thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-23--California Ban On Fossil-Fuel Cars Points To Need For Electric Vehicle Labor Protections

Newsom ’ s decision will reverberate across the country .
California ’ s special right under the federal Clean Air Act to set stricter air pollution standards , coupled with its massive car-driving population , has long afforded the state an outsize role in shaping national standards for vehicles .
For example , more than a dozen states , representing roughly half the nation ’ s population , follow the Golden State ’ s rules on tailpipe emissions , offering a powerful bulwark against the Trump administration ’ s efforts to weaken pollution rules .
That ’ s the finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center for American Progress , the influential liberal think tank with deep ties to Democratic Party leadership .
The 40-page paper , published Wednesday afternoon , lays out a roadmap for making sure the electric vehicle industry as a whole avoids the problems that in recent years have plagued Tesla , the Fremont , California-based maker of sleek , battery-powered cars .
In 2017 , workers at Tesla ’ s assembly plant in northern California complained of regular injuries and dangerous conditions .
In 2018 , a former high-level safety officer at Tesla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workplace injuries and firing him in retaliation for reporting unsafe conditions .
In 2019 , a federal judge ruled that Elon Musk , Tesla ’ s billionaire chief executive , broke labor laws when he tweeted messages discouraging his workers from unionizing .
In 2020 , a worker in California called Tesla ’ s factory there “ a modern-day sweatshop.
” The report , which the United Auto Workers union endorsed , calls on federal policymakers to condition government support , in the form of subsidies or tax breaks , on electric vehicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and anti-discrimination rules .
It also demands that vehicle manufacturers and maintenance providers respect workers ’ right to organize a union and partner with unions to train employees on the latest safety protocols .
Having a stable workforce comes from having a workforce that ’ s well-paid , has rights on the job and is safe .
Then you end up with good results .
Karla Walter of the Center for American Progress The proposal centers on the federal government ’ s purchasing power .
As the government enters into contracts to buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fleet , the report proposes banning deals with any companies that require employees to agree to “ forced arbitration , ” a legal process by which employee grievances are hashed out in binding out-of-court negotiations that workers can not appeal in court .
Tesla is facing pressure from one of its shareholders to end its practice of forced arbitration in cases of alleged sexual harassment or racial discrimination at the company .
By implementing standards like those in the report , the Center for American Progress argues the federal government could effectively end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoped to enter into a lucrative federal contract selling , for example , zero-emissions offroaders to the National Park Service or black SUVs to the Secret Service .
“ When the U.S. is competitive , it ’ s not because we cut standards to the quick , ” she said .
“ Having a stable workforce comes from having a workforce that ’ s well-paid , has rights on the job and is safe .
Then you end up with good results.
” The report does leave some big questions open .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase domestic manufacturing in the electric vehicle industry , particularly of the batteries that power the cars , it offers little on how to avoid abuses in the overseas supply chain beyond pointing to the nonprofit BlueGreen Alliance ’ s guidelines .
It also provides virtually no guidance on how to retrain and transition workers in the independent auto maintenance industry to deal with electric vehicles .
Federal data shows the independent auto maintenance industry employs nearly 800,000 workers , including many undocumented immigrants .
That bill made little progress in the Republican-controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate and White House in this year ’ s election , as polling suggests is a possibility , such proposals could quickly gain steam .
Boosting the use of electric vehicles would be a popular approach .
While only a minority of voters support policies to make personal car ownership more expensive ( an approach favored by many climate activists and transportation reformers ) , majorities of voters approve of rebates for buying electric vehicles , according to polling released earlier this year by the think tank Data for Progress .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
California banned sales of new fossil-fueled cars by 2035, heralding the end of the combustion engine’s hegemonic reign over the American auto industry.
In issuing his executive order Wednesday morning, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) trumpeted the move as “the most impactful step our state can take to fight climate change” at a moment when historic fires are scorching the state.
Advertisement
Cars, trucks and other vehicles produce the majority of U.S. climate-changing emissions. California’s densely populated southern region, in particular, suffers disproportionate levels of air pollution as a result of its geography and its crisscrossed belts of car-clogged highways.
Newsom’s decision will reverberate across the country. California’s special right under the federal Clean Air Act to set stricter air pollution standards, coupled with its massive car-driving population, has long afforded the state an outsize role in shaping national standards for vehicles. For example, more than a dozen states, representing roughly half the nation’s population, follow the Golden State’s rules on tailpipe emissions, offering a powerful bulwark against the Trump administration’s efforts to weaken pollution rules.
At the same time, worker safety violations at California’s premier electric car factory highlight the risks of relying on state regulators to oversee the industry and show a need for firm stronger federal labor protections.
That’s the finding of a detailed new report from the Center for American Progress, the influential liberal think tank with deep ties to Democratic Party leadership. The 40-page paper, published Wednesday afternoon, lays out a roadmap for making sure the electric vehicle industry as a whole avoids the problems that in recent years have plagued Tesla, the Fremont, California-based maker of sleek, battery-powered cars.
Advertisement
Tesla worker Carlos Gabriel holds a sign at a demonstration outside the Tesla plant in Fremont, California, on June 15, protesting working conditions there. Justin Sullivan via Getty Images
In 2017, workers at Tesla’s assembly plant in northern California complained of regular injuries and dangerous conditions. In 2018, a former high-level safety officer at Tesla sued the company for allegedly covering up workplace injuries and firing him in retaliation for reporting unsafe conditions. In 2019, a federal judge ruled that Elon Musk, Tesla’s billionaire chief executive, broke labor laws when he tweeted messages discouraging his workers from unionizing. In 2020, a worker in California called Tesla’s factory there “a modern-day sweatshop.”
The report, which the United Auto Workers union endorsed, calls on federal policymakers to condition government support, in the form of subsidies or tax breaks, on electric vehicle companies’ compliance with strict safety standards and anti-discrimination rules. It also demands that vehicle manufacturers and maintenance providers respect workers’ right to organize a union and partner with unions to train employees on the latest safety protocols.
“Having a stable workforce comes from having a workforce that’s well-paid, has rights on the job and is safe. Then you end up with good results.” - Karla Walter of the Center for American Progress
The proposal centers on the federal government’s purchasing power. As the government enters into contracts to buy electric vehicles to replace its existing fossil-fueled fleet, the report proposes banning deals with any companies that require employees to agree to “forced arbitration,” a legal process by which employee grievances are hashed out in binding out-of-court negotiations that workers cannot appeal in court. Tesla is facing pressure from one of its shareholders to end its practice of forced arbitration in cases of alleged sexual harassment or racial discrimination at the company.
Advertisement
By implementing standards like those in the report, the Center for American Progress argues the federal government could effectively end such arbitration practices at any company that hoped to enter into a lucrative federal contract selling, for example, zero-emissions offroaders to the National Park Service or black SUVs to the Secret Service.
Strict labor rules would ensure that the United States maintains a “well-trained and stable workforce,” said Karla Walter, the center’s director of employment policy and the report’s lead author.
“When the U.S. is competitive, it’s not because we cut standards to the quick,” she said. “Having a stable workforce comes from having a workforce that’s well-paid, has rights on the job and is safe. Then you end up with good results.”
The report does leave some big questions open. While the proposal calls for federal incentives to increase domestic manufacturing in the electric vehicle industry, particularly of the batteries that power the cars, it offers little on how to avoid abuses in the overseas supply chain beyond pointing to the nonprofit BlueGreen Alliance’s guidelines. It also provides virtually no guidance on how to retrain and transition workers in the independent auto maintenance industry to deal with electric vehicles. Federal data shows the independent auto maintenance industry employs nearly 800,000 workers, including many undocumented immigrants.
The report’s findings generally support a growing slate of legislation that Democratic lawmakers are already proposing. Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, made the buildout of a national electric vehicle charging network a main plank of his climate platform. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) introduced a sweeping bill last October that proposed spending $450 billion to replace one-fifth of the country’s vehicles with zero-emissions alternatives over the next 10 years.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-23--No Cops Charged With Murder In The Killing Of Breonna Taylor

No charges were filed against Sgt .
Jonathan Mattingly and Officer Myles Cosgrove , the other two police officers who were at the scene the night Taylor was fatally shot .
Notably , no murder charges were filed against any of the men .
First-degree wanton endangerment is a felony that comes with a sentence of up to five years in prison under Kentucky law .
Jefferson County Circuit Judge Annie O ’ Connell issued a warrant for Hankison ’ s arrest in a Wednesday hearing and set his bail at $ 15,000 .
The charges were tied to shots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot inside Taylor ’ s .
O ’ Connell read the charges aloud , linking each to the occupants of the three apartments that Hankison “ wantonly ” shot into by listing their initials .
She did not say BT for “ Breonna Taylor , ” suggesting that the grand jury did not deem the shots fired into her apartment as meeting the bar for “ wanton endangerment.
” Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said that though Hankison ’ s bullets were not the ones that struck Taylor , an investigation found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glass door into multiple apartments , including one where a pregnant woman and her child lived .
“ The facts have been examined and a grand jury comprised of our peers has made a decision , ” Cameron said at a press conference following the charging announcement .
“ Justice is not always easy , it does not fit the fold of public opinion.
” “ While not fully what we wanted , this brings us closer to # JusticeForBreonnaTaylor , ” family attorney Ben Crump said in a tweet following the announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge any of the officers with murder “ outrageous and offensive.
” At 1 a.m. on the morning of March 13 , the plainclothes officers shot Taylor , a 26-year-old Black EMT , to death in her own apartment .
The officers , who used a battering ram to enter Taylor ’ s home , had a “ no-knock ” warrant because they believed a suspect in a drug ring ― who did not live there ― was having packages delivered to Taylor ’ s home .
The individual allegedly involved in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , which police acknowledged after the fact .
Taylor ’ s boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , called 911 when the officers burst in .
Walker shot at them in self-defense , striking one officer in the femoral artery .
The officers responded by firing more than two dozen bullets , striking Taylor six times .
Only one of the bullets was fatal , Cameron said Wednesday .
Lt. Ted Eidem of the Louisville Metro Police Department ’ s Public Integrity Unit claimed afterward that the officers had knocked several times and identified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor ’ s family , including Walker , disputed this in a wrongful death suit filed in May .
None of the officers were wearing body cameras .
Walker later told police that he and Taylor heard loud banging at the door around midnight but that nobody identified themselves .
The two were concerned it was Taylor ’ s ex-boyfriend .
“ First thing [ Taylor ] said was , ‘ Who is it ?
’ No response .
‘ Who is it ?
’ loud , at the top of her lungs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police .
“ So I ’ m like what the heck ?
So I grab my gun , it ’ s legal , I have a license to carry , I ’ ve never even fired my gun outside of a range .
There ’ s another knock at the door , she ’ s yelling at the top of her lungs , and I am too , at this point , ‘ Who is it ?
’ ” A subsequent search of the apartment found none of the drugs or paraphernalia enumerated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for firing at the police officers were dropped in May .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A grand jury in Louisville, Kentucky, has indicted Detective Brett Hankison in the case of the shooting death of Breonna Taylor, charging him with three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment.
No charges were filed against Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and Officer Myles Cosgrove, the other two police officers who were at the scene the night Taylor was fatally shot. Notably, no murder charges were filed against any of the men.
Advertisement
First-degree wanton endangerment is a felony that comes with a sentence of up to five years in prison under Kentucky law. Jefferson County Circuit Judge Annie O’Connell issued a warrant for Hankison’s arrest in a Wednesday hearing and set his bail at $15,000.
The charges were tied to shots fired into neighboring apartments, not those shot inside Taylor’s. O’Connell read the charges aloud, linking each to the occupants of the three apartments that Hankison “wantonly” shot into by listing their initials. She did not say BT for “Breonna Taylor,” suggesting that the grand jury did not deem the shots fired into her apartment as meeting the bar for “wanton endangerment.”
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said that though Hankison’s bullets were not the ones that struck Taylor, an investigation found that he had shot through an outside sliding glass door into multiple apartments, including one where a pregnant woman and her child lived.
Cameron said there was no body camera video, so evidence was collected based off ballistics evidence, 911 calls, police radio traffic and interviews.
Advertisement
“The facts have been examined and a grand jury comprised of our peers has made a decision,” Cameron said at a press conference following the charging announcement. “Justice is not always easy, it does not fit the fold of public opinion.”
“While not fully what we wanted, this brings us closer to #JusticeForBreonnaTaylor,” family attorney Ben Crump said in a tweet following the announcement. He called the decision not to charge any of the officers with murder “outrageous and offensive.”
Mattingly and Cosgrove have been on paid administrative leave since the March incident; Hankison was fired in June after a review found the detective “wantonly and blindly” fired 10 rounds into Taylor’s apartment.
The city of Louisville reached a $12 million settlement with Taylor’s family last week, and also agreed to undertake police reforms like establishing a housing credit program for officers to live in certain low-income areas.
Anticipating civil unrest following the decision, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer declared a state of emergency Tuesday with the goal of providing “an extra layer of security” for potential protesters.
Advertisement
At 1 a.m. on the morning of March 13, the plainclothes officers shot Taylor, a 26-year-old Black EMT, to death in her own apartment. The officers, who used a battering ram to enter Taylor’s home, had a “no-knock” warrant because they believed a suspect in a drug ring ― who did not live there ― was having packages delivered to Taylor’s home. The individual allegedly involved in the ring had actually been arrested earlier that day, which police acknowledged after the fact.
Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, called 911 when the officers burst in. Walker shot at them in self-defense, striking one officer in the femoral artery. The officers responded by firing more than two dozen bullets, striking Taylor six times. Only one of the bullets was fatal, Cameron said Wednesday.
“I don’t know what is happening,” Walker can be heard saying in his frantic 911 call. “Somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend.”
Lt. Ted Eidem of the Louisville Metro Police Department’s Public Integrity Unit claimed afterward that the officers had knocked several times and identified themselves as police before they entered. Taylor’s family, including Walker, disputed this in a wrongful death suit filed in May. None of the officers were wearing body cameras.
Walker later told police that he and Taylor heard loud banging at the door around midnight but that nobody identified themselves. The two were concerned it was Taylor’s ex-boyfriend.
Advertisement
“First thing [Taylor] said was, ‘Who is it?’ No response. ‘Who is it?’ loud, at the top of her lungs, no response,” Walker told police. “So I’m like what the heck? So I grab my gun, it’s legal, I have a license to carry, I’ve never even fired my gun outside of a range. There’s another knock at the door, she’s yelling at the top of her lungs, and I am too, at this point, ‘Who is it?’”
A subsequent search of the apartment found none of the drugs or paraphernalia enumerated in the warrant. Charges against Walker for firing at the police officers were dropped in May.
In addition to the Public Integrity Unit’s internal investigation into the police shooting, the FBI confirmed in May that it had also opened an inquiry.
Taylor’s death sparked a national outcry that boiled over in May when a white police officer in Minneapolis killed George Floyd, a Black man, by kneeling on his neck, prompting massive, sustained civil unrest and calls for change across the country.
Cameron told reporters on Wednesday that he would not be releasing the grand jury report, citing the ongoing FBI investigation.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-23--Pam Bondi Says Kyle Rittenhouse Is 'Little Boy' Who Wanted To ‘Protect His Community’

Former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi , a longtime ally of President Donald Trump , defended suspected killer Kyle Rittenhouse this week , saying he was trying to “ protect ” his community when he allegedly killed two people in a state he didn ’ t live in .
“ People have to understand out there , that this was a war zone , ” Bondi told Fox News ’ Sean Hannity Tuesday night .
“ You ’ ve got a 17-year-old trying to protect his state.
” Bondi was talking about Rittenhouse ’ s alleged shooting of three people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Kenosha , Wisconsin , on Aug. 25 .
The teen lives in Antioch , Illinois , but was in Wisconsin when he joined other armed vigilantes confronting demonstrators demanding justice for Jacob Blake , a Black man who was shot in the back seven times by police in Kenosha .
Cell phone video showed the moment Rittenhouse appeared to fire at protestors Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz , who were seeking to confront Rittenhouse over his suspected killing of Joseph Rosenbaum earlier that night .
Huber was fatally shot in the incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the arm but survived .
Video then shows Rittenhouse approaching police vehicles with his hands raised in surrender .
Officers did not take him into custody at the scene .
Instead , Rittenhouse was allowed to walk free and was taken into custody the following day and charged with murder .
Bondi defended Rittenhouse ’ s shootings , saying that two of the victims had prior criminal charges and that “ this kid was out there trying to help people.
” Bondi is a former attorney general of Florida who joined Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican National Convention earlier this year , Bondi said she “ fought corruption ” during her time as attorney general .
However , she was accused of corruption herself after dropping plans to join a class-action suit against Trump University after Donald Trump ’ s charity donated $ 25,000 to her reelection campaign in 2013 .
She now makes regular appearances on Fox News to defend Trump and , apparently , a suspected murderer .
“ What ’ s it coming to in these liberal cities when teenagers have to go out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other people getting injured by these rioters ?
” Bondi said on Tuesday , failing to mention the large police presence at the demonstration , or that the only people who died at the protest were the two men Rittenhouse is charged with killing .
Donald Trump Jr. also defended Rittenhouse earlier this month , downplaying the killings as something that any wayward teen might get mixed up in .
“ He ’ s a young kid , ” Trump added .
“ I don ’ t want 17-year-olds running around the streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have put myself in that situation .
Who knows ?
But we all do stupid things at 17.
” CORRECTION : This article previously stated that Rittenhouse had brought a rifle across state lines .
His lawyer has said a Wisconsin resident provided the rifle , and charging documents do not say where he got the gun .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, defended suspected killer Kyle Rittenhouse this week, saying he was trying to “protect” his community when he allegedly killed two people in a state he didn’t live in.
“People have to understand out there, that this was a war zone,” Bondi told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Tuesday night. “You’ve got a 17-year-old trying to protect his state.”
Advertisement
For the second time tonight Fox News is unabashedly defending Kyle Rittenhouse with Pam Bondi calling him "a little boy out there trying to protect his community" pic.twitter.com/PzDKJVSDec — Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) September 23, 2020
Bondi was talking about Rittenhouse’s alleged shooting of three people, two fatally, at a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25. The teen lives in Antioch, Illinois, but was in Wisconsin when he joined other armed vigilantes confronting demonstrators demanding justice for Jacob Blake, a Black man who was shot in the back seven times by police in Kenosha.
Cell phone video showed the moment Rittenhouse appeared to fire at protestors Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz, who were seeking to confront Rittenhouse over his suspected killing of Joseph Rosenbaum earlier that night. Huber was fatally shot in the incident captured on video. Grosskreutz was hit in the arm but survived.
Video then shows Rittenhouse approaching police vehicles with his hands raised in surrender. Officers did not take him into custody at the scene. Instead, Rittenhouse was allowed to walk free and was taken into custody the following day and charged with murder.
Advertisement
Bondi defended Rittenhouse’s shootings, saying that two of the victims had prior criminal charges and that “this kid was out there trying to help people.”
Bondi is a former attorney general of Florida who joined Trump’s impeachment defense team. At the Republican National Convention earlier this year, Bondi said she “fought corruption” during her time as attorney general. However, she was accused of corruption herself after dropping plans to join a class-action suit against Trump University after Donald Trump’s charity donated $25,000 to her reelection campaign in 2013. She now makes regular appearances on Fox News to defend Trump and, apparently, a suspected murderer.
“What’s it coming to in these liberal cities when teenagers have to go out there to try to provide aid to other people getting injured by these rioters?” Bondi said on Tuesday, failing to mention the large police presence at the demonstration, or that the only people who died at the protest were the two men Rittenhouse is charged with killing.
Donald Trump Jr. also defended Rittenhouse earlier this month, downplaying the killings as something that any wayward teen might get mixed up in.
“If I put myself in Kyle Rittenhouse [sic] ― maybe I shouldn’t have been there,” Trump Jr. told the TV show “Extra.”
Advertisement
“He’s a young kid,” Trump added. “I don’t want 17-year-olds running around the streets with AR-15s. Maybe I wouldn’t have put myself in that situation. Who knows? But we all do stupid things at 17.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-23--Trump Prioritizes Politics Over Science As COVID-19 Deaths Spike

Over the past six months , the Trump administration has prioritized politics over science at key moments , refusing to follow expert advice that might have contained the spread of the virus and COVID-19 , the disease it causes .
Trump and his people have routinely dismissed experts ’ assessments of the gravity of the pandemic , and of the measures needed to bring it under control .
They have tried to muzzle scientists who dispute the administration ’ s rosy spin .
Dr. Deborah Birx , the White House coronavirus response coordinator , and Dr. Anthony Fauci , director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Infectious Diseases , stood next to the president to explain the numbers .
The doctors said that models of the escalating pandemic showed that , unless the country adopted masks , practiced distancing , and kept businesses closed there would be 100,000 to 240,000 deaths .
They stressed that if the U.S. adopted strict measures , the deaths could remain under 100,000 .
Eager to find a quick fix that would justify a fast reopening timetable set by the White House , Trump himself championed the use of hydroxychloroquine , an anti-malarial drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treat COVID-19 .
He persisted despite repeated warnings from the Food and Drug Administration and others that there was no proof that it was effective , and there was reason to believe it could be dangerous .
One person is not on board — Trump .
Less than seven weeks from Election Day , he appears driven to say and do what he sees as necessary to secure a second term , whether backed by science and evidence or not .
So he embraces rallies that break all the rules proposed by his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following them .

NEW YORK (AP) — “I did the best I could,” President Donald Trump said.
Huddled with aides in the West Wing last week, his eyes fixed on Fox News, Trump wasn’t talking about how he had led the nation through the deadliest pandemic in a century. In a conversation overheard by an Associated Press reporter, Trump was describing how he’d just publicly rebuked one of his top scientists — Dr. Robert Redfield, a virologist and head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Redfield had angered the president by asserting that a COVID-19 vaccine wouldn’t be widely available to the general public until summer or fall of 2021. So hours later, with no supporting evidence, Trump called a news conference to say Redfield was “confused.” A vaccine, Trump insisted, could be ready before November’s election.
Mission accomplished: Fox was headlining Trump’s latest foray in his administration’s ongoing war against its own scientists.
Advertisement
It is a war that continues unabated, even as the nation’s COVID-19 death toll has reached 200,000 — nearly half the number of Americans killed in World War II, a once unfathomable number that the nation’s top doctors just months ago said was avoidable.
Over the past six months, the Trump administration has prioritized politics over science at key moments, refusing to follow expert advice that might have contained the spread of the virus and COVID-19, the disease it causes. Trump and his people have routinely dismissed experts’ assessments of the gravity of the pandemic, and of the measures needed to bring it under control. They have tried to muzzle scientists who dispute the administration’s rosy spin.
While there is no indication that Trump’s desperation for a vaccine has affected the science or safety of the process, his insistence that one would be ready before the election is stoking mistrust in the very breakthrough he hopes will help his reelection.
Today, he is pushing hard for a resumption of normal activity and trying to project strength and control to bolster his political position in his campaign against Democrat Joe Biden.
Advertisement
In hindsight, Trump says, there’s nothing he would have done differently, citing his early move to restrict travel from China — a move that data and records show was ineffective. Still, he gives himself high marks on his handling the pandemic — except for bad messaging.
“On public relations, I give myself a D,” he told Fox this week. “On the job itself, we take an A-plus.”
In late January, after the virus had first emerged in Wuhan, China, the CDC launched its emergency operations center. What was needed, epidemiologists said, was an aggressive public education campaign and mobilization of contact tracing to identify and isolate the first cases before the disease spread out of control.
Instead, Trump publicly played down the virus in those crucial first weeks, even though he privately acknowledged the seriousness of the threat.
“I wanted to always play it down,” the president told journalist Bob Woodward in March. “I still like playing it down because I don’t want to create a panic.”
Advertisement
But the virus kept coursing through the country, and the world. And with a president bent on minimizing the dangers, the U.S. would become ever more polarized, with the simple acts of wearing masks and keeping a distance transformed into political wedge issues.
“You have to be calm,“ Trump said on March 6, during a visit to the Atlanta headquarters of the CDC. “It’ll go away.”
By mid-March, hospitals in New York and elsewhere were deluged with patients and storing bodies in refrigerated morgue trucks.
And that was just the beginning.
___
The death chart was the awakening. On March 31, the nation was still grappling to understand the scope of the pandemic. Schools were disrupted, people sheltered at home and professional sports were paused. But the ascending lines of mortality on the chart said things were going to get way worse.
Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, stood next to the president to explain the numbers. The doctors said that models of the escalating pandemic showed that, unless the country adopted masks, practiced distancing, and kept businesses closed there would be 100,000 to 240,000 deaths. They stressed that if the U.S. adopted strict measures, the deaths could remain under 100,000.
Advertisement
“We would hope that we could keep it under that,” Trump said then.
Still, instead of issuing a national mask mandate and other recommended measures, the Trump administration within weeks posted its “Opening Up America Again” plan.
The CDC began developing a thick document of guidelines to help local leaders make decisions about when reopening in their corner of the country was safe. But the White House thought the guidelines were too strict. They “ would never see the light of day, ” CDC scientists were told.
The Associated Press would eventually release the 63-page document, which offered science-based recommendations for workplaces, daycare centers, and restaurants.
Meanwhile, the president refused to wear a mask in public, planned political rallies where masks were not required, and downplayed the CDC’s data tracking the disease’s toll. And in May, communities reopened without the CDC’s up-to-date guidance.
The predictable happened: Cases surged as soon as communities reopened. And by the end of May, all hope for keeping the death toll under 100,000 vanished.
Advertisement
The president’s argument was the toll from remaining closed would be too high — both economically and for people struggling with isolation at home and unable to send their children to school. Unspoken: the potential impact on his own reelection prospects.
___
Eager to find a quick fix that would justify a fast reopening timetable set by the White House, Trump himself championed the use of hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug, as a “game-changer” to treat COVID-19. He persisted despite repeated warnings from the Food and Drug Administration and others that there was no proof that it was effective, and there was reason to believe it could be dangerous.
The administration also touted the use of convalescent plasma as a treatment, though Fauci and others thought the supporting data was weak.
Trump and his administration did not take scientific naysaying well.
Trump installed a lobbyist, Michael Caputo, to head communications for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees CDC and the FDA. Caputo had worked as a public relations consultant hired by the Russian energy giant Gazprom to improve President Vladimir Putin’s image in the U.S., and had no public health background.
Caputo hosted a video on Facebook in which he likened government scientists to a “resistance” against Trump, and emails surfaced in which he castigated CDC officials, challenging their scientific pronouncements and trying to muzzle staffers. He would take a leave in September after his actions were revealed.
Advertisement
But the CDC’s science-based recommendations continued to be routed through the White House task force for vetting before release.
The administration’s meddling and public rebukes has driven CDC morale to an all-time low, according to agency officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were afraid of losing their jobs. The constant battling against the administration’s political forces has made the difficult job of managing a pandemic even harder and created a high rate of burnout.
Redfield has been criticized for not being a strong enough defender; those who long worked at the agency hope to see its leadership stand up for science in the face of politics.
“I’m sure this won’t be easy, but it’s essential to CDC’s reputation,” said Dr. Sonja Rasmussen, a 20-year CDC veteran who is now a medical professor at the University of Florida. “We need a strong and trusted CDC to get ourselves through this pandemic — as well as through the next public health emergency after this one.”
Even as Fauci was restricted in his interactions with the media — his candor did not wear well with the administration — Trump elevated a new public face for his pandemic response task force: Dr. Scott Atlas, a Stanford University neurologist with no background in infectious disease.
Advertisement
White House officials said Atlas’ role is to play devil’s advocate and to question data brought by doctors and public health experts — with an eye toward Trump’s goal of a wider economic reopening in the weeks before the election, according to two White House officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal operations.
In Atlas, Trump has a doctor who has downplayed the need for students to wear masks or social distance. Atlas has advocated for allowing the virus to run amok to create “herd immunity,” the idea that community-wide resistance can be built by infecting a large portion of the population. The World Health Organization has discredited the approach as dangerous.
White House officials say Atlas no longer supports it.
___
As Fauci said in August, there is “a fundamental anti-science feeling” at a time when some people are pushing back at authority. “Science tends to fall into the category of authoritative. People don’t like that.”
Trump’s tweets and other pronouncements have served to rally that opposition, down to the local level.
At least 60 state or local health leaders in 27 states have resigned, retired or been fired since April, according to a review by the AP and Kaiser Health News. Those numbers have doubled since June, when the AP and KHN first started tracking the departures.
Advertisement
Many quit after experiencing political pressure from public officials, or even violent threats from people angry about mask mandates and closures.
In Ohio, Dr. Joan Duwve was nominated by the governor for the job of state health director on Sept. 10. But just hours later, she withdrew her name from consideration. She said in a statement to The State newspaper that she did so to protect her family, after she learned that armed protesters had gone to the home of the woman who would have been her predecessor, Dr. Amy Acton, before she eventually resigned in June.
The White House has realized there is a downside to publicly undermining science. Officials recognize voter mistrust in the administration’s pandemic response and concerns about political interference in speeding the vaccine production timetable is an emerging public health crisis of its own. They say they’re worried there will be unnecessary deaths and economic impact if Americans are afraid of getting vaccinated, according to two White House officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the administration’s thinking.
The White House has ordered a campaign to bolster public confidence in the development process. It would include elevating the profiles of Trump targets like FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and the CDC’s Redfield.
One person is not on board — Trump. Less than seven weeks from Election Day, he appears driven to say and do what he sees as necessary to secure a second term, whether backed by science and evidence or not. So he embraces rallies that break all the rules proposed by his own scientists, and taunts Biden for following them.
Advertisement
And despite the grim death toll, the president continues to frame the past six months as a success.
“When the terrible plague arrived from China, we mobilized American industry like never before. We rapidly developed life-saving therapies, reducing the fatality rate,” Trump told a raucous Ohio crowd at a rally Monday. “We’re going to deliver a vaccine before the end of the year. But it could be a lot sooner than that.”
___


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--What We Don't Know About Wildfire Smoke Should Scare Us

Plumes of wildfire smoke around California have left the state with air quality so bad in some areas that it was literally off the charts .
Even in cities hundreds of miles away from the blazes , the smoky air has been so unhealthy to inhale that officials warned against anyone going outside .
There ’ s clear consensus that wildfire smoke is bad for us in the short term : It leaves people coughing and suffering from headaches and sore throats ; it inflames some existing health conditions , such as asthma and heart problems ; and it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 symptoms .
But when it comes to the long-term effects that wildfire smoke may have on people , the experts still have a lot more questions than answers .
“ Unfortunately for all of us , we ’ re all research subjects , ” said Dr. Gina Solomon , a principal investigator at the Public Health Institute and a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California , San Francisco .
“ [ There are ] a lot of people that are being exposed repeatedly to wildfire smoke , so we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more in the coming years.
” No communities have been more of a test subject than those across California , especially Butte and Lake counties in the northern part of the state .
Foothill towns in those areas have seen massive fires year after year as climate change drives record-high temperatures and severe droughts .
The outstanding question , Solomon said , is whether particulate matter ― the dangerous mixture of tiny particles and liquid droplets in the air ― in wildfire smoke is just as toxic as the air tainted by cigarettes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If wildfire smoke particulate matter behaves just like other particles , then the picture is not good for for long-term health , ” she said .
Exposure to particulate matter from air pollution reduces lung function , and it ’ s especially harmful for children since their lungs are still developing , she added .
There are still big gaps in our knowledge , largely because wildfires have never been as bad as they ’ ve been in recent years and because smoke is so hard to isolate from other air pollutants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this subject in 2017 , when some of the worst wildfires in history hit California , emphasized the missing puzzle pieces in understanding the long-term impact of particulate matter in wildfire smoke .
The review noted that it remains “ completely unknown ” what the cumulative effect of repeated exposure may have on a person ’ s lung health .
One of the authors of that review was Dr. Lisa Miller , the associate director of research at the California National Primate Research Center and a professor at the University of California , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts working to expand what we know about the long-term effects of smoke exposure .
When severe wildfires left her Davis-based research facility blanketed in smoke in 2008 , Miller had the idea to observe wildfire smoke exposure on baby monkeys living in enclosed , half-acre fields outdoors at the facility .
During the 10-day period of smoky conditions , the amount of particulate matter in the area was far above the federal standard for healthy air and sometimes more than doubled the safe amount per cubic meter .
“ The animals that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of time when they were babies had deficiencies in their immune system , and their lungs appear to be more stiff , ” Miller said .
Miller and the others involved in the study are now in the process of presenting more data showing that the impact of the smoke on those monkeys was maintained as they aged further into adulthood .
Solomon has seen that problem show up in unexpected places .
When a small group of residents in Santa Rosa , California , returned home after the catastrophic Tubbs fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that their tap water suddenly had a strong , foul odor .
Testing found that their water contained extraordinarily high concentrations of benzene , a carcinogen known to cause leukemia in humans .
When the same phenomenon was observed in Paradise , California , after people returned home following the 2018 Camp fire , Solomon secured funding to try and figure out what was happening .
She ’ s still putting the data together , but one explanation appears the most likely : The water systems lost pressure when the fires stormed those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smoke , which contains benzene , she said .
Those levels of benzene were made worse by all the incinerated plastics inside people ’ s homes and the charred plastic water pipes , which both released benzene when they burned .

Plumes of wildfire smoke around California have left the state with air quality so bad in some areas that it was literally off the charts. Even in cities hundreds of miles away from the blazes, the smoky air has been so unhealthy to inhale that officials warned against anyone going outside.
There’s clear consensus that wildfire smoke is bad for us in the short term: It leaves people coughing and suffering from headaches and sore throats; it inflames some existing health conditions, such as asthma and heart problems; and it may even make a person more susceptible to COVID-19 symptoms. But when it comes to the long-term effects that wildfire smoke may have on people, the experts still have a lot more questions than answers.
“Unfortunately for all of us, we’re all research subjects,” said Dr. Gina Solomon, a principal investigator at the Public Health Institute and a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. “[There are] a lot of people that are being exposed repeatedly to wildfire smoke, so we’re going to know a lot more in the coming years.”
Advertisement
The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is seen under a smoke-filled sky due to various California wildfires earlier this month. Stephen Lam / Reuters
No communities have been more of a test subject than those across California, especially Butte and Lake counties in the northern part of the state. Foothill towns in those areas have seen massive fires year after year as climate change drives record-high temperatures and severe droughts.
The outstanding question, Solomon said, is whether particulate matter ― the dangerous mixture of tiny particles and liquid droplets in the air ― in wildfire smoke is just as toxic as the air tainted by cigarettes, tailpipes and other year-round pollutants.
“If wildfire smoke particulate matter behaves just like other particles, then the picture is not good for for long-term health,” she said. Exposure to particulate matter from air pollution reduces lung function, and it’s especially harmful for children since their lungs are still developing, she added.
Advertisement
There are still big gaps in our knowledge, largely because wildfires have never been as bad as they’ve been in recent years and because smoke is so hard to isolate from other air pollutants.
A review of the research on this subject in 2017, when some of the worst wildfires in history hit California, emphasized the missing puzzle pieces in understanding the long-term impact of particulate matter in wildfire smoke. The review noted that it remains “completely unknown” what the cumulative effect of repeated exposure may have on a person’s lung health.
One of the authors of that review was Dr. Lisa Miller, the associate director of research at the California National Primate Research Center and a professor at the University of California, Davis. Miller is one of the experts working to expand what we know about the long-term effects of smoke exposure.
When severe wildfires left her Davis-based research facility blanketed in smoke in 2008, Miller had the idea to observe wildfire smoke exposure on baby monkeys living in enclosed, half-acre fields outdoors at the facility. During the 10-day period of smoky conditions, the amount of particulate matter in the area was far above the federal standard for healthy air and sometimes more than doubled the safe amount per cubic meter.
The study followed those monkeys from infancy to around three years of age, and it led to grim findings.
Advertisement
“The animals that were exposed to the smoke during that period of time when they were babies had deficiencies in their immune system, and their lungs appear to be more stiff,” Miller said.
A stiff lung in humans is early evidence of pulmonary fibrosis, a condition in which people’s lungs become irreversibly scarred and less functional, leaving them short of breath, she added.
The study also showed some evidence that the animals affected by the smoke exposure passed on immune deficiencies to their offspring, leaving both of them more susceptible to disease.
A man walks along the Redwood Highway by the Pacific Ocean coast as smoke from wildfires covers an area near Orick, California, on Sept. 9. Carlos Barria / Reuters
Miller and the others involved in the study are now in the process of presenting more data showing that the impact of the smoke on those monkeys was maintained as they aged further into adulthood.
Advertisement
One of Miller’s biggest concerns is that these fires are burning up more than just forests — they’re burning up artificial materials in people’s homes, especially plastics that emit dangerous chemicals when they burn.
“I think it’s important for people to really understand that this isn’t just wood burning,” she said.
Solomon agreed, saying, “There’s other stuff in that smoke.”
“If you live near the fire, there’s a lot a lot of other material, including chemicals like benzene that are emitted from combustion that are very, very toxic substances,” she said.
Solomon has seen that problem show up in unexpected places. When a small group of residents in Santa Rosa, California, returned home after the catastrophic Tubbs fire in 2017, several of them found that their tap water suddenly had a strong, foul odor. Testing found that their water contained extraordinarily high concentrations of benzene, a carcinogen known to cause leukemia in humans.
“I think it’s important for people to really understand that this isn’t just wood burning.” - Dr. Lisa Miller, associate director of research at the California National Primate Research Center
Advertisement
“Levels were about up to about 1,000 times higher than the legally allowable concentrations,” Solomon said.
When the same phenomenon was observed in Paradise, California, after people returned home following the 2018 Camp fire, Solomon secured funding to try and figure out what was happening. She’s still putting the data together, but one explanation appears the most likely: The water systems lost pressure when the fires stormed those communities and pipes instead sucked in wildfire smoke, which contains benzene, she said. Those levels of benzene were made worse by all the incinerated plastics inside people’s homes and the charred plastic water pipes, which both released benzene when they burned.
“Anytime you have a fire come through and there’s a loss of pressure in the system, there’s a risk of having severe contamination of the water system afterwards,” Solomon said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-23--Progressive Judicial Groups Prepare For Tough Supreme Court Battle

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS via Getty Images Members of the immigrant advocacy group CASA march in protest around the Supreme Court as President Donald Trump prepares to quickly fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's seat with a conservative nominee .
It ’ s a grim prospect for progressive judicial advocacy groups .
And the reality is there ’ s not much they can do to prevent Republicans from confirming Trump ’ s nominee .
It ’ s just math .
McConnell can afford to lose three GOP senators and still get Trump ’ s nominee through .
There are only two , Lisa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Maine ) , who have said they won ’ t vote to confirm anyone this year .
Democrats were hoping GOP Sens .
Mitt Romney ( Utah ) and Chuck Grassley ( Iowa ) would join them , based on previous statements they ’ ve made , but both support moving forward .
Still , progressive judicial groups insist McConnell ’ s plan isn ’ t a done deal , and they have a strategy coming into focus : Fight the process every step of the way , and make it crystal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , women ’ s reproductive rights , voting rights and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court are all at stake with this confirmation .
“ We ’ re going to fight tooth and nail to prevent Trump from filling this seat in the first place , ” said Zack Ford of Alliance for Justice Action Campaign .
“ Then we ’ re going to fight tooth and nail to flip as many Republicans as possible to keep this nominee from getting confirmed .
Then we ’ re going to fight tooth and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in the election , to undo the damage , however possible.
” “ It ’ s all about preparing for every eventuality ― how do they rush this , what happens at the hearing , what happens in the floor vote ― looking at every single opportunity to say : What can we achieve as they try to plow forward ?
” Ford added .
“ We know exactly who Trump will nominate because he ’ s already explained his litmus test , ” she said .
“ These are people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threaten Roe v Wade , who will put voting rights on the line .
I think Senate Republicans know that .
The pressure is on them.
” Demand Justice is spending $ 10 million to prevent Trump from filling the Supreme Court seat this year , and much of that money will target Republicans in key states , said a spokesperson for the group .
Democrats argue the seat shouldn ’ t be filled until after Inauguration Day , when Joe Biden may be in the White House .
Chris Kang , chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrage has been off the charts since McConnell announced his plan to quickly fill Ginsburg ’ s seat .
That energy was palpable over the weekend , he said , when the group co-hosted a vigil on the steps of the Supreme Court .
Seven thousand people turned out , along with 400,000 people online .
“ So much of the focus is on the Republican hypocrisy , but it ’ s not the most important argument here , ” Kang said .
“ The Affordable Care Act is on the line .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of people with preexisting conditions ... .
I think that energy and enthusiasm is what is going to make this fight very different than other Supreme Court fights.
” “ What we have to do , as difficult as it may be , is make it clear this isn ’ t about Democrats versus Republicans or stopping Trump , ” Feingold said .
“ This is about the fact that one of the most important institutions in our country , the U.S. Supreme Court , is being compromised and made illegitimate.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee this year , progressive groups say it opens the door for Democrats to move forward with structural changes to the Senate and the Supreme Court as a consequence , the next time Democrats retake control of the Senate and White House .
That could happen in November .
Advocacy groups have been pushing Democrats for reforms like adding more seats to the Supreme Court and getting rid of the Senate filibuster for legislation , which would allow the majority party to pass bills with just 51 votes instead of 60 .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Washington , D.C. , and Puerto Rico , which would give each of the Democratic strongholds two senators and a voting member of Congress .
These are all dramatic institutional changes that have floated around in advocacy circles for years but haven ’ t gained much traction among Democratic officials .
There are plenty of Senate Democrats who are uncomfortable with the idea of pledging to get rid of the filibuster , for example , because they worry that it telegraphs to McConnell what he should do if Biden loses in November @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
It’s been five days since Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) already appears to have the votes to confirm President Donald Trump’s pick to replace her on the Supreme Court this year.
There isn’t even a nominee yet. Based on what Trump has said, he’ll name a woman, she will be hostile to the Affordable Care Act and she will support overturning Roe v. Wade. If confirmed, Trump’s nominee will tilt the court to a 6-to-3 conservative majority.
Advertisement
It’s a grim prospect for progressive judicial advocacy groups. And the reality is there’s not much they can do to prevent Republicans from confirming Trump’s nominee. It’s just math. McConnell can afford to lose three GOP senators and still get Trump’s nominee through. There are only two, Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), who have said they won’t vote to confirm anyone this year. Democrats were hoping GOP Sens. Mitt Romney (Utah) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa) would join them, based on previous statements they’ve made, but both support moving forward.
Still, progressive judicial groups insist McConnell’s plan isn’t a done deal, and they have a strategy coming into focus: Fight the process every step of the way, and make it crystal clear to the American public that health care, women’s reproductive rights, voting rights and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court are all at stake with this confirmation.
“We’re going to fight tooth and nail to prevent Trump from filling this seat in the first place,” said Zack Ford of Alliance for Justice Action Campaign. “Then we’re going to fight tooth and nail to flip as many Republicans as possible to keep this nominee from getting confirmed. Then we’re going to fight tooth and nail, if Democrats get some power back in the election, to undo the damage, however possible.”
“It’s all about preparing for every eventuality ― how do they rush this, what happens at the hearing, what happens in the floor vote ― looking at every single opportunity to say: What can we achieve as they try to plow forward?” Ford added.
Advertisement
Groups have already begun mobilizing their networks nationwide. They’re hosting calls with Democratic senators pledging to fight. They’re organizing online and in-person events with speakers from various civil rights and advocacy groups. They’re circulating polls showing that most Americans prefer to let the winner of the November election fill the Supreme Court seat.
They’re also planning to spend money pressuring specific Republicans to defect as the process goes forward. They’ve got their eyes on vulnerable GOP senators up for reelection, such as Cory Gardner (Colo.), Martha McSally (Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (N.C.).
“It’s important to note from the start that people have already started voting for the president and their senators,” said Lena Zwarensteyn, director of the Fair Courts Campaign at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 220 national civil rights groups.
“We know exactly who Trump will nominate because he’s already explained his litmus test,” she said. “These are people who will threaten health care, who will threaten Roe v Wade, who will put voting rights on the line. I think Senate Republicans know that. The pressure is on them.”
People gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court for a vigil Saturday following the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Advertisement
Demand Justice is spending $10 million to prevent Trump from filling the Supreme Court seat this year, and much of that money will target Republicans in key states, said a spokesperson for the group. Democrats argue the seat shouldn’t be filled until after Inauguration Day, when Joe Biden may be in the White House.
Chris Kang, chief counsel at Demand Justice, said progressive outrage has been off the charts since McConnell announced his plan to quickly fill Ginsburg’s seat. That energy was palpable over the weekend, he said, when the group co-hosted a vigil on the steps of the Supreme Court. Seven thousand people turned out, along with 400,000 people online.
Like other progressive advocacy groups, Demand Justice saw a huge spike in fundraising over the weekend, too ― more than it has raised in two years.
“So much of the focus is on the Republican hypocrisy, but it’s not the most important argument here,” Kang said. “The Affordable Care Act is on the line. They want to strip away protections from millions of people with preexisting conditions.... I think that energy and enthusiasm is what is going to make this fight very different than other Supreme Court fights.”
It’s also crucial that people understand what McConnell’s rushed confirmation vote means for the Supreme Court itself, said former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who now leads the American Constitution Society, a left-leaning legal advocacy group.
Advertisement
“What we have to do, as difficult as it may be, is make it clear this isn’t about Democrats versus Republicans or stopping Trump,” Feingold said. “This is about the fact that one of the most important institutions in our country, the U.S. Supreme Court, is being compromised and made illegitimate.”
Republicans are systematically “poaching” the court, Feingold said. They denied President Barack Obama a Supreme Court nominee in 2016, he said, and now they’re denying a potential President Biden a say in filling the vacant seat by rushing through a Trump nominee right before the election, an unprecedented move.
“The actual institution of the court, which already was under a gray cloud because of the Bush v. Gore decision and Citizens United, is about to descend into one of its worst periods in American history,” Feingold said.
Former Sen. Russ Feingold, now the president of the American Constitution Society, said Senate Republicans' rush to confirm President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee right before the election is compromising the legitimacy of the court. Tom Williams via Getty Images
If Republicans do confirm Trump’s nominee this year, progressive groups say it opens the door for Democrats to move forward with structural changes to the Senate and the Supreme Court as a consequence, the next time Democrats retake control of the Senate and White House. That could happen in November.
Advertisement
“All of the options, as [Senate Democratic Leader Chuck] Schumer has said, are on the table,” Ford said.
Advocacy groups have been pushing Democrats for reforms like adding more seats to the Supreme Court and getting rid of the Senate filibuster for legislation, which would allow the majority party to pass bills with just 51 votes instead of 60. There is also some momentum for expanding statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, which would give each of the Democratic strongholds two senators and a voting member of Congress.
These are all dramatic institutional changes that have floated around in advocacy circles for years but haven’t gained much traction among Democratic officials. There are plenty of Senate Democrats who are uncomfortable with the idea of pledging to get rid of the filibuster, for example, because they worry that it telegraphs to McConnell what he should do if Biden loses in November.
Recently, though, some Democrats have signaled that they would support major structural reforms, depending on how Republicans proceed with the Supreme Court confirmation.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) tweeted last week that Democrats should “immediately” move to expand the Supreme Court if Biden wins in November but Republicans still vote to confirm Trump’s nominee in the lame-duck session. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) went further, tweeting last week that Democrats should nix the filibuster and add more Supreme Court seats if Republicans move forward with confirming Trump’s nominee this year.
Advertisement
Even Biden, for the first time ever, suggested in July that he is open to getting rid of the filibuster, depending on the level of defiance from Senate Republicans in a potential Biden administration. But advocates’ push on the issue is largely unrelated to Biden, who hasn’t discussed the Supreme Court that much.
Feingold, who served in the Senate for 18 years, said it is “perfectly understandable” that progressives are pushing for structural reforms in light of the circumstances. Still, he urged advocates to stay focused on the matter at hand: preventing Senate Republicans from confirming a Supreme Court nominee until January and from treating the Supreme Court as a political tool.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Adam Schiff Urges Trump’s Own Staff To Walk Out Now While They Can

Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) urged Republicans working in the administration of President Donald Trump to walk away before it ’ s too late .
“ This is a moment that I would say to any Republican of good conscience working in the administration : It is time for you to resign , ” Schiff told MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow on Wednesday .
Earlier in the day , Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the November election , then attacked the voting process .
“ The ballots are a disaster , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ballots and you ’ ll have a peaceful ... there won ’ t be a transfer , frankly , there ’ ll be a continuation.
” Schiff , chair of the House Intelligence Committee , said it ’ s clear what anyone with a conscience who works or has worked for Trump must do : “ If you have been debating about whether you can continue to serve the country by serving this president , you can ’ t .
It is time to resign .
And I would say to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintaining a dignified silence who have served in the administration in the past , you can not maintain your silence any longer.
” Schiff also warned them not to wait for Trump to try to “ get rid of the ballots ” before they act .
“ Because if you do wait , knowing what is to come , you will share some of the burden of responsibility for that chaos that comes , ” he said , adding that Trump ’ s “ autocratic intentions are as clear as the writing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dies .
A president so desperate to cling to power that he won ’ t commit to a peaceful transition of power .
That he seeks to throw out millions of votes .
And a Republican Party too craven to say a word .
But we will fight back .
America belongs to the people .
https : //t.co/mIVjh78Xk9 — Adam Schiff ( @ RepAdamSchiff ) September 24 , 2020 We want to know what you ’ re hearing on the ground from the candidates .
If you get any interesting ― or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or hear anything else you think we should know about , email us at scoops @ huffpost.com

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) urged Republicans working in the administration of President Donald Trump to walk away before it’s too late.
“This is a moment that I would say to any Republican of good conscience working in the administration: It is time for you to resign,” Schiff told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Wednesday.
Advertisement
Earlier in the day, Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the November election, then attacked the voting process.
“The ballots are a disaster,” Trump said. “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a peaceful ... there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation.”
Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said it’s clear what anyone with a conscience who works or has worked for Trump must do:
“If you have been debating about whether you can continue to serve the country by serving this president, you can’t. It is time to resign. And I would say to those who have been on the sidelines maintaining a dignified silence who have served in the administration in the past, you cannot maintain your silence any longer.”
Advertisement
Schiff also warned them not to wait for Trump to try to “get rid of the ballots” before they act.
“Because if you do wait, knowing what is to come, you will share some of the burden of responsibility for that chaos that comes,” he said, adding that Trump’s “autocratic intentions are as clear as the writing on the wall.”
Schiff also tweeted:
This is how democracy dies.
A president so desperate to cling to power that he won’t commit to a peaceful transition of power.
That he seeks to throw out millions of votes.
And a Republican Party too craven to say a word.
But we will fight back. America belongs to the people. https://t.co/mIVjh78Xk9 — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) September 24, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--FEC Commissioner Has News For Trump: We Do Not 'Get Rid Of' Ballots

Commissioner Ellen Weintraub of the Federal Election Commission has a news flash for President Donald Trump and anyone else who needs to hear it : “ In the United States of America , we do not ‘ get rid of ’ ballots.
” Earlier , when asked during a press briefing if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the November election , Trump refused to do so , saying , “ Well , we ’ re going to have to see what happens.
” He then went on to attack mail-in voting , suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if mail-in ballots are removed .
He also implied there would be no need for a transfer without mail-in ballots .
( He has on several occasions claimed the process favors Democrats ) .
“ Get rid of the ballots and you ’ ll have a peaceful ... there won ’ t be a transfer , frankly , there ’ ll be a continuation , ” he said .
In case anyone is unclear on the concept , in the United States of America , we do not “ get rid of ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballots – *all* the ballots – is the way we determine who leads our country after our elections .
The only way .
https : //t.co/F4amcEvx2v — Ellen L 😷 Weintraub ( @ EllenLWeintraub ) September 23 , 2020 Trump ’ s brazen disregard for the Democratic process on Wednesday ignited deep concerns from those on both sides of the aisle .
It ’ s just the latest milestone in his months-long assault on mail-in voting and the nation ’ s electoral system .
He has made persistent efforts to plant seeds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electoral process ahead of the presidential election , which he has claimed without evidence will be “ rigged .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub of the Federal Election Commission has a news flash for President Donald Trump and anyone else who needs to hear it: “In the United States of America, we do not ‘get rid of’ ballots.”
Earlier, when asked during a press briefing if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the November election, Trump refused to do so, saying, “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens.”
Advertisement
He then went on to attack mail-in voting, suggesting there would only be a peaceful transition if mail-in ballots are removed. He also implied there would be no need for a transfer without mail-in ballots. (He has on several occasions claimed the process favors Democrats).
“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a peaceful ... there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation,” he said.
Weintraub, a Democratic appointee, cleared things up with a tweet:
In case anyone is unclear on the concept, in the United States of America, we do not “get rid of” ballots. We count them. Counting the ballots – *all* the ballots – is the way we determine who leads our country after our elections. The only way. https://t.co/F4amcEvx2v — Ellen L 😷 Weintraub (@EllenLWeintraub) September 23, 2020
Trump’s brazen disregard for the Democratic process on Wednesday ignited deep concerns from those on both sides of the aisle. It’s just the latest milestone in his months-long assault on mail-in voting and the nation’s electoral system. He has made persistent efforts to plant seeds of doubt, stoke confusion and delegitimize the electoral process ahead of the presidential election, which he has claimed without evidence will be “rigged.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Chris Hayes Reveals The Most 'Chilling' Part Of Trump's New Election Threat

President Donald Trump on Wednesday refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the November election , which Chris Hayes called “ chilling.
” “ Just to be clear , if you ’ re talking to a person and you ask them to commit to behave peacefully and they refuse , they ’ re threatening violence , right ?
” the MSBNC host asked .
Hayes said Trump ’ s comments amounted to openly plotting a coup against the United States .
“ It all sounds crazy to say , ” he said .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the plain facts as assembled before us .
It ’ s not a behind-the-scenes type of thing .
It ’ s happening in public , in plain view.
” Hayes then went through several election scenarios , including the possibility that Trump wins outright or the possibility that Biden wins in a “ decisive , historic , unambiguous rout.
” But , as Hayes explained in the clip above , it was the scenarios in the middle that Trump is trying to manipulate with his voter fraud claims and with the help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal courts .
We want to know what you ’ re hearing on the ground from the candidates .
If you get any interesting ― or suspicious !
― campaign mailers , robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know about , email us at scoops @ huffpost.com

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump on Wednesday refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the November election, which Chris Hayes called “chilling.”
“Just to be clear, if you’re talking to a person and you ask them to commit to behave peacefully and they refuse, they’re threatening violence, right?” the MSBNC host asked.
Advertisement
Hayes said Trump’s comments amounted to openly plotting a coup against the United States.
“It all sounds crazy to say,” he said. “It is what we are seeing. Those are the plain facts as assembled before us. It’s not a behind-the-scenes type of thing. It’s happening in public, in plain view.”
Hayes then went through several election scenarios, including the possibility that Trump wins outright or the possibility that Biden wins in a “decisive, historic, unambiguous rout.”
But, as Hayes explained in the clip above, it was the scenarios in the middle that Trump is trying to manipulate with his voter fraud claims and with the help of Attorney General Bill Barr and the federal courts.
We want to know what you’re hearing on the ground from the candidates. If you get any interesting ― or suspicious! ― campaign mailers, robocalls or hear anything else you think we should know about, email us at scoops@huffpost.com


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-23--Critics Horrified By Trump's Refusal To Commit To Peaceful Transfer Of Power

Social media was flooded with concerns Wednesday after President Donald Trump ’ s disturbing refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the November election .
Trump was asked at a White House press conference if he would commit to a peaceful transferal of power if he lost .
Trump said , “ Well , we ’ re going to have to see what happens.
” Continuing his attack on voting by mail ― as millions of people prepare to do so amid the coronavirus pandemic ― Trump also alluded that he would accept the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is removed .
“ Get rid of the ballots and you ’ ll have a peaceful ... there won ’ t be a transfer , frankly , there ’ ll be a continuation , ” he said .
For months , Trump has laid the groundwork to declare the election results illegitimate unless he wins .
In July , he told Fox News anchor Chris Wallace that he ’ ll “ have to see ” if he ’ ll accept the results of the election .
His brazen comments Wednesday set Twitter afire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney ( R-Utah ) , Brian Schatz ( D-Hawaii ) , Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) and Tammy Duckworth ( D-Ill. ) , voiced deep concerns about his disregard for democracy .
Fundamental to democracy is the peaceful transition of power ; without that , there is Belarus .
Any suggestion that a president might not respect this Constitutional guarantee is both unthinkable and unacceptable .
— Mitt Romney ( @ MittRomney ) September 24 , 2020 President Trump : You are not a dictator , and America will not permit you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Schumer ( @ SenSchumer ) September 23 , 2020 People who are very chill about the President not committing to the peaceful transfer of power unless they “ get rid of the ballots ” are too chill for me .
This seems an awfully serious thing to be dismissive about .
At the very least it ’ s a good reason to oppose him vigorously .
— Brian Schatz ( @ brianschatz ) September 23 , 2020 This is possibly the most frightening 54 seconds of the Trump presidency .
https : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) September 23 , 2020 “ Get rid of the ballots and there won ’ t be a transfer of power , there will be a continuation ... ” Yes , one system is authoritarianism .
Another is democracy where people cast ballots & ballots are counted .
Thankfully , many are protecting the latter & ready for any scenario .
# VOTE https : //t.co/rMm6z4FB6m — Vanita Gupta ( @ vanitaguptaCR ) September 23 , 2020 Peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of our democracy .
This thinly veiled threat from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spine of every freedom-loving American .
https : //t.co/mmBnnorqU7 — Tammy Duckworth ( @ SenDuckworth ) September 24 , 2020 We impeached this president to hold him accountable , to make clear no one is above the law , and to save our democracy .
Senate Republicans put party over country and let him off the hook .
This is the result .
But it wo n't be our future .
We will have a peaceful transition of power .
https : //t.co/V7qfvxDfIc — Rep. Pramila Jayapal ( @ RepJayapal ) September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power is essential to a functioning democracy .
This statement from the president of the United States should trouble all of us .
https : //t.co/pLYh9e8X3W — ACLU ( @ ACLU ) September 24 , 2020 Pure fascist .
And not a single republican in Congress gives a crap about it .
https : //t.co/UoAxl6OKZL — Bill Pascrell , Jr. ( @ BillPascrell ) September 23 , 2020 Never before has there been an exchange with a US President like this .
God willing , never again .
“ Will you commit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election ?
” President Trump : `` We 're gon na have to see what happens .
`` pic.twitter.com/UTPXigckVt — ian bremmer ( @ ianbremmer ) September 23 , 2020 THREAD .
It is important to take note and be prepared for the unprecedented actions Trump says he intends to take after the election .
But it is also important not to allow his *wishful* reality to *become the reality .
To do that , consider Trump 's psychological POV right now : https : //t.co/faXkQw2BMn — Asha Rangappa ( @ AshaRangappa_ ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time Trump spouts this kind of garbage , he is revealing that he is TERRIFIED .
Ab .
So .
Lute .
Ly .
Terrified .
His **existential** fear is losing .
And he knows that there is a very good chance he is going to lose .
And he ca n't do a damn thing about it .
He will be a LOSER .
— Asha Rangappa ( @ AshaRangappa_ ) September 24 , 2020 3 .
Remember that in pretty much every instance Trump has faced like this in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He walks away .
But he ca n't get out of the election .
He 's like a mail-order bride who has to go through with it .
Except in his case , if he loses , he may end up in jail — Asha Rangappa ( @ AshaRangappa_ ) September 24 , 2020 4 .
This situation is like the coronavirus .
He understands the reality , he knows he ca n't escape it , so his only option is to create an alternate reality .
Reality , however , caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is up to YOU to make sure the same happens with the election .
— Asha Rangappa ( @ AshaRangappa_ ) September 24 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Social media was flooded with concerns Wednesday after President Donald Trump’s disturbing refusal to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the November election.
Trump was asked at a White House press conference if he would commit to a peaceful transferal of power if he lost. Trump said, “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens.”
Advertisement
Continuing his attack on voting by mail ― as millions of people prepare to do so amid the coronavirus pandemic ― Trump also alluded that he would accept the results only if the option of mail-in ballots is removed.
“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a peaceful ... there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation,” he said.
For months, Trump has laid the groundwork to declare the election results illegitimate unless he wins. In July, he told Fox News anchor Chris Wallace that he’ll “have to see” if he’ll accept the results of the election.
His brazen comments Wednesday set Twitter afire as critics, including Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), voiced deep concerns about his disregard for democracy.
Advertisement
Fundamental to democracy is the peaceful transition of power; without that, there is Belarus. Any suggestion that a president might not respect this Constitutional guarantee is both unthinkable and unacceptable. — Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) September 24, 2020
President Trump: You are not a dictator, and America will not permit you to be one. https://t.co/42krs0X50l — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) September 23, 2020
People who are very chill about the President not committing to the peaceful transfer of power unless they “get rid of the ballots” are too chill for me. This seems an awfully serious thing to be dismissive about. At the very least it’s a good reason to oppose him vigorously. — Brian Schatz (@brianschatz) September 23, 2020
This is possibly the most frightening 54 seconds of the Trump presidency. https://t.co/BBC7Zn4BXh — Jim Roberts (@nycjim) September 23, 2020
“Get rid of the ballots and there won’t be a transfer of power, there will be a continuation...”
Yes, one system is authoritarianism. Another is democracy where people cast ballots & ballots are counted. Thankfully, many are protecting the latter & ready for any scenario. #VOTE https://t.co/rMm6z4FB6m — Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) September 23, 2020
Advertisement
Peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of our democracy.
This thinly veiled threat from the sitting President should send shivers down the spine of every freedom-loving American. https://t.co/mmBnnorqU7 — Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) September 24, 2020
We impeached this president to hold him accountable, to make clear no one is above the law, and to save our democracy. Senate Republicans put party over country and let him off the hook.
This is the result. But it won't be our future. We will have a peaceful transition of power. https://t.co/V7qfvxDfIc — Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) September 24, 2020
The peaceful transfer of power is essential to a functioning democracy.
This statement from the president of the United States should trouble all of us. https://t.co/pLYh9e8X3W — ACLU (@ACLU) September 24, 2020
Pure fascist. And not a single republican in Congress gives a crap about it. https://t.co/UoAxl6OKZL — Bill Pascrell, Jr. (@BillPascrell) September 23, 2020
Never before has there been an exchange with a US President like this. God willing, never again.
“Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?”
President Trump: "We're gonna have to see what happens."pic.twitter.com/UTPXigckVt — ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) September 23, 2020
Advertisement
THREAD. It is important to take note and be prepared for the unprecedented actions Trump says he intends to take after the election. But it is also important not to allow his *wishful* reality to *become the reality. To do that, consider Trump's psychological POV right now: https://t.co/faXkQw2BMn — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) September 24, 2020
2. Every time Trump spouts this kind of garbage, he is revealing that he is TERRIFIED. Ab. So. Lute. Ly. Terrified. His **existential** fear is losing. And he knows that there is a very good chance he is going to lose. And he can't do a damn thing about it. He will be a LOSER. — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) September 24, 2020
3. Remember that in pretty much every instance Trump has faced like this in the past, he's had an exit strategy. He walks away. But he can't get out of the election. He's like a mail-order bride who has to go through with it. Except in his case, if he loses, he may end up in jail — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) September 24, 2020
4. This situation is like the coronavirus. He understands the reality, he knows he can't escape it, so his only option is to create an alternate reality. Reality, however, caught up with him with COVID. So it is up to YOU to make sure the same happens with the election. — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) September 24, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-23--Christian Group Is In The Spotlight Over Its Ties To A Supreme Court Front-Runner

Barrett is widely considered to be a front-runner for the seat on the Supreme Court that became vacant after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death on Friday .
The 48-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit , poised to become a reliably conservative voice on the nation ’ s highest court for decades to come , has described herself as a “ faithful Catholic.
” People of Praise describes itself as a “ charismatic ” Christian community , referring to a form of Christianity that believes that supernatural occurrences ― such as prophecy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can occur in people ’ s daily lives through the work of the Holy Spirit .
These beliefs are most often associated with Pentecostal Christianity , but in the late 1960s , Catholics began adopting this form of spirituality as well .
People of Praise is one of many groups that emerged from this period .
The group formed in 1971 in South Bend , Indiana , with the help of students and faculty associated with the University of Notre Dame .
People of Praise now has about 1,700 members in 22 cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caribbean , according to the group ’ s website , along with several private religious schools , called Trinity Schools .
Like other charismatic Catholics , members attend Mass in traditional churches but are also involved in prayer meetings outside of church .
Though the group welcomes people from other Christian denominations , the majority of its members are Catholics .
The Vatican has been supportive of the charismatic movement within the church , with Pope Francis declaring in 2017 that it “ fully belongs in the biblical tradition.
” Although People of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vatican an as approved charismatic community , one member of the group has gone on to become an auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon .
People of Praise is a “ covenant community , ” which means that after a period of discernment , members make a commitment to “ be there for one another for the long run , to support one another through thick and thin , through all of life ’ s seasons.
” They pledge to give 5 % of their annual income to the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet regularly for prayer and service projects .
People of Praise claims this covenant resembles the permanent commitments made by nuns or monks who enter religious orders .
Within this community , married women ’ s “ heads ” are their husbands , according to the Religion News Service .
Single women receive spiritual guidance from female leaders .
Beginning in the 1970s , People of Praise used the term “ handmaid ” to refer to these leaders .
The group claims the label comes from a Bible verse attributed to Mary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would become pregnant with Jesus by calling herself “ the handmaid of the Lord.
” But the label took on new significance in light of Atwood ’ s novel .
In the novel , which imagines a dystopian America ruled by a Christian fundamentalist regime , “ handmaids ” are fertile women who are subjugated to ritual rape and forced to give birth to the children of their male masters .
The novel was brought to life in the middle of the # MeToo movement through an award-winning TV series on the Hulu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have said they experienced a rigid , controlling atmosphere when they were part of People of Praise , as well as shunning when they asked too many questions or left the community .
One ex-member , Coral Anika Theill , told the National Catholic Reporter in 2018 that she remembers her five years in the group as a period of suffering under strict gender-role divisions .
One of the original members of People of Praise , Adrian Reimers , has criticized the group and other covenant communities for drifting away from the authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for creating cultures where women are encouraged to be subservient to their husbands , while men are expected to defer to their spiritual heads .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The reemergence of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a top contender for the Supreme Court has renewed scrutiny of a religious organization she’s reported to have been involved with.
Barrett is widely considered to be a front-runner for the seat on the Supreme Court that became vacant after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday. The 48-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, poised to become a reliably conservative voice on the nation’s highest court for decades to come, has described herself as a “faithful Catholic.”
Advertisement
Her religious identity is nothing new for the court ― in fact, five of the eight justices on the court now are Roman Catholics. (Two are Jewish, and one is Episcopalian.)
But in addition to belonging to the largest religious denomination in the country, Barrett also appears to have ties to People of Praise, a religious group that until recently referred to its female leaders as “handmaids” ― evoking comparisons to Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
After President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the 7th Circuit in 2017, The New York Times published an article in which unnamed members of the group alleged that Barrett and her husband belonged to People of Praise. The article included a photograph, captured from a page of the group’s magazine, that showed Barrett attending a women’s gathering.
That photograph and other references to Barrett were scrubbed from People of Praise’s website, the Times reported in 2017.
Advertisement
In a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee after her nomination, Barrett indicated that she had once been a trustee for a school run by People of Praise. Trustees of the school must be members, according to The Times.
People of Praise has declined to confirm or deny Barrett’s membership in the group.
“Like most religious communities, the People of Praise leaves it up to its members to decide whether to publicly disclose their involvement in our community,” Sean Connolly, the group’s communications director, told HuffPost.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a Roman Catholic, is a top contender for the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Matt Cashore/Notre Dame University via Reuters
People of Praise describes itself as a “charismatic” Christian community, referring to a form of Christianity that believes that supernatural occurrences ― such as prophecy, miraculous healing and speaking in tongues ― can occur in people’s daily lives through the work of the Holy Spirit. These beliefs are most often associated with Pentecostal Christianity, but in the late 1960s, Catholics began adopting this form of spirituality as well.
People of Praise is one of many groups that emerged from this period. The group formed in 1971 in South Bend, Indiana, with the help of students and faculty associated with the University of Notre Dame. People of Praise now has about 1,700 members in 22 cities in the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean, according to the group’s website, along with several private religious schools, called Trinity Schools. Like other charismatic Catholics, members attend Mass in traditional churches but are also involved in prayer meetings outside of church. Though the group welcomes people from other Christian denominations, the majority of its members are Catholics.
Advertisement
The Vatican has been supportive of the charismatic movement within the church, with Pope Francis declaring in 2017 that it “fully belongs in the biblical tradition.” Although People of Praise is not officially recognized by the Vatican an as approved charismatic community, one member of the group has gone on to become an auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon.
The aspect of People of Praise that has sparked interest in recent years is the way the community keeps members accountable to their faith commitments.
Photos of Amy Coney Barrett, a potential Supreme Court nominee, hang in the Hall of Fame of her alma mater Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. Karen Pulfer Focht / Reuters
People of Praise is a “covenant community,” which means that after a period of discernment, members make a commitment to “be there for one another for the long run, to support one another through thick and thin, through all of life’s seasons.” They pledge to give 5% of their annual income to the group, to follow common principles and to meet regularly for prayer and service projects. People of Praise claims this covenant resembles the permanent commitments made by nuns or monks who enter religious orders.
Each member of People of Praise is connected to a specific community leader, also known as a “head,” who acts as a guide, offering practical advice and spiritual mentorship. Heads are often consulted when members face important life decisions, such as dating, marriage, jobs and financial issues.
Advertisement
Within this community, married women’s “heads” are their husbands, according to the Religion News Service. Single women receive spiritual guidance from female leaders. Beginning in the 1970s, People of Praise used the term “handmaid” to refer to these leaders. The group claims the label comes from a Bible verse attributed to Mary, who submitted to the news that she would become pregnant with Jesus by calling herself “the handmaid of the Lord.”
But the label took on new significance in light of Atwood’s novel. In the novel, which imagines a dystopian America ruled by a Christian fundamentalist regime, “handmaids” are fertile women who are subjugated to ritual rape and forced to give birth to the children of their male masters. The novel was brought to life in the middle of the #MeToo movement through an award-winning TV series on the Hulu streaming service.
In a 1986 interview with The New York Times, Atwood said that she was inspired to write the novel after learning about a “Catholic charismatic spinoff sect” that called women “handmaids.” Atwood hasn’t specified which charismatic sect she was referring to.
People of Praise has stopped using the term to refer to female leaders because it recognized that the meaning has “shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years,” according to its website.
Connolly told HuffPost that “there has never been any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the People of Praise played a role in inspiring Margaret Atwood’s book.”
Advertisement
“There are no similarities whatsoever between a faith community that recognizes that men and women share a fundamental equality as bearers of God’s image and a fictional dystopia in which women are treated like property,” Connolly wrote in an email.
The group believes husbands shouldn’t be domineering and wives shouldn’t be servile, according to its website. “Heads” don’t make decisions for others, and people in the community have the freedom to follow their own consciences, the website says.
But some former members have said they experienced a rigid, controlling atmosphere when they were part of People of Praise, as well as shunning when they asked too many questions or left the community. One ex-member, Coral Anika Theill, told the National Catholic Reporter in 2018 that she remembers her five years in the group as a period of suffering under strict gender-role divisions.
One of the original members of People of Praise, Adrian Reimers, has criticized the group and other covenant communities for drifting away from the authority and work of the Roman Catholic Church and for creating cultures where women are encouraged to be subservient to their husbands, while men are expected to defer to their spiritual heads.
Asked to respond to these critiques, Connolly said that “we do not comment on individual stories.” Connolly also declined to say whether the group has taken any steps to investigate whether ex-members’ reports of an abusive environment had any validity.
Advertisement
People pay respects as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in repose under the Portico at the top of the front steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building on Wednesday. Alex Brandon/Associated Press
Sharon Loftus, a judicial assistant for Barrett, told Reuters this week that the judge’s policy was not to give interviews or comments to the media.
After her nomination to the 7th Circuit, Barrett was grilled by Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee about whether her religious views would influence her legal decisions. Barrett said she agreed judges shouldn’t “follow their personal convictions in the decision of a case, rather than what the law requires.”
This line of questioning infuriated Republicans on the committee, who claimed it amounted to a “religious test” for office.