thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Democrats' Treatment Of Amy Coney Barrett Isn't Anti-Catholic Bigotry, Scholars Say

“ When you tell somebody that they ’ re too Catholic to be on the bench , when you tell them they ’ ll be a Catholic judge , not an American judge , that ’ s bigotry , ” he said .
“ The pattern and practice of bigotry from members of this committee must stop , and I would expect that it be renounced.
” In addition to her traditional Roman Catholic roots , Barrett also has ties to People of Praise , a small , tight-knit Christian community composed primarily of Catholics .
People of Praise emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that prompted some Catholics to adopt charismatic Christian practices , such as prophecy and speaking in tongues .
Barrett ’ s involvement in the community , which requires members to make a “ covenant ” to each other , sparked a significant amount of media scrutiny both in 2017 and now , during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings .
Over the past few weeks , Republican politicians ― including Trump and Vice President Mike Pence ― have objected to what they presumed would be the spotlight put on Barrett ’ s faith commitments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just politicians taking this stance .
Some Catholic bishops have also been claiming that the questions Democrats in the past have raised about Barrett and other Catholic federal judicial nominees are anti-Catholic .
“ America has never understood the Catholic Church , and politicians have often used fear of this global behemoth to garner votes , claiming that the Catholic Church would oppress freedoms , ” Listecki wrote in a Sept. 29 blog .
“ Although Judge Barrett will be answering the questions presented to her , it is really the Catholic Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , this is not the first time and certainly will not be the last.
” A common thread through all these iterations of this discriminatory attitude was the notion that Catholics held “ dual loyalty , ” said Steven Millies , a scholar at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago who studies the Church ’ s relationship to politics .
The idea ― which can be traced back to the 16th century ’ s Protestant Reformation ― was that Catholics couldn ’ t be trusted to be loyal citizens of the countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious loyalty to the pope .
Plenty of political disagreement is evident among U.S. Catholics today .
The religious group is roughly split between those who lean Democrat and Republican , and studies have shown that when it comes to issues such as abortion rights and immigration , Catholics tend to be more aligned with their political party than with the teachings of the Church .
Over 30 % of Congress is Catholic , including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) , giving the religious group outsized representation compared to their share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sits at about 21 % , according to the Pew Research Center .
With the addition of Barrett , two-thirds of the U.S. Supreme Court would have been raised Catholic .
Catholicism is by far the most common religious identity among state governors , with 17 identifying as Catholics .
“ My own read on the questions to Judge Buescher is that I am less concerned about anti-Catholicism than I am that someone outside the Church ( Harris ) can ’ t tell the difference between the Knights and a pressure group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that is far more worrying : Why are the Knights giving that impression at all ?
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
If Republican senators are to be believed, anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and thriving in the U.S. in 2020, thanks to Democrats and the media.
That has been the refrain sounded by GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week during the confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Advertisement
Democrats are choosing not to take the bait, to resist probing into Barrett’s Roman Catholic faith. They have been focusing instead on the judge’s potential to provide crucial votes to void the Affordable Care Act. and overturn nationwide abortion rights.
Still, in a clear effort to rally their religious base, Republican senators doubled down on the charge that Democrats are anti-Catholic and anti-religion. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri made this case explicitly during Monday’s session, reaching back to the last time Barrett appeared in front of the committee in 2017, during hearings on her appointment to a federal appeals court.
He said that the ranking Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, “referred to your Catholic convictions as ‘dogma that lives loudly within you,’ picking up the very terminology of anti-Catholic bigotry current in this country a century ago,” Hawley said.
Hawley said that Feinstein was suggesting that Barrett “can’t be both a devout Catholic and a loyal American citizen.”
Advertisement
Such comments at the 2017 hearing, along with other instances where Democratic senators probed federal judicial nominees’ membership in Catholic organizations such as The Knights of Columbus, amounted to a religious test for public office, he said.
“When you tell somebody that they’re too Catholic to be on the bench, when you tell them they’ll be a Catholic judge, not an American judge, that’s bigotry,” he said. “The pattern and practice of bigotry from members of this committee must stop, and I would expect that it be renounced.”
On Tuesday, Barrett acknowledged that Catholicism was important to her, but pledged not to apply her religious beliefs to matters before the high court. She added that she and her husband knew that “our faith would be caricatured” and their family “attacked” as part of the confirmation process.
“We had to decide whether those difficulties would be worth it,” Barrett said about her nomination.
In addition to her traditional Roman Catholic roots, Barrett also has ties to People of Praise, a small, tight-knit Christian community composed primarily of Catholics. People of Praise emerged from a revival movement in the 1960s that prompted some Catholics to adopt charismatic Christian practices, such as prophecy and speaking in tongues. Barrett’s involvement in the community, which requires members to make a “covenant” to each other, sparked a significant amount of media scrutiny both in 2017 and now, during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Despite comments by Republicans to the contrary, Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have shied away from pressing Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett about the impact her Catholicism might have on her rulings. Barrett is shown here at Tuesday's confirmation hearing before the panel. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, Pool)
Advertisement
Over the past few weeks, Republican politicians ― including Trump and Vice President Mike Pence ― have objected to what they presumed would be the spotlight put on Barrett’s faith commitments. But it hasn’t been just politicians taking this stance. Some Catholic bishops have also been claiming that the questions Democrats in the past have raised about Barrett and other Catholic federal judicial nominees are anti-Catholic.
In late September, retired Archbishop Charles Chaput, still a leading voice in conservative Catholic circles, accused Feinstein of “Know Nothing-style vulgarity,” referring to a blatantly nativist and anti-Catholic political party that formed in the 1850s.
“What’s been playing out in Senate confirmation hearings and public debates over judicial nominees is a harbinger of future attacks on the Church herself and on any Catholic who holds with her enduring moral witness,” Chaput wrote in a blog for the conservative magazine First Things.
Archbishop Jerome Listecki of the Milwaukee Archidiocese also framed Barrett’s confirmation hearings against the backdrop of historic anti-Catholic sentiment in the U.S.
“America has never understood the Catholic Church, and politicians have often used fear of this global behemoth to garner votes, claiming that the Catholic Church would oppress freedoms,” Listecki wrote in a Sept. 29 blog. “Although Judge Barrett will be answering the questions presented to her, it is really the Catholic Church that will be on trial. Of course, this is not the first time and certainly will not be the last.”
Advertisement
President John F. Kennedy talks to Pope Paul VI at the Vatican in this July 2, 1963, Kennedy, the first and only Roman Catholic U.S. president, confronted anti-Catholic bias during his 1960 presidential campaign. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America ― from laws that codified discrimination against Catholics during the colonial period, to mob violence against Catholic immigrants in the 1800s, to the prejudice that President John F. Kennedy had to navigate on his road to the White House.
A common thread through all these iterations of this discriminatory attitude was the notion that Catholics held “dual loyalty,” said Steven Millies, a scholar at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago who studies the Church’s relationship to politics. The idea ― which can be traced back to the 16th century’s Protestant Reformation ― was that Catholics couldn’t be trusted to be loyal citizens of the countries in which they lived because they owed religious loyalty to the pope.
“From outside the Roman Catholic Church, because of the hierarchical organization and how legalistic the faith sometimes can look, it is easy to think that Catholicism is a top-down monolith and everyone obeys the pope’s orders,” Millies told HuffPost. “The reality, of course, is quite different.”
Plenty of political disagreement is evident among U.S. Catholics today. The religious group is roughly split between those who lean Democrat and Republican, and studies have shown that when it comes to issues such as abortion rights and immigration, Catholics tend to be more aligned with their political party than with the teachings of the Church.
Advertisement
Millies said he believes discomfort about Catholics’ participation in public life still exists because “history always is in the background.” Still, Millies said he’s “very skeptical” about claims that anti-Catholic sentiment is re-emerging in the U.S., given that Catholics have attained positions of political power and prestige.
Over 30% of Congress is Catholic, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), giving the religious group outsized representation compared to their share of America’s population, which sits at about 21%, according to the Pew Research Center. With the addition of Barrett, two-thirds of the U.S. Supreme Court would have been raised Catholic. Catholicism is by far the most common religious identity among state governors, with 17 identifying as Catholics.
Pence characterizes himself as an “evangelical Catholic.” And Trump’s Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, is vying to become the second Catholic to occupy the White House.
Robert Orsi, a scholar of American Catholicism at Northwestern University, noted that during the 1980s, Catholic and Protestant conservatives argued passionately that their religious ideas deserved a place in the public square. But now, it seems Christian conservatives don’t want their beliefs to be engaged critically in the public square, Orsi said ― they want Barrett’s beliefs to go unchallenged.
“If a justice were a member of even a moderately left group, let alone if he or she had lived in a left-commune, would conservatives not want to engage these ideas as they might inflect legal thinking?” Orsi told HuffPost. “This was literally the conservative argument in the 1980s.”
Advertisement
Faith isn’t just about emotion, it’s also about ideas, reason, reflection, and understanding, Orsi added. As a result, Barrett’s Catholicism has certainly shaped her thinking on important issues, he said.
“I wish she would say: Yes, I am a Catholic, and here is how that rich intellectual tradition informs my thinking,” he said. “Anything less is a dodge.”
Barrett's husband sits behind her during Tuesday's committee hearing, along with some of the couple's seven children. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, Pool)
It’s also important to consider how politicized the American Catholic Church’s public outreach has become, Millies said. He pointed to the Knights of Columbus, a fraternal organization of Catholic men that does charitable work and also engages in policy advocacy. The organization’s current leader was a liaison to lobbying organizations during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and an aide to the late conservative firebrand, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.).
During the vice presidential debate last week, Pence criticized Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, for questioning a federal judicial nominee, Brian C. Buescher, about his membership in the Knights of Columbus during confirmation proceedings in 2018.
Advertisement
Millies said he doesn’t see anti-Catholic bigotry in the questions Democratic senators have asked federal judicial nominees ― instead he sees “outsiders who do not understand the Church’s internal culture and who are concerned about its politicized, public witness.”
“My own read on the questions to Judge Buescher is that I am less concerned about anti-Catholicism than I am that someone outside the Church (Harris) can’t tell the difference between the Knights and a pressure group,” he said. “To me, that is far more worrying: Why are the Knights giving that impression at all?”
As the first member of a new ecclesial movement to become a candidate for such a high national office, Barrett’s case presents a new set of questions, Millies said. There is nothing wrong with Barrett making a pledge to People of Praise, he said, but people deserve to know how she weighs those commitments when she does public business as a judge.
At the same time, many American Catholics have likely been prodded by the Trump administration to see any questioning of the role of Barrett’s faith in her judicial philosophy as anti-Catholic, Millies said.
“It is a quick trigger for Catholics, too: the history ... the long immigrant experience of a ‘Catholic ghetto,’ all have cultivated a deep and persistent memory of being outsiders,” he said. “Canny political operators know how to deploy that history, which is a shame. It deprives us all of a better debate.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Man Who Dismissed COVID-19 Tells Of His Guilt After 14 Family Members Got Sick

A Texas man is speaking out after he dismissed COVID-19 , contracted it , and hosted a gathering that likely caused it to spread throughout his close and extended family , leaving two dead .
Tony Green said he hosted a small at-home gathering the weekend of June 12 for himself and five members of his family , thinking that the worst of the pandemic was over .
He said that nobody he knew had contracted the coronavirus and he felt it was time to move on with their lives .
“ I used to call it the ‘ scamdemic.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ media hoax .
I made fun of people for wearing masks , ” he told The Washington Post .
But by Sunday morning , Green said , he started to feel off .
Then his partner did .
And his parents .
And his father-in-law .
“ I have no idea which one of us brought the virus into the house , but all six of us left with it .
It kept spreading from there , ” he said .
“ I stayed in the hospital for three days , trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was guilt , embarrassment , shame .
I thought : ‘ OK .
Maybe now I ’ ve paid for my mistake.
’ But it kept getting worse , ” he said .
The virus kept spreading , leading to a total of 14 infections in his family .
Some got really sick .
Others didn ’ t .
“ I break down sometimes , but mostly , I ’ m empty .
Am I glad to be alive ?
I don ’ t know .
I don ’ t know how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In an interview with CNN ’ s Anderson Cooper on Monday , Green said he doesn ’ t know who had the virus first , but he feels a sense of responsibility .
“ The feeling that I have is kind of like what a drunk driver would have if they killed their family , ” he said .
“ There should have been more mitigation that was done in the beginning , ” he said .
“ It should have been taken more seriously by the administration.
” Asked if he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask and take the virus seriously had the president done so , Green said it would ’ ve been convincing to have had that .
He urged other families to take extra precautions this holiday season .
He suggested that if you must , hold any family events outdoors or in larger homes .
“ If you ’ re nervous about it , I don ’ t say , ‘ don ’ t be afraid of it.
’ I think you ’ ve got a reason to be afraid of it , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should maybe bow out this year .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A Texas man is speaking out after he dismissed COVID-19, contracted it, and hosted a gathering that likely caused it to spread throughout his close and extended family, leaving two dead.
Tony Green said he hosted a small at-home gathering the weekend of June 12 for himself and five members of his family, thinking that the worst of the pandemic was over. He said that nobody he knew had contracted the coronavirus and he felt it was time to move on with their lives.
Advertisement
“I used to call it the ‘scamdemic.’ I thought it was an overblown media hoax. I made fun of people for wearing masks,” he told The Washington Post.
But by Sunday morning, Green said, he started to feel off. Then his partner did. And his parents. And his father-in-law.
“I have no idea which one of us brought the virus into the house, but all six of us left with it. It kept spreading from there,” he said.
Green said his symptoms just kept getting worse and worse before he was eventually hospitalized.
“I stayed in the hospital for three days, trying to get my mind around it. It was guilt, embarrassment, shame. I thought: ‘OK. Maybe now I’ve paid for my mistake.’ But it kept getting worse,” he said.
Advertisement
The virus kept spreading, leading to a total of 14 infections in his family. Some got really sick. Others didn’t.
Green’s 52-year-old father-in-law, whom he called his “best friend,” and his father-in-law’s mother both died.
“I break down sometimes, but mostly, I’m empty. Am I glad to be alive? I don’t know. I don’t know how to answer that,” Green said.
In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday, Green said he doesn’t know who had the virus first, but he feels a sense of responsibility.
“The feeling that I have is kind of like what a drunk driver would have if they killed their family,” he said.
Advertisement
"The feeling that I have is kind of like a drunk driver would have if they killed their family."
Tony Green thought coronavirus was a hoax until he held a small gathering from which 14 family members eventually got sick and three eventually died. https://t.co/6e0UBcL9Qh pic.twitter.com/rBv9TgFBb8 — Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) October 13, 2020
Green said he voted for President Donald Trump in 2016, but sees his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as a “big failure.”
“There should have been more mitigation that was done in the beginning,” he said. “It should have been taken more seriously by the administration.”
Asked if he would have been more likely to wear a mask and take the virus seriously had the president done so, Green said it would’ve been convincing to have had that.
He urged other families to take extra precautions this holiday season. He suggested that if you must, hold any family events outdoors or in larger homes.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett Dodges All Of Democrats' Questions On Health Care, Abortion

The real pressure was on Democrats , though , from whom progressives have been demanding a fiery and united show of opposition , framing Barrett as an illegitimate nominee in an illegitimate process weeks before an election in which people are already voting .
Trump and Republican senators are rushing to confirm Barrett in the event Joe Biden wins on Nov. 3 , in which case they ’ d face tremendous pressure to let him fill the court vacancy in 2021 .
That ’ s in addition to Trump wanting Barrett seated in time for an Affordable Care Act case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The president also hasn ’ t been subtle about saying he wants her on the court in the event it has to decide the outcome of the election .
“ You don ’ t have a magic formula for how you do it and handle all the children and your job and your work and your thoughts process , which is obviously excellent , do you ?
” said Feinstein .
Barrett wouldn ’ t say if she thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided .
She wouldn ’ t say if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scalia , for whom she clerked , in his legal opinion against marriage equality .
She refused to recuse herself from election-related disputes , and wouldn ’ t say if she thinks Trump can unilaterally delay the election .
“ I can ’ t pre-commit or say , ‘ Yes , I ’ m going in with some agenda , ’ because I ’ m not , ” she said about Roe v. Wade .
As for how she ’ d rule on potential election-related disputes coming before the court , she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I would basically be a legal pundit.
” Barrett disputed that she has problems with the Affordable Care Act , despite Trump saying he ’ d only pick a nominee who would dismantle the law and despite her past criticism of the law .
She has said that she and Scalia have the same judicial philosophy , and he voted twice to dismantle the law .
She also criticized Justice John Roberts for upholding the law , saying in 2017 that he “ pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to questions by Leahy , she said she didn ’ t know that more than 20 million people rely on the law for health insurance .
She also didn ’ t know that more than 7.8 million Americans have tested positive for COVID-19 , or that more than 215,000 Americans have died from it , a terrifying subtext to the hearing as senators participated in masks or called in virtually for safety reasons .
Sen. Chris Coons ( D-Del . )
pressed Barrett on whether she ’ d recuse herself from resolving a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has falsely been claiming that mail-in voting is a scam , has been trying to cast doubt on the election and emphasized that the court needs nine justices before Election Day .
He ’ s also refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Republicans plowed ahead Tuesday with Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, with senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee getting their first crack at publicly questioning President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
They made it pretty easy for Barrett.
Hours into the hearing, Republicans were lobbing the softest of softball questions.
“Do you speak any foreign languages?” asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). “Do you play any instruments?”
“Why do judges in our system wear robes?” asked Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).
“You’re a very accomplished jurist in your own right, is that fair to say?” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked with a smile.
Advertisement
The real pressure was on Democrats, though, from whom progressives have been demanding a fiery and united show of opposition, framing Barrett as an illegitimate nominee in an illegitimate process weeks before an election in which people are already voting.
Trump and Republican senators are rushing to confirm Barrett in the event Joe Biden wins on Nov. 3, in which case they’d face tremendous pressure to let him fill the court vacancy in 2021. That’s in addition to Trump wanting Barrett seated in time for an Affordable Care Act case coming before the court on Nov. 10. The president also hasn’t been subtle about saying he wants her on the court in the event it has to decide the outcome of the election.
Democrats didn’t exactly come out swinging.
“I was wondering if you might introduce us” to family members in the audience, began Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member.
“You don’t have a magic formula for how you do it and handle all the children and your job and your work and your thoughts process, which is obviously excellent, do you?” said Feinstein.
Advertisement
“It’s improv,” laughed Barrett.
The California Democrat made light talk about Barrett’s family again later: “You’ve got a lovely family. You understand all the implications of family life,” she said. “I’m proud of you for that.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had some friendly family talk, too.
“It’s obvious your family is very important to you,” he told Barrett, noting he’s been married 50 years. “Our children and our grandchildren are the most important things in our life. It’s a privilege to see you introduce the family.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she was "proud" of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for understanding "all the implications of family life." Photo by Demetrius Freeman - Pool/Getty Images
Democrats did press Barrett, of course, on the laws and issues they’re the most worried about if she’s confirmed. She just didn’t answer their questions.
Barrett wouldn’t say if she thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. She wouldn’t say if she agreed with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked, in his legal opinion against marriage equality. She refused to recuse herself from election-related disputes, and wouldn’t say if she thinks Trump can unilaterally delay the election.
Advertisement
“I can’t pre-commit or say, ‘Yes, I’m going in with some agenda,’ because I’m not,” she said about Roe v. Wade. As for how she’d rule on potential election-related disputes coming before the court, she said, “If I give off-the-cuff answers, I would basically be a legal pundit.”
Barrett disputed that she has problems with the Affordable Care Act, despite Trump saying he’d only pick a nominee who would dismantle the law and despite her past criticism of the law. She has said that she and Scalia have the same judicial philosophy, and he voted twice to dismantle the law. She also criticized Justice John Roberts for upholding the law, saying in 2017 that he “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”
“I am not hostile to the ACA,” Barrett told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), arguing that her legal critique of the law’s mandate is not the same as opposing the law itself.
“To assume that because I critiqued the interpretation of the mandate ... means that on the entirely different legal question of severability I would reach a particular result just assumes I’m hostile; that’s not the case,” she said.
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett speaks during the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Oct. 13, 2020. POOL New / Reuters
Advertisement
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) didn’t ask any questions during his half hour of time. He connected dots between the network of dark money and conservative groups like Judicial Crisis Network and the Federalist Society driving Trump’s judicial nominees, including Barrett.
“The woman who helped choose this nominee has written briefs for Republican senators attacking the ACA,” Whitehouse said of Carrie Severino, who runs Judicial Crisis Network, a right-wing activist political campaign organization. “Don’t say the ACA is not an issue here.”
Oddly, for all the attention that’s been on how Barrett would rule on the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality, she seemed to know little about how many people use it.
In response to questions by Leahy, she said she didn’t know that more than 20 million people rely on the law for health insurance. She also didn’t know that more than 7.8 million Americans have tested positive for COVID-19, or that more than 215,000 Americans have died from it, a terrifying subtext to the hearing as senators participated in masks or called in virtually for safety reasons.
Two members of the committee, GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Thom Tillis (N.C.), recently tested positive for the coronavirus. Both attended the hearing anyway, talking without masks on, saying their doctors had given them the green light.
Advertisement
“We need a bit of a reality check that this isn’t normal right now,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), finally touching on what progressives have been shouting about. “We shouldn’t be doing this. We should be passing coronavirus relief.”
She asked Barrett if people should “take the president at his word” when he tweeted that his Supreme Court nominee will ”do the right thing” and overturn the Affordable Care Act.
“I can’t really speak to what the president has said on Twitter,” Barrett replied. “He hasn’t said any of that to me.”
“We need a bit of a reality check that this isn't normal right now. We shouldn’t be doing this. We should be passing coronavirus relief.” - Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) pressed Barrett on whether she’d recuse herself from resolving a 2020 election dispute. Trump, who has falsely been claiming that mail-in voting is a scam, has been trying to cast doubt on the election and emphasized that the court needs nine justices before Election Day. He’s also refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses.
Advertisement
“Given what President Trump said, given the rushed context of this confirmation, will you commit to recusing yourself from any case arising from a dispute in the presidential election results three week from now?” asked Coons.
As was the case with so many other questions of the day, Barrett declined to answer.
“I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people,” she said.
Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Cory Booker (N.J.) emphasized that nothing about this hearing is normal, given that presidential election voting is underway and the coronavirus is ravaging the country.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), the last Democrat to get time with Barrett, put the focus back on the Affordable Care Act. She said more than 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions would pay more for insurance or be denied health coverage entire if the health law is struck down.
“What weight would you give the fact that 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions are now depending on the protections of the Affordable Care Act?” she asked.
Advertisement
“I can’t really say, sitting here, how they would play any way in this case because that’s part of the legal calculus of the case,” Barrett said. “I can’t really give you the kind of commitment or pre-commitment that you’re asking from me of how I would weigh factors or how I would structure my decision-making process.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Michigan Sen. Gary Peters Shares 'Gut-Wrenching' Family Abortion Experience

In an interview with Elle magazine , Peters , who is currently running for reelection , shared the “ gut-wrenching ” story of his experience with his first wife , Heidi , in the 1980s .
At the time , Heidi was four months pregnant with the couple ’ s second child when her water broke .
The fetus was left without amniotic fluid and had no chance of survival , and a doctor for the couple — who worked at a hospital with an anti-abortion policy — told the Peterses to wait for a natural miscarriage .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , trying to have a miscarriage for a child that was wanted , ” Peters told Elle .
Three days passed , with Heidi ’ s health deteriorating each day and no natural miscarriage occurring .
Eventually , the doctor told her that she was in danger of losing her uterus and could potentially die from sepsis .
He applied to the hospital ’ s board for an exception to its anti-abortion policy but was denied .
“ I still vividly remember he left a message on the answering machine saying , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not based on good medical practice , simply based on politics .
I recommend you immediately find another physician who can do this procedure quickly , ’ ” Peters said .
Luckily , Heidi was able to receive an emergency abortion at another hospital , but only because the couple knew its head administrator .
In a statement shared with Elle , Heidi described the ordeal as “ painful and traumatic.
” Peters said he decided to come forward with his story due to President Donald Trump ’ s nomination of Judge Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett ’ s record has indicated that she opposes a woman ’ s right to an abortion , and she previously signed a 2006 newspaper ad that called for the overturning of Roe v. Wade , which established that abortion access was a constitutional right .
John James , a Republican businessman and Peters ’ Senate opponent , has also reiterated multiple times that he opposes abortion , and has compared the process to “ genocide.
” “ It ’ s important for folks who are willing to tell these stories to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ The new Supreme Court nominee could make a decision that will have major ramifications for reproductive health for women for decades to come .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich) has spoken candidly about his family’s personal experience with abortion, a first for a sitting senator.
In an interview with Elle magazine, Peters, who is currently running for reelection, shared the “gut-wrenching” story of his experience with his first wife, Heidi, in the 1980s.
Advertisement
My story is one that’s tragically shared by so many Americans.
It’s a story of gut-wrenching and complicated decisions — but it’s important for folks to understand families face these situations every day.https://t.co/VA3VDbjWrO — Gary Peters (@GaryPeters) October 12, 2020
At the time, Heidi was four months pregnant with the couple’s second child when her water broke. The fetus was left without amniotic fluid and had no chance of survival, and a doctor for the couple — who worked at a hospital with an anti-abortion policy — told the Peterses to wait for a natural miscarriage.
“The mental anguish someone goes through is intense, trying to have a miscarriage for a child that was wanted,” Peters told Elle.
Three days passed, with Heidi’s health deteriorating each day and no natural miscarriage occurring. Eventually, the doctor told her that she was in danger of losing her uterus and could potentially die from sepsis. He applied to the hospital’s board for an exception to its anti-abortion policy but was denied.
Advertisement
“I still vividly remember he left a message on the answering machine saying, ‘They refused to give me permission, not based on good medical practice, simply based on politics. I recommend you immediately find another physician who can do this procedure quickly,’” Peters said.
Luckily, Heidi was able to receive an emergency abortion at another hospital, but only because the couple knew its head administrator. In a statement shared with Elle, Heidi described the ordeal as “painful and traumatic.”
Peters said he decided to come forward with his story due to President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Barrett’s record has indicated that she opposes a woman’s right to an abortion, and she previously signed a 2006 newspaper ad that called for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which established that abortion access was a constitutional right.
John James, a Republican businessman and Peters’ Senate opponent, has also reiterated multiple times that he opposes abortion, and has compared the process to “genocide.”
“It’s important for folks who are willing to tell these stories to tell them, especially now,” Peters said. “The new Supreme Court nominee could make a decision that will have major ramifications for reproductive health for women for decades to come.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--5 Sneaky Signs Your Election Anxiety Is Coming Out

“ Now is an extremely stressful time for many .
The implications of the election are huge , no matter your value set , and no matter for whom you plan to vote , ” Nzinga A. Harrison , co-founder and chief medical officer of Eleanor Health , told HuffPost .
This is especially true for communities who have been marginalized by policies enacted by the current administration .
Given the potential impact of the election result , it ’ s unsurprising that emotions are heightened — including feelings of anxiousness and worry .
But election-related anxiety doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
HuffPost spoke with professionals about the sneaky signs it may be impacting you , and how to keep it in check .
“ News stories trigger our instinctive need to know , even when the information has no practical value , ” said Pamela Rutledge , director of the Media Psychology Research Center , adding that seeking out new information is a “ way to try to control the environment and make it less scary.
” Harrison noted that when it comes to reading or watching the news , “ moderation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you spend consuming the news ( and limiting the number of sources you read ) can curb worry surrounding the election .
Setting your phone to “ do not disturb ” mode during designated hours can also help you break the cycle .
2 .
Being drawn to articles that trigger negative emotions This can easily lead to “ doomscrolling , ” a term coined to describe the tendency to seek out disheartening or traumatizing media .
If you find yourself doing this , it ’ s probably a sign that your anxiety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained , “ Allowing our emotions to be continually triggered is exhausting , and leads to lack of self-control.
” So , how can you feel a little more empowered and less burnt out ?
Vasan explained that choosing a few ways to participate in politics can help you to feel a little more in control of your environment .
This can look like registering people to vote , sending a letter to one of your representatives or volunteering with local organizations .
“ We carry our stressors into our dreams .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — or lack thereof , ” Harrison said .
“ Difficulty sleeping , whether that is trouble falling asleep , trouble staying asleep or early morning awakening , is often the first sign that you are anxious.
” In addition to avoiding doomscrolling well into the evening , experts have found that practicing good sleep hygiene can lead to a better night ’ s rest .
Sleep hygiene goes beyond going to bed at a certain time every night ; it can include healthy habits like reducing your caffeine intake , creating a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exercising .
4 .
You can ’ t stop talking about politics with family and friends Vasan explained that speaking about the election in an “ unconstructive or ruminative manner ” is a sure sign that stress is getting the best of you .
( Rumination is a thought pattern that occurs when you think about a problem over and over , which can reinforce feelings of anxiety or depression . )
For example , you may find yourself rehashing the presidential debates , or frequently discussing an upsetting interview with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rutledge recommended trying to shift the topic of conversation with family or friends , even if it ’ s just for a few minutes , to reduce your stress .
Another coping skill she suggested is pulled directly from cognitive behavioral therapy : Take a small note card , and write affirmations with phrases such as “ I have all the information I need , ” or “ I won ’ t waste my emotions and energy on things I can ’ t control.
” This will cultivate new self-talk , and disrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when our brains don ’ t recognize the trigger , we will develop negative emotions that come from anxiety as our brains try to get us to recognize that something is worrying us , ” Harrison said , adding that it ’ s important to “ intentionally schedule activities that bring you joy ” to counteract feelings of anxiousness that may also be stirring up irritability or hopelessness .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Election Day is quickly approaching, and understandably, tensions seem to be growing higher as the date gets closer.
“Now is an extremely stressful time for many. The implications of the election are huge, no matter your value set, and no matter for whom you plan to vote,” Nzinga A. Harrison, co-founder and chief medical officer of Eleanor Health, told HuffPost.
Advertisement
This is especially true for communities who have been marginalized by policies enacted by the current administration. Given the potential impact of the election result, it’s unsurprising that emotions are heightened — including feelings of anxiousness and worry.
But election-related anxiety doesn’t always manifest in ways you might expect. HuffPost spoke with professionals about the sneaky signs it may be impacting you, and how to keep it in check.
1. Compulsively checking the news
In recent months, maybe you’ve found yourself constantly refreshing your Twitter feed, or losing hours perusing Google News. Some experts say this is a good indication that you’re experiencing some anxiety.
“News stories trigger our instinctive need to know, even when the information has no practical value,” said Pamela Rutledge, director of the Media Psychology Research Center, adding that seeking out new information is a “way to try to control the environment and make it less scary.”
Advertisement
Harrison noted that when it comes to reading or watching the news, “moderation is key.” Limiting the amount of time you spend consuming the news (and limiting the number of sources you read) can curb worry surrounding the election. Setting your phone to “do not disturb” mode during designated hours can also help you break the cycle.
2. Being drawn to articles that trigger negative emotions
“Unfortunately, the way algorithms work on some popular social media platforms, the negative content gets filtered to the top,” said Nina Vasan, chief medical officer of the personalized therapy platform Real and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine.
This can easily lead to “doomscrolling,” a term coined to describe the tendency to seek out disheartening or traumatizing media. If you find yourself doing this, it’s probably a sign that your anxiety is heightened. But, as Rutledge explained, “Allowing our emotions to be continually triggered is exhausting, and leads to lack of self-control.”
So, how can you feel a little more empowered and less burnt out? Vasan explained that choosing a few ways to participate in politics can help you to feel a little more in control of your environment. This can look like registering people to vote, sending a letter to one of your representatives or volunteering with local organizations.
“It’s helpful to feel engaged in the world, and [feel] that you’re fulfilling your civic responsibility,” Vasan said.
Advertisement
FluxFactory via Getty Images
3. You’re experiencing more trouble sleeping
It’s no secret that anxiety is linked to sleep issues, especially if you tend to dwell on your fears about the election late at night.
“We carry our stressors into our dreams. We carry our muscle tension into our sleep — or lack thereof,” Harrison said. “Difficulty sleeping, whether that is trouble falling asleep, trouble staying asleep or early morning awakening, is often the first sign that you are anxious.”
In addition to avoiding doomscrolling well into the evening, experts have found that practicing good sleep hygiene can lead to a better night’s rest. Sleep hygiene goes beyond going to bed at a certain time every night; it can include healthy habits like reducing your caffeine intake, creating a relaxing environment, improving your nighttime routine and exercising.
4. You can’t stop talking about politics with family and friends
Vasan explained that speaking about the election in an “unconstructive or ruminative manner” is a sure sign that stress is getting the best of you. (Rumination is a thought pattern that occurs when you think about a problem over and over, which can reinforce feelings of anxiety or depression.) For example, you may find yourself rehashing the presidential debates, or frequently discussing an upsetting interview with no real end goal for the conversation.
Advertisement
Rutledge recommended trying to shift the topic of conversation with family or friends, even if it’s just for a few minutes, to reduce your stress. Another coping skill she suggested is pulled directly from cognitive behavioral therapy: Take a small note card, and write affirmations with phrases such as “I have all the information I need,” or “I won’t waste my emotions and energy on things I can’t control.” This will cultivate new self-talk, and disrupt the tendency to ruminate.
Drazen Zigic via Getty Images
5. You’re generally feeling more irritable than usual
If you notice that you’re feeling more tense in your daily activities, election-related stress might be to blame.
“Even when our brains don’t recognize the trigger, we will develop negative emotions that come from anxiety as our brains try to get us to recognize that something is worrying us,” Harrison said, adding that it’s important to “intentionally schedule activities that bring you joy” to counteract feelings of anxiousness that may also be stirring up irritability or hopelessness.
If you feel as though your anxiety symptoms are impeding your ability to function, consider seeking out a therapist to support you through the next few months.
Advertisement
As Rutledge acknowledged, this election is a true “watershed moment.” Prioritizing your mental well-being during this tumultuous time is important. There’s nothing wrong with disengaging for a moment, setting boundaries around social media or taking a mental health day to practice self-care.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Supreme Court Allows Trump To Halt Census Count Early

WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump ’ s administration to wind down population counting for the 2020 U.S. census earlier than originally planned in a blow to civil rights groups concerned about an undercount particularly of racial minorities .
The justices put on hold a lower court ruling that had ordered that the decennial population count be continued until Oct. 31 .
The Census Bureau on Aug. 3 announced that it would wind down data collection by Sept. 30 , a month earlier than originally scheduled .
The Supreme Court ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Los Angeles , the counties that include Houston and Seattle and civil rights groups including the National Urban League that sued seeking to get the later deadline reinstated .
The plaintiffs argued that the “ rushed ” schedule would lead to inaccurate census results and “ a massive undercount of the country ’ s communities of color.
” They said in an Oct. 10 filing that a ruling for the Trump administration would allow it “ to stop the 2020 Census count , shut down field operations , fire hundreds of thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very next day.
” Trump ’ s administration has said it changed the timeline in order to meet a Dec. 31 deadline set by statute for delivering census results to the president .
The census count ’ s accuracy is critical , as it determines how the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures draw voting districts during the next round of redistricting and guides the federal government in allocating $ 1.5 trillion a year in aid .
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose , California has repeatedly ruled against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schedule would likely produce inaccurate numbers .
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor , the only justice who publicly dissented , said the Supreme Court ’ s action would allow the Census Bureau to “ sacrifice accuracy for expediency.
” The Justice Department , arguing for the Census Bureau , said complaints about the timeline should be raised with Congress , which can extend the statutory deadline .
“ Contrary to what Plaintiffs may think , the Bureau is not free to disregard a statutory deadline in pursuit of some ethereal notion of a better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a court filing .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to wind down population counting for the 2020 U.S. census earlier than originally planned in a blow to civil rights groups concerned about an undercount particularly of racial minorities.
The justices put on hold a lower court ruling that had ordered that the decennial population count be continued until Oct. 31. The Census Bureau on Aug. 3 announced that it would wind down data collection by Sept. 30, a month earlier than originally scheduled.
The Supreme Court’s order was a loss for municipalities including Los Angeles, the counties that include Houston and Seattle and civil rights groups including the National Urban League that sued seeking to get the later deadline reinstated.
Advertisement
The plaintiffs argued that the “rushed” schedule would lead to inaccurate census results and “a massive undercount of the country’s communities of color.” They said in an Oct. 10 filing that a ruling for the Trump administration would allow it “to stop the 2020 Census count, shut down field operations, fire hundreds of thousands of employees, and start processing data the very next day.”
Trump’s administration has said it changed the timeline in order to meet a Dec. 31 deadline set by statute for delivering census results to the president.
The census count’s accuracy is critical, as it determines how the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures draw voting districts during the next round of redistricting and guides the federal government in allocating $1.5 trillion a year in aid.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California has repeatedly ruled against the Census Bureau, saying the accelerated schedule would likely produce inaccurate numbers.
Advertisement
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the only justice who publicly dissented, said the Supreme Court’s action would allow the Census Bureau to “sacrifice accuracy for expediency.”
The Justice Department, arguing for the Census Bureau, said complaints about the timeline should be raised with Congress, which can extend the statutory deadline.
“Contrary to what Plaintiffs may think, the Bureau is not free to disregard a statutory deadline in pursuit of some ethereal notion of a better census,” Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Rudy Giuliani Tells Trump Supporters 'People Don’t Die' Of Coronavirus Anymore

“ People don ’ t die of this disease anymore , ” he said to the nodding of heads and verbal agreement in the audience .
“ Young people don ’ t die at all .
Middle-aged people die very little .
And even elderly people have a 1 % chance of dying.
” In just the last seven days , more than 4,886 people have died from the coronavirus in the U.S. , 141 of them in Pennsylvania , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
A total of 214,000 people have died in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hosting speakers who contradicted the CDC ’ s findings , the Trump campaign event also appeared to ignore the CDC ’ s safety guidelines to prevent the virus ’ spread — precautions such as wearing face masks , maintaining a distance of six feet from other people , and holding outdoor social gatherings whenever possible .
The event was held indoors without proper distancing .
Giuliani criticized Democrats for supporting such guidelines and suggested they were targeting “ things they don ’ t like , ” specifying churches as one example , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoor campaign event , Giuliani had spoken to a crowd of about 200 people on a sidewalk south of Scranton , Pennsylvania , on Saturday .
There , he accused Democrats of exaggerating the severity of the pandemic , Citizens Voice reported .
“ Sleepy Joe wears his mask like this , ” Giuliani said , referring to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden while reportedly putting his hand over his eyes .
“ So tell me , who is he going to infect ?
The teleprompter in front of him .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political bullshit .
It ’ s worse than that .
It ’ s intended to scare people .
Do you think our schools have to be closed ?
” With less than a month before the Nov. 3 election , and Trump trailing Biden in the polls , the Trump campaign appears to be not just blurring facts and safety measures but crossing ethical lines .
Infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci , who warned this week that the U.S. is “ facing a whole lot of trouble ” ahead of an anticipated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , criticized Trump ’ s campaign this week for running a political ad that falsely suggested Fauci endorsed the president .
“ I think it ’ s really unfortunate and really disappointing that they did that .
It ’ s so clear that I ’ m not a political person , and I have never ― either directly or indirectly ― endorsed a political candidate , ” Fauci told CNN ’ s Jake Tapper .
“ And to take a completely out-of-context statement and put in what is obviously a political campaign ad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Similarly , another Trump campaign ad targeting mail-in-voters featured a photo of Trump with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , even though the Defense Department forbids service members from participating in campaign activities or materials in uniform .
This is atrocious AND it is in violation of DoDD 1344.10 because there 's no disclaimer !
The irony is @ realDonaldTrump could simply waive that policy , but I 'm sure he did n't bother because he DOES NOT believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military should not influence elections .
https : //t.co/2OKYyISSQa — Jim Golby ( @ jimgolby ) October 12 , 2020 “ As citizens , we exercise our right to vote and participate in government , ” he wrote .
“ However , as public servants who have taken an oath to defend these principles , we uphold DoD ’ s longstanding tradition of remaining apolitical as we carry out our official responsibilities.
” A defense official told Politico that the Trump campaign did not seek approval from Milley before using his image in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like many others , was not used with [ Milley ’ s ] knowledge or consent , ” said the official , who requested anonymity to speak about a sensitive topic .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, falsely claimed that “people don’t die of [COVID-19] anymore” while standing in a cramped room of Trump supporters in Philadelphia on Monday.
The former New York City mayor was attending a Columbus Day gathering of Italian Americans for Trump and speaking without wearing a mask when he made the egregious comment.
Advertisement
“People don’t die of this disease anymore,” he said to the nodding of heads and verbal agreement in the audience. “Young people don’t die at all. Middle-aged people die very little. And even elderly people have a 1% chance of dying.”
Rudy Giuliani in Philly yesterday: "People don't die of this disease anymore."
Fact check: 215,000+ people are dead. More are dying every single day. pic.twitter.com/elpimiZIPi — The Recount (@therecount) October 13, 2020
In just the last seven days, more than 4,886 people have died from the coronavirus in the U.S., 141 of them in Pennsylvania, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A total of 214,000 people have died in the U.S. since late January.
At least 121 people younger than age 21 died from the virus in the U.S. between February and July, the CDC reports.
Advertisement
In addition to hosting speakers who contradicted the CDC’s findings, the Trump campaign event also appeared to ignore the CDC’s safety guidelines to prevent the virus’ spread — precautions such as wearing face masks, maintaining a distance of six feet from other people, and holding outdoor social gatherings whenever possible. The event was held indoors without proper distancing.
Giuliani criticized Democrats for supporting such guidelines and suggested they were targeting “things they don’t like,” specifying churches as one example, according to CBS Philadelphia.
From Butler to Philadelphia, Italian Americans in PA were honoring our heritage this Columbus Day! I was proud to celebrate with them and fellow mayor @RudyGiuliani! 🇺🇸🇮🇹 pic.twitter.com/r11Q2dvCop — Lou Barletta (@LouBarletta_PA) October 13, 2020
Prior to the indoor campaign event, Giuliani had spoken to a crowd of about 200 people on a sidewalk south of Scranton, Pennsylvania, on Saturday. There, he accused Democrats of exaggerating the severity of the pandemic, Citizens Voice reported.
“Sleepy Joe wears his mask like this,” Giuliani said, referring to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden while reportedly putting his hand over his eyes. “So tell me, who is he going to infect? The teleprompter in front of him. It’s not science. It’s political bullshit. It’s worse than that. It’s intended to scare people. Do you think our schools have to be closed?”
Advertisement
With less than a month before the Nov. 3 election, and Trump trailing Biden in the polls, the Trump campaign appears to be not just blurring facts and safety measures but crossing ethical lines.
Infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, who warned this week that the U.S. is “facing a whole lot of trouble” ahead of an anticipated surge of COVID-19 cases in the fall, criticized Trump’s campaign this week for running a political ad that falsely suggested Fauci endorsed the president.
“I think it’s really unfortunate and really disappointing that they did that. It’s so clear that I’m not a political person, and I have never ― either directly or indirectly ― endorsed a political candidate,” Fauci told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “And to take a completely out-of-context statement and put in what is obviously a political campaign ad, I thought was really very disappointing.”
Similarly, another Trump campaign ad targeting mail-in-voters featured a photo of Trump with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, even though the Defense Department forbids service members from participating in campaign activities or materials in uniform.
This is atrocious AND it is in violation of DoDD 1344.10 because there's no disclaimer!
The irony is @realDonaldTrump could simply waive that policy, but I'm sure he didn't bother because he DOES NOT believe in the core US value that the military should not influence elections. https://t.co/2OKYyISSQa — Jim Golby (@jimgolby) October 12, 2020
Advertisement
Esper reminded his staff of this rule in a memo back in February.
“As citizens, we exercise our right to vote and participate in government,” he wrote. “However, as public servants who have taken an oath to defend these principles, we uphold DoD’s longstanding tradition of remaining apolitical as we carry out our official responsibilities.”
A defense official told Politico that the Trump campaign did not seek approval from Milley before using his image in the ad.
“This photo, like many others, was not used with [Milley’s] knowledge or consent,” said the official, who requested anonymity to speak about a sensitive topic.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the new number of COVID-19 cases within the last seven days.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett Refuses To Say Whether President Can Delay Election

Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to say during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings Tuesday whether she believes President Donald Trump has the power to move an election date with an executive order .
Citing a threat that Trump made in July , Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-Calif. ) asked Barrett plainly during the second day of hearings whether the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to “ unilaterally delay a general election ” in any scenario .
“ Well , Senator , if that question ever came before me , I would need to hear arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process , ” Barrett responded .
In refusing to give an answer , Barrett followed the same pattern of response she has given throughout the hearings so far when questioned on how she might rule on specific issues , maintaining that she would need to hear arguments from both sides .
Feinstein ’ s question , however , has a simple answer : The president alone does not have the power to change the date of the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation of Congress because the general election date ― the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November ― is set by an 1845 federal law .
A change to that law would need to be approved by both the Senate , controlled by Republicans , and the House , which is controlled by Democrats and is thus extremely unlikely to go along with any delay .
Back in July , Trump sowed doubts about the legitimacy of the election that he has continued to repeat in the months since .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical for the safety of many voters during the pandemic ― will lead to rampant voter fraud .
Asked by Sen. Cory Booker ( D-N.J. ) whether U.S. presidents should commit to peaceful transfers of power , Barrett declined to say they should , hedging that “ we haven ’ t had the situations that have arisen in so many other countries ... where those issues have been present ” and crediting “ the genius of our Constitution.
” Whether Trump will accept the results of the 2020 election is not known ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he will dispute the outcome if it doesn ’ t go his way .
Trump has also said clearly that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s vacant seat needs to be filled by his nominee before Election Day so that person can vote on any potential election-related lawsuits that reach the Supreme Court .
On that topic , Sen. Chris Coons ( D-Del . )
asked Barrett whether she might recuse herself from any such lawsuits , given the circumstances of her nomination .
In response , Barrett rejected the idea that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decide this election for the American people ” on behalf of Republicans .
But she did not say whether she would recuse herself from any such case , sticking to her refusal to say anything about a hypothetical dispute .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to say during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings Tuesday whether she believes President Donald Trump has the power to move an election date with an executive order.
Citing a threat that Trump made in July, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Barrett plainly during the second day of hearings whether the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to “unilaterally delay a general election” in any scenario.
Advertisement
“Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process,” Barrett responded.
She added: “If I give off-the-cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit.”
In refusing to give an answer, Barrett followed the same pattern of response she has given throughout the hearings so far when questioned on how she might rule on specific issues, maintaining that she would need to hear arguments from both sides.
Feinstein’s question, however, has a simple answer: The president alone does not have the power to change the date of the election.
Moving the election would require the cooperation of Congress because the general election date ― the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November ― is set by an 1845 federal law.
Advertisement
A change to that law would need to be approved by both the Senate, controlled by Republicans, and the House, which is controlled by Democrats and is thus extremely unlikely to go along with any delay.
Back in July, Trump sowed doubts about the legitimacy of the election that he has continued to repeat in the months since.
“It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???” Trump tweeted on July 30.
There is no evidence that widespread mail-in voting ― critical for the safety of many voters during the pandemic ― will lead to rampant voter fraud.
Barrett was again confronted with Trump’s threats to the democratic process later on Tuesday — and again failed to clarify her stance.
Advertisement
Asked by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) whether U.S. presidents should commit to peaceful transfers of power, Barrett declined to say they should, hedging that “we haven’t had the situations that have arisen in so many other countries ... where those issues have been present” and crediting “the genius of our Constitution.”
Whether Trump will accept the results of the 2020 election is not known; he has suggested on multiple occasions that he will dispute the outcome if it doesn’t go his way.
Trump has also said clearly that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s vacant seat needs to be filled by his nominee before Election Day so that person can vote on any potential election-related lawsuits that reach the Supreme Court.
On that topic, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked Barrett whether she might recuse herself from any such lawsuits, given the circumstances of her nomination.
In response, Barrett rejected the idea that she could be seen as a “pawn to decide this election for the American people” on behalf of Republicans. But she did not say whether she would recuse herself from any such case, sticking to her refusal to say anything about a hypothetical dispute.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Dozens Of Amy Coney Barrett's Notre Dame Colleagues Call For Halt To Nomination

Eighty-eight faculty members at the University of Notre Dame , where Amy Coney Barrett is a law school professor , said she should call for a halt to her Supreme Court nomination until after the election .
In a letter dated Oct. 10 but posted online Tuesday , Barrett ’ s colleagues congratulated her on her nomination , adding : “ It is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.
” The signatories hailed from the university ’ s political science , sociology , history and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school .
The letter argues for Barrett to take this “ unprecedented step , ” saying that Americans are already voting in the general election and that moving forward at this stage would “ deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice.
” The letter noted that the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s final wish was that she not be replaced until the next president is in place .
Trump nominated Barrett just over a week after Ginsburg ’ s death .
https @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write to you as fellow faculty members at the University of Notre Dame .
We congratulate you on your nomination to the United States Supreme Court .
— Scholar Activist ( @ ScholarActivist ) October 13 , 2020 That is why it is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election .
We ask that you take this unprecedented step for three reasons .
— Scholar Activist ( @ ScholarActivist ) October 13 , 2020 Senate hearings for Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , with the nominee dodging Democrats ’ questions on health care , marriage equality and abortion rights .
Democratic lawmakers have fiercely criticized Republican senators for moving forward with Trump ’ s nominee so close to the election — especially after Republicans halted former President Barack Obama ’ s Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 , citing that it was an election year .
“ By replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who will undo her legacy , President Trump is attempting to roll back American ’ s rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) , a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Democratic vice presidential nominee , said Monday .
Senate Republicans appear to have the necessary majority to confirm Barrett to the nation ’ s most powerful court .
If she ’ s confirmed , it would cement conservatives ’ hold on the court likely for years to come , with major rulings expected soon on health care , abortion , LGBTQ rights and more .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Eighty-eight faculty members at the University of Notre Dame, where Amy Coney Barrett is a law school professor, said she should call for a halt to her Supreme Court nomination until after the election.
In a letter dated Oct. 10 but posted online Tuesday, Barrett’s colleagues congratulated her on her nomination, adding: “It is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.”
Advertisement
The signatories hailed from the university’s political science, sociology, history and other departments — none from the law school.
The letter argues for Barrett to take this “unprecedented step,” saying that Americans are already voting in the general election and that moving forward at this stage would “deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice.”
https://t.co/GnSuuUaDoA
Dear Judge Barrett,
We write to you as fellow faculty members at the University of Notre Dame.
We congratulate you on your nomination to the United States Supreme Court. — Scholar Activist (@ScholarActivist) October 13, 2020
Advertisement
That is why it is vital that you issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.
We ask that you take this unprecedented step for three reasons. — Scholar Activist (@ScholarActivist) October 13, 2020
Senate hearings for Barrett’s confirmation began Monday and continued into Tuesday, with the nominee dodging Democrats’ questions on health care, marriage equality and abortion rights.
Democratic lawmakers have fiercely criticized Republican senators for moving forward with Trump’s nominee so close to the election — especially after Republicans halted former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, citing that it was an election year.
“By replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who will undo her legacy, President Trump is attempting to roll back American’s rights for decades to come,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Democratic vice presidential nominee, said Monday.
Senate Republicans appear to have the necessary majority to confirm Barrett to the nation’s most powerful court. If she’s confirmed, it would cement conservatives’ hold on the court likely for years to come, with major rulings expected soon on health care, abortion, LGBTQ rights and more.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett Dragged For Claiming She 'Never' Discriminates On 'Sexual Preference'

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday claimed during her confirmation hearing that she has “ never ” discriminated based on “ sexual preference , ” prompting backlash from LGBTQ advocates who denounced her statement as offensive and inaccurate .
Barrett stated during her nomination ceremony last month that she has adopted the “ judicial philosophy ” of the late Justice Antonin Scalia , a conservative judge who delivered the dissenting opinion in the 2015 landmark decision requiring states to grant and recognize same-sex marriages .
But Barrett on Tuesday wouldn ’ t say whether she agrees with Scalia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding that no one should “ assume ” she would make the same decisions Scalia did .
“ It ’ s rather a fundamental point for large numbers of people I think in this country , ” Feinstein pressed her .
She added : “ You identify yourself with a justice that ... would be a consistent vote to roll back hard-fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community .
And what I was hoping you would say is that this would be a point of difference , where those freedoms would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that.
” “ I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference , ” Barrett said .
“ You know , like racism , I think discrimination is abhorrent.
” “ Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term , ” Hirono said .
“ It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice .
It is not .
Sexual orientation is a key part of a person ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean ― and would never mean ― to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community , ” Barrett said .
“ So if I did , I greatly apologize for that.
” As for Barrett ’ s claim that she has “ never ” discriminated based on sexuality , it drew scrutiny given her ties to Trinity Schools Inc. ― a group of private Christian schools that has spoken out against same-sex marriage .
Barrett served as a trustee on the board of Trinity Schools from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her children attend the Trinity School at Greenlawn in South Bend , Indiana .
In 2014 , Trinity Schools adopted an admissions policy that effectively excluded children of same-sex couples , former Trinity staffers told The New York Times .
A person involved in Barrett ’ s confirmation process said Barrett did not participate in creating the policy , but former Trinity staffers said it was enforced during her tenure , according to the Times .
A “ cultural statement ” issued by the school during the 2018-19 school year stated “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is marriage , where marriage is a legal and committed relationship between one man and one woman , ” reported Politico .
It also defined “ homosexual acts ” as “ at odds with Scripture.
” A spokesperson for Trinity Schools said the language was changed around that time , suggesting it was in place during Barrett ’ s tenure on the board and well after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015 , according to Politico .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday claimed during her confirmation hearing that she has “never” discriminated based on “sexual preference,” prompting backlash from LGBTQ advocates who denounced her statement as offensive and inaccurate.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, had asked Barrett whether she believes the Constitution affords same-sex couples the right to marry.
Advertisement
Barrett stated during her nomination ceremony last month that she has adopted the “judicial philosophy” of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative judge who delivered the dissenting opinion in the 2015 landmark decision requiring states to grant and recognize same-sex marriages.
But Barrett on Tuesday wouldn’t say whether she agrees with Scalia on the issue of same-sex marriage, adding that no one should “assume” she would make the same decisions Scalia did.
“It’s rather a fundamental point for large numbers of people I think in this country,” Feinstein pressed her. She added: “You identify yourself with a justice that ... would be a consistent vote to roll back hard-fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community. And what I was hoping you would say is that this would be a point of difference, where those freedoms would be respected and you haven’t said that.”
Barrett, whom President Donald Trump nominated last month to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, went on to claim that she has “no agenda.”
Advertisement
“I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference,” Barrett said. “You know, like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent.”
LGBTQ advocates were quick to point out that “sexual preference” is an inaccurate way to describe sexual orientation.
“‘Sexual preference,’ a term used by Justice Barrett, is offensive and outdated,” tweeted Kyle Griffin, a senior producer at MSNBC. “The term implies sexuality is a choice. It is not.”
Ritchie Torres, a member of the New York City Council and a 2020 Democratic candidate for the House, called Barrett’s views on sexuality “a relic of the past.”
“As a gay man, I do not have a ‘sexual preference’ any more than I have a racial preference or an ethnic preference,” Torres tweeted. “I have a sexual identity.”
Advertisement
Several hours later during Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) confronted Barrett about her use of the term “sexual preference.”
“Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term,” Hirono said. “It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity.”
Barrett apologized and stated she “didn’t mean” to offend anyone.
“I certainly didn’t mean ― and would never mean ― to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community,” Barrett said. “So if I did, I greatly apologize for that.”
As for Barrett’s claim that she has “never” discriminated based on sexuality, it drew scrutiny given her ties to Trinity Schools Inc. ― a group of private Christian schools that has spoken out against same-sex marriage.
Barrett served as a trustee on the board of Trinity Schools from 2015 to 2017, and some of her children attend the Trinity School at Greenlawn in South Bend, Indiana.
Advertisement
In 2014, Trinity Schools adopted an admissions policy that effectively excluded children of same-sex couples, former Trinity staffers told The New York Times. A person involved in Barrett’s confirmation process said Barrett did not participate in creating the policy, but former Trinity staffers said it was enforced during her tenure, according to the Times.
A “cultural statement” issued by the school during the 2018-19 school year stated “the only proper place for human sexual activity is marriage, where marriage is a legal and committed relationship between one man and one woman,” reported Politico. It also defined “homosexual acts” as “at odds with Scripture.”
A spokesperson for Trinity Schools said the language was changed around that time, suggesting it was in place during Barrett’s tenure on the board and well after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015, according to Politico.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Supreme Court Ends Democratic Lawmakers' Anti-Corruption Lawsuit Against Trump

WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) ― The Supreme Court on Tuesday put an end to a lawsuit brought by congressional Democrats that accused President Donald Trump of violating anti-corruption provisions in the U.S. Constitution with his business dealings .
The justices refused to hear an appeal by 215 Senate and House of Representatives Democrats of a lower court ruling that found that the lawmakers lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case that focused on the Republican president ’ s ownership of the Trump International Hotel in Washington .
The lawmakers accused Trump of violating the Constitution ’ s rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents from taking gifts or payments from foreign and state governments without congressional approval .
The lead plaintiff in the case is U.S .
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut .
Trump faces two similar lawsuits - one brought by an advocacy group and the other by the Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia .
Those cases likely would be dismissed as moot if Trump loses his Nov. 3 re-election bid , according to University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias .
Trump International Hotel in Washington is located in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House .
The hotel , opened by Trump shortly before he was elected in 2016 , became a favored lodging and event space for some foreign and state officials visiting Washington .
Unlike past presidents , Trump has retained ownership of his business interests while serving in the White House .
The emoluments lawsuits have accused him of making himself vulnerable to bribery by foreign governments .
In the case brought by congressional Democrats , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February ruled that individual members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions affecting the legislative branch as a whole .
The appeals court said it was bound by a 1997 Supreme Court decision that held that six members of Congress lacked the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law dealing with presidential vetoes .
The lawmakers appealed , telling the Supreme Court that the D.C .
Circuit misapplied the 1997 precedent .
Justice Department lawyers , arguing for the Trump administration , had urged the high court not to hear the Democratic appeal .
They argued that the lower court correctly held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sue to enforce the asserted institutional interests of Congress .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (Reuters) ― The Supreme Court on Tuesday put an end to a lawsuit brought by congressional Democrats that accused President Donald Trump of violating anti-corruption provisions in the U.S. Constitution with his business dealings.
The justices refused to hear an appeal by 215 Senate and House of Representatives Democrats of a lower court ruling that found that the lawmakers lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case that focused on the Republican president’s ownership of the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
Advertisement
The lawmakers accused Trump of violating the Constitution’s rarely tested “emoluments” clauses that bar presidents from taking gifts or payments from foreign and state governments without congressional approval. The lead plaintiff in the case is U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
Trump faces two similar lawsuits - one brought by an advocacy group and the other by the Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Those cases likely would be dismissed as moot if Trump loses his Nov. 3 re-election bid, according to University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.
Trump International Hotel in Washington is located in a historic building just blocks from the White House. The hotel, opened by Trump shortly before he was elected in 2016, became a favored lodging and event space for some foreign and state officials visiting Washington.
Unlike past presidents, Trump has retained ownership of his business interests while serving in the White House. The emoluments lawsuits have accused him of making himself vulnerable to bribery by foreign governments.
Advertisement
In the case brought by congressional Democrats, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February ruled that individual members of Congress have limited ability to litigate questions affecting the legislative branch as a whole.
The appeals court said it was bound by a 1997 Supreme Court decision that held that six members of Congress lacked the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law dealing with presidential vetoes. The lawmakers appealed, telling the Supreme Court that the D.C. Circuit misapplied the 1997 precedent.
Justice Department lawyers, arguing for the Trump administration, had urged the high court not to hear the Democratic appeal. They argued that the lower court correctly held that “federal legislators generally lack standing to sue to enforce the asserted institutional interests of Congress.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-10-13--Trump Planning 'Victory' Party In D.C., Letting Him Cash In For Maybe The Last Time

Tasos Katopodis via Getty Images A protester stands outside the Trump International Hotel in Washington this summer .
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump appears to be planning his election night “ victory ” party not in his new home state of Florida , but in Washington , D.C. ― providing him possibly his final opportunity to cash in on his presidency .
While Trump votes by mail using his resort in Palm Beach , Florida , as a mailing address , Mar-a-Lago is a members-only club , with only a small number of guest rooms , many of which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president is there .
In contrast , his hotel a few blocks from the White House has 263 rooms that during peak periods cost more than $ 1,000 to several thousand dollars per night to occupy .
Those rates could put hundreds of thousands of extra dollars from supporters into Trump ’ s own pocket .
Should Trump lose his bid for a second term on Nov. 3 , there will be little reason for lobbyists and foreign interests hoping to influence him or his executive branch agencies to continue patronizing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly more expensive than surrounding properties of similar quality .
Neither the White House nor the Trump campaign responded to HuffPost queries on the matter .
Neither entity has announced plans for election night , which is just three weeks away .
Trump International Hotel in Washington is entirely sold out from Oct. 29 through Nov. 4 , according to its website .
The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington back in January found that election night was already sold out , and that the cheapest available room for Nov. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rooms are available for election night for $ 329 at the nearby Willard Intercontinental , which also receives five stars on the Hotel.com website .
“ That is so unsurprising , ” longtime Florida GOP consultant Rick Wilson , who now helps runs the anti-Trump group Lincoln Project , said of the president ’ s effort to get his hotel more business .
“ If Donald Trump loses , I think the whole house of cards of hotels and golf clubs collapses within a year.
” Presidential candidates , whether incumbents or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gatherings in their home states .
Barack Obama was in Chicago in 2008 and 2012 , Bill Clinton was in Little Rock , Arkansas , in 1992 and 1996 and Ronald Reagan was in California in 1980 and 1984 .
Democrat Hillary Clinton held hers in New York City in 2016 after having served as a senator for the state .
Republican Mitt Romney , who had served as governor of Massachusetts , held his 2012 gathering in Boston .
Two exceptions were Bill Clinton ’ s 1996 challenger , Republican Sen. Bob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election night party at a Washington hotel , and then-President George W. Bush of Texas , whose 2004 gathering was at a federal building a few blocks from the White House .
Trump , although he campaigned to “ drain the swamp , ” has instead used his presidency to funnel millions of dollars to himself ― the very definition of corruption .
Political committees he controls , including his own re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee , have spent $ 7 million at Trump businesses since he took office , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign secretly pays the wife of one Trump son and the girlfriend of another .
Trump has also directed millions of taxpayer dollars into his own cash registers by insisting on staying at his own resorts and hotels , thereby forcing Secret Service and other government employees traveling with him to stay there , as well .

A protester stands outside the Trump International Hotel in Washington this summer. Tasos Katopodis via Getty Images
WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump appears to be planning his election night “victory” party not in his new home state of Florida, but in Washington, D.C. ― providing him possibly his final opportunity to cash in on his presidency.
While Trump votes by mail using his resort in Palm Beach, Florida, as a mailing address, Mar-a-Lago is a members-only club, with only a small number of guest rooms, many of which are taken up by Secret Service agents when the president is there.
Advertisement
In contrast, his hotel a few blocks from the White House has 263 rooms that during peak periods cost more than $1,000 to several thousand dollars per night to occupy. Those rates could put hundreds of thousands of extra dollars from supporters into Trump’s own pocket.
“One last chance,” joked a top Republican close to the White House who confirmed the location.
Should Trump lose his bid for a second term on Nov. 3, there will be little reason for lobbyists and foreign interests hoping to influence him or his executive branch agencies to continue patronizing the hotel and its restaurants, which are significantly more expensive than surrounding properties of similar quality.
Neither the White House nor the Trump campaign responded to HuffPost queries on the matter. Neither entity has announced plans for election night, which is just three weeks away.
Trump International Hotel in Washington is entirely sold out from Oct. 29 through Nov. 4, according to its website. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington back in January found that election night was already sold out, and that the cheapest available room for Nov. 4 was $1,600.
Advertisement
Rooms this week, during the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, run from $895 per night for a king room to $2,171 for a “premier one-bedroom suite.”
For the next two weeks, the king room is available for $439 a night and the suite for $1,871.
In contrast, rooms are available for election night for $329 at the nearby Willard Intercontinental, which also receives five stars on the Hotel.com website.
“That is so unsurprising,” longtime Florida GOP consultant Rick Wilson, who now helps runs the anti-Trump group Lincoln Project, said of the president’s effort to get his hotel more business. “If Donald Trump loses, I think the whole house of cards of hotels and golf clubs collapses within a year.”
Presidential candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, have traditionally held their election-night gatherings in their home states. Barack Obama was in Chicago in 2008 and 2012, Bill Clinton was in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1992 and 1996 and Ronald Reagan was in California in 1980 and 1984.
Democrat Hillary Clinton held hers in New York City in 2016 after having served as a senator for the state. Republican Mitt Romney, who had served as governor of Massachusetts, held his 2012 gathering in Boston.
Advertisement
Two exceptions were Bill Clinton’s 1996 challenger, Republican Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, who held his election night party at a Washington hotel, and then-President George W. Bush of Texas, whose 2004 gathering was at a federal building a few blocks from the White House.
“I’m going to guess that Bob Dole probably did not own the hotel,” one GOP consultant joked privately.
Trump, although he campaigned to “drain the swamp,” has instead used his presidency to funnel millions of dollars to himself ― the very definition of corruption. Political committees he controls, including his own re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee, have spent $7 million at Trump businesses since he took office, not including the $15,000 a month that his campaign secretly pays the wife of one Trump son and the girlfriend of another.
Trump has also directed millions of taxpayer dollars into his own cash registers by insisting on staying at his own resorts and hotels, thereby forcing Secret Service and other government employees traveling with him to stay there, as well.
A recent New York Times report found over 200 companies, interest groups and foreign governments that had frequented Trump’s various hotels and golf courses while benefiting from his administration’s decisions.