thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Some Senate Democrats Rule Out Meeting With Trump Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

Trump announced his intent to nominate Barrett , a 48-year-old judge on the 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia , at a White House ceremony on Saturday .
Her confirmation , which looks all but certain in the GOP-controlled Senate , would solidify a conservative majority on the high court for the foreseeable future .
Republicans notoriously refused to meet with Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland , President Barack Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee , and blocked him from filling the seat that came open upon Scalia ’ s death in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP leaders in charge of the Senate insisted the seat should stay open until a new president took office following that year ’ s election ― a position they are now ignoring .
Although it appears there is little Democrats can do to keep Barrett off the court , some of the party ’ s senators on the chamber ’ s Judiciary Committee are pointing to the standard Republicans set four years ago and saying they , too , will abstain from meeting with the judge in an election year .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimate and will not meet with Judge Barrett , ” Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said in a statement , noting that early voting is already underway in several states .
“ Senate Republicans have gone back on their word about confirming a Supreme Court justice in an election year and disrespected the final , fervent wish of Justice Ginsburg to not be replaced until a new president is installed , ” Hirono said in a statement on Saturday .
Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont did not say on Saturday whether he planned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objected to Trump announcing Ginsburg ’ s replacement and moving to set up meetings on Capitol Hill even before the liberal icon had been laid to rest next week .
“ This entire process is unprecedented and offensive , but it is especially unseemly to be scheduling meetings even before Justice Ginsburg has been interred with her husband at Arlington National Cemetery , ” Leahy said in a statement .
Supreme Court nominees customarily meet with senators who play key parts in the approval process .
Top Democrats , including Senate Minority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh before his confirmation to the court in 2018 , for example .
Schumer hasn ’ t said yet whether he will meet with Barrett .
At a news conference in New York City Saturday evening , he said he will “ strongly , strongly , strongly ” oppose Barrett ’ s nomination , citing Ginsburg request that her replacement be picked by the winner of November ’ s election .
Sen. Kamala Harris of California , a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Democratic vice presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether she will meet with Barrett , but she made clear she will oppose her confirmation .
“ With the next Supreme Court Justice set to determine the fate of protections for those with preexisting health conditions , and reproductive health options , I will continue to fight on behalf of the people and strongly oppose the president ’ s nomination , ” Harris said in a statement on Saturday .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Trump announced his intent to nominate Barrett, a 48-year-old judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, at a White House ceremony on Saturday. Her confirmation, which looks all but certain in the GOP-controlled Senate, would solidify a conservative majority on the high court for the foreseeable future.
Advertisement
Republicans notoriously refused to meet with Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, and blocked him from filling the seat that came open upon Scalia’s death in early 2016. At the time, the GOP leaders in charge of the Senate insisted the seat should stay open until a new president took office following that year’s election ― a position they are now ignoring.
Republicans are pushing a historically speedy timetable for confirming Barrett, with a final vote expected just days from the Nov. 3 presidential election.
Although it appears there is little Democrats can do to keep Barrett off the court, some of the party’s senators on the chamber’s Judiciary Committee are pointing to the standard Republicans set four years ago and saying they, too, will abstain from meeting with the judge in an election year.
“I refuse to treat this process as legitimate and will not meet with Judge Barrett,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said in a statement, noting that early voting is already underway in several states.
Advertisement
A spokesman for the Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono confirmed she will also not be meeting with Trump’s nominee.
“Senate Republicans have gone back on their word about confirming a Supreme Court justice in an election year and disrespected the final, fervent wish of Justice Ginsburg to not be replaced until a new president is installed,” Hirono said in a statement on Saturday.
Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont did not say on Saturday whether he planned to meet with Barrett. But he objected to Trump announcing Ginsburg’s replacement and moving to set up meetings on Capitol Hill even before the liberal icon had been laid to rest next week.
“This entire process is unprecedented and offensive, but it is especially unseemly to be scheduling meetings even before Justice Ginsburg has been interred with her husband at Arlington National Cemetery,” Leahy said in a statement.
Supreme Court nominees customarily meet with senators who play key parts in the approval process. Top Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, met with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh before his confirmation to the court in 2018, for example.
Advertisement
But in a Sunday news conference, Schumer said he will not meet with Barrett primarily because “the whole [nomination] process has been illegitimate.”
@chuckschumer won’t meet w/ Judge Barrett: “No because I believe first that the whole process has been illegitimate and second because she's already stated that she is for overturning the ACA," Schumer said at a news conference. "I will not meet with her." — Trish Turner (@caphilltrish) September 27, 2020
In an earlier press conference in New York on Saturday, Schumer said he will “strongly, strongly, strongly” oppose Barrett’s nomination, citing Ginsburg request that her replacement be picked by the winner of November’s election.
Sen. Kamala Harris of California, a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Democratic vice presidential nominee, hasn’t commented on whether she will meet with Barrett, but she made clear she will oppose her confirmation.
“With the next Supreme Court Justice set to determine the fate of protections for those with preexisting health conditions, and reproductive health options, I will continue to fight on behalf of the people and strongly oppose the president’s nomination,” Harris said in a statement on Saturday.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Scheduled To Begin Oct. 12: Reports

The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin holding confirmation hearings on President Donald Trump ’ s new Supreme Court nominee on Oct. 12 , according to multiple outlets .
Trump is expected to name Amy Coney Barrett , a circuit court judge , to the seat vacated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who died Sept. 18 of complications from cancer .
Ginsburg died just 46 days before the presidential election on Nov. 3 , but Republicans in the Senate are determined to push through Trump ’ s nominee before Election Day , arguing that the court may need to step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has strongly hinted that he will put up a fight if he is not the decisive winner , claiming without evidence that voting by mail will lead to massive voter fraud .
Yet the timetable is ambitious .
The Senate will try to squeeze into just over three weeks a confirmation process that typically takes around two months .
Republicans , however , already appear to have the 51 votes needed to confirm Trump ’ s nominee .
Barrett was also recently vetted in the Senate for her appointment to the 7th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it less likely that a detail from her past will emerge to disqualify her .
Beloved by conservatives , Barrett is regarded by liberals as a threat to abortion rights and health care coverage .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin holding confirmation hearings on President Donald Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee on Oct. 12, according to multiple outlets.
Trump is expected to name Amy Coney Barrett, a circuit court judge, to the seat vacated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18 of complications from cancer.
Advertisement
Ginsburg died just 46 days before the presidential election on Nov. 3, but Republicans in the Senate are determined to push through Trump’s nominee before Election Day, arguing that the court may need to step in to settle the election results.
Trump has strongly hinted that he will put up a fight if he is not the decisive winner, claiming without evidence that voting by mail will lead to massive voter fraud.
Yet the timetable is ambitious. The Senate will try to squeeze into just over three weeks a confirmation process that typically takes around two months.
Republicans, however, already appear to have the 51 votes needed to confirm Trump’s nominee. Barrett was also recently vetted in the Senate for her appointment to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, making it less likely that a detail from her past will emerge to disqualify her.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Lin-Manuel Miranda Hosts Get Out The Vote Video With His 'Hamilton Family'

Some dozen “ Hamilton ” cast members pitched in acting , singing and pleading with Americans to get out and vote in a new song-and-rap video pitch hosted by playwright-performer-composer Lin-Manuel Miranda .
They refashioned lyrics from the Broadway hit about Alexander Hamilton to include an updated message about the critical 1800 election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson .
“ Alexander Hamilton ” was tweaked to focus on “ Ordinary Citizen.
” The video is part of the “ When We All Vote ” project aimed at younger voters ; co-chairs include former first lady Michelle Obama , Tom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Performers called on Americans to register to vote — and then to get off their couches to make a difference .
“ A third of us weren ’ t willing to choose a direction , and 80,000 voters across three states was all it took to swing the whole election , ” sings actor Daniel Yearwood , who plays Hamilton ’ s son in the current Broadway cast , referring to the last presidential election .
“ Then the midterms came , and isn ’ t it a shame : A quarter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past them , ” sings Mandy Gonzalez , who plays Hamilton ’ s sister-in-law Angelica Schuyler in the Broadway production .
Miranda , who thanks the “ Ham fam ” for joining him , winds up : “ Our nation is asking to hear your voice because November is coming and so is your choice .
Now I ’ ve said this before , and it matters a lot .
Do not throw away your shot .
... My future depends on this .
Yours does , too.
” In a dig at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s fun to vote once .
Do not vote twice .
”

Some dozen “Hamilton” cast members pitched in acting, singing and pleading with Americans to get out and vote in a new song-and-rap video pitch hosted by playwright-performer-composer Lin-Manuel Miranda.
They refashioned lyrics from the Broadway hit about Alexander Hamilton to include an updated message about the critical 1800 election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. “Alexander Hamilton” was tweaked to focus on “Ordinary Citizen.”
Advertisement
Performers called on Americans to register to vote — and then to get off their couches to make a difference.
“A third of us weren’t willing to choose a direction, and 80,000 voters across three states was all it took to swing the whole election,” sings actor Daniel Yearwood, who plays Hamilton’s son in the current Broadway cast, referring to the last presidential election.
“Then the midterms came, and isn’t it a shame: A quarter of young people let the election go right past them,” sings Mandy Gonzalez, who plays Hamilton’s sister-in-law Angelica Schuyler in the Broadway production.
Advertisement
Miranda, who thanks the “Ham fam” for joining him, winds up: “Our nation is asking to hear your voice because November is coming and so is your choice. Now I’ve said this before, and it matters a lot. Do not throw away your shot. ... My future depends on this. Yours does, too.”
In a dig at President Donald Trump, he quips: “It’s fun to vote once. Do not vote twice.”


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

But California v. Texas is coming before the Supreme Court because three federal judges , one from a federal district in Texas and two on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit , already found its logic compelling .
All three are Republican appointees , which almost certainly helps explain why they ruled as they did .
Obamacare has been the subject of relentless attacks ― and the object of monomaniacal hatred ― on the political right since President Barack Obama signed it in 2010 .
If the penalty is $ 0 , then it can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue .
And if the mandate isn ’ t a tax anymore , then the mandate is an unconstitutional command to purchase insurance .
And if the mandate is unconstitutional , they say , the rest of the law is , too , because the features of the Affordable Care Act are so intertwined .
Congress , they say , did not intend for the rest of the program to operate without this essential piece .
The flaws in the argument are not difficult to spot , even for somebody with no legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretch to say that the mandate is now an unconstitutional command to get insurance when the consequence for defying it is literally nothing ― and when there is no mechanism of enforcement because there is no fine to collect .
Other Justices , Other Factors That Could Matter A ruling wiping out the Affordable Care Act would be a blow to all of them , for the sake of an argument that has provoked outright derision from much of the legal establishment .
Andrew Koppelman , a law professor at Northwestern University who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the law , told HuffPost on Friday that “ I can ’ t get through the logic without giggling , so maybe she can ’ t either .
”

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


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-25--What Amy Coney Barrett On The Supreme Court Means for Abortion Rights

President Donald Trump ’ s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court has at once alarmed liberals and exhilarated social conservatives , both of whom believe that she would be likely to support restrictions on abortion rights and could even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade , the decision legalizing the procedure nationwide .
On Saturday , Trump nominated Barrett , a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a law professor at the University of Notre Dame , after the death last week of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court ’ s most consistent liberal voices , dramatically shifting the court ’ s center of gravity further to the right .
She could also have a long tenure : At 48 , Barrett would be the youngest justice on the bench .
Abortion rights advocates are terrified about what that means .
Barrett is known for her conservative religious views , and , in recent years , her name has risen to the top of anti-abortion groups ’ wishlists of prospective Supreme Court justices .
A devout Catholic , Barrett has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopted , and has spoken openly about her personal belief that life begins at conception .
It ’ s impossible to know for certain how any justice ’ s tenure will go .
There are several examples of judges viewed as reliably anti-abortion making unexpected rulings , including this year , when John Roberts sided with his liberal colleagues to strike down a Louisiana abortion law .
But many clues point to Barrett ’ s hostility to Roe v. Wade .
And if she makes it to the Supreme Court , where abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she ’ ll have considerable power to shape the future of reproductive rights for the entire nation .
During that time , Barrett signed a letter of protest to the Obama administration about the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act that requires most private health insurance plans to cover birth control without a copay .
The statement criticized the workaround offered to religious employers , saying it “ changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on individual liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate was back at the Supreme Court as recently as last term .
She told students in 2013 that it was unlikely that Roe would be overturned and expressed her opinion that supporting poor , single mothers was the best way to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. At another talk , at Jacksonville University in 2016 , she repeated that the central holding of Roe ― that women have the right to an abortion ― was unlikely to change .
Barrett ’ s liberal critics worry about the extent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal thinking .
During her 2017 confirmation hearing , she was asked if she believed abortion was always immoral .
She said that was the Catholic church ’ s teaching but that if she was confirmed , her views would have no bearing on the discharge of her duties as a judge .
Her confirmation would bring the court ’ s religious affiliations to six Catholics , an Episcopal who was raised Catholic , and two Jews .
What Could Come Next “ If Amy Coney Barrett is appointed , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anti-abortion majority on the Supreme Court will seize the next abortion rights case to overturn Roe or obliterate it to the point that states have carte blanche to restrict the right however they choose , ” she said .
“ She shares the court majority ’ s regressive agenda aimed at unraveling a host of hard-won civil rights , including reproductive rights.
” “ Trump is a president who , before he was elected , made it very clear that he would only nominate judges who would be anti-abortion and judges who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Goodwin said .
“ Are reproductive health , rights and justice in danger , specifically with contraception and abortion ?
Yes.
” Though the religious right is currently enthusiastic about the possibility of Barrett joining the court , Daniel Williams , a historian at the University of West Georgia who wrote a book on the anti-abortion movement , cautioned that they have misjudged judges ’ leanings in the past .
Beyond her strong religious convictions , one of the reasons Barrett is favored by anti-abortion advocates is precisely because of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who want Roe to be overturned do not want the decision to be made by male justices only .
The optics are bad .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court has at once alarmed liberals and exhilarated social conservatives, both of whom believe that she would be likely to support restrictions on abortion rights and could even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the decision legalizing the procedure nationwide.
On Saturday, Trump nominated Barrett, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, after the death last week of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If confirmed, she would replace one of the court’s most consistent liberal voices, dramatically shifting the court’s center of gravity further to the right. She could also have a long tenure: At 48, Barrett would be the youngest justice on the bench.
Advertisement
Abortion rights advocates are terrified about what that means. Barrett is known for her conservative religious views, and, in recent years, her name has risen to the top of anti-abortion groups’ wishlists of prospective Supreme Court justices. A devout Catholic, Barrett has seven children, including two who are adopted, and has spoken openly about her personal belief that life begins at conception.
It’s impossible to know for certain how any justice’s tenure will go. There are several examples of judges viewed as reliably anti-abortion making unexpected rulings, including this year, when John Roberts sided with his liberal colleagues to strike down a Louisiana abortion law. But many clues point to Barrett’s hostility to Roe v. Wade. And if she makes it to the Supreme Court, where abortion issues come up time and time again, she’ll have considerable power to shape the future of reproductive rights for the entire nation.
A bruising confirmation battle is expected with abortion rights at its center. Her nomination comes on the heels of a historic surge in bold abortion bans passed in state legislatures across the country.
Barrett’s Record On Reproductive Rights
Barrett has been a federal judge for only three years, so much of what can be gleaned about her views on reproductive rights comes from her time in academia.
Advertisement
From 2010 to 2016, she was a member of Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life group, which was founded to “promote research, dialogue and publication by faculty who respect the value of human life from conception to natural death.”
During that time, Barrett signed a letter of protest to the Obama administration about the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act that requires most private health insurance plans to cover birth control without a copay. The statement criticized the workaround offered to religious employers, saying it “changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on individual liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy.” The birth control mandate was back at the Supreme Court as recently as last term.
Barrett also signed onto a letter to Catholic bishops giving witness to the “value of human life from conception to natural death.”
She told students in 2013 that it was unlikely that Roe would be overturned and expressed her opinion that supporting poor, single mothers was the best way to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. At another talk, at Jacksonville University in 2016, she repeated that the central holding of Roe ― that women have the right to an abortion ― was unlikely to change.
“I think the question is how much freedom the court is willing to let states have in regulating abortion,” she said.
Advertisement
President Donald Trump is expected to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District to the Supreme Court on Saturday. Matt Cashore/Notre Dame University via REUTERS.
As a federal judge, Barrett has not ruled directly on abortion cases. But she has twice signaled her opposition to rulings that struck down abortion laws.
Barrett’s liberal critics worry about the extent to which her religious beliefs may influence her legal thinking. During her 2017 confirmation hearing, she was asked if she believed abortion was always immoral. She said that was the Catholic church’s teaching but that if she was confirmed, her views would have no bearing on the discharge of her duties as a judge. Her confirmation would bring the court’s religious affiliations to six Catholics, an Episcopal who was raised Catholic, and two Jews.
Her affiliation with a conservative Christian community, People of Praise, has also come under renewed scrutiny.
What Could Come Next
Though Barrett has a short record on reproductive rights, it is clear where she stands, said Jill Adams, executive director of If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, which provides legal assistance to women seeking abortions.
Advertisement
“If Amy Coney Barrett is appointed, it’s quite possible, even probable, that the anti-abortion majority on the Supreme Court will seize the next abortion rights case to overturn Roe or obliterate it to the point that states have carte blanche to restrict the right however they choose,” she said. “She shares the court majority’s regressive agenda aimed at unraveling a host of hard-won civil rights, including reproductive rights.”
Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, noted that in the past, Republican presidents have nominated justices who respected reproductive rights. Roe v. Wade, for example, was a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a President Richard Nixon appointee.
But these times are different.
“Trump is a president who, before he was elected, made it very clear that he would only nominate judges who would be anti-abortion and judges who would work to dismantle Roe v. Wade,” Goodwin said. “Are reproductive health, rights and justice in danger, specifically with contraception and abortion? Yes.”
Though the religious right is currently enthusiastic about the possibility of Barrett joining the court, Daniel Williams, a historian at the University of West Georgia who wrote a book on the anti-abortion movement, cautioned that they have misjudged judges’ leanings in the past.
“There was a lot of excitement about Anthony Kennedy among pro-life circles,” he said. “Then Justice Kennedy ended up writing the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that largely reaffirmed the basic tenets of Roe. That was a great disappointment to them.”
Advertisement
Beyond her strong religious convictions, one of the reasons Barrett is favored by anti-abortion advocates is precisely because of her gender, Williams explained. Many activists who want Roe to be overturned do not want the decision to be made by male justices only. The optics are bad.
“The prospect of having the decision written by a woman is something that pro-life advocates, while not considering absolutely essential, have desired,” Williams said.
The fact that Barrett opposes abortion in her personal life does not necessarily mean that she will impose those views as a justice, added Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University and author of “Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Tahlequah, The Orca Famous For Grieving Her Dead Calf, Has 'Spunky' Baby Boy

A female orca known best for carrying her dead calf with her for more than two weeks in apparent grief is now mother to a healthy male .
Researchers determined this week that her new calf is a boy , after examining images from a photographer who observed the orca pod on Tuesday near Point Roberts , Washington .
The calf , known as J57 to researchers , was frolicking alongside Tahlequah ( also known as J35 ) with other orcas close by , photographer Sara Hysong-Shimazu said in a news release from the Pacific Whale Watch Association .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active and social they were together and to see J57 surfacing with both his mom and surrounded by others in the community , ” Hysong-Shimazu said .
“ He certainly seemed spunky and energetic !
” She also saw J57 “ spyhopping , ” something that whales , dolphins and some sharks do that involves sticking their heads vertically out of water .
Most scientists believe animals do this to get a good look around , though some think it may be more related to enhancing hearing .
The photographer described J57′s spyhop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a research scientist at the University of Washington ’ s Center for Conservation Biology , told HuffPost at the time that she felt it was accurate to describe the behavior as grieving .
“ This is completely unprecedented , and honestly your guess is as good as ours as far as what is going on here , ” Giles said .
“ I think it ’ s really easy to put human emotions on it , but personally I think it ’ s accurate .
I think she is grieving.
” As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had hoped the new calf would be female , since a female calf can grow up and produce more offspring .
“ And obviously you don ’ t need that many boys when you have two males that have fathered most of the offspring in this population , ” Ken Balcomb , founding director of the Center for Whale Research , told The Seattle Times .
Tahlequah and her son are part of the southern resident orca population , made up of three pods living near the Pacific Northwest coasts of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a total of 73 orcas as of December 2019 and is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act .
Tahlequah isn ’ t the only whale in her pod to have given birth recently .
J41 , also known as Eclipse , gave birth to a “ rambunctious little bundle of baby ” on Thursday , naturalist Leah Vanderwiel said in a release from the PWWA .
Eclipse ’ s calf ’ s sex and overall health are still unknown .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A female orca known best for carrying her dead calf with her for more than two weeks in apparent grief is now mother to a healthy male.
Tahlequah, a killer whale living a pod of whales in Pacific Northwest waters, gave birth in early September.
Advertisement
We are pleased to report a NEW calf in J pod! J35's new calf appeared healthy and precocious, swimming vigorously alongside its mother in its second day of free-swimming life.https://t.co/6bSnvzRAju pic.twitter.com/ctxRQqPnn8 — Whale Research (@CWROrcas) September 6, 2020
Researchers determined this week that her new calf is a boy, after examining images from a photographer who observed the orca pod on Tuesday near Point Roberts, Washington.
The calf, known as J57 to researchers, was frolicking alongside Tahlequah (also known as J35) with other orcas close by, photographer Sara Hysong-Shimazu said in a news release from the Pacific Whale Watch Association.
“It was really touching to see how active and social they were together and to see J57 surfacing with both his mom and surrounded by others in the community,” Hysong-Shimazu said. “He certainly seemed spunky and energetic!”
Advertisement
She also saw J57 “spyhopping,” something that whales, dolphins and some sharks do that involves sticking their heads vertically out of water. Most scientists believe animals do this to get a good look around, though some think it may be more related to enhancing hearing. The photographer described J57′s spyhop as “so cute.”
Tahlequah made headlines in 2018 for carrying her dead calf, which had died minutes after being born, for 17 days.
Deborah Giles, a research scientist at the University of Washington’s Center for Conservation Biology, told HuffPost at the time that she felt it was accurate to describe the behavior as grieving.
“This is completely unprecedented, and honestly your guess is as good as ours as far as what is going on here,” Giles said. “I think it’s really easy to put human emotions on it, but personally I think it’s accurate. I think she is grieving.”
Advertisement
As happy as the news is, researchers had hoped the new calf would be female, since a female calf can grow up and produce more offspring.
“And obviously you don’t need that many boys when you have two males that have fathered most of the offspring in this population,” Ken Balcomb, founding director of the Center for Whale Research, told The Seattle Times.
Tahlequah and her son are part of the southern resident orca population, made up of three pods living near the Pacific Northwest coasts of the United States and Canada. The population had a total of 73 orcas as of December 2019 and is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Tahlequah (aka J35) and her new baby, J57. Katie Jones/Center for Whale Research
Tahlequah isn’t the only whale in her pod to have given birth recently. J41, also known as Eclipse, gave birth to a “rambunctious little bundle of baby” on Thursday, naturalist Leah Vanderwiel said in a release from the PWWA. Eclipse’s calf’s sex and overall health are still unknown.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Portland Bracing For Large Right-Wing Rally In Support Of Trump

PORTLAND , Ore. ( AP ) — At least several thousand people are expected in Portland , Oregon , on Saturday for a right-wing rally in support of President Donald Trump and his “ law and order ” reelection campaign as tensions boil over nationwide following the decision not to charge officers in Louisville , Kentucky , for killing Breonna Taylor .
The Proud Boys , a group that has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center , described it as a free speech event to support Trump and the police , restore law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorism ” and “ violent gangs of rioting felons ” in the streets .
Local and state elected officials forcefully condemned the event and rushed to shore up law enforcement ranks as left-wing groups organized several rallies to oppose the Proud Boys ’ message .
Oregon Gov .
Kate Brown on Friday said she was sending state troopers to help the Portland police and was creating a unified command structure among city , regional and state law enforcement — a tactic that essentially circumvents a city ban on the use of tear gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police said a “ massive influx ” of troopers would be in Portland by Saturday morning .
“ This is a critical moment .
We have seen what happens when armed vigilantes take matters into their own hands .
We ’ ve seen it in Charlottesville , we ’ ve seen it in Kenosha and , unfortunately , we have seen it in Portland , ” she said , referencing deaths in Virginia , Wisconsin , and Oregon during clashes between those on the right and left of the political spectrum .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have come time and time again looking for a fight , and the results are always tragic .
Let me be perfectly clear , we will not tolerate any type of violence this weekend , ” said Brown , a Democrat .
“ Left , right , or center , violence is never a path towards meaningful change.
” Last month , a Trump supporter and Patriot Prayer follower was shot and killed after some vehicles in a pro-Trump car caravan diverted into downtown Portland and crossed paths with left-wing activists .
Right- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and some members of the caravan fired paintballs and bear spray at counter-demonstrators .
The suspect in the shooting .
a self-described anti-fascist was killed the following week by law enforcement as they tried to arrest him in Washington state .
“ Portland leadership is unwilling to stop the violence .
They have been blinded by their hatred of our President and will not allow outside help stopping the violence.
” “ For the past three years , our community has repeatedly had to deal with rallies of this kind , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ takeovers , ’ touting their ‘ combat unit ’ capacity , and openly bragging about the waste of City resources that they can provoke , ” he said .
Deputy Chief Chris Davis acknowledged that Oregon is an open-carry state for firearms .
But he reminded those attending the rally and counter-demonstrations that under Portland law , it ’ s illegal to carry a loaded firearm in public without an Oregon concealed handgun permit .
Officers will patrol for weapons and check for permits as needed , he said .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in your free speech peacefully , ” Police Chief Chuck Lovell said .
“ It ’ s OK for us to disagree about things .
But at the end of the day , doing so peacefully , letting people exercise their rights safely is very important .
So that ’ s my ask the folks who are attending.
” Demonstrators want the city to take millions from the police budget and reallocate it to support the Black community .
Some also are angry with the mayor — who is also the police commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas until recently and for what they call overly aggressive police tactics .
Wheeler has also refused to cede control of the police bureau to a Black city councilwoman with a decades-long resume of activism around police reform .

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — At least several thousand people are expected in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday for a right-wing rally in support of President Donald Trump and his “law and order” reelection campaign as tensions boil over nationwide following the decision not to charge officers in Louisville, Kentucky, for killing Breonna Taylor.
The Proud Boys, a group that has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, described it as a free speech event to support Trump and the police, restore law and order and condemn anti-fascists, “domestic terrorism” and “violent gangs of rioting felons” in the streets. Local and state elected officials forcefully condemned the event and rushed to shore up law enforcement ranks as left-wing groups organized several rallies to oppose the Proud Boys’ message.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown on Friday said she was sending state troopers to help the Portland police and was creating a unified command structure among city, regional and state law enforcement — a tactic that essentially circumvents a city ban on the use of tear gas as a crowd-control measure. The state police said a “massive influx” of troopers would be in Portland by Saturday morning.
Advertisement
“This is a critical moment. We have seen what happens when armed vigilantes take matters into their own hands. We’ve seen it in Charlottesville, we’ve seen it in Kenosha and, unfortunately, we have seen it in Portland,” she said, referencing deaths in Virginia, Wisconsin, and Oregon during clashes between those on the right and left of the political spectrum.
“The Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer groups have come time and time again looking for a fight, and the results are always tragic. Let me be perfectly clear, we will not tolerate any type of violence this weekend,” said Brown, a Democrat. “Left, right, or center, violence is never a path towards meaningful change.”
The Proud Boys are self-described “Western chauvinists” and they have held multiple events in Portland since Trump’s election alongside other right-wing groups such as Patriot Prayer that often end in violent clashes with left-wing counter-demonstrators.
Last month, a Trump supporter and Patriot Prayer follower was shot and killed after some vehicles in a pro-Trump car caravan diverted into downtown Portland and crossed paths with left-wing activists. Right- and left-wing demonstrators fought in the streets, and some members of the caravan fired paintballs and bear spray at counter-demonstrators. The suspect in the shooting. a self-described anti-fascist was killed the following week by law enforcement as they tried to arrest him in Washington state.
Advertisement
Similar clashes in 2017, 2018 and 2019, have resulted in violence and unrest and a massive deployment of law enforcement.
The Proud Boys mentioned the death of Trump supporter Aaron “Jay” Danielson in their permit application, as well as Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged in the shooting deaths of two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Rittenhouse’s attorneys have said he was acting in self-defense. The Proud Boys raised the specter of a vigilante response to the actions of a “mob” in a permit application filed with the city this week.
“The lawlessness has culminated with the assassination of our friend and Trump supporter Jay Danielson in Portland,” the Proud Boys wrote in their application.
“Portland leadership is unwilling to stop the violence. They have been blinded by their hatred of our President and will not allow outside help stopping the violence.”
Advertisement
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said the city and its police force did not need or want help from “paramilitaries or vigilante groups”
“For the past three years, our community has repeatedly had to deal with rallies of this kind, in which participants travel to our city threatening ‘takeovers,’ touting their ‘combat unit’ capacity, and openly bragging about the waste of City resources that they can provoke,” he said.
“We are unified and strong, and we will use every available power and resource of our city government to protect free speech and our community from violence.”
Police have canceled all scheduled days off for officers Saturday and will primarily be focused on keeping dueling groups of protesters separated.
Deputy Chief Chris Davis acknowledged that Oregon is an open-carry state for firearms. But he reminded those attending the rally and counter-demonstrations that under Portland law, it’s illegal to carry a loaded firearm in public without an Oregon concealed handgun permit. Officers will patrol for weapons and check for permits as needed, he said.
Advertisement
“We ask that you come peacefully and engage in your free speech peacefully,” Police Chief Chuck Lovell said. “It’s OK for us to disagree about things. But at the end of the day, doing so peacefully, letting people exercise their rights safely is very important. So that’s my ask the folks who are attending.”
The rally comes as Portland approaches its fifth month of almost nightly protests against racial injustice and police brutality.
Demonstrators want the city to take millions from the police budget and reallocate it to support the Black community. Some also are angry with the mayor — who is also the police commissioner — for allowing police to use tear gas until recently and for what they call overly aggressive police tactics. Wheeler has also refused to cede control of the police bureau to a Black city councilwoman with a decades-long resume of activism around police reform.
Groups of between 100 and 300 demonstrators frequently set small fires, smash windows and hurl fireworks and rocks at police officers in the early morning hours and have targeted police precincts and other city and county government buildings. Some also point lasers into officers’ eyes.
This week, protesters hurled three firebombs at police officers as tensions escalated in the wake of a Kentucky grand jury’s decision not to charge officers with killing Taylor, a Black woman who was fatally shot in her home by officers conducting a drug investigation.
Advertisement
The continuous unrest has drawn the attention of Trump, who has repeatedly attacked Wheeler for not stopping the violence.
For a two-week period in July, thousands of protesters squared off with federal agents sent by Trump from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to protect a federal courthouse in downtown Portland that was a focus of the demonstrations.
____


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-27--U.S. Hits Troubling 55,000 New COVID-19 Cases In A Single Day

Cases of COVID-19 are on the rise again , with the nation tallying a troubling 55,000 in a single day Friday .
The hike follows a generally downward trend through August and early September .
It was the highest single-day increase since Aug. 14 , when the country reported 64,350 new cases over 24 hours .
The U.S. has now recorded more than 7 million cases and more than 204,000 deaths .
New cases are on the rise in 22 states as Americans head into fall and face an increasing likelihood of contagion indoors and a complicating flu season .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent days too .
The Wisconsin Health Department reported 2,817 new cases Saturday — its highest daily total since the pandemic began .
Wisconsin Gov .
Tony Evers ( D ) declared a new public health emergency earlier this week .
“ Wisconsin is now experiencing unprecedented , near-exponential growth of the number of COVID-19 cases in our state , ” Evers warned .
`` Wisconsin is now experiencing unprecedented , near-exponential growth of the number of COVID-19 cases in our state . ''
@ GovEvers says it 's critical that we work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Get information about how # YouStopTheSpread : https : //t.co/azIna3TqRR pic.twitter.com/RH4GLB0lZw — WIDeptHealthServices ( @ DHSWI ) September 25 , 2020 South Dakota also experienced its highest daily total — 579 new cases — since the pandemic began .
A motorcycle rally in the state in August has been linked to hundreds of new cases in South Dakota and elsewhere .
In other bad news , a new study has found that fewer than 10 % of Americans have developed antibodies against COVID-19 , meaning hope of developing a pre-vaccine herd immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deaths — away .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported similar findings .
President Donald Trump touted herd immunity in an ABC town hall earlier this month , though he referred to it as “ herd mentality ” — which White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in an interview later was a “ medical term .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Cases of COVID-19 are on the rise again, with the nation tallying a troubling 55,000 in a single day Friday.
The hike follows a generally downward trend through August and early September. It was the highest single-day increase since Aug. 14, when the country reported 64,350 new cases over 24 hours.
Advertisement
The U.S. has now recorded more than 7 million cases and more than 204,000 deaths. New cases are on the rise in 22 states as Americans head into fall and face an increasing likelihood of contagion indoors and a complicating flu season. Some states have set new records in recent days too.
“Wisconsin is now experiencing unprecedented, near-exponential growth of the number of COVID-19 cases in our state,” Evers warned.
"Wisconsin is now experiencing unprecedented, near-exponential growth of the number of COVID-19 cases in our state." @GovEvers says it's critical that we work together to get #COVID19_WI under control. Get information about how #YouStopTheSpread: https://t.co/azIna3TqRR pic.twitter.com/RH4GLB0lZw — WIDeptHealthServices (@DHSWI) September 25, 2020
Advertisement
South Dakota also experienced its highest daily total — 579 new cases — since the pandemic began. A motorcycle rally in the state in August has been linked to hundreds of new cases in South Dakota and elsewhere.
In other bad news, a new study has found that fewer than 10% of Americans have developed antibodies against COVID-19, meaning hope of developing a pre-vaccine herd immunity is an enormous number of illnesses — and deaths — away. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported similar findings.
President Donald Trump touted herd immunity in an ABC town hall earlier this month, though he referred to it as “herd mentality” — which White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in an interview later was a “medical term.”
Trump told host George Stephanopoulos that COVID-19 would vanish without a vaccine. “Over a period of time,” Trump explained.
“And many deaths,” Stephanopoulos said.
“You’ll develop like a herd mentality,” Trump said. “It’s gonna be herd-developed and that’s gonna happen.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Taxpayers Hit With $300 Million Tab For Ads Spreading Positive Spin On COVID: Report

The “ defeat despair ” ad blitz reportedly plays down the dire consequences of the pandemic and touts Trump ’ s low-key efforts against COVID-19 even as the U.S. death toll rockets past 200,000 , sources told Politico .
The “ public awareness ” campaign is conveniently set to begin airing before the November election and features HHS officials and Trump-supporting celebrities , such as actor Dennis Quaid and country singer Garth Brooks , Politico reported .
The ad blitz was largely organized by controversial former HHS Deputy Secretary and top spokesperson Michael Caputo , Politico reported .
He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad campaign was “ demanded of me by the president of the United States .
Personally.
” Caputo took a medical leave last week after a series of troubling comments in his 26-minute Facebook Live video , and announced Thursday that he had been diagnosed with cancer .
Caputo , who has no medical or scientific background , came under fire earlier this month after Politico first revealed that he and his communications team had harassed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make their COVID-19 reports more optimistic to bring them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements .
Trump himself , however , has admitted he has lied to sugarcoat the disease fallout — so Caputo was pressing scientists to falsify their findings with a positive spin .
Caputo accused CDC scientists in his Facebook video of “ sedition ” for plotting against Trump with their bad news about the pandemic .
“ We have grave concerns that , rather than focus on planning and executing a national strategy to contain the coronavirus , the Trump Administration is using a quarter of a billion dollars in taxpayer money to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propaganda campaign just ... before a presidential election , ” said a letter to HHS Secretary Azar earlier this month from House leaders .
According to the letter , the contract ’ s “ performance work statement ” reportedly states that a goal of the contract is to “ defeat despair and inspire hope , sharing best practices for businesses to operate in the new normal and instill confidence to return to work and restart the economy.
” Sources complained to Politico that some of the money is being pulled from agencies like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help fight COVID-19 .
“ CDC hasn ’ t yet done an awareness campaign about Covid guidelines — but they are going to pay for a campaign about how to get rid of our despair ?
Run by political appointees in the press shop ?
Right before an election ?
” an incredulous Josh Peck , a former HHS official who oversaw the Obama administration ’ s advertising campaign for HealthCare.gov , told Politico .
An HHS spokesperson has defended the campaign and insisted it won ’ t be co-opted by partisan politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political spin in the messages , ” Mark Weber told Politico .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The “defeat despair” ad blitz reportedly plays down the dire consequences of the pandemic and touts Trump’s low-key efforts against COVID-19 even as the U.S. death toll rockets past 200,000, sources told Politico.
Advertisement
The “public awareness” campaign is conveniently set to begin airing before the November election and features HHS officials and Trump-supporting celebrities, such as actor Dennis Quaid and country singer Garth Brooks, Politico reported.
The ad blitz was largely organized by controversial former HHS spokesperson Michael Caputo, Politico reported. He said in a recent Facebook video that the ad campaign was “demanded of me by the president of the United States. Personally.”
Caputo took a medical leave last week after a series of troubling comments in his 26-minute Facebook Live video, and announced Thursday that he had been diagnosed with cancer.
Caputo, who has no medical or scientific background, came under fire earlier this month after Politico first revealed that he and his communications team had harassed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make their COVID-19 reports more optimistic to bring them in line with the president’s statements. Trump himself, however, has admitted he has lied to sugarcoat the disease fallout — so Caputo was pressing scientists to falsify their findings with a positive spin.
Advertisement
Caputo accused CDC scientists in his Facebook video of “sedition” for plotting against Trump with their bad news about the pandemic.
The ad blitz appears to be promoting the same false sense of security amid the pandemic.
“We have grave concerns that, rather than focus on planning and executing a national strategy to contain the coronavirus, the Trump Administration is using a quarter of a billion dollars in taxpayer money to fund what appears to be a political propaganda campaign just ... before a presidential election,” said a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar earlier this month from House leaders.
According to the letter, the contract’s “performance work statement” reportedly states that a goal of the contract is to “defeat despair and inspire hope, sharing best practices for businesses to operate in the new normal and instill confidence to return to work and restart the economy.”
Sources complained to Politico that some of the money is being pulled from agencies like the CDC that need the funds to help fight COVID-19.
“CDC hasn’t yet done an awareness campaign about Covid guidelines — but they are going to pay for a campaign about how to get rid of our despair? Run by political appointees in the press shop? Right before an election?” an incredulous Josh Peck, a former HHS official who oversaw the Obama administration’s advertising campaign for HealthCare.gov, told Politico.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-27--Trump Gripes 'Fake News' Didn't Tout His Two Nobel Peace Prizes (That Never Existed)

“ Somebody had a show where they said the amount of time devoted to Donald Trump ’ s Nobel Peace Prize — two of ’ em — [ was ] zero on the networks , zero , ” he emphasized .
” It is so disgraceful .
They ’ re so bad.
” Earlier in his speech , Trump did refer to his Nobel Prize “ nomination.
” He said he was so disappointed as he sat with First Lady Melania Trump in front of the TV that news reports failed to mention his nomination and instead focused on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened to be the beginnings of Hurricane Sally .
He then falsely claimed he was nominated for another peace prize the very next day .
FactCheck.org has taken Trump to task for “ repeatedly conflating winning a Nobel Peace Prize with being nominated for one.
” Trump has grumbled about the huge media coverage of Barack Obama ’ s nomination for a prize , when in fact Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 .
Christian Tybring-Gjedde , a far-right member of the Norwegian Parliament , told Fox News in early September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prize .
( He also says he nominated Trump in 2018 . )
Two days later , Magnus Jacobsson , a member of Sweden ’ s Parliament for the Christian Democrats , announced on Twitter that he nominated “ the U.S. government ” for the award — along with the governments of Kosovo and Serbia — “ for their joint work for peace and economic development.
” I have nominated the US Gov .
and the governments of Kosovo and Serbia for the Nobel Peace Prize for their joint work for peace and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signed in the White House .
Trade and communications are important building blocks for peace .
pic.twitter.com/XuhkLbHZAV — Magnus Jacobsson ( @ magnusjacobsson ) September 11 , 2020 While the Nobel Prize Committee reports numbers of nominees , it does not identify — nor confirm — who has been nominated .
Trump was also nominated in 2017 and 2018 for his “ ideology of peace through force ” strategy — a very Trumpian kind of concept .
Those recommendations were believed to have been made by the same mysterious American who assumed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to an official of the Norwegian Nobel Committee .
He refused to reveal the identity of the American whom committee members suspect .
Being nominated is not quite the “ big thing ” Trump makes it out to be , according to FactCheck .
There are 318 candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize for 2020 — 211 individuals and 107 organizations .
Russian President Vladimir Putin has also been nominated for the 2021 peace prize .
Joseph Stalin was nominated — twice .
“ Any person or organization can be nominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nobel Committee web site states .
There are potentially hundreds of thousands of people eligible to nominate a candidate .

President Donald Trump complained at a Pennsylvania campaign rally Saturday night that the “fake news” completely skipped reporting his two Nobel Peace Prizes.
Trump has no Nobel Peace Prizes.
He was nominated this year for a 2021 prize.
On Saturday, Trump grumbled that there wasn’t a word in the “fake news” about his Nobel recognition.
“Somebody had a show where they said the amount of time devoted to Donald Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize — two of ’em — [was] zero on the networks, zero,” he emphasized. “It is so disgraceful. They’re so bad.”
Trump is talking as though he actually won two Nobel prizes instead of merely being nominated for them pic.twitter.com/q5XKsfHwbW — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 27, 2020
Advertisement
Earlier in his speech, Trump did refer to his Nobel Prize “nomination.” He said he was so disappointed as he sat with first lady Melania Trump in front of the TV that news reports failed to mention his nomination and instead focused on “weather.” That weather in early September happened to be the beginning of Hurricane Sally. He then falsely claimed he was nominated for another peace prize the very next day.
FactCheck.org has taken Trump to task for “repeatedly conflating winning a Nobel Peace Prize with being nominated for one.” Trump has grumbled about the huge media coverage of Barack Obama’s nomination for a prize, when in fact Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.
Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a far-right member of the Norwegian Parliament, told Fox News in early September that he nominated Trump for the 2021 prize. (He says he also nominated Trump in 2018.)
Two days later, Magnus Jacobsson, a member of Sweden’s Parliament for the Christian Democrats, announced on Twitter that he nominated “the U.S. government” for the award — along with the governments of Kosovo and Serbia — “for their joint work for peace and economic development.”
Advertisement
I have nominated the US Gov. and the governments of Kosovo and Serbia for the Nobel Peace Prize for their joint work for peace and economic development, through the cooperation agreement signed in the White House. Trade and communications are important building blocks for peace. pic.twitter.com/XuhkLbHZAV — Magnus Jacobsson (@magnusjacobsson) September 11, 2020
While the Nobel Prize Committee reports numbers of nominees, it does not identify — nor confirm — who has been nominated.
Trump was also nominated in 2017 and 2018 for his “ideology of peace through force” strategy — a very Trumpian kind of concept. Those recommendations were believed to have been made by the same mysterious American who assumed the identity of a qualified nominator both times, according to an official of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. He refused to reveal the identity of the American whom committee members suspect.
“Any person or organization can be nominated by anyone eligible to nominate,” the Nobel Committee website states. There are potentially hundreds of thousands of people eligible to nominate a candidate.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-27--Critics Go Ballistic As GOP Peddles 'Notorious ACB' T-shirts

Critics on Twitter were aghast Saturday as the GOP peddled its latest product : a “ Notorious ACB ” T-shirt , ripping off the hard-earned and respected nickname of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
The shirt went on sale just minutes after President Donald Trump formally nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg in a process Democrats are calling an illegitimate rush to ram through a conservative judge with just over five weeks before the presidential election .
The shirt was posted online by the National Republican Senatorial Committee , which raises funds to help elect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appalled at the stunning lack of respect for Ginsburg , whom many fans referred to as the Notorious RBG and who had lain in state in the Capitol just the previous day .
BREAKING : President @ realDonaldTrump just nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court .
Show your support with a Notorious ACB shirt today : https : //t.co/qi1eWqTz17 — The Senate Majority ( @ NRSC ) September 26 , 2020 Gon na need a new word to replace `` offensive '' because `` offensive '' does n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — person woman DAN camera tv ( @ DaytimeDan ) September 26 , 2020 This is the most DESPICABLE and disrespectful promotion referencing Notorious most representing the legendary Ruth Bader Ginsberg .
Do you have ANY sense of decency or respect ?
?
— TheSocialMediaDiva ( @ LinkedMediaDiva ) September 26 , 2020 This is disrespectful.. a slap in the face to the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg .
You all should be ashamed of yourselves .
Under @ realDonaldTrump the @ GOP has lost all integrity and self respect .
The Republican Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( @ thismomentonly ) September 26 , 2020 Fund raising off the rep of a deceased Supreme Court Justice barely cold .
You must be so proud .
— john d beggs ( @ dbeggs13 ) September 26 , 2020 It 's also disrespectful to ACB .
Like women are interchangeable and she is n't deserving of her own nickname .
— Krys10iam🇺🇸 ( @ krys10iam ) September 26 , 2020 CORRECTION : A previous version of this article said Ginsburg lay in state in the Supreme Court .
She lay in state @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Critics on Twitter were aghast Saturday as the GOP peddled its latest product: a “Notorious ACB” T-shirt, ripping off the hard-earned and respected nickname of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The shirt went on sale just minutes after President Donald Trump formally nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg in a process Democrats are calling an illegitimate rush to ram through a conservative judge with just over five weeks before the presidential election.
Advertisement
The shirt was posted online by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which raises funds to help elect Republicans to the Senate.
Observers were appalled at the stunning lack of respect for Ginsburg, whom many fans referred to as the Notorious RBG and who had lain in state in the Capitol just the previous day.
BREAKING: President @realDonaldTrump just nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the Supreme Court. Show your support with a Notorious ACB shirt today: https://t.co/qi1eWqTz17 — The Senate Majority (@NRSC) September 26, 2020
Gonna need a new word to replace "offensive" because "offensive" doesn't capture the actual offensiveness of this. — person woman DAN camera tv (@DaytimeDan) September 26, 2020
Advertisement
This is the most DESPICABLE and disrespectful promotion referencing Notorious most representing the legendary Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Do you have ANY sense of decency or respect?? — TheSocialMediaDiva (@LinkedMediaDiva) September 26, 2020
This is disrespectful.. a slap in the face to the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Under @realDonaldTrump the @GOP has lost all integrity and self respect. The Republican Party IS NO MORE.#VoteTrumpOUT2020 — thismomentonly (@thismomentonly) September 26, 2020
Fund raising off the rep of a deceased Supreme Court Justice barely cold. You must be so proud. — john d beggs (@dbeggs13) September 26, 2020
This is rude and disrespectful to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. — Jane Feldman (@jtfdenver) September 26, 2020
This is in incredibly poor taste. — Lauren Dillon (@pretendfarmer) September 27, 2020
Advertisement
It's also disrespectful to ACB. Like women are interchangeable and she isn't deserving of her own nickname. — Krys10iam🇺🇸 (@krys10iam) September 26, 2020
Did Judge Barrett approve this? This is just trashy. — I'm officially a zombie mole rat (@MCFS581) September 27, 2020
Despicable — Hunter Forman (@hunterforman) September 26, 2020
Ghoulish and unoriginal, the hallmarks of the GOP. pic.twitter.com/RUYYNPIeCv — Darby Schnarfus (@tokenliberal) September 26, 2020
CORRECTION: A previous version of this article said Ginsburg lay in state in the Supreme Court. She lay in state in the Capitol.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--'Unconscionable' Power Grab, Rights 'Wrecking Ball': Critics Erupt Over Barrett Nomination

Critics blew up Saturday after President Donald Trump formally announced his nomination of conservative Amy Coney Barrett to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s place on the Supreme Court .
Trump was slammed for both his choice — and for an “ unconscionable ” power grab to ram through Barrett ’ s confirmation just over five weeks before the presidential election .
Barrett is viewed as a dire threat to immigrant , LGBTQ and reproductive rights , soft on discrimination , out to destroy the Affordable Care Act , and a major booster for gun rights .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of San Francisco School of Law , warned in a New York Times op ed : “ Make no mistake : Judge Barrett ’ s confirmation will be the wrecking ball that finally smashes Roe v. Wade and undoes the Affordable Care Act.
” Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris ( Calif. ) hit on the same two issues , warning that Barrett ’ s selection would “ move the court further right for a generation & harm millions of Americans.
” Joe Biden said the Senate shouldn ’ t act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the American people select their next president and the next Congress .
Americans deserve to be heard.
” Amy Coney Barrett will work to gut Roe v. Wade and the ACA , taking away health care coverage from millions of Americans—including those with pre-existing conditions .
And make no mistake : Trump is counting on her to swing the Supreme Court in his favor when he loses this election .
pic.twitter.com/cTpOHgintZ — Elizabeth Warren ( @ ewarren ) September 26 , 2020 Supreme Court decisions affect our everyday lives , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voice on who makes those decisions .
The Senate should n't act until after the American people select their next president and the next Congress .
Americans deserve to be heard .
— Joe Biden ( @ JoeBiden ) September 26 , 2020 Donald Trump 's nominee is a direct threat to the Affordable Care Act , reproductive choice , and so many other liberties we hold sacred .
We ca n't be silent as he tries to rush a Supreme Court Justice through the Senate .
The American people deserve to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( @ CoryBooker ) September 26 , 2020 Walter Shaub , former director of the federal Office of Government Ethics , said Barrett ’ s willingness to accept a controversial nomination under the circumstances is troubling in itself , revealing a “ disqualifying lack of character.
” Fred Guttenberg — father of Jaime Guttenberg , who was killed at the age of 14 in the Parkland , Florida , school shootings — hit Barrett over one of her controversial court dissents arguing that felons have the right to own guns — unless they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two years ago , I tried to talk to the last SC justice during confirmation .
I wanted to discuss gun safety , he refused .
Amy Barrett is worse .
She has already said she believes violent felons should have guns .
Fight this nomination as if your life depends on it .
It does .
pic.twitter.com/nr8nlmxCsY — Fred Guttenberg ( @ fred_guttenberg ) September 26 , 2020 The head of the Center for Reproductive Rights blasted Trump ’ s choice Saturday as an “ assault on the integrity of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has nominated a replacement who would gut Justice Ginsburg ’ s legacy and turn back five decades of advancement for reproductive rights , ” CEO Nancy Northup said in a statement .
“ The Senate Majority ’ s attempt to bulldoze this deeply troubling nomination through before the inauguration in January is unconscionable , an insult to the American public , an assault on the integrity of the Supreme Court , and a threat to critical constitutional rights , ” she added .
Barrett ’ s “ track record shows she is hostile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health services , has consistently put big corporate interests ahead of workers , and supports the Trump administration ’ s anti-immigrant agenda , ” Mónica Ramírez , founder and president of Justice for Migrant Women , said in a statement .
“ This rushed nomination process is a power grab to deny us equal justice , and we must mobilize to stop it .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Critics blew up Saturday after President Donald Trump formally announced his nomination of conservative Amy Coney Barrett to fill the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s place on the Supreme Court.
Trump was slammed for both his choice — and for an “unconscionable” power grab to ram through Barrett’s confirmation just over five weeks before the presidential election. Barrett is viewed as a dire threat to immigrant, LGBTQ and reproductive rights, soft on discrimination, out to destroy the Affordable Care Act, and a major booster for gun rights.
Advertisement
Lara Bazelon, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, warned in a New York Times op ed: “Make no mistake: Judge Barrett’s confirmation will be the wrecking ball that finally smashes Roe v. Wade and undoes the Affordable Care Act.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) pointed out the insanity of eliminating health care coverage in the “middle of a pandemic.”
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif.) hit on the same two issues, warning that Barrett’s selection would “move the court further right for a generation & harm millions of Americans.”
Advertisement
Joe Biden said the Senate shouldn’t act on Trump’s nomination “until after the American people select their next president and the next Congress. Americans deserve to be heard.”
Amy Coney Barrett will work to gut Roe v. Wade and the ACA, taking away health care coverage from millions of Americans—including those with pre-existing conditions. And make no mistake: Trump is counting on her to swing the Supreme Court in his favor when he loses this election. pic.twitter.com/cTpOHgintZ — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 26, 2020
Trump’s hand-picked successor to Justice Ginsburg’s seat makes it clear: they intend to destroy the Affordable Care Act & overturn Roe. This selection would move the court further right for a generation & harm millions of Americans.
I strongly oppose Judge Barrett’s nomination. — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) September 26, 2020
Supreme Court decisions affect our everyday lives, and the Constitution was designed to give voters a voice on who makes those decisions.
The Senate shouldn't act until after the American people select their next president and the next Congress.
Americans deserve to be heard. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 26, 2020
Donald Trump's nominee is a direct threat to the Affordable Care Act, reproductive choice, and so many other liberties we hold sacred.
We can't be silent as he tries to rush a Supreme Court Justice through the Senate.
The American people deserve to have their voices heard. — Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) September 26, 2020
Advertisement
Walter Shaub, former director of the federal Office of Government Ethics, said Barrett’s willingness to accept a controversial nomination under the circumstances is troubling in itself, revealing a “disqualifying lack of character.”
Amy Coney Barrett’s qualifications are irrelevant. Her willingness to accept the nomination under these circumstances reveals a disqualifying lack of character. — Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) September 26, 2020
Fred Guttenberg — father of Jaime Guttenberg, who was killed at the age of 14 in the Parkland, Florida, school shootings — hit Barrett over one of her controversial court dissents arguing that felons have the right to own guns — unless they’re first proven to be dangerous.
“Fight this nomination as if you life depends on it,” he warned. “It does.”
Two years ago, I tried to talk to the last SC justice during confirmation. I wanted to discuss gun safety, he refused. Amy Barrett is worse. She has already said she believes violent felons should have guns. Fight this nomination as if your life depends on it. It does. pic.twitter.com/nr8nlmxCsY — Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) September 26, 2020
Advertisement
“President Donald Trump has nominated a replacement who would gut Justice Ginsburg’s legacy and turn back five decades of advancement for reproductive rights,” CEO Nancy Northup said in a statement.
“The Senate Majority’s attempt to bulldoze this deeply troubling nomination through before the inauguration in January is unconscionable, an insult to the American public, an assault on the integrity of the Supreme Court, and a threat to critical constitutional rights,” she added.
Latinos for a Fair Judiciary ripped Trump’s announcement as “another dangerous step in superseding the will of the American people.”
Barrett’s “track record shows she is hostile to women’s access to reproductive health services, has consistently put big corporate interests ahead of workers, and supports the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda,” Mónica Ramírez, founder and president of Justice for Migrant Women, said in a statement. “This rushed nomination process is a power grab to deny us equal justice, and we must mobilize to stop it.”
Barrett’s nomination threatens to inaugurate a “radical shift in the Supreme Court away from equal rights and equal treatment under the law,” warned Florida International University Law Professor Ediberto Roman.
Advertisement
The never-Trumper Republican Lincoln Project accused Trump and his supporters of lusting for power at the expense of the nation they are supposed to serve.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-27--CBS's Margaret Brennan Confronts Trump Aide On FDA Interference: 'You're Not A Doctor'

Last week , Meadows reportedly demanded FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn provide detailed justification for the new guidance , which would make it exceedingly difficult for a vaccine to be approved by Election Day .
President Donald Trump has pledged a vaccine would be made available by the end of the year , if not by the Nov. 3 election .
Democrats and public health experts have expressed concerns that Trump is pressuring officials to speed up the vaccine development process for political purposes .
“ You ’ re not a doctor , ” Brennan told Meadows during an exchange Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nation.
” “ Why insert yourself politically into this , which feeds these concerns about interference ?
” Meadows responded that Brennan ’ s producer “ obviously ” didn ’ t do a good job of informing her of “ exactly ” what he had done , though he didn ’ t elaborate on what that might be .
“ What we actually have is new guidance that ’ s coming out , ” Meadows continued .
“ My question is : Why would that new guidance come out after we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
And my challenge to the FDA is just make sure it ’ s based on science and real numbers and so as we look at that ― ” “ We ’ re trying to make sure that the guidance we give is not an inhibitor to getting things out fast , but it also doesn ’ t detract from it , ” Meadows said .
“ I ’ m optimistic that that guidance will come out based on good science.
” The new guidelines , drafted by a small group of career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that volunteers in late-stage vaccine trials should be tracked for a median of two months before an emergency authorization can be considered , reported The New York Times .
Trump lashed out at the FDA ’ s efforts to tighten the vetting process during a press briefing on Wednesday , calling the agency ’ s move “ political.
” He said he may decide to veto the guidance .
“ We ’ re looking at that and that has to be approved by the White House , ” Trump said .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Decisions to authorize or approve any such vaccine or therapeutic will be made by the dedicated career staff at FDA through our thorough review processes and science will guide our decisions , ” Hahn testified during a Senate hearing Wednesday .
“ FDA will not permit any pressure from anyone to change that , ” he added .
“ I will fight for science .
...
I will fight for the integrity of the agency , and I will put the interests of the American people before anything else .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
CBS News’ Margaret Brennan on Sunday confronted White House chief of staff Mark Meadows for raising doubts about the Food and Drug Administration’s plan to release stricter coronavirus vaccine guidelines.
Last week, Meadows reportedly demanded FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn provide detailed justification for the new guidance, which would make it exceedingly difficult for a vaccine to be approved by Election Day.
Advertisement
President Donald Trump has pledged a vaccine would be made available by the end of the year, if not by the Nov. 3 election. Democrats and public health experts have expressed concerns that Trump is pressuring officials to speed up the vaccine development process for political purposes.
“You’re not a doctor,” Brennan told Meadows during an exchange Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Why insert yourself politically into this, which feeds these concerns about interference?”
Meadows responded that Brennan’s producer “obviously” didn’t do a good job of informing her of “exactly” what he had done, though he didn’t elaborate on what that might be.
“What we actually have is new guidance that’s coming out,” Meadows continued. “My question is: Why would that new guidance come out after we’ve already spent $30 billion doing that? And my challenge to the FDA is just make sure it’s based on science and real numbers and so as we look at that ―”
Advertisement
“Why would the FDA not be basing it on science and real numbers?” Brennan interrupted.
Meadows didn’t directly respond. Instead, he questioned why the FDA would release new guidance “after we’ve developed vaccines and drugs for decades.”
“We’re trying to make sure that the guidance we give is not an inhibitor to getting things out fast, but it also doesn’t detract from it,” Meadows said. “I’m optimistic that that guidance will come out based on good science.”
The new guidelines, drafted by a small group of career scientists at the FDA, would state that volunteers in late-stage vaccine trials should be tracked for a median of two months before an emergency authorization can be considered, reported The New York Times.
Trump lashed out at the FDA’s efforts to tighten the vetting process during a press briefing on Wednesday, calling the agency’s move “political.” He said he may decide to veto the guidance.
“We’re looking at that and that has to be approved by the White House,” Trump said. “We may or may not approve it.”
Advertisement
Meanwhile, public health officials have been working to assure the public that the vaccine approval process won’t be influenced by politics.
“Decisions to authorize or approve any such vaccine or therapeutic will be made by the dedicated career staff at FDA through our thorough review processes and science will guide our decisions,” Hahn testified during a Senate hearing Wednesday.
“FDA will not permit any pressure from anyone to change that,” he added. “I will fight for science. ... I will fight for the integrity of the agency, and I will put the interests of the American people before anything else.”
Watch Meadows’ full interview on “Face the Nation” below. His comments about the FDA begin around the 3:40 mark.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-26--Taxpayers Hit With $300 Million Tab For Ads Spreading Positive Spin On COVID-19: Report

The “ defeat despair ” ad blitz reportedly plays down the dire consequences of the pandemic and touts Trump ’ s low-key efforts against COVID-19 even as the U.S. death toll rockets past 200,000 , sources told Politico .
The “ public awareness ” campaign is conveniently set to begin airing before the November election and features HHS officials and Trump-supporting celebrities , such as actor Dennis Quaid and country singer Garth Brooks , Politico reported .
The ad blitz was largely organized by controversial former HHS spokesperson Michael Caputo , Politico reported .
He said in a recent Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanded of me by the president of the United States .
Personally.
” Caputo took a medical leave last week after a series of troubling comments in his 26-minute Facebook Live video , and announced Thursday that he had been diagnosed with cancer .
Caputo , who has no medical or scientific background , came under fire earlier this month after Politico first revealed that he and his communications team had harassed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make their COVID-19 reports more optimistic to bring them in line with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , has admitted he has lied to sugarcoat the disease fallout — so Caputo was pressing scientists to falsify their findings with a positive spin .
Caputo accused CDC scientists in his Facebook video of “ sedition ” for plotting against Trump with their bad news about the pandemic .
“ We have grave concerns that , rather than focus on planning and executing a national strategy to contain the coronavirus , the Trump Administration is using a quarter of a billion dollars in taxpayer money to fund what appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before a presidential election , ” said a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar earlier this month from House leaders .
According to the letter , the contract ’ s “ performance work statement ” reportedly states that a goal of the contract is to “ defeat despair and inspire hope , sharing best practices for businesses to operate in the new normal and instill confidence to return to work and restart the economy.
” Sources complained to Politico that some of the money is being pulled from agencies like the CDC that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ CDC hasn ’ t yet done an awareness campaign about Covid guidelines — but they are going to pay for a campaign about how to get rid of our despair ?
Run by political appointees in the press shop ?
Right before an election ?
” an incredulous Josh Peck , a former HHS official who oversaw the Obama administration ’ s advertising campaign for HealthCare.gov , told Politico .
An HHS spokesperson has defended the campaign and insisted it won ’ t be co-opted by partisan politics .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the messages , ” Mark Weber told Politico .