theguardian--2020-09-25--Donald Trump's plot against democracy could break America apart | Jonathan Freedland

We know that US democracy is on the line this November , but what about the United States itself ?
Is it possible that not only America ’ s democratic health hangs in the balance , but the very integrity of the country ?
Such talk sounds hyperbolic , but start with the danger to the US democratic system that becomes more clear and present each day .
This week Donald Trump was asked if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power in the event of his defeat .
His reply : “ Well , we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Later the White House clarified that of course the president would accept the results of a “ free and fair election ” .
But that formulation contained an implied caveat : what if he decides that the election was not “ free and fair ” ?
After all , Trump has said repeatedly that if Joe Biden wins , that can only mean that the election was “ rigged ” .
How this might unfold was laid out this week in a chilling essay by Barton Gellman in the Atlantic headlined The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the dangers are by now familiar .
Aware that polls show them unable to win a straight contest , Republicans are already working hard to un-level the playing field .
They have purged electoral rolls of likely Democratic voters .
They have hobbled the Post Office , to prevent mail-in ballots – which are likely to favour Democrats – arriving in time .
Once the polls close , Team Trump will claim only the in-person votes , tallied on election night – and likely to skew towards Republicans – should qualify .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ being counted , whether by lawsuit or by physical disruption ( a tactic deployed successfully in the infamous Florida recount of 2000 ) .
As Gellman argues , it ’ s not just that Trump will refuse to concede defeat : he ’ ll use all the power at his disposal to “ obstruct the emergence of a legally unambiguous victory for Biden ” , even to “ prevent the formation of a consensus about whether there is any outcome at all ” .
There is one trick up Republican sleeves so outrageous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until now .
It ’ s technical , but bear with me .
The president is chosen by an electoral college , made up of electors from all 50 states .
For more than a century , those electors have been chosen to reflect the winner of the popular vote in that state .
But Republican officials have noted that there ’ s nothing in the constitution that says it has to be that way .
The legislatures – the mini-parliaments of each state – have the power to choose the electors themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legislatures in the six most hotly fought battleground states .
If they declare that the official vote tally showing Biden the winner is unreliable – on the grounds that , as Trump says , all postal votes are suspect – there is nothing to stop them choosing a slate of pro-Trump electors instead , claiming this reflects the true will of the people of their state .
It sounds like a Lukashenko manoeuvre , a coup against democracy – and that ’ s exactly what it would be .
And yet there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record of how they are contemplating that very move .
Ah , but surely the supreme court would never allow such a thing .
And yet , as of last week , there is a vacancy on that court .
Trump plans to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg at speed , aiming to seat his own handpicked judge in time to settle any election-related cases in his favour .
That too he says out loud .
Again , the Belarusian reek is unmistakable .
The trouble is , Democrats are all but powerless to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no shame in smashing through every democratic guardrail regardless of the hypocrisy : recall that , in March 2016 , Senate Republicans refused to give Barack Obama ’ s supreme court pick so much as a hearing , insisting it was unconscionable to make such an appointment in an election year .
Yet here they are , ramming their choice through a matter of weeks before polling day .
The result is that soon there will be a 6-3 rightwing majority on the US ’ s highest court , ready to overturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and to thwart action on the climate crisis .
What ’ s more , a seat on the supreme court is for life , and several of these rightwing judges are relatively young .
That 6-3 majority could be in place for decades .
So now a dark question arises .
What will the US ’ s increasingly progressive majority do if Republican state officials reinstall Trump in the White House , in defiance of the voters ?
What will they do if that 6-3 court overturns Roe v Wade and bans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a second how that latter situation will have arisen : it is because the Senate picks the judges , and the Senate enshrines minority rule .
With two senators per state , tiny Wyoming ( population : 600,000 ) has the same representation as gargantuan California ( 40 million ) .
On current trends , 70 % of Americans will soon have just 30 senators representing them , while the 30 % minority will have 70 .
When it comes to their right to medical treatment or to rid their streets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diverse majority are subject to the veto of the rural , white , conservative minority .
How long is that sustainable ?
How long will a woman in , say , California accept the presence of guns and the absence of abortion rights because that ’ s what a minority of voters in small , over-represented states wants ?
Serious people are beginning to ask that question .
Gary Gerstle , professor of American history at Cambridge University , says he ’ s found himself reading about countries that once had democracy but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s doing that “ to understand the future of America ” .
He wonders if progressive , “ blue ” states might increasingly go their own way – flexing their right to deviate from the federal government , as branches of it move ever further out of democratic reach .
As we spoke , New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced that he will not accept any federally approved Covid vaccine for his state until New York experts have tested it first .
That , says Gerstle , could be a harbinger of things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pre-civil-war concept of “ nullification ” , whereby dissenting states declare decisions made in Washington null and void .
It would be a historic turnaround for the American left : “ states ’ rights ” was the rallying cry of the segregationist south , asserting their right to be racist .
Now it could become the weapon of liberal America .
In a new book , Divided We Fall , the conservative writer David French raises the once-taboo question of “ America ’ s secession threat ” – imagining , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California leads a breakaway of liberal western states after a rightwing supreme court has struck down a California law to curb guns .
Since Ginsburg ’ s death , that reads less like dystopian fiction than a forecast .
Such talk might seem fanciful .
Yet there was probably a similar reaction to Andrei Amalrik ’ s 1970 essay Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984 ?
.
At the time , it must have sounded absurd : of course the USSR was here to stay .
But Amalrik was not far off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question , a once mighty superpower lay in pieces .
Oceans rise , empires fall – and even America is not immune .
• Who ’ ll win the race for the White House ?
Join Guardian journalists Jonathan Freedland , Daniel Strauss , Lauren Gambino and Richard Wolffe for an online Guardian Live event , on Tuesday 20 October , 7pm .
Book tickets here

We know that US democracy is on the line this November, but what about the United States itself? Is it possible that not only America’s democratic health hangs in the balance, but the very integrity of the country?
Such talk sounds hyperbolic, but start with the danger to the US democratic system that becomes more clear and present each day. This week Donald Trump was asked if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power in the event of his defeat. His reply: “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens.”
Later the White House clarified that of course the president would accept the results of a “free and fair election”. But that formulation contained an implied caveat: what if he decides that the election was not “free and fair”? After all, Trump has said repeatedly that if Joe Biden wins, that can only mean that the election was “rigged”.
How this might unfold was laid out this week in a chilling essay by Barton Gellman in the Atlantic headlined The Election That Could Break America. Many of the dangers are by now familiar. Aware that polls show them unable to win a straight contest, Republicans are already working hard to un-level the playing field. They have purged electoral rolls of likely Democratic voters. They have hobbled the Post Office, to prevent mail-in ballots – which are likely to favour Democrats – arriving in time.
Once the polls close, Team Trump will claim only the in-person votes, tallied on election night – and likely to skew towards Republicans – should qualify. They will try to stop the votes being counted, whether by lawsuit or by physical disruption (a tactic deployed successfully in the infamous Florida recount of 2000). As Gellman argues, it’s not just that Trump will refuse to concede defeat: he’ll use all the power at his disposal to “obstruct the emergence of a legally unambiguous victory for Biden”, even to “prevent the formation of a consensus about whether there is any outcome at all”.
There is one trick up Republican sleeves so outrageous that no one had even contemplated it until now. It’s technical, but bear with me. The president is chosen by an electoral college, made up of electors from all 50 states. For more than a century, those electors have been chosen to reflect the winner of the popular vote in that state. But Republican officials have noted that there’s nothing in the constitution that says it has to be that way. The legislatures – the mini-parliaments of each state – have the power to choose the electors themselves. And guess what: Republicans control the legislatures in the six most hotly fought battleground states. If they declare that the official vote tally showing Biden the winner is unreliable – on the grounds that, as Trump says, all postal votes are suspect – there is nothing to stop them choosing a slate of pro-Trump electors instead, claiming this reflects the true will of the people of their state.
It sounds like a Lukashenko manoeuvre, a coup against democracy – and that’s exactly what it would be. And yet there are Republican party officials talking on the record of how they are contemplating that very move.
Ah, but surely the supreme court would never allow such a thing. And yet, as of last week, there is a vacancy on that court. Trump plans to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg at speed, aiming to seat his own handpicked judge in time to settle any election-related cases in his favour. That too he says out loud. Again, the Belarusian reek is unmistakable.
The trouble is, Democrats are all but powerless to stop a president and a party that has no shame in smashing through every democratic guardrail regardless of the hypocrisy: recall that, in March 2016, Senate Republicans refused to give Barack Obama’s supreme court pick so much as a hearing, insisting it was unconscionable to make such an appointment in an election year. Yet here they are, ramming their choice through a matter of weeks before polling day.
The result is that soon there will be a 6-3 rightwing majority on the US’s highest court, ready to overturn landmark decisions on healthcare or reproductive rights, and to thwart action on the climate crisis. What’s more, a seat on the supreme court is for life, and several of these rightwing judges are relatively young. That 6-3 majority could be in place for decades.
So now a dark question arises. What will the US’s increasingly progressive majority do if Republican state officials reinstall Trump in the White House, in defiance of the voters? What will they do if that 6-3 court overturns Roe v Wade and bans abortion across the entire country?
Think for a second how that latter situation will have arisen: it is because the Senate picks the judges, and the Senate enshrines minority rule. With two senators per state, tiny Wyoming (population: 600,000) has the same representation as gargantuan California (40 million). On current trends, 70% of Americans will soon have just 30 senators representing them, while the 30% minority will have 70. When it comes to their right to medical treatment or to rid their streets of military-grade assault weapons, the urban, diverse majority are subject to the veto of the rural, white, conservative minority.
How long is that sustainable? How long will a woman in, say, California accept the presence of guns and the absence of abortion rights because that’s what a minority of voters in small, over-represented states wants? Serious people are beginning to ask that question. Gary Gerstle, professor of American history at Cambridge University, says he’s found himself reading about countries that once had democracy but lost it – and that he’s doing that “to understand the future of America”.
He wonders if progressive, “blue” states might increasingly go their own way – flexing their right to deviate from the federal government, as branches of it move ever further out of democratic reach. As we spoke, New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced that he will not accept any federally approved Covid vaccine for his state until New York experts have tested it first. That, says Gerstle, could be a harbinger of things to come, including perhaps a revival of the pre-civil-war concept of “nullification”, whereby dissenting states declare decisions made in Washington null and void. It would be a historic turnaround for the American left: “states’ rights” was the rallying cry of the segregationist south, asserting their right to be racist. Now it could become the weapon of liberal America.
In a new book, Divided We Fall, the conservative writer David French raises the once-taboo question of “America’s secession threat” – imagining, for example, a “Calexit” as California leads a breakaway of liberal western states after a rightwing supreme court has struck down a California law to curb guns. Since Ginsburg’s death, that reads less like dystopian fiction than a forecast.
Such talk might seem fanciful. Yet there was probably a similar reaction to Andrei Amalrik’s 1970 essay Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?. At the time, it must have sounded absurd: of course the USSR was here to stay. But Amalrik was not far off. Twenty-one years after he had asked the question, a once mighty superpower lay in pieces. Oceans rise, empires fall – and even America is not immune.
Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist


theguardian--2020-09-25--Joe Biden is repeating the same mistakes that cost Hillary Clinton the election | Malaika Jabali

Joe Biden has staked his presidential campaign on his ability to “ win back ” white working-class voters in midwest swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin .
But he has the wrong target .
In Manitowoc , Wisconsin , a city that ’ s 90 % white , Biden recently donned his populist hat , telling an audience : “ I ’ ve dealt with guys like Trump my whole life … Guys who inherit everything they ’ ve ever gotten in their life and squander it .
Guys who stretch and squeeze and stiff electricians and plumbers and contractors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ golf courses to put more bucks in their pocket.
” Prior to this campaign stop , Biden amplified an endorsement from the former Michigan governor Rick Snyder , the Republican official who – let ’ s not forget – oversaw and attempted to cover up the Flint water crisis , which exposed an estimated 140,000 people in the majority Black city to lead and other contaminants .
In an appearance in Michigan , Biden sat down with steelworkers , flanked mostly by white men , to discuss his jobs plan .
And prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rittenhouse shot and killed two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha , Wisconsin , Biden aired a Richard Nixon-style law and order ad attacking “ lawlessness ” and accusing Trump of sowing discord .
Biden and his advisers clearly believe that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because white voters in key swing states shifted from Obama to Trump .
Biden ’ s entire campaign strategy is built on that assumption .
There are two problems with that .
For one , it almost entirely ignores the Black working class .
For another , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you look closely at the data on Wisconsin and Michigan – two of the three swing states that secured Trump ’ s victory – it ’ s apparent that a significant decline in voter turnout for the Democratic candidate cost Democrats the 2016 election , not a shift to Trump .
White voter turnout in Wisconsin declined by 1 % , amounting to 100,000 people who chose not to vote for either candidate .
Trump only garnered 721 more votes than Mitt Romney , which could partly be explained by population increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes cast for Clinton substantially exceeded the turnout for Donald Trump – from rural towns to medium-sized urban centers .
Black voter turnout declined by an even higher rate , to a level unprecedented in Wisconsin ’ s recorded history .
While 79 % of Black voters participated in the 2012 general election , only 47 % voted in 2016 – less than half the eligible voters .
This amounted to about 88,000 less votes than in 2012 .
The limited academic research on turnout in Wisconsin reveals that 42 % of nonvoters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populous counties stayed home primarily because they disliked the candidates or weren ’ t interested in them .
Issues related to voter suppression amounted to about 5 % of the respondents ’ answers .
But instead of trying to win over the nearly 200,000 people who stayed home in Wisconsin in 2016 ( or whose votes were suppressed ) , Biden has opted to center his Wisconsin campaign on about 700 people , some of whom may have never voted for a Democrat for president .
Instead of focusing on the approximately 50,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counties , Biden is touting the endorsement of Snyder , whose neglect threatened the wellbeing of thousands of Flint residents .
The Democratic party has embraced this message to a bizarre and troubling degree , often platforming Republicans who are barely popular with their own constituents .
The Democratic national convention , for example , featured a cameo from former Ohio governor John Kasich .
Yet Kasich averaged 18 % support from Republican voters in the 2016 race , the lowest of the frontrunners , while Trump garnered 46.5 % .
There has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party from conservativism to an embrace of the far right , but Biden is banking on an unknown number of disaffected Republicans to help him into the White House , instead of hundreds of thousands of disaffected Democrats .
This centrist Democratic obsession with “ winning back ” white conservatives in rural towns and suburbs is more symbolic than strategic .
It ’ s rooted in a longstanding , mistaken archetype that conflates the working class with white workers , a tradition that reaches as far back as the 1800s Reconstruction Era .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , the sociologist WEB Du Bois noted that the mostly white , Northern labor union movement comprehended “ chiefly Northern skilled laborers , ” but “ almost none of them mentioned the Negro , or considered or welcomed him … said nothing of the greatest revolution in labor that had happened in America for a hundred years – the emancipation of slaves ” .
Black workers , even those emerging from centuries of brutal unpaid labor , barely registered in the mainstream consciousness at all .
Instead , we became the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ free stuff from the government ” , as if a federal government that has handed out trillions to corporations and financial institutions can not afford basic services such as healthcare , affordable housing and higher education for all of its people .
It seems like we haven ’ t moved much past that narrative .
Biden ’ s obsession with the white working class , for example , ignores that over half of Black men worked in Milwaukee ’ s manufacturing sector , more than double white workers , at the height @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ignores that deindustrialization hurt them more than anyone else .
It ignores that Black and Asian households throughout the country were heaviest hit by the Great Recession .
It ignores that a shift to lower-wage temporary warehouse work , and unemployment under Covid-19 , disproportionately affects Black and Latinos .
And it ignores that these material realities affect how they vote , too .
But instead of swinging to Republicans , millions stay home .
It ’ s in Biden ’ s political DNA to make these superficial white working-class appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race .
But if he wants to unjustifiably fashion himself as this generation ’ s Franklin Delano Roosevelt , it ’ s best he not repeat the same mistakes of failing the party ’ s Black working-class base .
• None Malaika Jabali is a public policy attorney , activist and Guardian US columnist

Joe Biden has staked his presidential campaign on his ability to “win back” white working-class voters in midwest swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin. But he has the wrong target.
In Manitowoc, Wisconsin, a city that’s 90% white, Biden recently donned his populist hat, telling an audience: “I’ve dealt with guys like Trump my whole life … Guys who inherit everything they’ve ever gotten in their life and squander it. Guys who stretch and squeeze and stiff electricians and plumbers and contractors working on their hotels and casinos and golf courses to put more bucks in their pocket.”
Prior to this campaign stop, Biden amplified an endorsement from the former Michigan governor Rick Snyder, the Republican official who – let’s not forget – oversaw and attempted to cover up the Flint water crisis, which exposed an estimated 140,000 people in the majority Black city to lead and other contaminants. In an appearance in Michigan, Biden sat down with steelworkers, flanked mostly by white men, to discuss his jobs plan. And prior to that, after white vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Biden aired a Richard Nixon-style law and order ad attacking “lawlessness” and accusing Trump of sowing discord.
Biden and his advisers clearly believe that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because white voters in key swing states shifted from Obama to Trump. Biden’s entire campaign strategy is built on that assumption. There are two problems with that. For one, it almost entirely ignores the Black working class. For another, it may not even be true.
If you look closely at the data on Wisconsin and Michigan – two of the three swing states that secured Trump’s victory – it’s apparent that a significant decline in voter turnout for the Democratic candidate cost Democrats the 2016 election, not a shift to Trump.
White voter turnout in Wisconsin declined by 1%, amounting to 100,000 people who chose not to vote for either candidate. Trump only garnered 721 more votes than Mitt Romney, which could partly be explained by population increase. Across Wisconsin, the decline in votes cast for Clinton substantially exceeded the turnout for Donald Trump – from rural towns to medium-sized urban centers.
Black voter turnout declined by an even higher rate, to a level unprecedented in Wisconsin’s recorded history. While 79% of Black voters participated in the 2012 general election, only 47% voted in 2016 – less than half the eligible voters. This amounted to about 88,000 less votes than in 2012. The limited academic research on turnout in Wisconsin reveals that 42% of nonvoters in the state’s two most populous counties stayed home primarily because they disliked the candidates or weren’t interested in them. Issues related to voter suppression amounted to about 5% of the respondents’ answers.
But instead of trying to win over the nearly 200,000 people who stayed home in Wisconsin in 2016 (or whose votes were suppressed), Biden has opted to center his Wisconsin campaign on about 700 people, some of whom may have never voted for a Democrat for president. Instead of focusing on the approximately 50,000 voters who stayed home in Democratic-leaning Michigan counties, Biden is touting the endorsement of Snyder, whose neglect threatened the wellbeing of thousands of Flint residents.
The Democratic party has embraced this message to a bizarre and troubling degree, often platforming Republicans who are barely popular with their own constituents. The Democratic national convention, for example, featured a cameo from former Ohio governor John Kasich. Yet Kasich averaged 18% support from Republican voters in the 2016 race, the lowest of the frontrunners, while Trump garnered 46.5%. There has been a clear shift in the Republican party from conservativism to an embrace of the far right, but Biden is banking on an unknown number of disaffected Republicans to help him into the White House, instead of hundreds of thousands of disaffected Democrats.
This centrist Democratic obsession with “winning back” white conservatives in rural towns and suburbs is more symbolic than strategic. It’s rooted in a longstanding, mistaken archetype that conflates the working class with white workers, a tradition that reaches as far back as the 1800s Reconstruction Era.
In his seminal text Black Reconstruction in America, the sociologist WEB Du Bois noted that the mostly white, Northern labor union movement comprehended “chiefly Northern skilled laborers,” but “almost none of them mentioned the Negro, or considered or welcomed him … said nothing of the greatest revolution in labor that had happened in America for a hundred years – the emancipation of slaves”.
Black workers, even those emerging from centuries of brutal unpaid labor, barely registered in the mainstream consciousness at all. Instead, we became the face of the undeserving underclass, asking for “free stuff from the government”, as if a federal government that has handed out trillions to corporations and financial institutions cannot afford basic services such as healthcare, affordable housing and higher education for all of its people.
It seems like we haven’t moved much past that narrative. Biden’s obsession with the white working class, for example, ignores that over half of Black men worked in Milwaukee’s manufacturing sector, more than double white workers, at the height of the city’s heavy industry. It ignores that deindustrialization hurt them more than anyone else. It ignores that Black and Asian households throughout the country were heaviest hit by the Great Recession. It ignores that a shift to lower-wage temporary warehouse work, and unemployment under Covid-19, disproportionately affects Black and Latinos. And it ignores that these material realities affect how they vote, too. But instead of swinging to Republicans, millions stay home.
It’s in Biden’s political DNA to make these superficial white working-class appeals, despite undermining the working class across race. But if he wants to unjustifiably fashion himself as this generation’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it’s best he not repeat the same mistakes of failing the party’s Black working-class base.


theguardian--2020-09-25--Donald Trump jokes about staying in power for '12 more years' at Atlanta rally – video

Donald Trump made light of fears he will not accept the result of the election if he loses to Joe @ @ @ @ @ we be president in 10 years ? '
he asked , before claiming he was @ @ @ @ @ you ca n't joke , ' he told supporters in Atlanta . '
[ The @ @ @ @ @ before the laugh so they think he 's serious . '
The crowd then chanted @ @ @ @ @ to laughter from the president .
• Donald in Blunderland : Trump wo n't commit @ @ @ @ @ surreal press briefing

Donald Trump made light of fears he will not accept the result of the election if he loses to Joe Biden in November. 'Will we be president in 10 years?' he asked, before claiming he was joking.
'You know, you can't joke,' he told supporters in Atlanta. '[The media] always cut it before the laugh so they think he's serious.'
The crowd then chanted '12 more years!' to laughter from the president.


theguardian--2020-09-26--Donald Trump set to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to supreme court – live

I wonder how many times I can quote from and link to the op ed former Obama speechwriter David Litt wrote for us this week , about the supreme court , Mitch McConnell , “ constitutional hardball ” and what the Democrats can do to fight back – after the court switches to a 6-3 conservative majority , which it is going to do .
If hardball must be played , there are plenty of reasons to think that Democrats will ultimately come out on top .
In fact , enraged Democrats don ’ t even have to embrace Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undo Mitch McConnell ’ s life ’ s work .
All they have to do is exercise slightly less restraint .
And here ’ s another quote from David which I find fascinating , on the origins of all this unpleasantness : In the 1970s , when the modern conservative movement began , an emerging liberal consensus left the right wing feeling it had little to lose by upending our system of government .
Democrats , meanwhile , became the party of active government – and were naturally more wary of the possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions , we might erode their legitimacy instead .
That ’ s heading for Rick Perlstein territory .
His theory , which he has expounded through four huge books on the rise of American right , is that it all started with Senator Barry Goldwater , and his quixotic 1964 campaign against Lyndon B Johnson .
Here ’ s an interview with Rick :

26 Sept 2020 23.47 BST Lisa Murkowski has broken rank with Senate Republicans by saying she does not agree with Donald Trump’s decision to nominate a supreme court justice so close to the election (although she did not say whether she feels the same about Trump nominating after the election if he loses). On Saturday, she said she still intends to meet with Trump’s nomination, Amy Coney Barrett. “For weeks I have stated that I do not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to an election,” said the Alaska senator in a statement. “But today the President exercised his constitutional authority to nominate an individual to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I welcome the opportunity to meet with the Supreme Court nominee, just as I did in 2016.”
26 Sept 2020 23.37 BST We have a nominee. What's next? Tom McCarthy Donald Trump on Saturday nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the supreme court seat vacated with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Republicans in the US Senate are expected to move immediately to confirm the choice. That will be accomplished when they can hold a vote on the nominee on the Senate floor, with a bare majority of voting senators needed to confirm the pick. Any tie would be broken by the vice-president, Mike Pence. The Republicans appear to have plenty of time to complete the job before the end of the current congressional term on 2 January 2021, which is 99 days away. Of the eight justices currently serving on the court, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote has been 72 days, according to the Congressional Research Service. Amy Coney Barrett speaks after being nominated for a place on the supreme court. Photograph: Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images Here are the steps in the process: 1. Pre-hearing investigation After the US president officially notifies the senate of his pick, the judiciary committee, led by close Trump ally senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, will conduct an investigation of the nominee that includes a background check and that would usually include a request for advice from the American Bar Association, the country’s largest consortium of lawyers. As part of the process, the nominee was expected to hold meetings with senators, although Covid-19 restrictions could limit in-person meetings. 2. Public confirmation hearings This is the part of the supreme court confirmation process that would be most familiar to most people. In televised hearings, the nominee answers questions from the senate judiciary committee. The committee may also call other witnesses to testify for or against the nominee. At times these hearings can be contentious, as two years ago when justice Brett Kavanaugh was confronted with sexual assault allegations by Dr Christine Blasey Ford. Democrats were expected to fiercely grill Trump’s latest nominee on her views on abortion, on the prospect of a contested election, and other issues such as healthcare. 3. Committee sends nomination to Senate floor At the end of confirmation hearings, the judiciary committee votes on the nominee. A majority vote is required to recommend the nominee for a vote by the full Senate on the Senate floor. Because Republicans hold a majority in the senate, and a majority of the committee seats, the nominee is expected to win the committee’s recommendation. The committee then reports the vote out and a full Senate vote is scheduled. Graham said in an interview on Fox News earlier this month that he would try to arrange a floor vote before the 3 November election, although senate majority leader Mitch McConnell may wish to hold the vote after the election, because some vulnerable Republican senators up for re-election could be politically damaged by supporting a third Trump supreme court nominee. 4. Full senate vote If the nominee can win a majority of votes in the Senate, she will replace Ginsburg on the court. While the length of the entire process would not be unusually short if such a vote were to be held late in the year, it would be highly unusual for a new supreme court justice to be installed so late in a presidential term. According to the National Constitution Center, “the most-recent justices confirmed by the Senate in a December Senate during a presidential election year were William Burnham Woods (in 1880), Ward Hunt (in 1872) and Salmon Chase (in 1864 as chief justice).” Trump has said he wants the new justice installed on the court in time to hear any case arising from a potential challenge to the 3 November presidential election result. Most analysts saw the prospect of a new Trump justice weighing in in his favor in an election case as a surefire disaster for the legitimacy of the court, which already has been eroded by the perception that Republicans stole a seat in 2016 by refusing for eight months to hold hearings on Barack Obama nominee Merrick Garland.
Updated at 23.53 BST
26 Sept 2020 23.25 BST Ed Helmore has written a profile of Amy Coney Barrett for us, and looks at the role religion plays in her personal life and career: The mother of seven – who adopted two children from Haiti – said she admired justice Elena Kagan, an Obama-appointed abortion rights supporter, for bringing “the knowledge and skill she acquired as an academic to the practical resolution of disputes”. But during her confirmation hearing, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein memorably said Barrett had “a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail” and added: “The dogma lives loudly in you.” Barrett has said she is a “faithful Catholic” but her religious beliefs do not “bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge”. She has also said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God”. Read the full article below: Who is Amy Coney Barrett? Trump's anti-abortion supreme court nominee Read more
26 Sept 2020 23.17 BST The Judicial Crisis Network, which focuses on helping confirm conservative judges, says it will spend at least $10m on advertising to support Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the supreme court. In a statement, the organization said any opposition to Barrett was down to “leftwing extremists”. “Justice Ginsburg was confirmed in 42 days, Justice O’Connor in 33, and both confirmations were nearly unanimous,” Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network, said in a statement. “But Democrats won’t be able to bring themselves to support Judge Barrett because they are beholden to leftwing extremists who want to pack the Supreme Court and defund the police while our cities burn.” The difference between Barrett’s likely confirmation and those of Ginsburg and O’Connor is that the latter two were not appointed a matter of days before a presidential election.
26 Sept 2020 23.10 BST CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has noted the vast difference between Amy Coney Barrett and the woman she is likely to succeed on the supreme court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “The differences for reproductive freedom, for health care, for gun control – or the absence thereof – affirmative action, so many issues, her views are going to be diametrically opposed to Ruth Ginsburg’s,” he said on CNN. “And that’s what Donald Trump promised during the campaign. He is delivering on that promise, and we’re going to see in very short order whether the voters think that’s a good idea.”
26 Sept 2020 23.00 BST Amy Coney Barrett’s opposition to abortion and support for gun rights has been remarked upon. Less discussed is her view on climate change. Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, sees Trump’s nominee as a threat to progress on fighting the climate crisis: “Judge Barrett is an ideological fanatic who lacks the temperament to rule fairly in the interests of all Americans,” he said. “Her slim judicial record shows that she’s hostile to the environment and will slam shut the courthouse doors to public interest advocates, to the delight of corporate polluters. Environmental justice, our climate and wildlife on the brink of extinction will all suffer if Barrett is confirmed.”
26 Sept 2020 22.54 BST Going back to Barrett’s statements at her nomination announcement, she said she intended to follow the example of Antonin Scalia, the conservative supreme court justice who died in 2016 and for whom she worked as a law clerk. “His judicial philosophy is mine, too,” she said. “A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they may hold.”
26 Sept 2020 22.46 BST The Democrats appear to be attacking Barrett’s nomination as a threat to healthcare. Following Joe Biden’s earlier statement on Barrett and the Affordable Care Act, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has given his own views: “The American people should make no mistake — a vote by any Senator for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act and eliminate protections for millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions,” Schumer wrote in a statement. “As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to rage, unabated by this Administration, healthcare was already the number one issue on the ballot in November. President Trump has promised to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will “terminate” our health care law and decimate the health care system for American Indians and Alaska Natives. In Judge Barrett, President Trump has found the deciding vote.” In a 2017 essay, Barrett wrote of her opposition to Chief Justice John Roberts’ actions when he saved the Affordable Care Act in 2012. “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” Barrett wrote. “He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power.”


theguardian--2020-09-26--Amy Coney Barrett: spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise

Donald Trump ’ s expected nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court , to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg , is drawing attention to a secretive Catholic “ covenant community ” called People of Praise that counts Barrett as a member and faces claims of adhering to a “ highly authoritarian ” structure .
The 48-year-old appellate court judge has said she is a “ faithful Catholic ” but that her religious beliefs would not “ bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge ” .
At the same time , the Louisiana native and Notre Dame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s evangelical Christian base , has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction , prestige or money , but rather “ as a means to the end of serving God ” .
Interviews with experts who have studied charismatic Christian groups such as People of Praise , and with former members of the group , plus a review of the group ’ s own literature , reveal an organization that appears to dominate some members ’ everyday lives , in which so-called “ heads ” – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions , and in which members are expected to financially support one another .
Married women – such as Barrett – count their husbands as their “ heads ” and all members are expected to donate 5 % of their income to the organization .
Some conservative and progressive activists have said any discussion of Barrett ’ s faith is inappropriate in the context of a Senate confirmation to assess her judicial qualifications , and potentially reflects anti-Catholic bigotry .
Other Catholic writers have said it is fair to scrutinize People of Praise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholicism .
Barrett has not publicly discussed her affiliation but her connection was reported in multiple media accounts at the time of her confirmation to an appellate court in 2017 .
Her picture appears in a May 2006 edition of People of Praise ’ s magazine , which documents her participation in a Leaders ’ Conference for Women .
Her father and her husband , Jesse Barrett , are also known members .
The group emerged out of the Catholic charismatic movement of the late 1960s , which blended Catholicism and Protestant Pentecostalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and adopted practices like speaking in tongues .
The group ’ s literature shows communal living is also encouraged , at least among unmarried members , as is the sharing of finances between households .
A July 2007 “ our money our selves ” edition of People of Praise ’ s Vine & Branch magazine included an article about a 17-member group of women described as “ single for the Lord ” and living together in South Bend , Indiana .
The women shared a “ sisterhood budget ” , which involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of the sisterhood ” determined , with the sisters ’ input , how the money was spent .
“ If one of us has a need , we ’ ll pay for it , ” one woman named Debbie was quoted as saying .
“ But we also work hard to distinguish between our needs and our wants.
” The “ sisterhood ” is described as living “ simply , frugally , and generously ” , with about $ 36 put aside per week per person for food and dry goods and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Slurpees and movie tickets ” .
They buy clothes at thrift stores and garage sales and 10 % of their income is directed to People of Praise .
The article quotes a head sister named Nano as saying : “ If each of us had her own money , it would change everything .
Just as we would have our own shelf in the refrigerator , so we would probably partition off other parts of our lives and be more guarded in certain areas .
Having money in common moves you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former member turned critic of the group , described in a book available online called Not Reliable Guides his “ grave concern ” about how the life of People of Praise members were “ not his or her own ” and how “ all one ’ s decisions and dealings become the concern of one ’ s head , and in turn potentially become known to the leadership ” .
Reached by the Guardian , Reimers said he did not want to discuss the matter further .
Writing for Politico , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” between serving as a supreme court justice , one of the final interpreters of the US constitution , and swearing an oath to an organization he said “ lacks transparency and visible structures of authority that are accountable to their members , to the Roman Catholic church , and to the wider public ” .
“ A lot of what goes on in People of Praise is not that different than what goes on in a lot of rightwing or conservative Catholic circles , ” said Heidi Schlumpf , a national correspondent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the church .
“ Whether People of Praise rises to the level of cult , I am not in a position to make that judgment .
But there is a level of secrecy that was concerning , and there was a level of reports by people who left the organization of authoritarianism that [ is ] concerning as well.
” People of Praise is headed by an all-male board of governors described as its “ highest authority ” .
On its website , the group , which was founded in South Bend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ describes itself as a community that “ shares our lives together ” and “ support each other financially and materially and spiritually ” .
“ Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow , but it is an important personal commitment , ” the website says .
“ We teach that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences , as formed by the light of reason , and by the experience and the teachings of their churches.
” A spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment about allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been described as a cult by some former followers .
The spokesman directed the Guardian to the website and said he was being inundated with media requests from all over the world .
Financial records previously submitted to Congress show Barrett served as a trustee for the Trinity School at Greenlawn , a private Catholic school affiliated with People of Praise , from 2015 to 2017 .
A parent handbook describes the school ’ s commitment to the establishment of “ Christian relationships ” that adhere to “ scripture and Christian tradition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a legal and committed relationship between a man and a woman and believe that the only proper place for sexual activity is within these bounds of conjugal love , ” the handbook says , emphasizing that any sex outside of marriage – whether gay or straight – is not in keeping with “ God ’ s plan for human sexuality ” .
Students who experience same-sex attraction , the handbook says , ought not to “ prematurely interpret any emotional experience as identity-defining ” .
“ We believe that such self-identification at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being labeled based solely upon sexuality , generate distraction , create confusion , and prevent students from experiencing true freedom within the culture of the school , ” the handbook says .
While the school ’ s objection to gay marriage and attraction is in line with mainstream Catholic teaching , the handbook also actively discourages teenage students from forming “ exclusive relationships ” , and asks them not to “ be exclusive or give evidence of their dating relationships while at school ” .
While the handbook does not describe its objection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked not to be named , because they had already received online abuse for speaking critically about People of Praise , said it revealed the importance the group put on the concept of community , rather than individual relationships .
“ It ’ s typical of these charismatic communities that friendship is seen as a danger to the community , ” the person said .
“ That ’ s normal.
” Teachers who apply for jobs at any schools affiliated with People of Praise are told , according to an online application , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ basic code of Christian conduct ” .
Democrats will likely be most concerned about Barrett ’ s views on abortion and the Affordable Care Act , the Obama-era law that extended health insurance to millions of Americans .
In 2012 , as a professor at Notre Dame , Barrett signed a letter attacking a provision of the ACA that forced insurance companies to offer coverage for contraception , a facet of the law later modified for religious institutions .
The adjustment forced insurance companies – not employers – to alert employees to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the insurance plan .
The letter Barrett signed said : “ The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs , contraception and sterilization .
This is a grave violation of religious freedom and can not stand.
” If she is confirmed before the November election , one of Barrett ’ s first cases could determine the fate of the Affordable Care Act .

Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court, to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has drawn attention to a secretive Catholic “covenant community” called People of Praise that counts Barrett as a member and faces claims of adhering to a “highly authoritarian” structure.
The 48-year-old appellate court judge has said she is a “faithful Catholic” but that her religious beliefs would not “bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge”.
At the same time, the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump’s evangelical Christian base, has said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God”.
Interviews with experts who have studied charismatic Christian groups such as People of Praise, and with former members of the group, plus a review of the group’s own literature, reveal an organization that appears to dominate some members’ everyday lives, in which so-called “heads” – or spiritual advisers – make big life decisions, and in which members are expected to financially support one another.
Married women – such as Barrett – count their husbands as their “heads” and all members are expected to donate 5% of their income to the organization.
Some conservative and progressive activists have said any discussion of Barrett’s faith is inappropriate in the context of a Senate confirmation to assess her judicial qualifications, and potentially reflects anti-Catholic bigotry.
Other Catholic writers have said it is fair to scrutinize People of Praise because the group falls far outside mainstream Catholicism.
Barrett has not publicly discussed her affiliation but her connection was reported in multiple media accounts at the time of her confirmation to an appellate court in 2017.
Her picture appears in a May 2006 edition of People of Praise’s magazine, which documents her participation in a Leaders’ Conference for Women. Her father and her husband, Jesse Barrett, are also known members.
The group emerged out of the Catholic charismatic movement of the late 1960s, which blended Catholicism and Protestant Pentecostalism – Catholics and Protestants are both members – and adopted practices like speaking in tongues. The group’s literature shows communal living is also encouraged, at least among unmarried members, as is the sharing of finances between households.
A July 2007 “our money our selves” edition of People of Praise’s Vine & Branch magazine included an article about a 17-member group of women described as “single for the Lord” and living together in South Bend, Indiana. The women shared a “sisterhood budget”, which involved them pooling their paychecks while a “head of the sisterhood” determined, with the sisters’ input, how the money was spent.
“If one of us has a need, we’ll pay for it,” one woman named Debbie was quoted as saying. “But we also work hard to distinguish between our needs and our wants.”
The “sisterhood” is described as living “simply, frugally, and generously”, with about $36 put aside per week per person for food and dry goods and $10 for pocket money to buy “Slurpees and movie tickets”. They buy clothes at thrift stores and garage sales and 10% of their income is directed to People of Praise.
The article quotes a head sister named Nano as saying: “If each of us had her own money, it would change everything. Just as we would have our own shelf in the refrigerator, so we would probably partition off other parts of our lives and be more guarded in certain areas. Having money in common moves you to put everything in common.”
Whether People of Praise rises to the level of cult, I am not in a position to make that judgment Heidi Schlumpf
Adrian Reimers, a former member turned critic of the group, described in a book available online called Not Reliable Guides his “grave concern” about how the life of People of Praise members were “not his or her own” and how “all one’s decisions and dealings become the concern of one’s head, and in turn potentially become known to the leadership”.
Reached by the Guardian, Reimers said he did not want to discuss the matter further.
Writing for Politico, Massimo Faggioli, a historian and theologian at Villanova University, said there were “tensions” between serving as a supreme court justice, one of the final interpreters of the US constitution, and swearing an oath to an organization he said “lacks transparency and visible structures of authority that are accountable to their members, to the Roman Catholic church, and to the wider public”.
“A lot of what goes on in People of Praise is not that different than what goes on in a lot of rightwing or conservative Catholic circles,” said Heidi Schlumpf, executive editor for National Catholic Reporter, which reports on the church.
01:56 'The dogma lives loudly in you': Democratic Dianne Feinstein tells Amy Coney Barrett – video
“Whether People of Praise rises to the level of cult, I am not in a position to make that judgment. But there is a level of secrecy that was concerning, and there was a level of reports by people who left the organization of authoritarianism that [is] concerning as well.”
‘Neither an oath nor a vow’
People of Praise is headed by an all-male board of governors described as its “highest authority”.
On its website, the group, which was founded in South Bend in 1971 and has 1,700 members, describes itself as a community that “shares our lives together” and “support each other financially and materially and spiritually”.
“Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment,” the website says. “We teach that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches.”
A spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment about allegations of authoritarian structure or why the group has been described as a cult by some former followers. The spokesman directed the Guardian to the website and said he was being inundated with media requests from all over the world.
Financial records previously submitted to Congress show Barrett served as a trustee for the Trinity School at Greenlawn, a private Catholic school affiliated with People of Praise, from 2015 to 2017. A parent handbook describes the school’s commitment to the establishment of “Christian relationships” that adhere to “scripture and Christian tradition”.
“We understand marriage to be a legal and committed relationship between a man and a woman and believe that the only proper place for sexual activity is within these bounds of conjugal love,” the handbook says, emphasizing that any sex outside of marriage – whether gay or straight – is not in keeping with “God’s plan for human sexuality”.
Donald Trump at a prayer meeting in the White House in August. Photograph: Getty Images
Students who experience same-sex attraction, the handbook says, ought not to “prematurely interpret any emotional experience as identity-defining”.
“We believe that such self-identification at a young age can lead to students being labeled based solely upon sexuality, generate distraction, create confusion, and prevent students from experiencing true freedom within the culture of the school,” the handbook says.
While the school’s objection to gay marriage and attraction is in line with mainstream Catholic teaching, the handbook also actively discourages teenage students from forming “exclusive relationships”, and asks them not to “be exclusive or give evidence of their dating relationships while at school”.
While the handbook does not describe its objection to such relationships, one expert who asked not to be named, because they had already received online abuse for speaking critically about People of Praise, said it revealed the importance the group put on the concept of community, rather than individual relationships.
“It’s typical of these charismatic communities that friendship is seen as a danger to the community,” the person said. “That’s normal.”
Teachers who apply for jobs at any schools affiliated with People of Praise are told, according to an online application, that they need to adhere to a “basic code of Christian conduct”.
‘A grave violation of religious freedom’
Democrats will likely be most concerned about Barrett’s views on abortion and the Affordable Care Act, the Obama-era law that extended health insurance to millions of Americans.
In 2012, as a professor at Notre Dame, Barrett signed a letter attacking a provision of the ACA that forced insurance companies to offer coverage for contraception, a facet of the law later modified for religious institutions. The adjustment forced insurance companies – not employers – to alert employees to contraception and abortion drugs that were available under the insurance plan.
The letter Barrett signed said: “The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.”
If she is confirmed before the November election, one of Barrett’s first cases could determine the fate of the Affordable Care Act.


theguardian--2020-09-26--'Not special any more': how the Senate has failed the American people

In 2012 , the political scientist Ross Baker spent a sabbatical brushing up on his congressional knowledge by spending time in the office of Harry Reid , the then Democratic majority leader in the US Senate .
Baker vividly remembers Reid telling him a story about Mitch McConnell , his opposite number in the Republican party .
“ Reid told me he couldn ’ t get McConnell to go to the White House with him , ” Baker recalled .
“ McConnell would say , ‘ I don ’ t want to go to that place.
’ Reid specifically told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there.
’ ” For Baker , the distinguished professor of political science at Rutgers University , that exchange about McConnell ’ s resistance to even visiting Barack Obama in the White House provided a telling insight into how rigid in its partisanship the modern Republican party under his leadership had become .
It resonated with McConnell ’ s comment two years previously , that “ the single most important thing we have to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president ” .
Such a visceral determination to oust a sitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate as it had historically been conceived .
The world ’ s “ greatest deliberative body ” , as the now fraying cliché goes , was meant to rise above party political point-scoring .
“ The Senate was once the place where problems got solved , where senators were able to converse across party lines , ” Baker told the Guardian .
“ It was the place for the grown-ups .
They thought of themselves as special .
Well , they ’ re not special any more.
” Just how far from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been exposed this week in the wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death .
McConnell lost no time in pressing ahead with a ruthless overturning of a precedent that he himself had invented in 2016 .
In that year , the majority leader refused to hold hearings on Obama ’ s nomination of Merrick Garland to the US supreme court on grounds that it was a presidential election year and that the people should decide by choosing the next incumbent of the White House .
Yet this year McConnell has had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Donald Trump , not the people , should decide Ginsburg ’ s successor – even though the election is less than two months away .
The gambit is all but assured to go ahead after leading Republican senators signaled their willingness to fall in line .
It would secure a 6-3 conservative stranglehold on the nation ’ s top court that could imperil core constitutional rights , including a woman ’ s right to an abortion under Roe v Wade .
McConnell ’ s less than subtle volte-face has been widely condemned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rahman , president of the advocacy group Demos Action , it is far more serious than that .
“ This is a brazen power grab by the far right of the conservative party .
They are shameless about using the exact opposite argument of the one they used last time because they want to control the courts for a generation , ” Rahman said .
The move rankles all the more deeply among progressives and Democratic supporters given the profoundly uneven representation in the US Senate .
Under the chamber ’ s reductionist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is awarded two seats – irrespective of population .
As a result , a single Californian voter has one-fortieth the representative power of a voter from Montana , given that California ( population 40m ) has the same number of Senate seats as Montana ( population 1m ) .
The polite justification for this discrepancy has been that the Founding Fathers wanted to give minority views and smaller states a voice .
But realpolitik came into it too , in the form of a compromise needed to persuade the southern slave-owning states to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world wanted from the US – cotton for the spinning mills of Manchester and Leeds – came from the south .
So the slave states had to be bribed , ” Baker said .
Those inauspicious beginnings are reflected in the composition of the Senate , which over its 231 years has had a woeful record on diversity .
In all those years , there have been almost 2,000 senators , of whom a paltry 10 have been African American ( the current tally is three – the Democrats Kamala Harris and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott ) .
Baker had a striking way of looking at the Senate through the lens of gerrymandering , the tactic widely used by Republicans to draw district boundaries for the House of Representatives and state assemblies in such a way as to artificially increase white voters ’ electoral power .
“ The modern Senate is like one great gerrymander because of the vastly inflated representation it gives to white voters , ” he said .
With the advent of the industrial revolution and the urbanization that followed , the perversity of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A few Democratic-controlled highly urbanized states with dense and diverse populations now have the same Senate representation as many increasingly depopulated predominantly white and Republican rural states .
David Birdsell , dean of Baruch College ’ s Marxe School of Public and International Affairs , estimates that by 2040 , Senators representing 70 % of the American population will hold only 30 % of the seats in the Senate .
As a result , the original vision for the body has become increasingly distorted .
“ Yes , the founders intended to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But they did not intend to create a dictatorship of the minority that prevents the majority from moving forward with sensible policies that benefit everybody.
” The widening electoral deficit has a direct impact on the composition of the US supreme court – as we are now witnessing .
The last justice of the court to be nominated by Trump , Brett Kavanaugh , was confirmed by the Senate in a vote of 50 to 48 .
All but one of those 50 senators were Republican , many from smaller states with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they represented a mere 44 % of the American people .
The same pattern is likely to play out in the current storm over Ginsburg ’ s replacement .
A president elected through the electoral college by a minority of the American people ( Trump attracted 3m fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016 ) will nominate a justice who will be confirmed by Republican senators representing a minority of the American people .
The outcome will be a US supreme court whose 6-3 majority of staunch conservative justices will reflect a minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key issues facing the country – from the climate crisis to abortion to racial justice .
“ This is a measure of how anti-democratic American democracy is right now , ” Rahman said .
“ The central pillars of our democratic infrastructure are increasingly controlled by the right wing of a minority party that is overriding the urgent needs of most Americans .
This is unsustainable – if this continues , we don ’ t get to call ourselves a democracy .
”

In 2012, the political scientist Ross Baker spent a sabbatical brushing up on his congressional knowledge by spending time in the office of Harry Reid, the then Democratic majority leader in the US Senate. Baker vividly remembers Reid telling him a story about Mitch McConnell, his opposite number in the Republican party.
“Reid told me he couldn’t get McConnell to go to the White House with him,” Baker recalled. “McConnell would say, ‘I don’t want to go to that place.’ Reid specifically told me, ‘Mitch hates to go there.’”
For Baker, the distinguished professor of political science at Rutgers University, that exchange about McConnell’s resistance to even visiting Barack Obama in the White House provided a telling insight into how rigid in its partisanship the modern Republican party under his leadership had become. It resonated with McConnell’s comment two years previously, that “the single most important thing we have to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”.
Such a visceral determination to oust a sitting president was not in the spirit of the Senate as it had historically been conceived. The world’s “greatest deliberative body”, as the now fraying cliché goes, was meant to rise above party political point-scoring.
“The Senate was once the place where problems got solved, where senators were able to converse across party lines,” Baker told the Guardian. “It was the place for the grown-ups. They thought of themselves as special. Well, they’re not special any more.”
Just how far from special the US Senate has become has been exposed this week in the wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. McConnell lost no time in pressing ahead with a ruthless overturning of a precedent that he himself had invented in 2016.
In that year, the majority leader refused to hold hearings on Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the US supreme court on grounds that it was a presidential election year and that the people should decide by choosing the next incumbent of the White House. Yet this year McConnell has had no hesitation in applying the opposite rationale – that Donald Trump, not the people, should decide Ginsburg’s successor – even though the election is less than two months away.
The gambit is all but assured to go ahead after leading Republican senators signaled their willingness to fall in line. It would secure a 6-3 conservative stranglehold on the nation’s top court that could imperil core constitutional rights, including a woman’s right to an abortion under Roe v Wade.
McConnell’s less than subtle volte-face has been widely condemned as rank hypocrisy. But for Sabeel Rahman, president of the advocacy group Demos Action, it is far more serious than that.
“This is a brazen power grab by the far right of the conservative party. They are shameless about using the exact opposite argument of the one they used last time because they want to control the courts for a generation,” Rahman said.
The US Capitol building is seen from the Russell Senate Office Building. Photograph: Sarah Silbiger/Reuters
The move rankles all the more deeply among progressives and Democratic supporters given the profoundly uneven representation in the US Senate. Under the chamber’s reductionist formula, each state in the Union is awarded two seats – irrespective of population.
As a result, a single Californian voter has one-fortieth the representative power of a voter from Montana, given that California (population 40m) has the same number of Senate seats as Montana (population 1m). The polite justification for this discrepancy has been that the Founding Fathers wanted to give minority views and smaller states a voice.
But realpolitik came into it too, in the form of a compromise needed to persuade the southern slave-owning states to join the fledgling nation. “What the world wanted from the US – cotton for the spinning mills of Manchester and Leeds – came from the south. So the slave states had to be bribed,” Baker said.
Those inauspicious beginnings are reflected in the composition of the Senate, which over its 231 years has had a woeful record on diversity. In all those years, there have been almost 2,000 senators, of whom a paltry 10 have been African American (the current tally is three – the Democrats Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, and the Republican Tim Scott).
Baker had a striking way of looking at the Senate through the lens of gerrymandering, the tactic widely used by Republicans to draw district boundaries for the House of Representatives and state assemblies in such a way as to artificially increase white voters’ electoral power. “The modern Senate is like one great gerrymander because of the vastly inflated representation it gives to white voters,” he said.
With the advent of the industrial revolution and the urbanization that followed, the perversity of the slavery-soiled two-seats-per-state rule has become exacerbated. A few Democratic-controlled highly urbanized states with dense and diverse populations now have the same Senate representation as many increasingly depopulated predominantly white and Republican rural states.
David Birdsell, dean of Baruch College’s Marxe School of Public and International Affairs, estimates that by 2040, Senators representing 70% of the American population will hold only 30% of the seats in the Senate. As a result, the original vision for the body has become increasingly distorted.
“Yes, the founders intended to protect minority opinions,” Birdsell said. “But they did not intend to create a dictatorship of the minority that prevents the majority from moving forward with sensible policies that benefit everybody.”
The widening electoral deficit has a direct impact on the composition of the US supreme court – as we are now witnessing. The last justice of the court to be nominated by Trump, Brett Kavanaugh, was confirmed by the Senate in a vote of 50 to 48.
All but one of those 50 senators were Republican, many from smaller states with largely white electorates. Between them, they represented a mere 44% of the American people.
The same pattern is likely to play out in the current storm over Ginsburg’s replacement. A president elected through the electoral college by a minority of the American people (Trump attracted 3m fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016) will nominate a justice who will be confirmed by Republican senators representing a minority of the American people.
The outcome will be a US supreme court whose 6-3 majority of staunch conservative justices will reflect a minority of public opinion on many of the key issues facing the country – from the climate crisis to abortion to racial justice.
“This is a measure of how anti-democratic American democracy is right now,” Rahman said. “The central pillars of our democratic infrastructure are increasingly controlled by the right wing of a minority party that is overriding the urgent needs of most Americans. This is unsustainable – if this continues, we don’t get to call ourselves a democracy.”


theguardian--2020-09-26--Why Didn't We Riot? On being a Black man in Trumpland

In a scene from the 1992 Denzel Washington–directed movie Antwone Fisher , the central character shows up on the doorstep of his childhood foster home and is greeted by a woman who had spent years sexually abusing him when he was young .
“ Come here , baby , ” she greets him .
“ Don ’ t touch me , ” he snaps .
He is no longer a little boy , but rather a man matured by the US navy .
“ I ’ d like to speak to Mrs Tate , ” he tells his tormentor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent years treating him like a disposable diaper and “ beat me to dust ” , until he ran away at the age of 14 and got into trouble before finding his way into the military .
Fisher was placed with the Tates , a deeply religious couple , when he was two years old .
His father had been killed before he was born .
His teenage mother gave birth to him while she was in jail .
“ Oh nigga , hug my neck !
” Mrs Tate says with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as though she were a long-lost friend , not an evil that had nearly destroyed Fisher .
He doesn ’ t hug her neck or any part of her , doesn ’ t smile , doesn ’ t pretend to want anything to do with her .
He doesn ’ t need an apology she doesn ’ t think to offer .
He neither wants nor needs her approval .
The scars are still too fresh , too deep , all those years later .
“ You couldn ’ t destroy me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every syllable he speaks .
“ I ’ m still standing .
I ’ m still strong !
And I always will be.
” I ’ m Antwone Fisher to white America ’ s Mrs Tate .
I don ’ t want it to be that way .
But I don ’ t know how to be otherwise .
The scars are too deep , too fresh .
I knew we were in trouble when I couldn ’ t find a way to not be angry , because I had never been angry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If a black man like me was having trouble corralling his anger , I knew it meant that anger among black people had to have risen to biblical proportions and could ignite given the right spark .
I just didn ’ t know that spark would be eight minutes and forty-six seconds of a video of a white cop slowly , defiantly snuffing the life out of a black man on the concrete in broad daylight in front of numerous onlookers .
As I type these words in June 2020 , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the massacre in Charleston .
I appreciate that cities , counties , and police departments have begun rethinking their use-of-force policies , that police unions are being pressured to allow reform or get out of the way .
Symbols of white supremacy are under attack – monuments , memorials , Gone with the Wind – in a way I had never seen in my lifetime .
Demonstrators throughout the world called George Floyd ’ s name in solidarity with black Americans .
New York repealed a law that had kept police discipline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A .
Protesters chopped off the head of a monument built in honor of Robert E Lee , the man who led the Confederate army .
They threw a statue of Christopher Columbus into a lake .
Clemson University trustees voted to remove the name of slavery champion John C Calhoun from its Honors College .
The mayor of Boston declared racism a health emergency and dedicated $ 3m in funds to deal with it .
Nascar – yes , Nascar !
– banned the Confederate flag from all its properties and events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first black lead .
Still , I ’ m jaded .
That ’ s why I ’ m having a hard time processing how to feel after years of banging my head against a brick wall and finally seeing cracks emerge .
I ’ m not yet convinced white people are willing to do what it would take to enact the changes we need , even after the most sustained and widespread protests of my lifetime .
I fully expect that even after all we ’ ve seen , all the harm Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race , and so many other things , that he is more likely to garner 60 % of the white vote in November than 50 % .
I fully expect that he will win the white vote at every economic level the way he did in 2016 .
I fully expect that if Trump finds a way to get a second term , it will be because white America decided that white supremacy and racism aren ’ t deal breakers – even in 2020 .
The immediate changes made in the wake of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But they were low-hanging fruit .
White supremacy and anti-black racism have to be pulled up by the roots in order for long-lasting reform to take hold .
If that doesn ’ t happen , if there is no real racial reckoning , history will repeat itself .
The past has made that clear .
When I was a student at Davidson College in North Carolina in the early 1990s , I sat in my dorm watching on CNN scenes from the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict .
Not too long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism courses at Davidson during the spring 2020 semester , Floyd was murdered by police in Minnesota .
White supremacy meant a race-based chattel slavery would be further entrenched after black people helped white colonists defeat the British .
It meant Reconstruction , during which black people made significant steps forward even though they were only recently freed from slavery , was followed by Redemption and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and a century of lynchings .
Black excellence along “ Black Wall Street ” in Tulsa was met by mobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military and police who murdered hundreds of black people and left thousands homeless .
Black veterans were treated worse than German POWs during world war II .
White supremacy convinced white parents and school officials to be defiant in the face of a 1954 supreme court that supposedly killed Jim Crow – then convinced white voters to follow the era of the nation ’ s first black president with the election of a man whose rise to political heights was powered by the open use of bigotry and racism .
I interviewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights crusader Bryan Stevenson after his organization opened the nation ’ s first memorial dedicated to the nearly 5,000 people known to have been lynched throughout much of the 20th century .
He spoke about how the Holocaust Museum motivates every visitor to say “ never again ” .
We haven ’ t done that for the legacy of slavery in this country .
“ We haven ’ t created spaces that present the history of racial inequality in this country in a way that motivates people to say ‘ never again ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we haven ’ t said ‘ never again ’ , people say things that are ignorant about enslaved people being responsible for their slavery or being lynched , or segregation being something that black people wanted .
I think that mindset has just not been disrupted by the truth of what our history is .
I do believe the truth can make us free .
Understanding what has happened , despite its brutality , is key to us creating a better future.
” Neither have we fully grappled with the trauma inflicted upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free country .
“ I don ’ t think we understand what trauma does ; I don ’ t think we appreciate how we have institutionalized a lot of trauma by the way we have been indifferent to basic human needs , ” Stevenson told me .
“ From enslavement , where 50 % of all enslaved people were separated from their spouse or their family members , that ’ s traumatic .
Lynching , to have people of color hanged and brutalized and tortured while others cheer is absolutely traumatizing .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a society where your humanity is constantly denied and demeaned by segregation can be incredibly traumatizing and injurious .
And even now , to live in a country where if you are black or brown and can be presumed dangerous and guilty just because of your color .
And to have to navigate around other people ’ s presumption of your dangerousness , when you are not dangerous , it ’ s exhausting.
” I ’ m exhausted .
Most black people I know are exhausted .
While I want to be encouraged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of George Floyd , I can ’ t – not yet .
Pulling down monuments and furling the flag of traitors that should have never been flown on public property – or demanding that police officers kill only when absolutely necessary , as a last resort and not because they were afraid or angry – might get us closer to zero , but it won ’ t guarantee true racial equality .
Too much damage has been done .
The wounds are still too fresh .
I ’ ll know white America is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to punish politicians who use white supremacy and white fear as political weapons and tools .
The first Tuesday in November will begin telling the tale .
• None Excerpted from Why Didn ’ t We Riot ?
: A Black Man in Trumpland by Issac J Bailey , soon to be published by Other Press

In a scene from the 1992 Denzel Washington–directed movie Antwone Fisher, the central character shows up on the doorstep of his childhood foster home and is greeted by a woman who had spent years sexually abusing him when he was young.
“Come here, baby,” she greets him. “Don’t touch me,” he snaps.
He is no longer a little boy, but rather a man matured by the US navy.
“I’d like to speak to Mrs Tate,” he tells his tormentor, referring to the foster mother who had spent years treating him like a disposable diaper and “beat me to dust”, until he ran away at the age of 14 and got into trouble before finding his way into the military.
Fisher was placed with the Tates, a deeply religious couple, when he was two years old. His father had been killed before he was born. His teenage mother gave birth to him while she was in jail.
“Oh nigga, hug my neck!” Mrs Tate says with a smile while trying to embrace him, as though she were a long-lost friend, not an evil that had nearly destroyed Fisher.
He doesn’t hug her neck or any part of her, doesn’t smile, doesn’t pretend to want anything to do with her. He doesn’t need an apology she doesn’t think to offer. He neither wants nor needs her approval. The scars are still too fresh, too deep, all those years later.
“You couldn’t destroy me,” he says, defiance dripping from every syllable he speaks. “I’m still standing. I’m still strong! And I always will be.”
I’m Antwone Fisher to white America’s Mrs Tate. I don’t want it to be that way. But I don’t know how to be otherwise. The scars are too deep, too fresh. I knew we were in trouble when I couldn’t find a way to not be angry, because I had never been angry before, not in a sustained way. If a black man like me was having trouble corralling his anger, I knew it meant that anger among black people had to have risen to biblical proportions and could ignite given the right spark. I just didn’t know that spark would be eight minutes and forty-six seconds of a video of a white cop slowly, defiantly snuffing the life out of a black man on the concrete in broad daylight in front of numerous onlookers.
As I type these words in June 2020, I get that the Confederate flag came down after the massacre in Charleston. I appreciate that cities, counties, and police departments have begun rethinking their use-of-force policies, that police unions are being pressured to allow reform or get out of the way. Symbols of white supremacy are under attack – monuments, memorials, Gone with the Wind – in a way I had never seen in my lifetime. Demonstrators throughout the world called George Floyd’s name in solidarity with black Americans. New York repealed a law that had kept police discipline records private. Lady Antebellum became Lady A.
Protesters chopped off the head of a monument built in honor of Robert E Lee, the man who led the Confederate army. They threw a statue of Christopher Columbus into a lake. Clemson University trustees voted to remove the name of slavery champion John C Calhoun from its Honors College. The mayor of Boston declared racism a health emergency and dedicated $3m in funds to deal with it. Nascar – yes, Nascar! – banned the Confederate flag from all its properties and events. Even The Bachelor has named its first black lead.
Policemen walk enveloped by teargas in Portland, Oregon. Photograph: Dave Killen/AP
Still, I’m jaded. That’s why I’m having a hard time processing how to feel after years of banging my head against a brick wall and finally seeing cracks emerge. I’m not yet convinced white people are willing to do what it would take to enact the changes we need, even after the most sustained and widespread protests of my lifetime. I fully expect that even after all we’ve seen, all the harm Donald Trump has done on the issue of race, and so many other things, that he is more likely to garner 60% of the white vote in November than 50%. I fully expect that he will win the white vote at every economic level the way he did in 2016. I fully expect that if Trump finds a way to get a second term, it will be because white America decided that white supremacy and racism aren’t deal breakers – even in 2020.
The immediate changes made in the wake of the George Floyd protests were positive. But they were low-hanging fruit. White supremacy and anti-black racism have to be pulled up by the roots in order for long-lasting reform to take hold. If that doesn’t happen, if there is no real racial reckoning, history will repeat itself. The past has made that clear. When I was a student at Davidson College in North Carolina in the early 1990s, I sat in my dorm watching on CNN scenes from the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict. Not too long after I finished teaching a couple of journalism courses at Davidson during the spring 2020 semester, Floyd was murdered by police in Minnesota.
White supremacy meant a race-based chattel slavery would be further entrenched after black people helped white colonists defeat the British. It meant Reconstruction, during which black people made significant steps forward even though they were only recently freed from slavery, was followed by Redemption and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and a century of lynchings. Black excellence along “Black Wall Street” in Tulsa was met by mobs of white vigilantes and their friends in the military and police who murdered hundreds of black people and left thousands homeless. Black veterans were treated worse than German POWs during world war II. White supremacy convinced white parents and school officials to be defiant in the face of a 1954 supreme court that supposedly killed Jim Crow – then convinced white voters to follow the era of the nation’s first black president with the election of a man whose rise to political heights was powered by the open use of bigotry and racism.
I interviewed the famed civil rights attorney and civil rights crusader Bryan Stevenson after his organization opened the nation’s first memorial dedicated to the nearly 5,000 people known to have been lynched throughout much of the 20th century. He spoke about how the Holocaust Museum motivates every visitor to say “never again”.
We haven’t done that for the legacy of slavery in this country.
“We haven’t created spaces that present the history of racial inequality in this country in a way that motivates people to say ‘never again’,” he said. “Because we haven’t said ‘never again’, people say things that are ignorant about enslaved people being responsible for their slavery or being lynched, or segregation being something that black people wanted. I think that mindset has just not been disrupted by the truth of what our history is. I do believe the truth can make us free. Understanding what has happened, despite its brutality, is key to us creating a better future.”
Neither have we fully grappled with the trauma inflicted upon those wearing dark skin in a supposedly free country.
A sculpture commemorating the slave trade greets visitors at the entrance National Memorial For Peace And Justice, in Montgomery, Alabama. Photograph: Bob Miller/Getty Images
“I don’t think we understand what trauma does; I don’t think we appreciate how we have institutionalized a lot of trauma by the way we have been indifferent to basic human needs,” Stevenson told me. “From enslavement, where 50% of all enslaved people were separated from their spouse or their family members, that’s traumatic. Lynching, to have people of color hanged and brutalized and tortured while others cheer is absolutely traumatizing. To have to learn how to exist in a society where your humanity is constantly denied and demeaned by segregation can be incredibly traumatizing and injurious. And even now, to live in a country where if you are black or brown and can be presumed dangerous and guilty just because of your color. And to have to navigate around other people’s presumption of your dangerousness, when you are not dangerous, it’s exhausting.”
I’m exhausted. Most black people I know are exhausted. While I want to be encouraged by what we saw after the murder of George Floyd, I can’t – not yet. Pulling down monuments and furling the flag of traitors that should have never been flown on public property – or demanding that police officers kill only when absolutely necessary, as a last resort and not because they were afraid or angry – might get us closer to zero, but it won’t guarantee true racial equality. Too much damage has been done. The wounds are still too fresh. I’ll know white America is serious about long-lasting change when they begin to punish politicians who use white supremacy and white fear as political weapons and tools. The first Tuesday in November will begin telling the tale.