theguardian--2020-10-26--The strategist who could have put Hillary in power: Christopher Shinn on his play The Narcissist

The Narcissist takes place in 2017 , a year after Donald Trump ’ s defeat of Hillary Clinton .
Jim , one of Clinton ’ s former campaign strategists , has left politics , disillusioned after his warnings that Trump could win were ignored .
At the start of the play , he is at a fundraiser for a prominent female senator who is in the early stages of planning a run for the 2020 Democratic nomination .
She has her aide arrange for Jim to meet her in the penthouse kitchen for a few minutes , as she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , had it been heeded , would have led to a Democratic victory .
I wrote The Narcissist in order to explore what is happening in the American psyche .
It is a kind of loose sequel to my 2008 play Now or Later , in which a centrist Democrat took power just as nascent resentments on the right and left were beginning to intensify .
Twelve years later , these resentments are the mainstream of American politics , and we are living in a kind of slow-motion apocalypse .
But the centre-left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development into its conception of the country .
Jim believes he left politics because of the emptiness , cravenness and stupidity of the politicians he worked for .
He fancies himself especially keyed in to the American psyche because of his middle-class upbringing outside of elite institutions , as well as his strong feel for pessimism and perversity as motivating forces in American life – dynamics he thinks mainstream Democrats have no grasp of .
A central question of the play is : how accurate is Jim ’ s conception of America , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a projection of his own resentments , desires , and traumas ?
Within that question lies a deeper one , for both Jim and the play itself : can politics do any good ?
The senator who wants to hear out and potentially hire Jim believes passionately that it can – that even if the American system means progress will be piecemeal and imperfect , such small steps aren ’ t worthless .
As Jim gets drawn back into the high-stakes world he left behind , he finds his cynicism starting to melt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unravels .
Is he being seduced again by the comforting allure of status and power , or is it possible that meaningful change is on the horizon ?
His idealism and cynicism battle it out , confronting him with the narcissism he sees so well in the culture and so dimly in himself .
Kitchen of a penthouse .
Jim stands looking at his phone .
Senator and her aide enter .
JIM Hello Senator , nice to see you again – SENATOR I ’ m told you have five minutes for me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing a little late-night talk show circuit next week , ostensibly to promote my book but , you know , people will be watching with an eye towards how I might run for president .
JIM Absolutely , you will be scrutinised .
SENATOR You saw the disaster from ground zero last time – JIM Yes but – it ’ s a completely different moment , you ’ re a very different candidate – SENATOR If I were to run , what advice would you give me – at this extremely early stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JIM First off , don ’ t think of it as early .
I get that the primaries are over two years away – but your persona as it ’ s defined over the next six months – your “ brand ” – will not be something you can change down the line .
So don ’ t worry about , say , appealing to the left now so you can move to the centre later – all that old conventional wisdom , throw it out .
Technology has made time different .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically how they ’ ll see you in 2020 .
SENATOR OK .
I think that was at least 50 words .
JIM All right – what no one at the upper level of the campaign understood last time is what people – Americans – are really like now .
They were obsessed with “ data ” and their only real sense of actual human beings was this vague image of hard-working , fundamentally decent people who just wanted things to be a little bit easier and a little more fair – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get enough of those people , as well as turn out minorities , we ’ d win .
SENATOR And we were wrong , basically .
JIM Not just basically – we were wrong .
Regardless of the fact that we won the popular vote , or any other argument that tries to justify the approach – JIM That sentimental idea of what Americans are like no longer holds in an era where you have the internet , social media , rapidly changing values – and a deep sense of , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around with them all the time .
What I felt – and what I still think – is that to win , a candidate has to understand that the average voter is angry , scared , selfish , somewhat perverse probably – but most of all – and this was the hardest thing to argue for , because it goes against everything politicians are taught to think about voters – pessimistic .
JIM Yes .
I believe that in 2008 , post-financial crisis , Americans became fundamentally cynical .
We bailed out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then they went right back to business as usual .
For them , the party never ended , and the politicians made sure of that .
While for everyone else – life got harder .
Much harder .
So after that – voters could no longer deny the essential corruption of our system .
Now when they see a politician speaking in optimistic platitudes , they tune them out – think they ’ re lying , or out of touch – even delusional .
Voters who respond to that sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get you into office .
Do not listen to , in fact run screaming from , anyone who points to midterm election polls , or party approval ratings – or says that if it weren ’ t for Russian bots we would ’ ve won – reject all attempts to convince you that the last general election was a blip or a fluke and we should go back to the failed 2016 model .
I think I ’ ve used up my allotment .
SENATOR Very interesting .
Now reduce all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to be uplifting because optimistic candidates can not win any more .
SENATOR Very concise .
One last question – how do you weaponise pessimism to win an election ?
JIM You use it to show you understand how voters feel – you connect with people as they are .
Like it or not , the pessimistic candidate won last time .
Lunatic that he was , he understood that the country ’ s overall mood was angry and dark .
And no matter how much we want to think that election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time we ’ ll return to “ normal ” because his presidency has been such a shitshow – I honestly don ’ t believe that ’ s the case .
SENATOR Thank you , Jim .
Are you here next week ?
I might want to talk again before the TV stuff .
JIM Well I ’ m working on a book right now , with a co-writer , and we ’ re behind – SENATOR Maybe they can pick up the slack if I need you for a day , then .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a “ behind the scenes ” of the last campaign – but a very literary version .
SENATOR So you can sell the rights to HBO and make a lot of money .
SENATOR Well you certainly have no shortage of material .
Thank you , Jim .
What you said is very interesting .

The Narcissist takes place in 2017, a year after Donald Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton. Jim, one of Clinton’s former campaign strategists, has left politics, disillusioned after his warnings that Trump could win were ignored. At the start of the play, he is at a fundraiser for a prominent female senator who is in the early stages of planning a run for the 2020 Democratic nomination. She has her aide arrange for Jim to meet her in the penthouse kitchen for a few minutes, as she’s heard rumours that his 2016 advice, had it been heeded, would have led to a Democratic victory.
I wrote The Narcissist in order to explore what is happening in the American psyche. It is a kind of loose sequel to my 2008 play Now or Later, in which a centrist Democrat took power just as nascent resentments on the right and left were beginning to intensify. Twelve years later, these resentments are the mainstream of American politics, and we are living in a kind of slow-motion apocalypse. But the centre-left establishment still struggles to integrate this cultural development into its conception of the country.
‘What is happening in the American psyche?’ Christopher Shinn. Photograph: Sam Wallander
Jim believes he left politics because of the emptiness, cravenness and stupidity of the politicians he worked for. He fancies himself especially keyed in to the American psyche because of his middle-class upbringing outside of elite institutions, as well as his strong feel for pessimism and perversity as motivating forces in American life – dynamics he thinks mainstream Democrats have no grasp of. A central question of the play is: how accurate is Jim’s conception of America, and how much of it is just a projection of his own resentments, desires, and traumas?
Within that question lies a deeper one, for both Jim and the play itself: can politics do any good? The senator who wants to hear out and potentially hire Jim believes passionately that it can – that even if the American system means progress will be piecemeal and imperfect, such small steps aren’t worthless. As Jim gets drawn back into the high-stakes world he left behind, he finds his cynicism starting to melt away, even as his personal life unravels. Is he being seduced again by the comforting allure of status and power, or is it possible that meaningful change is on the horizon? His idealism and cynicism battle it out, confronting him with the narcissism he sees so well in the culture and so dimly in himself.
The Narcissist
Act I, scene 1
Kitchen of a penthouse. Jim stands looking at his phone. Senator and her aide enter.
SENATOR Hello!
JIM Hello Senator, nice to see you again –
SENATOR I’m told you have five minutes for me.
JIM At your service.
SENATOR So, I’m doing a little late-night talk show circuit next week, ostensibly to promote my book but, you know, people will be watching with an eye towards how I might run for president.
JIM Absolutely, you will be scrutinised.
SENATOR You saw the disaster from ground zero last time –
JIM Yes but – it’s a completely different moment, you’re a very different candidate –
SENATOR In some ways.
JIM OK – fair –
SENATOR If I were to run, what advice would you give me – at this extremely early stage? Two hundred words or less.
JIM First off, don’t think of it as early. I get that the primaries are over two years away – but your persona as it’s defined over the next six months – your “brand” – will not be something you can change down the line. So don’t worry about, say, appealing to the left now so you can move to the centre later – all that old conventional wisdom, throw it out. Technology has made time different. The way people see you now is basically how they’ll see you in 2020.
SENATOR OK. I think that was at least 50 words.
JIM All right – what no one at the upper level of the campaign understood last time is what people – Americans – are really like now. They were obsessed with “data” and their only real sense of actual human beings was this vague image of hard-working, fundamentally decent people who just wanted things to be a little bit easier and a little more fair – and it was felt that if we could get enough of those people, as well as turn out minorities, we’d win.
SENATOR And we were wrong, basically.
JIM Not just basically – we were wrong. Regardless of the fact that we won the popular vote, or any other argument that tries to justify the approach –
SENATOR OK. Continue – I’m granting you a hundred-word bonus.
JIM That sentimental idea of what Americans are like no longer holds in an era where you have the internet, social media, rapidly changing values – and a deep sense of, you know, doom and gloom that people carry around with them all the time. What I felt – and what I still think – is that to win, a candidate has to understand that the average voter is angry, scared, selfish, somewhat perverse probably – but most of all – and this was the hardest thing to argue for, because it goes against everything politicians are taught to think about voters – pessimistic.
SENATOR Pessimistic.
JIM Yes. I believe that in 2008, post-financial crisis, Americans became fundamentally cynical. We bailed out the bankers, they all got off scot-free, and then they went right back to business as usual. For them, the party never ended, and the politicians made sure of that. While for everyone else – life got harder. Much harder. So after that – voters could no longer deny the essential corruption of our system. Now when they see a politician speaking in optimistic platitudes, they tune them out – think they’re lying, or out of touch – even delusional. Voters who respond to that sort of cliched positivity are dwindling and not enough to get you into office. Do not listen to, in fact run screaming from, anyone who points to midterm election polls, or party approval ratings – or says that if it weren’t for Russian bots we would’ve won – reject all attempts to convince you that the last general election was a blip or a fluke and we should go back to the failed 2016 model. I think I’ve used up my allotment.
SENATOR Very interesting. Now reduce all that to one sentence.
JIM Do not try to be uplifting because optimistic candidates cannot win any more.
SENATOR Very concise. One last question – how do you weaponise pessimism to win an election?
JIM You use it to show you understand how voters feel – you connect with people as they are. Like it or not, the pessimistic candidate won last time. Lunatic that he was, he understood that the country’s overall mood was angry and dark. And no matter how much we want to think that election was unique – a one-off and next time we’ll return to “normal” because his presidency has been such a shitshow – I honestly don’t believe that’s the case.
SENATOR Thank you, Jim. Are you here next week? I might want to talk again before the TV stuff.
JIM Well I’m working on a book right now, with a co-writer, and we’re behind –
SENATOR Maybe they can pick up the slack if I need you for a day, then. What’s the book?
JIM It’s a “behind the scenes” of the last campaign – but a very literary version.
SENATOR So you can sell the rights to HBO and make a lot of money.
JIM Hopefully!
SENATOR Well you certainly have no shortage of material. Thank you, Jim. What you said is very interesting.
(Senator goes.)


theguardian--2020-10-26--Conservative New Hampshire paper backs Biden: 'Trump is 100% wrong for America'

Donald Trump came to the mountains of New Hampshire on Sunday but the New Hampshire Union Leader , a conservative newspaper in a state with a proud conservative tradition , didn ’ t come to him .
In an editorial , the newspaper ’ s board back Joe Biden for president , writing that while Trump is “ not always 100 % wrong … he is 100 % wrong for America.
” It was the first time in more than 100 years the paper had backed a Democrat .
As election day nears with Joe Biden ahead in national and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a string of endorsements go against him .
Among national papers , USA Today made its first official choice – for Biden .
At the weekend in Kansas , a solidly Republican state set to back Trump for president , the Topeka Capital-Journal also went for the Democrat .
Biden “ should be the next president of the United States ” , its editorial board said , “ because he is caring , trustworthy and experienced .
He should be the next president of the United States because he has committed to following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this pandemic.
” A day later , at the White House , Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows admitted defeat against Covid-19 , saying : “ We ’ re not going to control the pandemic.
” “ Yes , you might have heard that [ Biden ] is also a Democrat , ” the Topeka paper added .
“ He deserves your support anyway.
” Trump sought support in New Hampshire on Sunday , despite the state only offering four electoral votes and despite polling averages showing Biden with a lead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greeted by the Union Leader ’ s editorial , which said : “ Joe Biden may not be the president we want , but in 2020 he is the president we desperately need .
He will be a president to bring people together and right the ship of state.
” At the rally , Trump insisted the US was “ rounding the turn ” on Covid .
Recently recovered from his own bout with Covid-19 , he did not discuss record daily case numbers , a national death toll approaching 225,000 or an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mike Pence .
The Union Leader has broken with the Republican candidate before , four years ago , when it backed Chris Christie in the primary , earning Trump ’ s rage , then endorsed the Libertarian Gary Johnson for president .
On Sunday it said it expected to disagree with Biden as president , and suggested readers should “ split the ballot and elect a healthy dose of GOP senators and representatives ” .
But , it concluded : “ Sadly , President Trump has proven himself to be the antithesis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to earn a second term .
”

Sign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletter.
Donald Trump came to the mountains of New Hampshire on Sunday but the New Hampshire Union Leader, a conservative newspaper in a state with a proud conservative tradition, didn’t come to him.
In an editorial, the newspaper’s board back Joe Biden for president, writing that while Trump is “not always 100% wrong … he is 100% wrong for America.”
It was the first time in more than 100 years the paper had backed a Democrat.
As election day nears with Joe Biden ahead in national and battleground state polls, Trump has seen a string of endorsements go against him. Among national papers, USA Today made its first official choice – for Biden.
At the weekend in Kansas, a solidly Republican state set to back Trump for president, the Topeka Capital-Journal also went for the Democrat.
Biden “should be the next president of the United States”, its editorial board said, “because he is caring, trustworthy and experienced. He should be the next president of the United States because he has committed to following the science and leading our country out of this pandemic.”
A day later, at the White House, Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, admitted defeat against Covid-19, saying: “We’re not going to control the pandemic.”
“Yes, you might have heard that [Biden] is also a Democrat,” the Topeka paper added. “He deserves your support anyway.”
Trump sought support in New Hampshire on Sunday, despite the state only offering four electoral votes and despite polling averages showing Biden with a lead of more than 10 points.
He was greeted by the Union Leader’s editorial, which said: “Joe Biden may not be the president we want, but in 2020 he is the president we desperately need. He will be a president to bring people together and right the ship of state.”
At the rally, Trump insisted the US was “rounding the turn” on Covid. Recently recovered from his own bout with Covid-19, he did not discuss record daily case numbers, a national death toll approaching 225,000 or an outbreak among senior staff to his vice-president, Mike Pence.
The Union Leader has broken with the Republican candidate before, four years ago, when it backed Chris Christie in the primary, earning Trump’s rage, then endorsed the Libertarian Gary Johnson for president.
On Sunday it said it expected to disagree with Biden as president, and suggested readers should “split the ballot and elect a healthy dose of GOP senators and representatives”.
But, it concluded: “Sadly, President Trump has proven himself to be the antithesis of thoughtful and pragmatic. He has failed to earn a second term.”


theguardian--2020-10-26--Could rejected mail-in ballots cost Joe Biden the election? | Nathan Robinson

Conservatives have spent the election cycle spreading fear and misinformation about mail-in ballots .
Donald Trump has called mail-in voting a “ scam ” and suggested that millions of counterfeit foreign ballots will be submitted .
PragerU has put out a video calling mail-in balloting a way to “ steal an election ” .
Faced with the absurd conspiracies and criticisms , Democrats have rightly defended mail-in ballots as a crucial way to preserve democracy , especially during a pandemic .
But the fact that expanded mail-in balloting is legitimate and necessary does not mean that Democrats have nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Thomas Edsall of the New York Times documented , because mailed ballots have a higher rate of rejection and are more easily subject to loss and error , Democrats may lose votes they critically need in close states – especially because Democrats are much more likely to vote by mail than Republicans .
( According to one poll , 47 % of Biden voters planned to vote by mail , compared to just 11 % of Trump supporters ) Edsall quotes reporting from the Philadelphia Inquirer on the risk that so-called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crucial swing state .
These are mailed ballots that arrive without the required “ secrecy envelope ” .
The state supreme court has ordered that nonconforming ballots must be thrown out , and the Inquirer points out that if Democrats tend to be voting by mail , the loss of “ naked ballots ” could create a serious problem for Joe Biden in this critical state , with naked ballots becoming the “ hanging chads ” of 2020 .
Donald Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016 by less than 1 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to frankly face up to some of the unique problems of mail-in balloting , because it ’ s far more likely to hurt Democrats than Republicans .
This is not so much because of “ voter fraud ” problems as because ballots get lost and when voters violate bureaucratic requirements , their ballots aren ’ t counted .
The New York Times reported in 2012 that mailed absentee ballots were rejected at twice the rate of in-person votes , and that there were unique opportunities for error .
Mailed votes “ are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth.
” The usual fears of “ voter fraud ” are ill-founded – conservative fear-mongering about it relies on anecdotes rather than data , and PragerU ’ s video hauls out the same tired old stories like the dog that was sent a ballot .
But there are obvious ways that more mail-in balloting can compromise the integrity of elections .
Having the “ secret ballot ” of the voting booth is a critical way to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that they thus can not be coerced by a family member , church leader , employer , etc .
Without the secret ballot , people ’ s votes can be manipulated or coerced by those who have power over them .
Conservative activist Ralph Reed already disclosed that his Faith & Freedom Coalition is going to be “ harvesting ballots in churches this year ” .
Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA believes that the presence of fewer students on college campuses will benefit the right .
Students who want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are more likely to be lost or thrown out .
It ’ s not that states should not be expanding mailed balloting .
It ’ s crucial that the franchise be made as accessible as possible .
The security measures states are taking also ensure that the conspiratorial rightwing claims about counterfeiting are delusional .
What we have to fear is not that the wrong person will vote , or that people will vote more than one .
The problems are more mundane : people make mistakes when they are having to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those mistakes can result in their ballot being invalidated .
Edsall concludes that if the absentee ballot rejection rate is high , and these ballots tilt Democratic , it could “ mean roughly 2.7 million Biden votes would go uncounted , compared with roughly 735,000 Trump votes ” .
Fortunately , Biden is well ahead in polls , but what matters is the outcome in swing states rather than the national popular vote , and it may be that in swing states things are close enough that these are differences that can make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nightmare of the 2000 election , in which just 537 votes gave George W. Bush the presidency .
( Though a full and fair count probably would have resulted in Al Gore winning . )
Of course , it also doesn ’ t help that Donald Trump , and his postmaster general , Louis DeJoy , have been trying to undermine the efficiency of the United States Postal Service .
The USPS has already warned states it may not meet their ballot deadlines , and there have been USPS-related problems with mailed ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general “ identified hundreds of absentee ballots for the April election [ in Wisconsin ] that never made it to voters or couldn ’ t be counted because of postmark problems , ” a problem it attributed to “ receiving outgoing absentee ballots at the last moment from election officials , inconsistent postmarking of ballots and one mail carrier ’ s inattention to getting absentee ballots to voters… ” These errors were on a small scale , and it ’ s important not to extrapolate wildly from individual incidents .
But the closer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the more even a few errors and oversights could shift the result .
Democrats need to push back against right-wing misinformation about mail-in balloting .
But they also need to be aware that its their candidate who could be hurt by the problems that do exist with mailed ballots .
These problems don ’ t come from government malevolence or large-scale conspiracy , but from a combination of normal bureaucratic logistical challenges , the right ’ s effort to undermine the efficiency of government , and the way that power relationships can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secret ballot .
Donald Trump ’ s complaints about mail-in ballots are a disingenuous way to preemptively delegitimize an election result he doesn ’ t like , considering that a Biden victory will partly depend on mailed votes .
But there are still risks to increased mailed balloting – risks that might actually damage Joe Biden ’ s prospects .
• None Nathan Robinson is the editor of Current Affairs and a Guardian US columnist • None Legendary Watergate reporter Bob Woodward will discuss the Trump presidency at a Guardian Live online event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Book tickets here

Conservatives have spent the election cycle spreading fear and misinformation about mail-in ballots. Donald Trump has called mail-in voting a “scam” and suggested that millions of counterfeit foreign ballots will be submitted. PragerU has put out a video calling mail-in balloting a way to “steal an election”. Faced with the absurd conspiracies and criticisms, Democrats have rightly defended mail-in ballots as a crucial way to preserve democracy, especially during a pandemic.
But the fact that expanded mail-in balloting is legitimate and necessary does not mean that Democrats have nothing to fear from it. In fact, as Thomas Edsall of the New York Times documented, because mailed ballots have a higher rate of rejection and are more easily subject to loss and error, Democrats may lose votes they critically need in close states – especially because Democrats are much more likely to vote by mail than Republicans. (According to one poll, 47% of Biden voters planned to vote by mail, compared with just 11% of Trump supporters.)
Edsall quotes reporting from the Philadelphia Inquirer on the risk that so-called “naked ballots” pose in Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state. These are mailed ballots that arrive without the required “secrecy envelope”. The state supreme court has ordered that nonconforming ballots must be thrown out, and the Inquirer points out that if Democrats tend to be voting by mail, the loss of “naked ballots” could create a serious problem for Joe Biden in this critical state, with naked ballots becoming the “hanging chads” of 2020. Donald Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016 by less than 1% of the vote.
It’s important for Democrats to frankly face up to some of the unique problems of mail-in balloting, because it’s far more likely to hurt Democrats than Republicans. This is not so much because of “voter fraud” problems as because ballots get lost and when voters violate bureaucratic requirements, their ballots aren’t counted. The New York Times reported in 2012 that mailed absentee ballots were rejected at twice the rate of in-person votes, and that there were unique opportunities for error. Mailed votes “are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth”.
People make mistakes when they are having to follow a more complex procedure, and those mistakes can result in their ballot being invalidated
The usual fears of “voter fraud” are ill-founded – conservative fearmongering about it relies on anecdotes rather than data, and PragerU’s video hauls out the same tired old stories like the dog that was sent a ballot. But there are obvious ways that more mail-in balloting can compromise the integrity of elections. Having the “secret ballot” of the voting booth is a critical way to ensure that nobody knows how a person voted, and that they thus cannot be coerced by a family member, church leader, employer, etc. Without the secret ballot, people’s votes can be manipulated or coerced by those who have power over them. Conservative activist Ralph Reed already disclosed that his Faith & Freedom Coalition is going to be “harvesting ballots in churches this year”. Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA believes that the presence of fewer students on college campuses will benefit the right. Students who want to vote may have to cast mailed ballots that are more likely to be lost or thrown out.
It’s not that states should not be expanding mailed balloting. It’s crucial that the franchise be made as accessible as possible. The security measures states are taking also ensure that the conspiratorial rightwing claims about counterfeiting are delusional. What we have to fear is not that the wrong person will vote, or that people will vote more than one. The problems are more mundane: people make mistakes when they are having to follow a more complex procedure, and those mistakes can result in their ballot being invalidated.
Edsall concludes that if the absentee ballot rejection rate is high, and these ballots tilt Democratic, it could “mean roughly 2.7 million Biden votes would go uncounted, compared with roughly 735,000 Trump votes”. Fortunately, Biden is well ahead in polls, but what matters is the outcome in swing states rather than the national popular vote, and it may be that in swing states things are close enough that these are differences that can make a difference. We must remember the nightmare of the 2000 election, in which just 537 votes gave George W Bush the presidency. (Though a full and fair count probably would have resulted in Al Gore winning.)
Of course, it also doesn’t help that Donald Trump, and his postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, have been trying to undermine the efficiency of the United States Postal Service. The USPS has already warned states it may not meet their ballot deadlines, and there have been USPS-related problems with mailed ballots. This summer, the USPS inspector general “identified hundreds of absentee ballots for the April election [in Wisconsin] that never made it to voters or couldn’t be counted because of postmark problems”, a problem it attributed to “receiving outgoing absentee ballots at the last moment from election officials, inconsistent postmarking of ballots and one mail carrier’s inattention to getting absentee ballots to voters …” These errors were on a small scale, and it’s important not to extrapolate wildly from individual incidents. But the closer the November election is in particular states, the more even a few errors and oversights could shift the result.
Democrats need to push back against rightwing misinformation about mail-in balloting. But they also need to be aware that it is their candidate who could be hurt by the problems that do exist with mailed ballots. These problems don’t come from government malevolence or large-scale conspiracy, but from a combination of normal bureaucratic logistical challenges, the right’s effort to undermine the efficiency of government, and the way that power relationships can influence votes in the absence of a secret ballot. Donald Trump’s complaints about mail-in ballots are a disingenuous way to pre-emptively delegitimize an election result he doesn’t like, considering that a Biden victory will partly depend on mailed votes. But there are still risks to increased mailed balloting – risks that might actually damage Joe Biden’s prospects.


theguardian--2020-10-26--Revealed: the full extent of Trump’s ‘meat cleaver’ assault on US wilderness

Scientists at the University of Wyoming discovered the Red Desert was the starting point of a wondrous large-mammal migration .
@ @ @ @ @ mule deer – a struggling species unique to the west – travel a 300-mile round @ @ @ @ @ to forests south of Jackson Hole and back to feast on fresh greenery and bulk @ @ @ @ @ .
`` It is the longest migration so far recorded for the species , '' @ @ @ @ @ a scientist with the US Geological Survey and the leader of the Wyoming Migration Initiative @ @ @ @ @ Wyoming and the west .
Each animal learns the route from its herd and follows @ @ @ @ @ rest of its life '' , he said .
But around and within the corridor @ @ @ @ @ oil and gas drilling is on the rise .
This magnificent migration depends on the @ @ @ @ @ landscape , which includes private land as well as vast tracts of public land .

What has happened at Bears Ears is not an exception. Under Donald Trump, the government has auctioned off millions of acres of public lands to the fossil fuel industry, the Guardian can reveal, in the most comprehensive accounting to date of how much public land the administration has handed over to oil and gas drillers over the past four years.
US land Trump opened up for oil and gas drilling Leases sold for oil and gas 10.6m acres Leases offered for oil and gas 108m acres Guardian graphic. Source: The Wilderness Society Action Fund US land Trump opened up for oil and gas drilling Leases sold for oil and gas Leases offered for oil and gas 10.6m acres 108m acres Guardian graphic. Source: The Wilderness Society Action Fund US land Trump opened up for oil and gas drilling Leases offered Leases sold 10.6m acres 108m acres American west The Gulf Alaska Guardian graphic. Source: The Wilderness Society Action Fund
While the US government is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of how public lands should be used, Trump has stacked the administration with former fossil-fuel lobbyists and conservative activists. Often, the department sells access to these lands at rock bottom prices and in places that are sacred to tribal communities, important to imperiled animals, and critical to prevent runaway climate change.
New research conducted by the Wilderness Society Action Fund, and shared with the Guardian, has found:
Of the more than 600m acres of US public land, the Trump administration has leased 5.4m acres – an area the size of New Jersey – to oil and gas companies.
Drilling from the leases could result in the equivalent of 4.1bn metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions – heating the planet as much as more than 1,051 power plants burning coal for a year.
Trump has sought to remove protections in some of the most ecologically sensitive places in the country, from the Arctic national wildlife refuge in Alaska to the Lower Rio Grande Valley national wildlife refuge in Texas.
The interior department has also leased 4.9m acres in the Gulf of Mexico to drillers, which could have the same climate impact as putting a million more cars on the road for a year.
Should Trump win another term, leasing may grow. A total of 50m acres are being made available to drillers in proposed plans for public lands.
“Throughout his term, the president has stripped protections from wild places that provide critical habitat for many plants and animals, clean water and offer fantastic opportunities for recreation and exploration,” the Wilderness Society Action Fund explains in a new report. “Once they are sold off to the fossil fuel industry, sometimes for as little as $2 an acre, these lands will be scarred by drilling rigs, roads, pipelines and pollution wherever drilling occurs.”
Trump signs an executive order in December 2017 drastically reducing the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah. Photograph: George Frey/Getty Images
An interior department spokesman, Conner Swanson, argued that the Trump administration had leased the least amount of acreage of any administration since the leasing data was first collected in 1985, but he did not respond to a request for that data.
The Trump administration has in fact offered almost as many acres for drilling in four years – almost 25m acres – as the Obama administration did in eight years. The acreage ultimately leased by oil companies under Trump is a fraction of what was offered, in part owing to unfavorable market conditions for fossil fuels, and is comparable to Obama’s record.
The influence of industry-aligned pressure groups in Bears Ears exemplifies a broader trend under the Trump administration.
For the Hopi, Bears Ears “is their church and altar”, said Patrick Gonzales-Rogers, the executive director of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. The Hopi and their allies sought to protect Bears Ears “in the same way you would protect the cathedral at Notre Dame”.
Yet the government rode roughshod over the objections of Native Americans to cater to a handful of special interests, including the uranium mining company Energy Fuels, which lobbied to shrink the monument in the hopes of future mining opportunities, and the Sutherland Institute, a Utah thinktank.
Founded to “trumpet” conservative principles, Sutherland has received more than $1m from Koch Brothers-linked foundations and millions more from other wealthy benefactors. It is a member of the State Policy Network of influential conservative ideological groups, many of which advocate for weakening federal environmental laws and transferring federal lands to state control.
Outline of human hands imprinted on a rock face in Bears Ears. Photograph: Photo by George Frey/Getty Images
In 2016 and 2017, it helped lead a concerted pressure campaign against the Bears Ears monument – flooding news outlets with quotes and op-eds, publishing videos and organizing a rally in Washington. A Sutherland staffer even drafted language that the Utah legislature approved calling on Trump to eliminate protections for Bears Ears.
Throughout 2017, Sutherland also maintained steady communication with interior department appointees, exchanging talking points, research and press releases about Bears Ears and sometimes even obtaining inside intel about forthcoming decisions, according to public records obtained by the Guardian. “This is fantastic; thank you for sharing!!” wrote an interior appointee in an August 2017 email in response to a Sutherland report attacking modern monument designations. Sutherland did not respond to a request for comment.
“The lobbyist-filled Trump administration didn't just carve and cut corners for these oil-funded front groups,” says Jayson O’Neill, of the Western Values Project, a conservation group, “it gleefully took a meat cleaver to our national monuments and land protections."
In December 2017, Trump traveled to Utah to deliver the conservative thinktank world a victory. Surrounded by GOP officials and activists at the state capitol, he announced the effective abolition of Bears Ears monument.
The Hopi and four other tribes vowed to fight back and sued in federal court, where lawsuits are ongoing.
But for America’s public lands, Bears Ears was just the beginning.


theguardian--2020-10-26--Why Biden calls Trump a 'climate arsonist' – video explainer

Humanity is said to have just 10 years left to start seriously tackling the climate crisis before passing the 'point @ @ @ @ @ multiple-degree temperature increases , rising sea levels and increasingly disastrous wildfires , hurricanes , floods @ @ @ @ @ say the US is far off the path of what is necessary for the nation @ @ @ @ @ catastrophic global heating , particularly as in the past four years Donald Trump has shredded @ @ @ @ @ , animals and people .
As part of our climate countdown series , the Guardian @ @ @ @ @ the issue and examines why the Democratic presidential nominee , Joe Biden , calls his @ @ @ @ @ Revealed : the full extent of Trump 's 'meat cleaver ' assault on US wilderness @ @ @ @ @ to Vote – our weekly US election newsletter

Emily Holden, Alex Healey, Katie Lamborn and Nikhita Chulani

Humanity is said to have just 10 years left to start seriously tackling the climate crisis before passing the 'point of no return' with multiple-degree temperature increases, rising sea levels and increasingly disastrous wildfires, hurricanes, floods and droughts predicted.
Scientists say the US is far off the path of what is necessary for the nation and the world to avoid catastrophic global heating, particularly as in the past four years Donald Trump has shredded environmental protections for American lands, animals and people.
As part of our climate countdown series, the Guardian's Emily Holden looks at the issue and examines why the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, calls his rival a 'climate arsonist'


theguardian--2020-10-27--Amy Coney Barrett is sworn in as supreme court justice - live

The scales of justice at the US supreme court have tipped firmly towards a conservative ideology for decadesto come after @ @ @ @ @ Coney Barrett , according to a dataset that measures the values of US justices .
@ @ @ @ @ , replaces the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the court ’ s most liberal justice @ @ @ @ @ on the highest court in the country .
With Barrett on the supreme court , @ @ @ @ @ human rights issues such as access to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights will become more conservative @ @ @ @ @ to support those concerns .
By looking at justices ’ past voting records , academics @ @ @ @ @ their views on a spectrum from “ more liberal ” to “ more conservative ” @ @ @ @ @ the supreme court database was analyzed by Lee Epstein and Andrew Martin of Washington University @ @ @ @ @ Quinn of the University of Michigan .
A score was then assigned to each of @ @ @

Maanvi Singh (now), Lauren Aratani, Joan E Greve, Martin Belam and Tom McCarthy (earlier)

27 Oct 2020 05.12 GMT Summary The Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court. Lawmakers voted along party lines, with Republican Susan Collins of Maine joining united Democrats to vote against Barrett’s confirmation. Barrett, 48, secured a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court.
Lawmakers voted along party lines, with Republican Susan Collins of Maine joining united Democrats to vote against Barrett’s confirmation. Barrett, 48, secured a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court. Donald Trump held a celebratory swearing-in ceremony at the White House later tonight. Weeks ago, a White House event celebrating Barrett’s nomination in the Rose Garden has been linked to a coronavirus outbreak that infected Trump and several other aides, lawmakers and campaign staff. This time, most attendees wore masks and kept social distance.
Weeks ago, a White House event celebrating Barrett’s nomination in the Rose Garden has been linked to a coronavirus outbreak that infected Trump and several other aides, lawmakers and campaign staff. This time, most attendees wore masks and kept social distance. Right before the Senate voted on Barrett’s confirmation, the supreme court – short one justice - sided with Republicans to prevent Wisconsin from counting mail-in ballots received after election day. In a 5-3 ruling, the justices on Monday refused to reinstate a lower court order that called for mailed ballots to be counted if they are received up to six days after the 3 November election. A federal appeals court had already put that order on hold.
to prevent Wisconsin from counting mail-in ballots received after election day. In a 5-3 ruling, the justices on Monday refused to reinstate a lower court order that called for mailed ballots to be counted if they are received up to six days after the 3 November election. A federal appeals court had already put that order on hold. The US markets closed sharply down, in apparent response to the surge in coronavirus cases and the dwindling chances of a deal being reached on a relief bill before Election Day.
in apparent response to the surge in coronavirus cases and the dwindling chances of a deal being reached on a relief bill before Election Day. Dr Anthony Fauci said the US is still in its first wave of coronavirus infections, as cases surge in dozens of states. “I look at it more as an elongated — and an exacerbation of — the original first wave,” Fauci told Yahoo Finance today. The US set a single-day record for new cases over the weekend, reporting more than 83,000 cases on Friday.
as cases surge in dozens of states. “I look at it more as an elongated — and an exacerbation of — the original first wave,” Fauci told Yahoo Finance today. The US set a single-day record for new cases over the weekend, reporting more than 83,000 cases on Friday. Joe Biden said Barrett’s “rushed and unprecedented” confirmation “should be a stark reminder to every American that your vote matters.” The former vice president, drew a contrast between his campaign events and the big rallies Trump has been holding, saying he is “not putting on super spreaders.”
My colleague Tom McCarthy will continue to bring you live updates. Follow along with our new blog here: Amy Coney Barrett confirmed as Democrats warn of affront to democracy – live Read more
27 Oct 2020 04.33 GMT Julian Borger The Republican party has become dramatically more illiberal in the past two decades and now more closely resembles ruling parties in autocratic societies than its former center-right equivalents in Europe, according to a new international study. In a significant shift since 2000, the GOP has taken to demonizing and encouraging violence against its opponents, adopting attitudes and tactics comparable to ruling nationalist parties in Hungary, India, Poland and Turkey. The shift has both led to and been driven by the rise of Donald Trump. By contrast the Democratic party has changed little in its attachment to democratic norms, and in that regard has remained similar to center-right and center-left parties in western Europe. Their principal difference is the approach to the economy. The new study, the largest ever of its kind, was carried out by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, using newly developed methods to measure and quantify the health of the world’s democracies at a time when authoritarianism is on the rise. Republicans closely resemble autocratic parties in Hungary and Turkey – study Read more
27 Oct 2020 04.00 GMT Biden recently said if he’s elected president, he would appoint a special commission to study the US court system and make recommendations to reform it. Amid the Republican rush to appoint Barrett ahead of an election they have a good chance of losing up and down the ballot, many Democrats have urged Biden to commit to adding justices to the court to restore balance between liberals and moderates on the bench. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Biden said “there’s a number of alternatives that go well beyond ‘packing’” the court. “The last thing we need to do is turn the supreme court into just a political football, [that means] whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want,” Biden said. “Presidents come and go. Supreme court justices stay for generations.” The constitution does not specify how many justices there should be on the supreme court, leaving that to Congress to decide. The number of justices has expanded and contracted several times over the years.
Updated at 04.24 GMT
27 Oct 2020 03.54 GMT Joe Biden has issued a statement on the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court, saying that the “rushed and unprecedented” proceedings “should be a stark reminder to every American that your vote matters.” The rushed and unprecedented confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court, in the middle of an ongoing election, should be a stark reminder to every American that your vote matters. https://t.co/NwEi4jyMd1 — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 27, 2020 The Democratic nominee said: Just a few days after Election Day next week, the Supreme Court will hear the case on the Affordable Care Act. While panicked and erratic in mishandling the pandemic, Donald Trump has been crystal clear on one thing — for the past four years, and again just last night on 60 Minutes — he wants to tear down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety and take away your health care and protections for pre-existing conditions. This goal — the goal of the Republican Party for ten years — was a litmus test in selecting this nominee, regardless of the damage done to the U.S. Senate, to Americans’ faith in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and to our democracy, and regardless of how the Affordable Care Act has protected hundreds of millions of people before and during the pandemic. But we will not give up. If you want to protect your health care, if you want your voice to be heard in Washington, if you want to say no, this abuse of power doesn’t represent you — then turn out and vote.
Updated at 04.33 GMT
27 Oct 2020 03.48 GMT In Philadelphia, protesters took to the streets after police killed Walter Wallace Jr, a 27-year-old Black man. Police with shields and riot gear attempted to disband a crowd gathered near the police district headquarters. The Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Anna Orso captured a video of officers pushing back at the crowd after some people threw bottles. with a group of dozens still in west Philly, about a block from precinct. Police with shields pushed back crowds as ppl threw bottles pic.twitter.com/wRMEBUGNri — Anna Orso (@anna_orso) October 27, 2020 Walter Wallace Sr told the Inquirer that his son appeared to have been shot 10 times. From the Inquirer: “Why didn’t they use a Taser?” Wallace Sr asked outside a family residence on the block. “His mother was trying to defuse the situation.” Wallace Sr said his son struggled with mental health issues and was on medication. “He has mental issues. Why you have to gun him down?” Read more here.
Updated at 04.26 GMT
27 Oct 2020 03.20 GMT As my colleague Sam Levine has spotted, justice Brett Kavanaugh’s justification in today’s supreme court ruling that blocked a deadline extension to count absentee ballots in Wisconsin doesn’t totally add up. Kavanaugh cites Vermont as an example of a state that “decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules” due to the pandemic, even though, in fact, the state authorized the secretary of state to automatically mail a ballot to all registered voters this year, in order to make it easier for everyone to vote absentee. Mailing every voter a ballot by 10/1 factored into our decision to stick with an election day receipt deadline instead of postmark. We also authorized ballot processing 30 days out. Those are our VT specific solutions, but other states needs are different. Count. Every. Vote. — Vermont Secretary of State’s Office (@VermontSOS) October 27, 2020 “Mailing every voter a ballot by 10/1 factored into our decision to stick with an election day receipt deadline,” the Vermont secretary of state’s office said.
27 Oct 2020 02.53 GMT Emily Holden Amy Coney Barrett’s addition to the court could leave an indelible mark on how fiercely the US, and perhaps the rest of the world, can fight rising temperatures, even as scientists warn society has just years to take serious action. Barrett, a 48-year-old devout Catholic, has said she does not hold “firm views” on climate change, calling it a “very contentious matter of public debate”. Because her father worked in oil and gas, she has previously recused herself from cases involving Royal Dutch Shell. From deciding the legality of climate regulations for polluters to determining whether oil companies should pay for climate damages, Barrett and five other conservative justices will wield considerable influence. While Barrett’s history of decisions on environmental issues is limited, her appointment to the court by Trump – as his third justice in four years – solidifies a transfer of power from an often progressive or moderate court. “Adding one more conservative justice just gives all the conservative justices more fuel to be more political in what they’re going to do,” said Jean Su, an attorney who directs the energy justice program for the Center for Biological Diversity. Why Amy Coney Barrett's addition to supreme court may undermine climate fight Read more
27 Oct 2020 02.36 GMT Tom McCarthy Prominently sidelined, now, is Chief Justice John Roberts, whose institutionalist instincts led him to cast crossover votes to prevent the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, to preserve a program protecting young immigrant arrivals and to uphold, on the grounds of precedent, the basic protections conferred by Roe v Wade. It is no longer Roberts’ court, analysts say, because the chief justice has been shuffled to the bottom of the conservative deck, which now stacks high enough on the court, with the arrival of Barrett, to dispatch whatever rulings it pleases on issues from environmental regulations to reproductive rights to voting rights. “She will help to dramatically flip the balance on the court,” said Nan Aron, president of the progressive Alliance for Justice advocacy group, of Barrett. “It will be certain now that the right has captured the federal judiciary, at the supreme court level, and that they are seeking to advance a dangerous agenda.” Every issue of importance to progressive activists, starting with the basic right of every American to vote and extending to the need for regulations that protect employees from dangerous working conditions and consumers from predatory lenders, is on the chopping block with Barrett on the court, analysts say.
The court has recently issued rulings about the status of immigrants, the protection of LGBTQ+ people under anti-discrimination statutes, the ability of a president to come under criminal investigation, and the right to an abortion that could be overturned or subsumed in a churn of cases tailored by conservative activists to appeal to the new bench lineup. Progressive totems on the chopping block as US supreme court veers right Read more
27 Oct 2020 02.19 GMT Tom McCarthy Amy Coney Barrett is a constitutional ‘originalist’ – but what does it mean? As the latest conservative judge to declare herself a constitutional “originalist” during confirmation hearings, Barrett could influence what kinds of arguments hold sway on the court for years to come – and what cases the court hears in the first place.
It has been rare over the course of American history for a particular brand of judicial philosophy to gain such prominence that it catches the public eye. A torrent of judicial appointments by Donald Trump over the last four years, however, including three supreme court nominees espousing “originalism”, has pushed the term into the political discourse. Barrett defined the term for the Senate. “So in English, that means that I interpret the constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it,” she said. “So that meaning doesn’t change over time. And it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” Aziz Huq, a professor of law at the University of Chicago, said that there is a thriving academic debate about the merits of originalism that is only “loosely connected” with the current political discourse, in which the term is often used on the right as a philosophical fig leaf for a conservative political agenda. “The political discourse of originalism is closely aligned with the policy preferences of the Republican party that has promoted judges who happen to take this perspective,” Huq said. “It purports to be something that is moving outside politics, but it is – in its origins, and in the way that it has been applied in the courts – it is tightly linked to a particular partisan political orientation.” Elected officials and others who have noticed that 86% of Trump’s judicial appointees are white and 75% are men have begun to hear something else in the term: a nostalgic appeal to the exclusive hold on power by white men at the time the constitution was written – a sense reinforced by the president’s repeated personal refusal to disavow white supremacy.
Amy Coney Barrett is a constitutional ‘originalist’ – but what does it mean? Read more


theguardian--2020-10-27--Wisconsin can't count mail-in ballots received after election day, supreme court rules

The US supreme court has sided with Republicans to prevent Wisconsin from counting mail-in ballots that are received after election day .
In a 5-3 ruling , the justices on Monday refused to reinstate a lower court order that called for mailed ballots to be counted if they are received up to six days after the 3 November election .
A federal appeals court had already put that order on hold .
The ruling awards a victory for Republicans in their crusade against expanding voting rights and access .
It also came just moments before the Republican-controlled Senate voted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the right that locks in a conservative majority on the nation ’ s highest court for years to come .
The three liberal justices dissented .
John Roberts , the chief justice , last week joined the liberals to preserve a Pennsylvania state court order extending the absentee ballot deadline but voted the other way in the Wisconsin case , which has moved through federal courts .
“ Different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations and require , in these particular circumstances , that we allow the modification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin , ” Roberts wrote .
“ As the Covid pandemic rages , the court has failed to adequately protect the nation ’ s voters , ” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent that noted the state allowed the six-day extension for primary voting in April and that roughly 80,000 ballots were received after the day of the primary election .
Democrats argued that the flood of absentee ballots and other challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic makes it necessary to extend the period in which ballots can be counted .
Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the nation ’ s hotspots for Covid-19 , with hospitals treating a record high number of patients with the disease .
The supreme court allowed a similar extension to go into effect for Wisconsin ’ s April election , a decision that led to nearly 80,000 additional votes getting counted in the contest ( Trump carried the state in 2016 by just under 23,000 votes ) .
Republicans opposed the extension , saying that voters have plenty of opportunities to cast their ballots by the close of polls on election day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed so close to the election .
The justices often say nothing , or very little , about the reasons for their votes in these emergency cases , but on Monday , four justices wrote opinions totaling 35 pages to lay out their competing rationales .
Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the complications the pandemic adds to voting , but defended the court ’ s action .
“ No one doubts that conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges .
But none of that means individual judges may improvise with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people ’ s representatives have adopted , ” Gorsuch wrote .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh , meanwhile , echoed Trump in writing that states should announce results on election night .
States “ want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night , or as soon as possible thereafter ” , he wrote .
“ Moreover , particularly in a presidential election , counting all the votes quickly can help the state promptly resolve any disputes , address any need for recounts , and begin the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an expeditious manner.
” He also wrote states had an interest in avoiding “ the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day.
” That comment earned a sharp rebuke from Kagan , who noted that the bigger threat to election “ integrity ” was valid votes going uncounted .
“ nothing could be more ‘ suspicio [ us ] ” or “ improp [ er ] ’ than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fractious times , is to disserve the electoral process , ” she wrote .
In a significant footnote , Kavanaugh also wrote that state courts do not have a “ blank check ” to step in on state laws governing federal elections , endorsing conservative justices ’ rationale in deciding the election in 2000 between George W Bush and Al Gore .
Two decades ago , in Bush v Gore , the supreme court decided – effectively – that Bush would be the US president after settling a recount dispute in the swing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three conservative justices – William Rehnquist , Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – said that the Florida supreme court “ impermissibly distorted ” the state ’ s election code by ordering a recount of a close election , during which voting machines were found to have issues correctly counting the votes .
In Monday ’ s ruling , Kavanaugh and Gorsuch – both Trump appointees – endorsed that view expressed in the Bush v Gore case , a move that could foretell how the court , which now has a 6-3 conservative majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential election are contested .
Justices Thomas , Samuel Alito , Gorsuch , and Kavanaugh recently voted to block a deadline extension to count ballots in Pennsylvania .
However , with only eight justice on the court at the time , and the conservative justice John Roberts siding with liberals – at tied court ultimately upheld the deadline extension .
But Pennsylvania Republicans , sensing an ally in Barrett , have asked for a re-do .
In making their case , they are arguing that the state supreme court overstepped by ordering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent by election day but arrive up to three days later .

The US supreme court has sided with Republicans to prevent Wisconsin from counting mail-in ballots that are received after election day.
In a 5-3 ruling, the justices on Monday refused to reinstate a lower court order that called for mailed ballots to be counted if they are received up to six days after the 3 November election. A federal appeals court had already put that order on hold.
The ruling awards a victory for Republicans in their crusade against expanding voting rights and access. It also came just moments before the Republican-controlled Senate voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, a victory for the right that locks in a conservative majority on the nation’s highest court for years to come.
The three liberal justices dissented. John Roberts, the chief justice, last week joined the liberals to preserve a Pennsylvania state court order extending the absentee ballot deadline but voted the other way in the Wisconsin case, which has moved through federal courts.
“Different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations and require, in these particular circumstances, that we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania but not Wisconsin,” Roberts wrote.
“As the Covid pandemic rages, the court has failed to adequately protect the nation’s voters,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent that noted the state allowed the six-day extension for primary voting in April and that roughly 80,000 ballots were received after the day of the primary election.
Democrats argued that the flood of absentee ballots and other challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic makes it necessary to extend the period in which ballots can be counted. Wisconsin, a swing state, is also one of the nation’s hotspots for Covid-19, with hospitals treating a record high number of patients with the disease. The supreme court allowed a similar extension to go into effect for Wisconsin’s April election, a decision that led to nearly 80,000 additional votes getting counted in the contest (Trump carried the state in 2016 by just under 23,000 votes).
Republicans opposed the extension, saying that voters have plenty of opportunities to cast their ballots by the close of polls on election day and that the rules should not be changed so close to the election.
The justices often say nothing, or very little, about the reasons for their votes in these emergency cases, but on Monday, four justices wrote opinions totaling 35 pages to lay out their competing rationales.
Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the complications the pandemic adds to voting, but defended the court’s action.
“No one doubts that conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges. But none of that means individual judges may improvise with their own election rules in place of those the people’s representatives have adopted,” Gorsuch wrote.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, echoed Trump in writing that states should announce results on election night.
States “want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter”, he wrote. “Moreover, particularly in a presidential election, counting all the votes quickly can help the state promptly resolve any disputes, address any need for recounts, and begin the process of canvassing and certifying the election results in an expeditious manner.” He also wrote states had an interest in avoiding “the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.”
That comment earned a sharp rebuke from Kagan, who said “there are no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted”.
She noted that the bigger threat to election “integrity” was valid votes going uncounted. “nothing could be more ‘suspicio[us]’ or “improp[er]’ than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process,” she wrote.
Kavanaugh cited Vermont as an example of a state that “decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules” due to the pandemic, even though, in fact, the state authorized the secretary of state to automatically mail a ballot to all registered voters this year, in order to make it easier for everyone to vote absentee.
In a significant footnote, Kavanaugh also wrote that state courts do not have a “blank check” to step in on state laws governing federal elections, endorsing conservative justices’ rationale in deciding the election in 2000 between George W Bush and Al Gore.
Two decades ago, in Bush v Gore, the supreme court decided – effectively – that Bush would be the US president after settling a recount dispute in the swing state of Florida. Back then, three conservative justices – William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – said that the Florida supreme court “impermissibly distorted” the state’s election code by ordering a recount of a close election, during which voting machines were found to have issues correctly counting the votes.
In Monday’s ruling, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch – both Trump appointees – endorsed that view expressed in the Bush v Gore case, a move that could foretell how the court, which now has a 6-3 conservative majority, would rule if the results of the presidential election are contested.
Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh recently voted to block a deadline extension to count ballots in Pennsylvania. However, with only eight justice on the court at the time, and the conservative justice John Roberts siding with liberals – at tied court ultimately upheld the deadline extension.
But Pennsylvania Republicans, sensing an ally in Barrett, have asked for a re-do. In making their case, they are arguing that the state supreme court overstepped by ordering officials to count mail-in ballots that are sent by election day but arrive up to three days later.


theguardian--2020-10-27--Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to supreme court in major victory for US conservatives

The US Senate has confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court , delivering Donald Trump a huge but partisan victory just eight days before the election and locking in rightwing domination of the nation ’ s highest court for years to come .
The vote was a formality , with senators divided almost entirely along party lines , voting 52 to 48 with just one Republican breaking ranks .
But it still marked a seismic moment for Trump , for the supreme court and for American democracy .
For the president , it meant his legacy on judicial appointees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s election .
Trump will have placed three conservative justices on the court , albeit in highly contentious circumstances .
For the supreme court , it sealed an unassailable six to three balance between conservatives and liberal justices .
The oldest of those conservatives , Clarence Thomas , is 72 and still has potentially many years to serve within his lifetime appointment .
Mitch McConnell , the Republican majority leader , underlined the political importance of the moment when he said on Sunday : “ A lot of what we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be undone sooner or later by the next election .
They won ’ t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.
” For US democracy , the confirmation gives the conservative justices the upper hand on such hot-button issues as abortion , same-sex marriage and the climate crisis – areas where public opinion is firmly in favor of progressive change .
Following the vote , a swearing-in ceremony was held at the White House .
Trump introduced Barrett saying that her addition to the court carried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In her speech , Barrett said she would conduct her new job “ independently of both branches [ of government ] and of my own preferences ” .
She thanked the senate for “ the confidence you have placed in me ” , ignoring the inconvenient truth that half the political composition of the chamber had turned its back on her .
The sole rebel from party ranks was the Republican senator Susan Collins who voted against Barrett ’ s confirmation .
Earlier in the day Collins said she had based her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualifications but on a sense of fairness , though Collins ’ s tough re-election fight in Maine no doubt focused her attention .
The confirmation will leave a residue of bitter partisan rancor given the Republican rush to push Barrett through days before the election – the closest confirmation to a presidential election in US history – having refused four years ago to countenance Barack Obama ’ s pick for the supreme court on grounds that the people should decide .
Chuck Schumer , the top Democrat in the Senate cast Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ darkest days in the 231-year history ” of the Senate in his party ’ s closing arguments .
Addressing his Republican peers , he said : “ You may get Amy Coney Barrett on to the supreme court but you will never , never get your credibility back.
” Joe Biden also protested the confirmation .
During a campaign stop in Pennsylvania , he tweeted : “ More than 60 million Americans have already voted .
They deserve to have their voices heard on who replaced justice Ginsburg.
” McConnell was dismissive of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50-year-old tactic .
“ What they want is activist judges , a small panel of lawyers with elite education to reason backwards from outcomes and enlighten all the rest of us , ” he said shortly before the Senate vote was called .
Barrett , 48 , becomes only the fifth woman to sit on the supreme court .
Trump moved quickly to nominate her to succeed the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who died on 18 September at age 87 .
Barrett , a favorite of Christian conservatives , signed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturning of Roe v Wade , the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion , and called its legacy “ barbaric ” .
She did not disclose the ad to the Senate .
Trump has also said he expects the court to decide the outcome of a disputed election , as it did in 2000 , and wants Barrett on the bench for any election-related cases .
There are major voting rights disputes already lodged with lower courts in North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that could come before Barrett and her new colleagues on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ballot .
By the end of this month Barrett could also be asked to rule on the Affordable Care Act , aka Obamacare .
The healthcare protections of millions of Americans , including those with pre-existing conditions , hang in the balance .
As soon as Monday ’ s confirmation vote was completed , some 150 guests began to assemble on the South Lawn of the White House to celebrate Barrett ’ s arrival at the pinnacle of US justice .
She was sworn in at an outdoor ceremony with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stalwart of the court ’ s conservative wing which she now joins .
The decision to go ahead with the ceremony was in itself contentious .
Last month Barrett ’ s nomination was marked at a similar event in the White House Rose Garden , and promptly turned into a “ superspreader ” incident linked to an outbreak of infection among officials including the president .
Despite that chilling prequel , Barrett was seen talking to Thomas within a couple of feet of each other , both without masks .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lady Melania Trump and the new justice ’ s husband Jesse Barrett also went ostentatiously unmasked .
Adding to the controversy around Monday night ’ s proceedings , the swearing in came just days after five people in the inner circle of the vice-president , Mike Pence , also tested positive .
Pence has continued to campaign in the election despite being exposed to the virus , having been declared exempt from the need to quarantine by dint of being an “ essential worker ” .

Ed Pilkington in New York and David Smith in Washington

The US Senate has confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court, delivering Donald Trump a huge but partisan victory just eight days before the election and locking in rightwing domination of the nation’s highest court for years to come.
01:12 Amy Coney Barrett takes oath after being confirmed to US supreme court – video
The vote was a formality, with senators divided almost entirely along party lines, voting 52 to 48 with just one Republican breaking ranks. But it still marked a seismic moment for Trump, for the supreme court and for American democracy.
For the president, it meant his legacy on judicial appointees is secure whatever the outcome of next week’s election. Trump will have placed three conservative justices on the court, albeit in highly contentious circumstances.
For the supreme court, it sealed an unassailable six to three balance between conservatives and liberal justices. The oldest of those conservatives, Clarence Thomas, is 72 and still has potentially many years to serve within his lifetime appointment.
Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, underlined the political importance of the moment when he said on Sunday: “A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. They won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”
For US democracy, the confirmation gives the conservative justices the upper hand on such hot-button issues as abortion, same-sex marriage and the climate crisis – areas where public opinion is firmly in favor of progressive change.
05:10 Amy Coney Barrett: key moments from the supreme court confirmation hearings – video
Following the vote, a swearing-in ceremony was held at the White House. Trump introduced Barrett saying that her addition to the court carried forward “the cause of freedom”. In her speech, Barrett said she would conduct her new job “independently of both branches [of government] and of my own preferences”.
She thanked the Senate for “the confidence you have placed in me”, ignoring the inconvenient truth that half the political composition of the chamber had turned its back on her.
The sole rebel from party ranks was the Republican senator Susan Collins who voted against Barrett’s confirmation. Earlier in the day Collins said she had based her decision not on the judge’s qualifications but on a sense of fairness, though Collins’s tough re-election fight in Maine no doubt focused her attention.
The confirmation will leave a residue of bitter partisan rancor given the Republican rush to push Barrett through days before the election – the closest confirmation to a presidential election in US history – having refused four years ago to countenance Barack Obama’s pick for the supreme court on grounds that the people should decide.
Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate cast Barrett’s confirmation as one of the “darkest days in the 231-year history” of the Senate in his party’s closing arguments. Addressing his Republican peers, he said: “You may get Amy Coney Barrett on to the supreme court but you will never, never get your credibility back.”
Joe Biden also protested the confirmation. During a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, he tweeted: “More than 60 million Americans have already voted. They deserve to have their voices heard on who replaced Justice Ginsburg.”
McConnell was dismissive of Democratic laments, deriding them as a 50-year-old tactic. “What they want is activist judges, a small panel of lawyers with elite education to reason backwards from outcomes and enlighten all the rest of us,” he said shortly before the Senate vote was called.
Barrett, 48, becomes only the fifth woman to sit on the supreme court. Trump moved quickly to nominate her to succeed the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on 18 September at age 87.
Melania Trump, Donald Trump, Amy Coney Barrett and Jesse Barrett stand on the balcony following the swearing-in ceremony. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP
Barrett, a favorite of Christian conservatives, signed a 2006 newspaper ad that called for the overturning of Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion, and called its legacy “barbaric”. She did not disclose the ad to the Senate.
Trump has also said he expects the court to decide the outcome of a disputed election, as it did in 2000, and wants Barrett on the bench for any election-related cases. There are major voting rights disputes already lodged with lower courts in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that could come before Barrett and her new colleagues on the court within days of next week’s ballot.
By the end of this month Barrett could also be asked to rule on the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. The healthcare protections of millions of Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions, hang in the balance.
As soon as Monday’s confirmation vote was completed, some 150 guests began to assemble on the South Lawn of the White House to celebrate Barrett’s arrival at the pinnacle of US justice. She was sworn in at an outdoor ceremony with the constitutional oath given by Justice Thomas, a stalwart of the court’s conservative wing which she now joins.
The decision to go ahead with the ceremony was in itself contentious. Last month Barrett’s nomination was marked at a similar event in the White House Rose Garden, and promptly turned into a “superspreader” incident linked to an outbreak of infection among officials including the president.
Despite that chilling prequel, Barrett was seen talking to Thomas within a couple of feet of each other, both without masks. In the front row of the audience, the first lady, Melania Trump, and the new justice’s husband, Jesse Barrett, also went ostentatiously unmasked.
Adding to the controversy around Monday night’s proceedings, the swearing in came just days after five people in the inner circle of the vice-president, Mike Pence, also tested positive. Pence has continued to campaign in the election despite being exposed to the virus, having been declared exempt from the need to quarantine by dint of being an “essential worker”.


theguardian--2020-10-27--Progressive totems on the chopping block as US supreme court veers right

As the dust settles on the Democrats ’ futile efforts to stop Donald Trump ’ s third supreme court nominee , Amy Coney Barrett , from ascending to the bench , progressive activists and analysts are now casting wary eyes on the unsettling years ahead .
The court ’ s conservative bloc is ascendant , with a locked-in 6-3 majority that will minimize the need for justices on the right to seek out moderate ground in most rulings .
Prominently sidelined , now , is Chief Justice John Roberts , whose institutionalist instincts led him to cast crossover votes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , to preserve a program protecting young immigrant arrivals and to uphold , on the grounds of precedent , the basic protections conferred by Roe v Wade .
It is no longer Roberts ’ court , analysts say , because the chief justice has been shuffled to the bottom of the conservative deck , which now stacks high enough on the court , with the arrival of Barrett , to dispatch whatever rulings it pleases on issues from environmental regulations to reproductive rights to voting rights .
“ She will help to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Nan Aron , president of the progressive Alliance for Justice advocacy group , of Barrett .
“ It will be certain now that the right has captured the federal judiciary , at the supreme court level , and that they are seeking to advance a dangerous agenda.
” Every issue of importance to progressive activists , starting with the basic right of every American to vote and extending to the need for regulations that protect employees from dangerous working conditions and consumers from predatory lenders , is on the chopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysts say .
The court has recently issued rulings about the status of immigrants , the protection of LGBTQ+ people under anti-discrimination statutes , the ability of a president to come under criminal investigation , and the right to an abortion that could be overturned or subsumed in a churn of cases tailored by conservative activists to appeal to the new bench lineup .
The first coup by the Barrett court could be vacating , after years of conservative obsession over the issue , Barack Obama ’ s healthcare law , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for tens of millions of American and in some cases deny life-saving medical treatments to those with pre-existing conditions .
“ The urgency springs from the fact that the court is wildly out of balance , making it the most conservative court since the 1930s , with an aggressively conservative tilt ” that is out of step on almost every major issue with public opinion , Aron said .
Certain ground won in court fights in recent decades may be safe in the near term , even under the new 6-3 conservative supermajority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Fox News last weekend , Pete Buttigieg , the former Indiana mayor and Democratic presidential candidate , expressed concern that Barrett ’ s arrival on the court could threaten his marriage to his husband Chasten .
“ My marriage might depend on what is about to happen in the Senate with regard to this justice , ” Buttigieg said .
“ So many issues are on the line.
” But it is “ very unlikely ” that Barrett would be interested in revisiting rulings protecting same-sex marriage , said Keith Whittington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specializing in constitutional theory .
“ The fact is that public opinion has moved quickly and dramatically in favor of same-sex marriage , and one of the things she emphasizes about when the court ought to stand by precedent is whether or not the public has broadly accepted the precedent the court has established , ” said Whittington .
“ I think in the context of same-sex marriage , there ’ s both a substantial reliance interest , which she also emphasizes – in this context , there are people who are married @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumption that they have legal marriages ” – and public support .
Other issues , such as reproductive rights , were already under significant conservative assault before Barrett ’ s arrival .
A Barrett court could erode those rights in new ways , said Aziz Huq , a professor of law at the University of Chicago .
“ Roberts pretty clearly said , ‘ I ’ ll let states gut access to abortion ’ , ” in a recent ruling that tossed a Louisiana law restricting abortion access , Huq said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you live in a state where the governor and the legislature is anti-abortion , access will likely be reduced to one or zero clinics very soon .
“ Then I think that the really interesting issue becomes the regulation of access to abortifacient pharmaceuticals that can be prescribed and delivered by mail.
” How a justice may rule in any one case is unpredictable , and justices appointed by Republicans – including by Trump – have recently ruled in unexpected ways , as when the Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch ruled in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of immigration rights in a pair of rulings that Trump called “ shotgun blasts into the face ” .
But anticipating a hostile court in the near term at least , progressive activists are standing up plans to expand the court in the event that Democrats seize control of Congress and the White House .
“ I think it ’ s critically important to restore fairness and independence to the federal judiciary , ” Aron said .
“ Alliance for Justice will be pushing an effort to expand the court in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also support eliminating the legislative filibuster and adding new states – Washington DC and Puerto Rico ” in an attempt to bring the US Senate more in line with the country .
Aron lamented what Barrett might do to the legacy of the liberal justice she replaced , Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
“ The fact that she ’ s replacing the justice who fought throughout her life , as a lawyer , a teacher and as a justice , who worked for equal rights for women and men – makes this appointment that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ given that Barrett will undo Ginsburg ’ s legacy .
”

As the dust settles on the Democrats’ futile efforts to stop Donald Trump’s third supreme court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, from ascending to the bench, progressive activists and analysts are now casting wary eyes on the unsettling years ahead.
The court’s conservative bloc is ascendant, with a locked-in 6-3 majority that will minimize the need for justices on the right to seek out moderate ground in most rulings.
Prominently sidelined, now, is Chief Justice John Roberts, whose institutionalist instincts led him to cast crossover votes to prevent the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, to preserve a program protecting young immigrant arrivals and to uphold, on the grounds of precedent, the basic protections conferred by Roe v Wade.
It is no longer Roberts’ court, analysts say, because the chief justice has been shuffled to the bottom of the conservative deck, which now stacks high enough on the court, with the arrival of Barrett, to dispatch whatever rulings it pleases on issues from environmental regulations to reproductive rights to voting rights.
“She will help to dramatically flip the balance on the court,” said Nan Aron, president of the progressive Alliance for Justice advocacy group, of Barrett. “It will be certain now that the right has captured the federal judiciary, at the supreme court level, and that they are seeking to advance a dangerous agenda.”
Every issue of importance to progressive activists, starting with the basic right of every American to vote and extending to the need for regulations that protect employees from dangerous working conditions and consumers from predatory lenders, is on the chopping block with Barrett on the court, analysts say.
The court has recently issued rulings about the status of immigrants, the protection of LGBTQ+ people under anti-discrimination statutes, the ability of a president to come under criminal investigation, and the right to an abortion that could be overturned or subsumed in a churn of cases tailored by conservative activists to appeal to the new bench lineup.
The first coup by the Barrett court could be vacating, after years of conservative obsession over the issue, Barack Obama’s healthcare law, which would result in the loss of insurance protections for tens of millions of American and in some cases deny life-saving medical treatments to those with pre-existing conditions.
“The urgency springs from the fact that the court is wildly out of balance, making it the most conservative court since the 1930s, with an aggressively conservative tilt” that is out of step on almost every major issue with public opinion, Aron said.
Certain ground won in court fights in recent decades may be safe in the near term, even under the new 6-3 conservative supermajority, analysts said.
It is no longer Roberts’ court, analysts say, because he has been shuffled to the bottom of the conservative deck
In an interview on Fox News last weekend, Pete Buttigieg, the former Indiana mayor and Democratic presidential candidate, expressed concern that Barrett’s arrival on the court could threaten his marriage to his husband Chasten.
“My marriage might depend on what is about to happen in the Senate with regard to this justice,” Buttigieg said. “So many issues are on the line.”
But it is “very unlikely” that Barrett would be interested in revisiting rulings protecting same-sex marriage, said Keith Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton University specializing in constitutional theory.
“The fact is that public opinion has moved quickly and dramatically in favor of same-sex marriage, and one of the things she emphasizes about when the court ought to stand by precedent is whether or not the public has broadly accepted the precedent the court has established,” said Whittington.
“I think in the context of same-sex marriage, there’s both a substantial reliance interest, which she also emphasizes – in this context, there are people who are married, and have built relationship around the assumption that they have legal marriages” – and public support.
Other issues, such as reproductive rights, were already under significant conservative assault before Barrett’s arrival. A Barrett court could erode those rights in new ways, said Aziz Huq, a professor of law at the University of Chicago.
“Roberts pretty clearly said, ‘I’ll let states gut access to abortion’,” in a recent ruling that tossed a Louisiana law restricting abortion access, Huq said. “As of the summer of 2020, if you live in a state where the governor and the legislature is anti-abortion, access will likely be reduced to one or zero clinics very soon.
“Then I think that the really interesting issue becomes the regulation of access to abortifacient pharmaceuticals that can be prescribed and delivered by mail.”
How a justice may rule in any one case is unpredictable, and justices appointed by Republicans – including by Trump – have recently ruled in unexpected ways, as when the Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch ruled in favor of LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination protections and Roberts wrote on behalf of immigration rights in a pair of rulings that Trump called “shotgun blasts into the face”.
But anticipating a hostile court in the near term at least, progressive activists are standing up plans to expand the court in the event that Democrats seize control of Congress and the White House.
“I think it’s critically important to restore fairness and independence to the federal judiciary,” Aron said. “Alliance for Justice will be pushing an effort to expand the court in order to democratize it. We will also support eliminating the legislative filibuster and adding new states – Washington DC and Puerto Rico” in an attempt to bring the US Senate more in line with the country.
Aron lamented what Barrett might do to the legacy of the liberal justice she replaced, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“The fact that she’s replacing the justice who fought throughout her life, as a lawyer, a teacher and as a justice, who worked for equal rights for women and men – makes this appointment that much more disappointing,” Aron said, “given that Barrett will undo Ginsburg’s legacy.”