going to go away anytime soon.
But I’m tremendously encouraged and feeling a great deal of hope based on recent efforts by our bishops. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ― and especially its social justice office ― has really done such a good job in bringing much more openness and appreciation of Pope Francis.
Advertisement
In terms of social justice, we see that brought up in terms of “social justice warriors” being used as this thing against the left, but talk about the importance of social justice to Catholicism.
Not just Catholicism, but I think Christianity. For me, the one passage in all of Scripture that kind of is at the heart of my faith is that passage at the beginning of the Gospel where Jesus has gone back to his hometown and returns to his home temple. He puts his hand out and draws out a scroll, and it’s a scroll from Isaiah. He reads it and the scroll, if you remember, Ryan, explains that the Redeemer will come to bring good news to the poor, to heal the blind and the lame, and to proclaim a jubilee for the Lord. That’s Jesus himself saying that, and then he goes on to say to his disciples that are around him, you are witnessing the manifestation of this right now.
That’s ultimately what I think Christianity is about. There’s much more that we’ve added and that I certainly affirm about Christianity, but it’s that bringing the good news to the poor. That is the heart and soul, I think, about what Christianity is all about, as Jesus himself seems to say in that passage. So for me, you can’t separate social justice from Christianity. It is Christianity.
I’m just somehow often surprised and shocked when Christians focus wrongly, I think, or overmuch on things that were added later, or interpretations that have been glossed on at the expense of grasping, you know, the really deep social justice message of the Gospels.
Switching back to the issue of abortion, I was hoping for non-Catholic readers if you could sort of explain what Catholic teaching is on the issue of abortion. Obviously Catholics believe it is morally wrong, but does the church’s position necessitate that you advocate for abortion’s immediate criminalization, or is advocating for public policy [like a stronger social safety net] that reduces the number of abortions a laudable short-term goal for Catholics?
Advertisement
The church’s position, of course, is that abortion is morally wrong. It’s defined as an intrinsic evil, which means that it’s always wrong and wrong in itself, in the same way that lying is always wrong and wrong in itself.
There’s nothing in moral theology that says how we’re supposed to deal with this in public life. So there’s nothing in moral theology that says we have to overturn Roe v. Wade. There’s nothing in moral theology that says we have to vote for this candidate or that candidate, that’s just not there.
What is there is it’s wrong and that we have an obligation to try to, in public life, find ways to minimize it, just as we should find ways to minimize lying or minimize theft or whatever. We have an onus on us to do that sort of thing. So we have a prudential capacity from God to figure out, well, what’s the best way to achieve that end? Some people, including a good number of church leaders in the United States, have decided that the best way right now to deal with this is to try to overturn Roe v. Wade, change the law that allows it, and perhaps to criminalize either people who receive it or people who provide it, or some combination of the two.
Within the realm of prudential reason in this regard, that could all be fine, too. But that needn’t be the only way in which we approach. And I have to say frankly that my approach, and this is based on practicality ― and I’m applying my prudential wisdom here as effectively as I can ― it seems to me clearly that the rate of abortion in the United States goes down when women have access to health care both for themselves and their children, when there’s adequate nutrition, [when] — I think this is very important — when housing is available to at-risk women, when education and jobs are available, and on and on and on.
In other words, we’re talking about social justice policies for the most part, and those kind of policies are associated, I think, clearly with decline in the number of abortions. So at the end of the Obama administration, the abortion numbers in the United States dropped to before what they were in 1973, what they were when Roe v. Wade became law of the land.
Advertisement
There are countries in the world where abortion is illegal, but nevertheless the rate of illegal abortions is higher than the abortion rate in the United States. So there’s no guarantee that overturning Roe v. Wade or criminalizing abortion in the United States is actually going to make this horrible thing go away.
Politicians in the United States that make such a big deal about ending abortion, in fact, never do, even when they control the presidency, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, as we see recently. I really have the suspicion that for a lot of these politicians, they’re really not all that interested in trying to actually end it.
A major component of Catholic moral teaching is that the ends don’t justify the means, and I was curious if you sort of saw that in any way as applicable to the current posture of most of the pro-life movement: when you have, essentially, the thought of using the judicial system to implement policies supported by a minority of Americans through, potentially, means of deception ― hiding what your true views are or coating them in a legal posture ― to bring about the end of Roe v. Wade.
I hadn’t thought about it in those terms, but I think you’re onto something. I don’t think I would put it in that way, but that seems right.
Given Catholic social teaching on contraception, what do you think the church can do to advocate for social policies that would reduce the number of abortions?
Advertisement
A good number of social justice policies work to reduce the number of abortions. There’s quite a bit of that going on — everything from, you know, paid family leave to helping the poor and health care for all. These are all positions that the church has advocated, and I think continuing to advocate for those is exactly where we’re going to have the greatest success in reducing numbers.
Vice President Joe Biden has spoken a lot about how his Catholic faith has informed his views, and I was curious, first of all, of what you think that says about the state of Catholics in America where you have Biden’s Catholicism being touted by this political campaign. And second of all, would you like to see Catholic Democrats speak more frankly about how their faith has informed their own moral and political views?
It’s funny, I’m from a generation of Catholics that thought we needed to kind of keep our faith quiet, “walk humbly with your God” sort of thing, and not lift it up like a battle flag, and to a certain extent I think I still am. I think we should be inspired by our faith. I think that our faith should inform our conscience. I don’t think we should weaponize our faith in politics.
That said, I’ve met Joe Biden a number of times in pretty private situations and I can attest his faith is real, and it’s something that matters to him and does inform his conscience.
The fact that you had somebody like Lou Holtz calling Biden a CINO ― Catholic in name only ― or even worse, President Trump saying that Joe Biden would be against God and against religion and against the Bible, I think given that sort of effort to suggest that Biden and people like Biden can’t be true Catholics, I think it’s utterly appropriate for the Biden campaign to be talking about the candidate’s faith, and I’m happy to talk about it myself.
Advertisement
Lastly, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, came out with this recent encyclical. What kind of message do you think he’s sending to American Catholics, particularly given the timing of its release?
I think the timing is just the timing. I don’t think the pope intended for an October surprise. But the message, though, I think there is a kind of sense that ― not just for America, but the developed countries generally are a target for this message ― the real thrust of Fratelli Tutti is against radical individualism, coupled with economic materialism. In the pope’s mind, the world is in desperate need ― and he thinks that the COVID crisis brings this out so clearly ― of solidarity, of community. We need to find ways to overcome our polarization and overcome the economic self-interest and overcome the radical individualism, all the things that are separating us from one another and kind of forcing us into solipsistic, relativistic worlds of our own imagination.
These things need to be resisted and we need to find a way back to community, to belonging together, to togetherness, to unity. Not just as a nation. Not only does America need to find a way to overcome its polarizations and its divisions and its self-interest and so forth and come together, but really the pope is saying all of the developed worlds are being torn apart by these structural sins, and we need to overcome them and find solidarity, real fraternity, real community, the kind of community where we recognize within each other the face of God.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Cut Fiber Downs Virginia Voter Registration Site On Last Day To Sign Up

Alexander Drago/Reuters `` I Voted '' stickers lie in a box for voters who return their ballots at an early voting site in Arlington , Virginia , on Sept. 18 , 2020 .
On Tuesday morning , Virginia officials announced that a cut fiber was responsible for crashing the state ’ s voter registration website on what is the last day for potential voters to sign up .
In a tweet sent at 9 a.m. , the Virginia Information Technologies Agency said the cut fiber was affecting the networks of “ multiple ” state agencies .
Another tweet , sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Verizon fiber was “ inadvertently struck ” during a roadside utilities project and that “ technicians continue to work diligently on a resolution.
” The Virginia Department of Elections confirmed midmorning that its Citizen Portal , the online platform it uses for voter registration , went offline due to the cut .
This morning we were alerted by VITA that a fiber cut near the Commonwealth Enterprise Solutions Center was impacting data circuits and VPN connectivity for multiple agencies .
This has affected the citizen portal along w/ registrar ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( @ vaELECT ) October 13 , 2020 The most recent updates from the Department of Elections were posted on social media shortly before 10 a.m. , when it said technicians were on site working to repair the problem .
Shortly after news of the statewide outage broke Tuesday , Virginia Lt. Gov .
Justin Fairfax ( D ) called for the voter registration deadline to be extended beyond Tuesday .
I am officially calling for Virginia ’ s Registration Deadline to be extended beyond today due to the service outages impacting voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will work with the Administration to resolve this issue and ensure all voters have access to # Vote .
https : //t.co/PKt3vKoOnu — Justin Fairfax ( @ LGJustinFairfax ) October 13 , 2020 Later Tuesday afternoon , Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D ) also said he would support a court-ordered extension of the voter registration deadline .
Virginia extended that deadline in 2016 after the voter registration website crashed on the last day for registration that year and the progressive advocacy group New Virginia Majority and others sued for more time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not respond to HuffPost ’ s request for comment .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
On Tuesday morning, Virginia officials announced that a cut fiber was responsible for crashing the state’s voter registration website on what is the last day for potential voters to sign up.
In a tweet sent at 9 a.m., the Virginia Information Technologies Agency said the cut fiber was affecting the networks of “multiple” state agencies.
Advertisement
"I Voted" stickers lie in a box for voters who return their ballots at an early voting site in Arlington, Virginia, on Sept. 18, 2020. Alexander Drago/Reuters
Another tweet, sent by VITA near 1 p.m., said that the Verizon fiber was “inadvertently struck” during a roadside utilities project and that “technicians continue to work diligently on a resolution.”
The Virginia Department of Elections confirmed midmorning that its Citizen Portal, the online platform it uses for voter registration, went offline due to the cut.
This morning we were alerted by VITA that a fiber cut near the Commonwealth Enterprise Solutions Center was impacting data circuits and VPN connectivity for multiple agencies. This has affected the citizen portal along w/ registrar’s offices. — VA Dept of Elections (@vaELECT) October 13, 2020
Advertisement
The most recent updates from the Department of Elections were posted on social media shortly before 10 a.m., when it said technicians were on site working to repair the problem.
Shortly after news of the statewide outage broke Tuesday, Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) called for the voter registration deadline to be extended beyond Tuesday.
I am officially calling for Virginia’s Registration Deadline to be extended beyond today due to the service outages impacting voters’ ability to register statewide.
We will work with the Administration to resolve this issue and ensure all voters have access to #Vote. https://t.co/PKt3vKoOnu — Justin Fairfax (@LGJustinFairfax) October 13, 2020
Later Tuesday afternoon, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) also said he would support a court-ordered extension of the voter registration deadline.
Virginia extended that deadline in 2016 after the voter registration website crashed on the last day for registration that year and the progressive advocacy group New Virginia Majority and others sued for more time.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Kanye West's First Campaign Video Puts Faith In Prayer

Rapper Kanye West on Monday released his first official campaign video in his long-shot bid to be elected U.S. president on Nov. 3 , focusing on religion and families .
West , 43 , who launched his campaign for the White House with erratic statements on his social media accounts in July , is on the official ballot in a handful of U.S. states , according to reports , but has no mathematical chance of winning .
In Monday ’ s video , the musician and fashion designer asked supporters to vote for him as a write-in candidate .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the kind of nation , the kind of people , that God intends us to be , ” West says in the video , featuring families at prayer and nature shots .
The video was the first major bid by West , formerly one of President Donald Trump ’ s biggest celebrity supporters , to be taken as a serious contender for the White House .
He has done little campaigning under his self-styled Birthday Party as concern grew over his mental health .
The “ Heartless ” singer , who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he suffered from bipolar disorder .
Some political analysts believe that West ’ s run for office could siphon some Black supporters away from Democrat Joe Biden in the presidential election .
West has spent some $ 5.8 million on his campaign this year , according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission .
Most of the funding comes from a $ 6.7 million loan from himself .
His campaign website website carries ads for hoodies , hats and T-shirts ranging from $ 40 to $ 160 .
It also sets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform of policing and the justice systems , reducing student debt , and restructuring the education system to better serve vulnerable people .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rapper Kanye West on Monday released his first official campaign video in his long-shot bid to be elected U.S. president on Nov. 3, focusing on religion and families.
West, 43, who launched his campaign for the White House with erratic statements on his social media accounts in July, is on the official ballot in a handful of U.S. states, according to reports, but has no mathematical chance of winning.
Advertisement
In Monday’s video, the musician and fashion designer asked supporters to vote for him as a write-in candidate.
“By turning to faith, we will be the kind of nation, the kind of people, that God intends us to be,” West says in the video, featuring families at prayer and nature shots.
The video was the first major bid by West, formerly one of President Donald Trump’s biggest celebrity supporters, to be taken as a serious contender for the White House. He has done little campaigning under his self-styled Birthday Party as concern grew over his mental health.
Advertisement
The “Heartless” singer, who has 21 Grammy awards, said in 2018 that he suffered from bipolar disorder.
Some political analysts believe that West’s run for office could siphon some Black supporters away from Democrat Joe Biden in the presidential election.
West has spent some $5.8 million on his campaign this year, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission. Most of the funding comes from a $6.7 million loan from himself.
His campaign website website carries ads for hoodies, hats and T-shirts ranging from $40 to $160.
It also sets out a 10-point policy platform that includes reform of policing and the justice systems, reducing student debt, and restructuring the education system to better serve vulnerable people.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Solar Expected To Dethrone Coal, Become ‘New King Of Electricity,’ Global Forecast Finds

In 2010 , the International Energy Agency called coal “ the backbone of global electricity generation ” in its outlook for the next decade of worldwide energy markets .
On Tuesday , the Paris-based intergovernmental organization said renewables would make up 80 % of new power generation by 2030 , overtaking the fossil fuels that presently dominate electricity production .
Installing solar photovoltaics is “ consistently cheaper ” than building coal or natural gas plants in most countries , and solar projects “ now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen , ” the IEA ’ s researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020s .
The organization expects solar energy to eclipse coal as the top source of electricity in the next five years , with wind energy following close behind .
Government policies to slash planet-heating emissions would only hasten the trend toward solar as China , the world ’ s largest climate polluter , seeks to level off its carbon dioxide output by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2060 .
“ I see solar becoming the new king of the world ’ s electricity markets , ” Fatih Birol , the IEA ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
“ If governments and investors step up their clean energy efforts in line with our Sustainable Development Scenario , the growth of both solar and wind would be even more spectacular – and hugely encouraging for overcoming the world ’ s climate challenge.
” Solar energy is set to dominate new energy production in the next 10 years , with wind close behind .
Hydropower was expected to remain the top source of existing non-fossil generation .
Demand for gas was forecast to keep growing over the next decade , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline as renewables come online at a faster rate .
But the world ’ s appetite for oil was projected to peak by 2030 .
“ The era of global oil demand growth will come to an end in the next decade , ” Birol said .
“ But without a large shift in government policies , there is no sign of a rapid decline.
” The researchers found that grid operators remain “ the weak link in the transformation of the power sector , ” with demand for new transmission lines to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to densely populated areas growing by 80 % compared to the past decade .
The report also found that worldwide poverty levels increased in 2020 , making electricity unaffordable for more than 100 million people who already had electricity connections .
The IEA expected the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa without any electricity at all ― a figure that already topped 580 million people , nearly twice the population of the United States ― to grow this year , reversing years of progress .
To keep global temperatures from exceeding 1.5 degrees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deployment of renewables will need to be coupled with the increased use of low-carbon hydrogen fuels and carbon capture technology .
Advanced nuclear reactors could also play a key role , the report said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In 2010, the International Energy Agency called coal “the backbone of global electricity generation” in its outlook for the next decade of worldwide energy markets.
On Tuesday, the Paris-based intergovernmental organization said renewables would make up 80% of new power generation by 2030, overtaking the fossil fuels that presently dominate electricity production.
Advertisement
Installing solar photovoltaics is “consistently cheaper” than building coal or natural gas plants in most countries, and solar projects “now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen,” the IEA’s researchers said in their decade-long outlook for the 2020s.
The organization expects solar energy to eclipse coal as the top source of electricity in the next five years, with wind energy following close behind.
Government policies to slash planet-heating emissions would only hasten the trend toward solar as China, the world’s largest climate polluter, seeks to level off its carbon dioxide output by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2060.
“I see solar becoming the new king of the world’s electricity markets,” Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, said in a statement. “If governments and investors step up their clean energy efforts in line with our Sustainable Development Scenario, the growth of both solar and wind would be even more spectacular – and hugely encouraging for overcoming the world’s climate challenge.”
Advertisement
Solar energy is set to dominate new energy production in the next 10 years, with wind close behind. Jo Yong hak / Reuters
Hydropower was expected to remain the top source of existing non-fossil generation. Demand for gas was forecast to keep growing over the next decade, particularly in Asia, though the fuel could decline as renewables come online at a faster rate. But the world’s appetite for oil was projected to peak by 2030.
“The era of global oil demand growth will come to an end in the next decade,” Birol said. “But without a large shift in government policies, there is no sign of a rapid decline.”
The researchers found that grid operators remain “the weak link in the transformation of the power sector,” with demand for new transmission lines to carry electricity from sun-soaked or windy locales to densely populated areas growing by 80% compared to the past decade.
The report also found that worldwide poverty levels increased in 2020, making electricity unaffordable for more than 100 million people who already had electricity connections. The IEA expected the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa without any electricity at all ― a figure that already topped 580 million people, nearly twice the population of the United States ― to grow this year, reversing years of progress.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--These Award-Winning Photos Of The Microscopic World Will Blow Your Mind

On Tuesday , Nikon Instruments announced the winner of its Nikon Small World photo competition .
The contest , founded in 1974 , received more than 2,000 entries from scientists , artists and hobbyists in 90 countries .
A beautiful image of the dorsal side of a zebrafish won the first prize .
The image was taken by Daniel Castranova and assisted by Bakary Samasa while they were working in the lab of Dr. Brant Weinstein at the National Institutes of Health .
Not only was it an amazing microscopic photo , but the image was significant because it helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study about the anatomy of zebrafish .
According to a press release , the image revealed that “ zebrafish have lymphatic vessels inside their skull that were previously thought to occur only in mammals .
Their occurrence in fish , a much easier subject to raise , experiment with , and photograph , could expedite and revolutionize research related to treatments for diseases that occur in the human brain , including cancer and Alzheimer ’ s. ” See the top 20 winners from the Nikon Small World photo competition below .
Above : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ghosh and Dr. Lolitika Mandal shows a lymph gland of a fruit fly larva .
1st Place : Dorsal view of bones and scales ( blue ) and lymphatic vessels ( orange ) in a juvenile zebrafish .
Crystals formed after heating an ethanol and water solution containing L-glutamine and beta-alanine .

On Tuesday, Nikon Instruments announced the winner of its Nikon Small World photo competition. The contest, founded in 1974, received more than 2,000 entries from scientists, artists and hobbyists in 90 countries.
A beautiful image of the dorsal side of a zebrafish won the first prize. The image was taken by Daniel Castranova and assisted by Bakary Samasa while they were working in the lab of Dr. Brant Weinstein at the National Institutes of Health. Not only was it an amazing microscopic photo, but the image was significant because it helped Castranova’s team in a groundbreaking study about the anatomy of zebrafish.
Advertisement
According to a press release, the image revealed that “zebrafish have lymphatic vessels inside their skull that were previously thought to occur only in mammals. Their occurrence in fish, a much easier subject to raise, experiment with, and photograph, could expedite and revolutionize research related to treatments for diseases that occur in the human brain, including cancer and Alzheimer’s.”
See the top 20 winners from the Nikon Small World photo competition below.
Above: An Honorable mention image by Dr. Saikat Ghosh and Dr. Lolitika Mandal shows a lymph gland of a fruit fly larva.
Daniel Castranova/Dr. Brant Weinstein/Bakary Samasa/Nikon Small World
1st Place: Dorsal view of bones and scales (blue) and lymphatic vessels (orange) in a juvenile zebrafish.
Advertisement
Daniel Knop/Nikon Small World
2nd Place: Embryonic development of a clownfish.
Dr. Igor Siwanowicz/Nikon Small World
3rd Place: Tongue of a freshwater snail.
Dr. Vasileios Kokkoris/Dr. Franck Stefani/Dr. Nicolas Corradi/Nikon Small World
Multi-nucleate spores and hyphae of a soil fungus.
Ahmad Fauzan/Nikon Small World
Bogong moth.
Dr. Robert Markus/ Zsuzsa Markus/Nikon Small World
Advertisement
Hebe plant anther with pollen.
Jason Kirk/Nikon Small World
Microtubules (orange) inside a cell. Nucleus is shown in cyan.
Dr. Allan Carrillo-Baltodano/David Salamanca/Nikon Small World
Chameleon embryo.
Jason Kirk/Nikon Small World
Connections between hippocampal neurons (brain cells).
Ahmad Fauzan/Nikon Small World
Daphnia magna, a small crustacean.
Dr. Tagide de Carvalho/Nikon Small World
Advertisement
Red algae.
Robert Vierthaler/Nikon Small World
Human hair.
Justin Zoll/Nikon Small World
Crystals formed after heating an ethanol and water solution containing L-glutamine and beta-alanine.
Özgür Kerem Bulur/Nikon Small World
Leaf roller weevil.
Dr. Eduardo Zattara/Dr. Alexa Bely/Nikon Small World
Chain of daughter individuals from the asexually reproducing annelid species.
Alexander Klepnev/Nikon Small World
Advertisement
Nylon stockings.
Anne Algar/Nikon Small World
Ventral view of an immature water boatman.
Chris Perani/Nikon Small World
Atlas moth wing.
Dr. Jan Michels/Nikon Small World
Silica cell wall of the marine diatom Arachnoidiscus sp.
Dr. Dorit Hockman/Dr. Vanessa Chong-Morrison/Nikon Small World


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Nancy Pelosi Clashes With CNN's Wolf Blitzer In Tense Interview On Stimulus Deal

House Democrats , Senate Republicans and the White House have been trying for months to negotiate an economic stimulus package .
Pelosi has slammed the Trump administration ’ s latest $ 1.8 trillion offer — which is $ 400 billion less than what Democrats most recently called for , and down from a proposed $ 3.4 trillion in May .
“ What I say to you is , I don ’ t know why you ’ re always an apologist and many of your colleagues are apologists for the Republican position , ” Pelosi replied .
“ Ro Khanna , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t what we ’ re going to do .
And nobody ’ s waiting until February .
I want this very much now because people need help now .
But it ’ s no use giving them a false thing just because the president wants to put a check with his name on it in the mail , ” she said .
Blitzer pointed out that millions of Americans have lost their jobs , are struggling with food and rent , and need support now .
He asked Pelosi why she won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and work out a deal .
“ What makes me amused , if it weren ’ t so sad , is how you all think that you know more about the suffering of the American people than those of us who are elected by them to represent them at that table , ” Pelosi said .
In a letter to Democrats over the weekend , Pelosi trashed the GOP offer , saying the president “ only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to address numerous issues , including virus testing , tracing and vaccine development ; addressing the pandemic ’ s disproportionate impact on communities of color ; and providing relief to U.S. territories and Native American tribes .
Those urging Pelosi to take the deal say it brings much-needed aid to working Americans faster , puts the onus on Senate Republicans , and , with just weeks before the election , comes as a rare gift from the Trump administration .
Blitzer brought up Pelosi ’ s mention of Trump getting credit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Is that what this is all about ?
Not allow the president to take credit if there ’ s a deal that would help millions of Americans right now ?
” “ No , I don ’ t care about that .
He ’ s not that important , ” Pelosi said .
She added : “ With all due respect , and we ’ ve known each other a long time , you really don ’ t know what you ’ re talking about.
” As the heated back-and-forth continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a close after Pelosi accused him of defending the Trump administration “ with no knowledge of the difference between our two bills.
” “ We will leave it on the note that you are not right on this , Wolf .
And I hate to say that to you , but I feel confident about it and I feel confident about my colleagues and I feel confidence in my chairs , ” Pelosi shot back .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In a tense interview on Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer of being a Republican “apologist” after he confronted her on stalled talks over a COVID-19 relief package.
House Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House have been trying for months to negotiate an economic stimulus package. Pelosi has slammed the Trump administration’s latest $1.8 trillion offer — which is $400 billion less than what Democrats most recently called for, and down from a proposed $3.4 trillion in May.
Advertisement
Blitzer questioned Pelosi’s rejection of the offer, asking her to respond to a tweet from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that urged Democrats to accept the offer.
“People in need can’t wait until February. 1.8 trillion is significant & more than twice Obama stimulus,” Khanna wrote, imploring Democrats to “make a deal & put the ball in” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s court.
“What I say to you is, I don’t know why you’re always an apologist and many of your colleagues are apologists for the Republican position,” Pelosi replied.
“Ro Khanna, that’s nice. That isn’t what we’re going to do. And nobody’s waiting until February. I want this very much now because people need help now. But it’s no use giving them a false thing just because the president wants to put a check with his name on it in the mail,” she said.
Advertisement
Blitzer pointed out that millions of Americans have lost their jobs, are struggling with food and rent, and need support now. He asked Pelosi why she won’t call President Donald Trump directly and work out a deal.
Pelosi, who hasn’t spoken with Trump in months, has been in talks with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
“What makes me amused, if it weren’t so sad, is how you all think that you know more about the suffering of the American people than those of us who are elected by them to represent them at that table,” Pelosi said.
In a letter to Democrats over the weekend, Pelosi trashed the GOP offer, saying the president “only wants his name on a check to go out before Election Day and for the market to go up.” She said the offer failed to address numerous issues, including virus testing, tracing and vaccine development; addressing the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on communities of color; and providing relief to U.S. territories and Native American tribes.
Advertisement
Those urging Pelosi to take the deal say it brings much-needed aid to working Americans faster, puts the onus on Senate Republicans, and, with just weeks before the election, comes as a rare gift from the Trump administration.
Blitzer brought up Pelosi’s mention of Trump getting credit for checks going out to Americans and asked, “Is that what this is all about? Not allow the president to take credit if there’s a deal that would help millions of Americans right now?”
“No, I don’t care about that. He’s not that important,” Pelosi said. She added: “With all due respect, and we’ve known each other a long time, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.”
As the heated back-and-forth continued, Blitzer eventually brought the interview to a close after Pelosi accused him of defending the Trump administration “with no knowledge of the difference between our two bills.”
“These are incredibly difficult times right now. We will leave it on that note,” Blitzer said.
“We will leave it on the note that you are not right on this, Wolf. And I hate to say that to you, but I feel confident about it and I feel confident about my colleagues and I feel confidence in my chairs,” Pelosi shot back.
Advertisement
“It’s not about me. It’s about millions of Americans who can’t put food on the table, who can’t pay the rent,” Blitzer said.
“And we represent them!” Pelosi repeatedly exclaimed.
“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. as they say,” Blitzer retorted.
“Always the case, but we’re not even close to the good,” replied Pelosi.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett Says She Has No 'Firm Views' On Climate Change

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett stood up again for not standing up when asked about climate change at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday .
During a leading line of questioning from Sen. John Kennedy ( R-La . )
aimed at showing that Barrett has “ thought about the world , ” as he phrased it , she said she did not have a personal stance on climate change .
“ Do you have some opinions on climate change that you ’ ve thought about ?
” Kennedy asked her .
“ You know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” President Donald Trump ’ s nominee responded .
After Kennedy encouraged her to elaborate , she said : “ I mean , I ’ ve read things about climate change .
I would not say that I have firm views on it.
” Lol -- Kennedy asks Coney Barrett a bunch of leading questions meant to highlight how she 's thought deeply about the world and has personal views on a range of issues , but it turns out she actually does n't seem to have opinions about issues like climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rupar ( @ atrupar ) October 13 , 2020 Barrett ’ s line that ’ s she ’ s “ not a scientist ” has been a common refrain among climate-denying Republican lawmakers for years .
President Barack Obama called out the phrase in his 2015 State of the Union speech , saying you don ’ t need to be a scientist to grasp that “ the best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate.
” Barrett saying she doesn ’ t have firm views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every scientist says people should view as the greatest threat to humankind ― seems to indicate that , if she ’ s confirmed , environmental groups challenging the Trump administration ’ s policies will have one less friend on the Supreme Court .
Little has been known about how Barrett may rule on environmental issues .
That ’ s in part because she ’ s spent most of her career teaching law , not practicing it .
She was not asked about climate change during her 2017 nomination hearing for the U.S. Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
During a leading line of questioning from Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) aimed at showing that Barrett has “thought about the world,” as he phrased it, she said she did not have a personal stance on climate change.
Advertisement
“Do you have some opinions on climate change that you’ve thought about?” Kennedy asked her.
“You know, I’m certainly not a scientist,” President Donald Trump’s nominee responded. After Kennedy encouraged her to elaborate, she said: “I mean, I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say that I have firm views on it.”
Lol -- Kennedy asks Coney Barrett a bunch of leading questions meant to highlight how she's thought deeply about the world and has personal views on a range of issues, but it turns out she actually doesn't seem to have opinions about issues like climate change and tax policy pic.twitter.com/gna1YXBGhb — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
Barrett’s line that’s she’s “not a scientist” has been a common refrain among climate-denying Republican lawmakers for years. President Barack Obama called out the phrase in his 2015 State of the Union speech, saying you don’t need to be a scientist to grasp that “the best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate.”
Barrett saying she doesn’t have firm views on climate change ― something that nearly every scientist says people should view as the greatest threat to humankind ― seems to indicate that, if she’s confirmed, environmental groups challenging the Trump administration’s policies will have one less friend on the Supreme Court.
Advertisement
Little has been known about how Barrett may rule on environmental issues. That’s in part because she’s spent most of her career teaching law, not practicing it. She was not asked about climate change during her 2017 nomination hearing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.