shareblue--2020-10-13--GOP senator praises Barrett's 'unique' experience of having Black children

Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) on Tuesday described Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett 's role as the mother of Black children as existing in a `` unique context '' and asked how it would affect her rulings .
Barrett is the mother of two children who were born in Haiti .
`` You and your husband are the parents of a multiracial family , '' Hawley said .
`` Can you give us some sense just in your personal experience what that has been like for you , what that means to you , what experience you bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a parent in this unique context ? ''
Barrett told Hawley that her personal experiences `` do n't dictate how I decide cases '' and asserted that `` in applying the law and deciding cases , [ I ] do n't let those experiences dictate the outcome . ''
In fact , in her role as a federal judge , Barrett upheld the dismissal of a workplace discrimination lawsuit brought by an Illinois transportation employee who said his supervisor had used a racial epithet .
She noted in her opinion that while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epithet , '' the plaintiff in the case , Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation , `` ca n't win simply by proving that the word was uttered . ''
She argued that despite the racist language , the plaintiff had not proven that a hostile or abusive working environment had been created , and stated bluntly that his experience on the job `` had nothing to do with his race . ''
From the Oct. 13 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee : SEN. JOSH HAWLEY : You and your husband are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HAWLEY : Can you give us some sense , just in your personal experience , what that has been like for you , what that means to you , what experience you bring to the bench because of your experience as a parent in this unique context ?
BARRETT : Well , I think I could say how it has shaped me as a person .
It has certainly — you know , whenever you have a life experience that makes you acutely aware in your interactions with other people , it gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the same is true of our having a son with a disability .
But I want to make very clear , Sen. Hawley , that while my life experiences , I think , I hope have given me wisdom and compassion , they do n't dictate how I decide cases .
Because you know , as we discussed before , and I 've discussed a couple of times , sometimes you have to decide cases in ways where you do n't like the result .
So while I hope that my family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and my children definitely have given me new perspectives on life , I still , in applying the law and deciding cases , do n't let those experiences dictate the outcome .
HAWLEY : You 'll follow the law wherever the law leads ?
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) on Tuesday described Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s role as the mother of Black children as existing in a “unique context” and asked how it would affect her rulings.
Barrett is the mother of two children who were born in Haiti.
“You and your husband are the parents of a multiracial family,” Hawley said. “Can you give us some sense just in your personal experience what that has been like for you, what that means to you, what experience you bring to the bench because of your experience as a parent in this unique context?”
Barrett told Hawley that her personal experiences “don’t dictate how I decide cases” and asserted that “in applying the law and deciding cases, [I] don’t let those experiences dictate the outcome.”
In fact, in her role as a federal judge, Barrett upheld the dismissal of a workplace discrimination lawsuit brought by an Illinois transportation employee who said his supervisor had used a racial epithet.
She noted in her opinion that while “the n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” the plaintiff in the case, Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation, “can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered.” She argued that despite the racist language, the plaintiff had not proven that a hostile or abusive working environment had been created, and stated bluntly that his experience on the job “had nothing to do with his race.”
From the Oct. 13 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY: You and your husband are the parents of a multiracial family. AMY CONEY BARRETT: We are. HAWLEY: Can you give us some sense, just in your personal experience, what that has been like for you, what that means to you, what experience you bring to the bench because of your experience as a parent in this unique context? BARRETT: Well, I think I could say how it has shaped me as a person. It has certainly — you know, whenever you have a life experience that makes you acutely aware in your interactions with other people, it gives you empathy for them. I mean, the same is true of our having a son with a disability. But I want to make very clear, Sen. Hawley, that while my life experiences, I think, I hope have given me wisdom and compassion, they don’t dictate how I decide cases. Because you know, as we discussed before, and I’ve discussed a couple of times, sometimes you have to decide cases in ways where you don’t like the result. So while I hope that my family has made me a better person, and my children definitely have given me new perspectives on life, I still, in applying the law and deciding cases, don’t let those experiences dictate the outcome. HAWLEY: You’ll follow the law wherever the law leads? BARRETT: Yes.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett refuses to admit that voter intimidation is illegal

On the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings , Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer Sen. Amy Klobuchar 's ( D-MN ) questions when asked whether federal law prohibits voter intimidation at the polls .
In recent months , voter intimidation and voter suppression have been hot-button issues , with Donald Trump during the first presidential debate going so far as to openly solicit his supporters to commit voter intimidation .
`` Go to the polls and watch very carefully , '' Trump said , before spiraling into frequently debunked conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens , Klobuchar had a pressing question to ask Barrett during her allotted time .
`` Judge Barrett , under federal law , is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls ? ''
Klobuchar asked .
`` I ca n't characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation , and I ca n't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts , '' she said .
`` I can only decide cases as they come to me , litigated by parties on the full record , after fully engaging precedent , talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so I ca n't answer questions like that . ''
Klobuchar pushed back .
She cited 18 U.S.C .
594 , which outlaws intimidation , threats , and coercion at the polls or attempts to do so `` for the purpose of interfering with the right of ... ( a ) person to vote . ''
`` This is a law that has been on the books for decades , '' said Klobuchar .
She then turned to the question of armed citizens watching polls .
`` Do you think a reasonable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of armed civilian groups at the polls ? ''
Klobuchar asked .
`` I 'm not sure whether to say it 's soliciting a legal opinion ( of ) me , because the reasonable person standard as you know is ... common under the law , or just an opinion as a citizen , but it 's not something that 's really appropriate for me to comment on , '' she said .
Klobuchar also brought up the precedent Supreme Court case of Shelby County v. Holder , which struck down two provisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She read aloud part of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's dissent to the decision , which noted that striking down the provisions was akin to `` throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet . ''
`` ( Did you know ) over 20 states have now made more restrictive voting laws than they did before that case ? ''
asked Klobuchar .
`` It seems to me that the proof is in the pudding . ''
She added that while Barrett may claim voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to undercut this position .
`` The Voting Rights Act is so key , '' Klobuchar said .
`` We 're talking about the entire foundation of our democracy here . ''
She went on to review in front of Barrett various incidents nationwide to illustrate concerns about voter suppression .
In April , the Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin residents could not have an extended deadline on absentee ballots despite the pandemic .
`` States have policies that make it harder to vote , '' Klobuchar said , noting that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line in pandemics and homemade masks and garbage bags in a rainstorm '' when forced to vote in-person due to the SCOTUS decision .
`` Seventy of them got COVID , '' she added , quoting Ginsburg 's fiery dissent stating that the majority opinion `` boggled the mind . ''
In North Carolina , key elements of the Voting Rights Act were recently struck down and signature-matching laws upheld , effectively disenfranchising many Black voters .
In Tennessee , Secretary of State Tre Hargett has expressed vehement opposition to drop-off ballot boxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court reinstated a statute requiring voters in South Carolina to get witness signatures to mail-in and absentee ballots — in the midst of a pandemic .
This month , Texas Republican Gov .
Greg Abbott hired `` poll watchers '' and limited drop-off ballots to one per Texas county , including large counties like Harris County , which has 4.7 million residents .
The decision was challenged , but a federal appeals court upheld it .
Trump continues to promote narratives about fictional mail-in voter fraud and fearmongering nationwide , with a seemingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under questioning by Klobuchar , Barrett could easily have cleared up any confusion on the legality of voter intimidation and condemned the practice .
By choosing not to , it calls into question her respect for the law — and her fitness for the highest court in the land .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

On the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to answer Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-MN) questions when asked whether federal law prohibits voter intimidation at the polls.
In recent months, voter intimidation and voter suppression have been hot-button issues, with Donald Trump during the first presidential debate going so far as to openly solicit his supporters to commit voter intimidation.
“Go to the polls and watch very carefully,” Trump said, before spiraling into frequently debunked conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania.
Discussing poll watching by armed citizens, Klobuchar had a pressing question to ask Barrett during her allotted time.
“Judge Barrett, under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls?” Klobuchar asked.
Barrett declined to answer.
“I can’t characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation, and I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts,” she said. “I can only decide cases as they come to me, litigated by parties on the full record, after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion. And so I can’t answer questions like that.”
Klobuchar pushed back. She cited 18 U.S.C. 594, which outlaws intimidation, threats, and coercion at the polls or attempts to do so “for the purpose of interfering with the right of … (a) person to vote.”
“This is a law that has been on the books for decades,” said Klobuchar.
She then turned to the question of armed citizens watching polls.
“Do you think a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the presence of armed civilian groups at the polls?” Klobuchar asked.
Barrett again demurred.
“I’m not sure whether to say it’s soliciting a legal opinion (of) me, because the reasonable person standard as you know is … common under the law, or just an opinion as a citizen, but it’s not something that’s really appropriate for me to comment on,” she said.
Klobuchar also brought up the precedent Supreme Court case of Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
She read aloud part of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent to the decision, which noted that striking down the provisions was akin to “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
“(Did you know) over 20 states have now made more restrictive voting laws than they did before that case?” asked Klobuchar. “It seems to me that the proof is in the pudding.”
She added that while Barrett may claim voting is a right, her judicial record seems to undercut this position.
“The Voting Rights Act is so key,” Klobuchar said. “We’re talking about the entire foundation of our democracy here.”
She went on to review in front of Barrett various incidents nationwide to illustrate concerns about voter suppression.
In April, the Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin residents could not have an extended deadline on absentee ballots despite the pandemic.
“States have policies that make it harder to vote,” Klobuchar said, noting that in Wisconsin, voters were “standing in line in pandemics and homemade masks and garbage bags in a rainstorm” when forced to vote in-person due to the SCOTUS decision.
“Seventy of them got COVID,” she added, quoting Ginsburg’s fiery dissent stating that the majority opinion “boggled the mind.”
In North Carolina, key elements of the Voting Rights Act were recently struck down and signature-matching laws upheld, effectively disenfranchising many Black voters.
In Tennessee, Secretary of State Tre Hargett has expressed vehement opposition to drop-off ballot boxes.
A week ago, the Supreme Court reinstated a statute requiring voters in South Carolina to get witness signatures to mail-in and absentee ballots — in the midst of a pandemic.
This month, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott hired “poll watchers” and limited drop-off ballots to one per Texas county, including large counties like Harris County, which has 4.7 million residents. The decision was challenged, but a federal appeals court upheld it.
Trump continues to promote narratives about fictional mail-in voter fraud and fearmongering nationwide, with a seemingly particular animus toward voters of color.
Under questioning by Klobuchar, Barrett could easily have cleared up any confusion on the legality of voter intimidation and condemned the practice.
By choosing not to, it calls into question her respect for the law — and her fitness for the highest court in the land.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-13--Christians form super PAC to oppose Trump: We're 'better off' without him

A group of prominent Christians from both sides of the aisle , including a past faith adviser to former President Barack Obama , is forming a political action committee designed to chip away at Christian support for Donald Trump in the final weeks of the 2020 campaign .
Dubbed Not Our Faith , the new super PAC plans to roll out six-figure TV and digital ads focused on Christian voters — particularly the evangelical and Catholic voters who helped power Trump to victory in 2016 .
Its first digital ad , set to run in Michigan and Pennsylvania , takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a foothold with Christians .
The ad , shared with the Associated Press in advance of its release , says Trump `` has used Christianity for his own purposes , '' invoking imagery of his photo op outside a historic Washington church amid this summer 's racial justice demonstrations .
Urging Christians to break from Trump , the ad states that they `` do n't need Trump to save them .
The truth is that Trump needs Christians to save his flailing campaign . ''
That sharp critique of Trump 's standing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks to evangelicals in particular to help him muscle to reelection over Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
While Biden 's campaign is mounting a well-organized faith outreach effort , that work largely focuses on an affirmative case for the former vice president rather than the overtly anti-Trump case that the new PAC is making .
Among the PAC 's advisory council members are Michael Wear , a former faith adviser in Obama 's administration and reelection campaign , and Autumn VandeHei , a former aide to onetime Republican Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has `` in a predatory way attached himself to Christians , '' asserting that the faith would be `` better off '' without him .
`` Trump eked out 2016 with unprecedented support from white evangelicals and , important to note , a really strong showing among Catholics .
We 're going after all of it , '' Wear said .
`` We think Christian support is on the table in this election . ''
Trump and his reelection campaign continue to lean heavily on pitches to Christian voters , with Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are hostile to religion .
Republicans are also appealing to voters of faith by claiming that Democrats have unfairly criticized Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett for her Catholicism , although no Democratic senator has yet raised the issue during Barrett 's confirmation hearings .
Trump 's faith adviser and personal pastor , Paula White , is set to appear Tuesday in the battleground state of Ohio at an event for the campaign 's evangelical outreach project .
Whether Biden backers ' bid to peel away evangelical support from Trump is making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center taken after Trump 's contentious church photo op found that 72 % of white evangelicals approved of his handling of the job , a level that has remained largely consistent over his presidency .
But the new PAC sees room for a wide-ranging connection with Christian voters beyond Trump 's white evangelical base .
Wear said the project hopes `` to reach and appeal to a diverse coalition of Christians … just as we anticipate a diverse coalition of Christians will oppose Donald Trump 's reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also includes Carolyn Y .
Woo , the retired president and CEO of the faith-based humanitarian group Catholic Relief Services , and the Rev .
Alvin Love , pastor at Lilydale First Baptist Church in Chicago and chair of faith-based initiatives at the National Baptist Convention .

A group of prominent Christians from both sides of the aisle, including a past faith adviser to former President Barack Obama, is forming a political action committee designed to chip away at Christian support for Donald Trump in the final weeks of the 2020 campaign.
Dubbed Not Our Faith, the new super PAC plans to roll out six-figure TV and digital ads focused on Christian voters — particularly the evangelical and Catholic voters who helped power Trump to victory in 2016. Its first digital ad, set to run in Michigan and Pennsylvania, takes sharp aim at Trump’s claim to a foothold with Christians.
The ad, shared with the Associated Press in advance of its release, says Trump “has used Christianity for his own purposes,” invoking imagery of his photo op outside a historic Washington church amid this summer’s racial justice demonstrations. Urging Christians to break from Trump, the ad states that they “don’t need Trump to save them. The truth is that Trump needs Christians to save his flailing campaign.”
That sharp critique of Trump’s standing with Christian voters comes as the Trump campaign looks to evangelicals in particular to help him muscle to reelection over Democratic nominee Joe Biden. While Biden’s campaign is mounting a well-organized faith outreach effort, that work largely focuses on an affirmative case for the former vice president rather than the overtly anti-Trump case that the new PAC is making.
Among the PAC’s advisory council members are Michael Wear, a former faith adviser in Obama’s administration and reelection campaign, and Autumn VandeHei, a former aide to onetime Republican Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas. Wear said in an interview that Trump has “in a predatory way attached himself to Christians,” asserting that the faith would be “better off” without him.
“Trump eked out 2016 with unprecedented support from white evangelicals and, important to note, a really strong showing among Catholics. We’re going after all of it,” Wear said. “We think Christian support is on the table in this election.”
Trump and his reelection campaign continue to lean heavily on pitches to Christian voters, with Trump asserting the baseless claim that Biden and Democrats are hostile to religion. Republicans are also appealing to voters of faith by claiming that Democrats have unfairly criticized Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett for her Catholicism, although no Democratic senator has yet raised the issue during Barrett’s confirmation hearings.
Trump’s faith adviser and personal pastor, Paula White, is set to appear Tuesday in the battleground state of Ohio at an event for the campaign’s evangelical outreach project.
Whether Biden backers’ bid to peel away evangelical support from Trump is making headway remains to be seen. A survey from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center taken after Trump’s contentious church photo op found that 72% of white evangelicals approved of his handling of the job, a level that has remained largely consistent over his presidency.
But the new PAC sees room for a wide-ranging connection with Christian voters beyond Trump’s white evangelical base. Wear said the project hopes “to reach and appeal to a diverse coalition of Christians … just as we anticipate a diverse coalition of Christians will oppose Donald Trump’s reelection.”
The PAC’s advisory council also includes Carolyn Y. Woo, the retired president and CEO of the faith-based humanitarian group Catholic Relief Services, and the Rev. Alvin Love, pastor at Lilydale First Baptist Church in Chicago and chair of faith-based initiatives at the National Baptist Convention.


shareblue--2020-10-13--Trump's betting on blatant racism to save his flailing campaign

As he continues to trail former Vice President Joe Biden in the polls , Donald Trump is resorting to taking cheap shots against his opponent 's running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) , calling her a `` monster '' and a `` super liberal wack job '' who is `` not as smart '' as her Senate colleagues .
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that the Trump campaign 's newest strategy is to target Harris — and specifically , her identity as a Black woman — in the final three weeks before the election .
After last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Harris a `` monster , '' and said Biden `` wo n't be president for two months '' before Harris steps in and assumes the role of president .
`` The radical left controls Biden .
Biden wo n't be president for two months , OK ?
He wo n't be president for two months , '' Trump told Fox Business 's Maria Bartiromo last week .
`` So what do you mean ?
You mean that he 'll have to step down ?
Are you saying you think he 'll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Bartiromo asked .
`` He 's not mentally capable of being president .
You know that .
Everybody knows that .
Everybody that knows him — he ca n't be president , '' Trump said .
He continued : `` And this monster that was onstage with Mike Pence — who destroyed her last night , by the way .
But this monster , she says , 'No , no , there wo n't be fracking , there wo n't be this , there wo n't . '
Everything she said is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Biden has `` a lot of bad days coming '' at a rally in Florida on Monday .
`` His handlers and the Fake News Media are doing everything possible to get him through the Election , '' Trump tweeted last month .
`` Then he will resign , or whatever , and we are stuck with a super liberal wack job that NOBODY wanted ! ''
In September , Trump told supporters in Wisconsin that Harris is `` further left than '' Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) and `` not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-MA ) .
And after Biden accidentally referred to a possible `` Harris-Biden administration , '' the Trump campaign sent out a fundraising text message that read , `` THE KAMALA HARRIS ADMINISTRATION !
The secret is out . ''
Harris has dismissed Trump 's comments about her as `` childish , '' while Biden called them `` despicable '' and `` so beneath the office of the presidency . ''
`` It 's obvious he has great difficulty dealing with strong women , great difficulty , '' Biden told reporters after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brazen dog whistles against Harris , who could become the first woman of color to serve as vice president .
`` It is really an effort to say to their base , 'Look , we don ’ t want a Black woman to be president , ' '' Rep. Marcia Fudge ( D-OH ) told the Associated Press .
`` 'We don ’ t want this Black person to take over in case something happens to Joe Biden . '
'' In August , Trump gave credence to a racist conspiracy theory claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run for office .
Harris , whose parents came to the United States from India and Jamaica , was born in California .
`` I heard it today that she doesn ’ t meet the requirements , '' Trump told reporters in August .
`` I would have thought , I would have assumed , that the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice president . ''
The move that harkened back to the racist `` birther '' conspiracy theory championed by Trump and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama was born in Kenya , and therefore was not eligible to run for president .
Biden has led Donald Trump in the polls since this summer , and has made inroads with voters in swing states as well as older voters , who make up a core of Trump 's base .
Still , there are signs that the Trump campaign 's desperate strategy may be resonating with some voters , according to the Swing Voter Project , which tracks the opinions of voters who flipped from supporting Obama in 2012 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential debate , the organization hosted a focus group with 13 swing voters in Michigan .
Of the 13 swing voters interviewed , 11 planned to vote for Trump a second time , while two planned to vote for Biden .
Several of the focus group participants parroted Trump 's claim that Harris would take over the presidency from Biden .
Asked when such a power play might occur , one man guessed , `` First six months . ''
`` I 'd say probably within a year , '' one woman added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain is not exactly a new strategy for Trump .
As a businessman , he was known to casually repeat racist tropes , and allegedly once called a Black accountant lazy .
`` Black guys counting my money !
I hate it , '' Trump supposedly said at the time .
`` I think that the guy is lazy .
And it ’ s probably not his fault , because laziness is a trait in blacks . ''
In 1989 , Trump famously bought full-page advertisements in four New York newspapers demanding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black teenagers who were falsely accused of raping a white woman — be executed .
As a celebrity and reality television host , Trump promoted the racist conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya , and therefore ineligible to serve as president .
As president , Trump has referred to Haiti and African nations as `` shithole countries , '' and has routinely called Black Lives Matter activists `` thugs . ''

As he continues to trail former Vice President Joe Biden in the polls, Donald Trump is resorting to taking cheap shots against his opponent’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), calling her a “monster” and a “super liberal wack job” who is “not as smart” as her Senate colleagues.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that the Trump campaign’s newest strategy is to target Harris — and specifically, her identity as a Black woman — in the final three weeks before the election.
After last week’s vice presidential debate, Trump called Harris a “monster,” and said Biden “won’t be president for two months” before Harris steps in and assumes the role of president.
“The radical left controls Biden. Biden won’t be president for two months, OK? He won’t be president for two months,” Trump told Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo last week.
“So what do you mean? You mean that he’ll have to step down? Are you saying you think he’ll have to step down after two months?” Bartiromo asked.
“He’s not mentally capable of being president. You know that. Everybody knows that. Everybody that knows him — he can’t be president,” Trump said.
He continued: “And this monster that was onstage with Mike Pence — who destroyed her last night, by the way. But this monster, she says, ‘No, no, there won’t be fracking, there won’t be this, there won’t.’ Everything she said is a lie!”
Trump darkly warned that Biden has “a lot of bad days coming” at a rally in Florida on Monday.
“His handlers and the Fake News Media are doing everything possible to get him through the Election,” Trump tweeted last month. “Then he will resign, or whatever, and we are stuck with a super liberal wack job that NOBODY wanted!”
In September, Trump told supporters in Wisconsin that Harris is “further left than” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and “not as smart” as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). And after Biden accidentally referred to a possible “Harris-Biden administration,” the Trump campaign sent out a fundraising text message that read, “THE KAMALA HARRIS ADMINISTRATION! The secret is out.”
Harris has dismissed Trump’s comments about her as “childish,” while Biden called them “despicable” and “so beneath the office of the presidency.”
“It’s obvious he has great difficulty dealing with strong women, great difficulty,” Biden told reporters after the debate.
Trump’s attacks are brazen dog whistles against Harris, who could become the first woman of color to serve as vice president.
“It is really an effort to say to their base, ‘Look, we don’t want a Black woman to be president,'” Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) told the Associated Press. “‘We don’t want this Black person to take over in case something happens to Joe Biden.'”
In August, Trump gave credence to a racist conspiracy theory claiming that Harris may not meet citizenship requirements to run for office. Harris, whose parents came to the United States from India and Jamaica, was born in California.
“I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” Trump told reporters in August. “I would have thought, I would have assumed, that the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice president.”
The move that harkened back to the racist “birther” conspiracy theory championed by Trump and other conservatives which falsely claimed that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and therefore was not eligible to run for president.
Biden has led Donald Trump in the polls since this summer, and has made inroads with voters in swing states as well as older voters, who make up a core of Trump’s base. Still, there are signs that the Trump campaign’s desperate strategy may be resonating with some voters, according to the Swing Voter Project, which tracks the opinions of voters who flipped from supporting Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.
After the vice presidential debate, the organization hosted a focus group with 13 swing voters in Michigan. Of the 13 swing voters interviewed, 11 planned to vote for Trump a second time, while two planned to vote for Biden. Several of the focus group participants parroted Trump’s claim that Harris would take over the presidency from Biden.
Asked when such a power play might occur, one man guessed, “First six months.”
“I’d say probably within a year,” one woman added.
Resorting to racist stereotypes for personal gain is not exactly a new strategy for Trump. As a businessman, he was known to casually repeat racist tropes, and allegedly once called a Black accountant lazy.
“Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” Trump supposedly said at the time. “I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”
In 1989, Trump famously bought full-page advertisements in four New York newspapers demanding that the Central Park Five — the five Black teenagers who were falsely accused of raping a white woman — be executed.
As a celebrity and reality television host, Trump promoted the racist conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya, and therefore ineligible to serve as president.
As president, Trump has referred to Haiti and African nations as “shithole countries,” and has routinely called Black Lives Matter activists “thugs.”
Trump’s attacks against Harris could be a sign that his campaign is struggling to land a clean punch on Biden.


shareblue--2020-10-13--Fact check: Lindsey Graham blatantly lies about Obamacare at Supreme Court hearing

The senator leading Supreme Court confirmation hearings Tuesday launched into revisionist history on Obamacare , implying it was designed to help Democratic states like California , New York , and Massachusetts while doling out less to states like his , South Carolina .
In doing so , Sen. Lindsey Graham skipped over the fact that health insurance costs more in states like New York , and that South Carolina is among 12 conservative states that have not adopted the law 's Medicaid expansion , a big source of federal subsidies .
A look at the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett : GRAHAM : `` Under the Affordable Care Act , three states get 35 % of the money , folks .
Can you name them ?
I 'll help you , California , New York , and Massachusetts .
They 're 22 % of the population .
Now , why did they get 35 % of the money when they are only 22 % of the population ?
That 's the way they designed the law ; the more you spend , the more you get . ''
In a sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premiums and more enrollment in the ACA 's health insurance marketplaces get more federal money .
But that 's driven by differences in premiums between states and by the number of people who sign up for taxpayer-subsidized coverage .
It 's not that Democrats who wrote the law put their finger on the scale .
The price of health insurance , like the real estate market , reflects underlying local costs such as hospital charges and doctors ' fees , which vary .
And there 's another wrinkle : Larry Levitt of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason that some states like South Carolina get much less federal money under Obamacare is that they have chosen not to expand Medicaid , where the federal government picks up 90 % of the cost .
Contrary to Graham 's assertion , that was n't how the Obama administration and the then-Democratic Congress designed the law , Levitt points out .
Obamacare originally required all states to expand Medicaid , with the federal government covering most of the cost , but the Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional in 2012 .

The senator leading Supreme Court confirmation hearings Tuesday launched into revisionist history on Obamacare, implying it was designed to help Democratic states like California, New York, and Massachusetts while doling out less to states like his, South Carolina.
In doing so, Sen. Lindsey Graham skipped over the fact that health insurance costs more in states like New York, and that South Carolina is among 12 conservative states that have not adopted the law’s Medicaid expansion, a big source of federal subsidies.
A look at the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman’s remark during questioning of nominee Amy Coney Barrett:
GRAHAM: “Under the Affordable Care Act, three states get 35% of the money, folks. Can you name them? I’ll help you, California, New York, and Massachusetts. They’re 22% of the population. Now, why did they get 35% of the money when they are only 22% of the population? That’s the way they designed the law; the more you spend, the more you get.”
THE FACTS: That’s misleading.
In a sense, it is true that states with higher premiums and more enrollment in the ACA’s health insurance marketplaces get more federal money. But that’s driven by differences in premiums between states and by the number of people who sign up for taxpayer-subsidized coverage. It’s not that Democrats who wrote the law put their finger on the scale. The price of health insurance, like the real estate market, reflects underlying local costs such as hospital charges and doctors’ fees, which vary.
And there’s another wrinkle: Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation says the big reason that some states like South Carolina get much less federal money under Obamacare is that they have chosen not to expand Medicaid, where the federal government picks up 90% of the cost.
Contrary to Graham’s assertion, that wasn’t how the Obama administration and the then-Democratic Congress designed the law, Levitt points out. Obamacare originally required all states to expand Medicaid, with the federal government covering most of the cost, but the Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional in 2012.


shareblue--2020-10-13--GOP senator: Trump 'absolutely' did everything right as pandemic killed 215,000

Sen. David Perdue ( R-GA ) defended Donald Trump 's botched response to the COVID-19 pandemic on Monday , saying he `` absolutely '' believes Trump handled everything right .
Asked about Trump 's and his own previous comments downplaying the coronavirus , Perdue dismissed it as `` idle chatter '' and being a `` Monday morning quarterback . ''
Perdue made the comments at a debate against his Democratic challenger , Jon Ossoff , and Libertarian candidate Shane Hazel .
Ossoff noted that about 220,000 Americans have already died from the virus and that both Trump and Perdue had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Do you believe President Trump has done everything in his power to protect the people of Georgia during this pandemic ? ''
Ossoff repeatedly asked Perdue .
`` I absolutely do , Jon , '' Perdue eventually answered .
`` And I 'll tell you this — had the Democrats been involved , we 'd have anarchy , like we have in Portland and Chicago and California .
You guys are trying to divide the country right now , in a moment of crisis . ''
Reminded by Ossoff that he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toll was not as bad as some `` ordinary flu seasons '' and that Trump had suggested injecting bleach as a possible cure , Perdue falsely claimed these were misquotations .
`` It 's so easy to be a Monday morning quarterback , '' he scolded , later dismissing Ossoff 's criticisms as `` again , idle chatter here . ''
Perdue has also strongly defended Georgia 's deadly rush to reopen during the pandemic , saying , `` Well , each of us in a representative democracy have the freedom to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me as an individual . ''
`` We get in an automobile , we drive on our public roads , and a certain number of us will die on our public roads every year , '' he said .
`` In a situation like this , as long as we have good information , we can make our own decisions . ''
Georgia has been a hot spot of virus spread .
To date , the state has tallied more than 332,000 cases and nearly 7,500 confirmed deaths .
Even Trump said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening too quickly , in violation of his administration 's safety guidelines .
According to RealClear Politics ' polling average , the Georgia Senate race is close , with Ossoff trailing by 2.8 points .
If no candidate gets a majority of votes in November , the top two candidates would face off in a runoff on Jan. 5 .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) defended Donald Trump’s botched response to the COVID-19 pandemic on Monday, saying he “absolutely” believes Trump handled everything right. Asked about Trump’s and his own previous comments downplaying the coronavirus, Perdue dismissed it as “idle chatter” and being a “Monday morning quarterback.”
Perdue made the comments at a debate against his Democratic challenger, Jon Ossoff, and Libertarian candidate Shane Hazel. Ossoff noted that about 220,000 Americans have already died from the virus and that both Trump and Perdue had made dangerous comments minimizing its risk.
“Do you believe President Trump has done everything in his power to protect the people of Georgia during this pandemic?” Ossoff repeatedly asked Perdue.
“I absolutely do, Jon,” Perdue eventually answered. “And I’ll tell you this — had the Democrats been involved, we’d have anarchy, like we have in Portland and Chicago and California. You guys are trying to divide the country right now, in a moment of crisis.”
Reminded by Ossoff that he had told business leaders in May the death toll was not as bad as some “ordinary flu seasons” and that Trump had suggested injecting bleach as a possible cure, Perdue falsely claimed these were misquotations. “It’s so easy to be a Monday morning quarterback,” he scolded, later dismissing Ossoff’s criticisms as “again, idle chatter here.”
Perdue has also strongly defended Georgia’s deadly rush to reopen during the pandemic, saying, “Well, each of us in a representative democracy have the freedom to make that determination about the risk level for me as an individual.”
“We get in an automobile, we drive on our public roads, and a certain number of us will die on our public roads every year,” he said. “In a situation like this, as long as we have good information, we can make our own decisions.”
Georgia has been a hot spot of virus spread. To date, the state has tallied more than 332,000 cases and nearly 7,500 confirmed deaths. Even Trump said in April that he felt the state was reopening too quickly, in violation of his administration’s safety guidelines.
According to RealClear Politics’ polling average, the Georgia Senate race is close, with Ossoff trailing by 2.8 points. If no candidate gets a majority of votes in November, the top two candidates would face off in a runoff on Jan. 5.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-13--Virginia governor targeted by extremists slams Trump's 'potentially deadly' rhetoric

Virginia Democratic Gov .
Ralph Northam 's office blamed Donald Trump for inciting violence from his supporters , saying Trump 's rhetoric is dangerous .
A spokesperson for Northam made the comment after the FBI announced on Tuesday that right-wing extremists who were allegedly plotting to overthrow and kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer also talked about carrying out a similar plot against Northam .
`` Here 's the reality : President Trump called upon his supporters to 'LIBERATE VIRGINIA ' in April — just like Michigan .
In fact , the President regularly encourages violence against those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alena Yarmosky said in a statement .
`` The rhetoric coming out of this White House has serious and potentially deadly consequences .
It must stop . ''
Like Northam 's office , Whitmer also blamed Trump 's rhetoric for the potential danger she faced from the alleged kidnapping plot against her .
`` Hate groups heard the president 's words not as a rebuke but as a rallying cry , as a call to action , '' Whitmer said in a news conference after the FBI announced the arrests .
`` When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Whitmer added .
`` They carry weight .
When our leaders meet with , encourage , or fraternize with domestic terrorists , they legitimize their actions , and they are complicit .
When they stoke and contribute to hate speech , they are complicit . ''
Yet Trump did n't stop attacking Whitmer , even after the plot was discovered .
Rather , Trump again criticized Whitmer 's attempt to stop the spread of the coronavirus — which the right-wing would-be kidnappers were angry over — and said she should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decent human being would pick up the phone and say , 'Are you ok ?
How 's your family doing ? '
'' Whitmer said on ABC 's `` Good Morning America . ''
`` That 's what Joe Biden did .
And I think it tells you everything you need to know about the character of the two people that are vying to lead our country for the next four years , '' she added .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s office blamed Donald Trump for inciting violence from his supporters, saying Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous.
A spokesperson for Northam made the comment after the FBI announced on Tuesday that right-wing extremists who were allegedly plotting to overthrow and kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also talked about carrying out a similar plot against Northam.
“Here’s the reality: President Trump called upon his supporters to ‘LIBERATE VIRGINIA’ in April — just like Michigan. In fact, the President regularly encourages violence against those who disagree with him,” Northam spokesperson Alena Yarmosky said in a statement. “The rhetoric coming out of this White House has serious and potentially deadly consequences. It must stop.”
Like Northam’s office, Whitmer also blamed Trump’s rhetoric for the potential danger she faced from the alleged kidnapping plot against her.
“Hate groups heard the president’s words not as a rebuke but as a rallying cry, as a call to action,” Whitmer said in a news conference after the FBI announced the arrests.
“When our leader speaks, their words matter,” Whitmer added. “They carry weight. When our leaders meet with, encourage, or fraternize with domestic terrorists, they legitimize their actions, and they are complicit. When they stoke and contribute to hate speech, they are complicit.”
Yet Trump didn’t stop attacking Whitmer, even after the plot was discovered.
Rather, Trump again criticized Whitmer’s attempt to stop the spread of the coronavirus — which the right-wing would-be kidnappers were angry over — and said she should be more grateful to him.
Whitmer slammed Trump for that response.
“A decent human being would pick up the phone and say, ‘Are you ok? How’s your family doing?'” Whitmer said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
“That’s what Joe Biden did. And I think it tells you everything you need to know about the character of the two people that are vying to lead our country for the next four years,” she added.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-13--GOP is freaking out that they might actually get their way on Obamacare

During the second day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's Senate hearing on her nomination to the United States Supreme Court , the dominant conversation was once again whether Barrett would , if confirmed , repeal the Affordable Care Act — but Republicans seem surprised that Americans are taking their threats to Obamacare seriously .
`` If it were up to me , bureaucrats would not be administering health care from Washington , '' Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) thundered during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday morning .
But other Senate Republicans continue to insist that Democrats are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obamacare .
Sen. John Thune ( SD ) tweeted Monday that the confirmation hearing was starting to look a lot like a `` floor debate on health care , '' and that concern about the ACA was simply a `` scare tactic . ''
`` Dems know they ca n't fault Judge Barrett on her merits , so they 're relying on scare tactics , '' Thune wrote on the platform .
`` The truth is , we have no idea how she will rule on any case .
But we do know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two weeks ago , Sen. John Cornyn ( TX ) claimed that preexisting health conditions are not as prevalent as Senate Democrats claim and that there 's no need to be concerned .
On Oct. 1 , Cornyn tweeted — zeroing in on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 's position during the first presidential debate — that the left `` overstates the problem of pre-existing conditions to justify political control of health care . ''
The tweet included a link to a Wall Street Journal op-ed that falsely claims the numbers of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated by `` the left . ''
But Republicans have been attempting to overturn Obamacare for years , and the consequences are well documented .
Three GOP repeal bills in 2017 , which could have resulted in 32 million Americans losing their health insurance , failed .
Sen. Bernie Sanders noted at the time that the American public 's opposition to the bills was part of the reason for their failure .
And Republicans are currently back in court , trying to upend Obamacare again , which threatens the health care access of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Obamacare began in February 2018 , when 20 states , including 18 Republican attorneys general and two Republican governors , sued the federal government in an effort to repeal the ACA .
In April 2018 , two Texas self-employed individuals joined the lawsuit , asserting that they had been required under the ACA to buy health care insurance they would not otherwise have purchased .
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional in December 2019 .
The federal government then requested that the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmed the plaintiffs .
It asked to leave the rest of the ACA intact , sending the case back to lower courts to sort out which provisions apply .
Just after the election , on Nov. 10 , the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas , the case challenging the ACA .
Barrett 's vote could be a game-changer .
Barrett 's personal feelings about Obamacare are clear : In a paper published in 2017 , she openly criticized the Supreme Court 's decision upholding the ACA , criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but legally unjustifiable loopholes .
Barrett also publicly pushed back against the requirement under Obamacare that insurance coverage include contraception , and signed a 2015 statement of protest alongside religious leaders calling it an attack on `` religious liberty . ''
Barrett said Tuesday that she saw the late Justice Antonin Scalia as a mentor who shaped her judicial philosophy .
It 's telling that Scalia had a strong voting record of opposing the ACA .
The GOP has no replacement plan in the works if the ACA is overturned , despite Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` I have it all ready , and it 's a much better plan for you , '' Donald Trump said during a recent ABC News town hall .
But all he 's done recently with regard to health care is sign two executive orders that did n't affect actual legislation .
At the vice presidential debate last week , Mike Pence claimed : `` President Trump and I have plans to improve health care and to protect preexisting conditions for every American . ''
But there 's been no sign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American public want to keep Obamacare .
The Kaiser Family Foundation has found that 48 % of voters `` have a general favorable opinion '' of the ACA , with 82 % of Democrats and only 12 % of Republicans supporting it .
And while senators like Martha McSally ( R-AZ ) and Joni Ernst ( R-IA ) have claimed in town halls and ads that they will protect those with preexisting conditions , the facts stand starkly in contrast with that narrative .
University of Pennsylvania law professor Allison Hoffman told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive orders Trump has signed do anything to protect preexisting conditions .
`` The language itself guarantees nothing near the protections in the Affordable Care Act , and such sweeping protections are only possible by congressional action , not regulation , '' she said .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

During the second day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate hearing on her nomination to the United States Supreme Court, the dominant conversation was once again whether Barrett would, if confirmed, repeal the Affordable Care Act — but Republicans seem surprised that Americans are taking their threats to Obamacare seriously.
“If it were up to me, bureaucrats would not be administering health care from Washington,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) thundered during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday morning.
But other Senate Republicans continue to insist that Democrats are only drumming up false fears about repealing Obamacare.
Sen. John Thune (SD) tweeted Monday that the confirmation hearing was starting to look a lot like a “floor debate on health care,” and that concern about the ACA was simply a “scare tactic.”
“Dems know they can’t fault Judge Barrett on her merits, so they’re relying on scare tactics,” Thune wrote on the platform. “The truth is, we have no idea how she will rule on any case. But we do know she’ll follow the law.”
Two weeks ago, Sen. John Cornyn (TX) claimed that preexisting health conditions are not as prevalent as Senate Democrats claim and that there’s no need to be concerned.
On Oct. 1, Cornyn tweeted — zeroing in on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s position during the first presidential debate — that the left “overstates the problem of pre-existing conditions to justify political control of health care.”
The tweet included a link to a Wall Street Journal op-ed that falsely claims the numbers of Americans with preexisting conditions are radically lower than estimated by “the left.”
But Republicans have been attempting to overturn Obamacare for years, and the consequences are well documented.
Three GOP repeal bills in 2017, which could have resulted in 32 million Americans losing their health insurance, failed. Sen. Bernie Sanders noted at the time that the American public’s opposition to the bills was part of the reason for their failure.
And Republicans are currently back in court, trying to upend Obamacare again, which threatens the health care access of 100 million people.
This latest challenge to Obamacare began in February 2018, when 20 states, including 18 Republican attorneys general and two Republican governors, sued the federal government in an effort to repeal the ACA.
In April 2018, two Texas self-employed individuals joined the lawsuit, asserting that they had been required under the ACA to buy health care insurance they would not otherwise have purchased.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional in December 2019. The federal government then requested that the Supreme Court strike down provisions that they held individually harmed the plaintiffs. It asked to leave the rest of the ACA intact, sending the case back to lower courts to sort out which provisions apply.
Just after the election, on Nov. 10, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas, the case challenging the ACA. Barrett’s vote could be a game-changer.
Barrett’s personal feelings about Obamacare are clear: In a paper published in 2017, she openly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the ACA, criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts for using creative but legally unjustifiable loopholes.
Barrett also publicly pushed back against the requirement under Obamacare that insurance coverage include contraception, and signed a 2015 statement of protest alongside religious leaders calling it an attack on “religious liberty.”
Barrett said Tuesday that she saw the late Justice Antonin Scalia as a mentor who shaped her judicial philosophy. It’s telling that Scalia had a strong voting record of opposing the ACA.
The GOP has no replacement plan in the works if the ACA is overturned, despite Trump administration claims that such a plan exists.
“I have it all ready, and it’s a much better plan for you,” Donald Trump said during a recent ABC News town hall. But all he’s done recently with regard to health care is sign two executive orders that didn’t affect actual legislation.
At the vice presidential debate last week, Mike Pence claimed: “President Trump and I have plans to improve health care and to protect preexisting conditions for every American.”
But there’s been no sign of any actual plan.
Large numbers of the American public want to keep Obamacare. The Kaiser Family Foundation has found that 48% of voters “have a general favorable opinion” of the ACA, with 82% of Democrats and only 12% of Republicans supporting it.
And while senators like Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Joni Ernst (R-IA) have claimed in town halls and ads that they will protect those with preexisting conditions, the facts stand starkly in contrast with that narrative.
University of Pennsylvania law professor Allison Hoffman told Kaiser Health News that none of the executive orders Trump has signed do anything to protect preexisting conditions.
“The language itself guarantees nothing near the protections in the Affordable Care Act, and such sweeping protections are only possible by congressional action, not regulation,” she said.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-13--3 Trump judges claim voter suppression somehow makes it easier to vote

Three federal judges who were appointed by Donald Trump ruled Monday that Texas can make it harder to vote during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic .
Their reasoning : the latest rule came after a previous set of rules aimed at making it easier to vote .
The judges are among more than 200 judges appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate since January 2017 .
Trump 's picks now account for more than one-fifth of the entire federal judiciary .
Late Monday night , Judges James Ho , Kyle Duncan , and Don Willett of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued a stay of a lower court order , effectively allowing Republican Gov .
Greg Abbott to severely curtail the number of ballot drop-off boxes available for absentee voters .
On Oct. 1 , Abbott announced that every Texas county — regardless of size or population — would be limited to just one drop box for the Nov. 3 election .
In the late-night ruling , the three-judge panel upheld Abbott 's decision , writing that in the governor 's opinion , multiple ballot delivery locations `` threatened election uniformity and security .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as merely `` refining '' his previous `` expansion '' of voting options .
In their decision , the judges compared state voting rules before and after the start of the pandemic , arguing that Abbott 's move to limit the number of drop box locations was part of a broader effort to make it easier to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic .
In other words : one drop box per county is better than none .
`` Leaving the Governor ’ s October 1 Proclamation in place still gives Texas absentee voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the November 3 election , '' the panel ruled .
`` These methods for remote voting outstrip what Texas law previously permitted in a pre-COVID world .
The October 1 Proclamation abridges no one ’ s right to vote . ''
Josh Douglas , a professor of election law and voting rights at the University of Kentucky , blasted the ruling on Tuesday , tweeting , `` Implausibly , the court finds that the Tex .
Gov 's decision expands the right to vote instead of restricts it .
Up is down .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'voter suppression ' a lot but you can always count on Texas to provide real examples , '' Douglas added .
The appellate panel 's decision froze a Friday order by a federal district judge which found `` ballot security '' was merely `` a pretext '' for Abbott 's order , which does n't actually do anything to protect ballot security .
The federal judge said Abbott 's restrictions will make voting more difficult for citizens who are `` older , sick , or have disabilities that prevent them from voting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high risk of COVID-19 . ''
Ironically , the same conservative Fifth Circuit ruled weeks ago that a Democratic lawsuit seeking to restore the state 's straight-ticket voting option was too late , as changes to the voting system should not be made close to the Nov. 3 election .
Monday 's ruling upholding Abbott 's voter restrictions came just 22 days before the election .
Abbott 's order holds huge implications for Texas ' more than 16 million registered voters .
This year , the historically conservative state is newly competitive for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Houston , the largest city in Texas and the fourth largest city in the country .
This year , during a pandemic that continues to wreak havoc across Texas , the county 's two million registered voters will have just one location to securely drop off their ballots if they do not wish to vote in person or by mail .
Other populous and sprawling counties will also have a one-box limit .
This is just the latest example of Republicans working to make it harder for people to vote — even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans to stay at home to avoid getting the coronavirus .
Trump has sued to block mail-in voting and ballot drop boxes in swing states that could decide the presidential election .
The Trump administration has also worked to undermine the U.S .
Postal Service .
Trump has raved about the election being `` rigged '' against him while working to rig the election in his favor .
Republicans at the state level have followed Trump 's lead by pushing through legislation aimed at disenfranchising citizens .
If Trump and his GOP allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett 's confirmation to the Supreme Court before the election , Trump will have nominated fully one-third of the high court 's justices .
Experts have warned that the court 's 6-3 conservative majority could destroy what 's left of the Voting Rights Act .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Three federal judges who were appointed by Donald Trump ruled Monday that Texas can make it harder to vote during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Their reasoning: the latest rule came after a previous set of rules aimed at making it easier to vote.
The judges are among more than 200 judges appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate since January 2017. Trump’s picks now account for more than one-fifth of the entire federal judiciary.
Late Monday night, Judges James Ho, Kyle Duncan, and Don Willett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a stay of a lower court order, effectively allowing Republican Gov. Greg Abbott to severely curtail the number of ballot drop-off boxes available for absentee voters.
On Oct. 1, Abbott announced that every Texas county — regardless of size or population — would be limited to just one drop box for the Nov. 3 election.
In the late-night ruling, the three-judge panel upheld Abbott’s decision, writing that in the governor’s opinion, multiple ballot delivery locations “threatened election uniformity and security.” The judges framed Abbott’s decision as merely “refining” his previous “expansion” of voting options.
In their decision, the judges compared state voting rules before and after the start of the pandemic, arguing that Abbott’s move to limit the number of drop box locations was part of a broader effort to make it easier to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words: one drop box per county is better than none.
“Leaving the Governor’s October 1 Proclamation in place still gives Texas absentee voters many ways to cast their ballots in the November 3 election,” the panel ruled. “These methods for remote voting outstrip what Texas law previously permitted in a pre-COVID world. The October 1 Proclamation abridges no one’s right to vote.”
Josh Douglas, a professor of election law and voting rights at the University of Kentucky, blasted the ruling on Tuesday, tweeting, “Implausibly, the court finds that the Tex. Gov’s decision expands the right to vote instead of restricts it. Up is down.”
“People throw around the term ‘voter suppression’ a lot but you can always count on Texas to provide real examples,” Douglas added.
The appellate panel’s decision froze a Friday order by a federal district judge which found “ballot security” was merely “a pretext” for Abbott’s order, which doesn’t actually do anything to protect ballot security. The federal judge said Abbott’s restrictions will make voting more difficult for citizens who are “older, sick, or have disabilities that prevent them from voting in person, and are thus at particularly high risk of COVID-19.”
Ironically, the same conservative Fifth Circuit ruled weeks ago that a Democratic lawsuit seeking to restore the state’s straight-ticket voting option was too late, as changes to the voting system should not be made close to the Nov. 3 election. Monday’s ruling upholding Abbott’s voter restrictions came just 22 days before the election.
Abbott’s order holds huge implications for Texas’ more than 16 million registered voters. This year, the historically conservative state is newly competitive for Democrats.
Harris County is home to Houston, the largest city in Texas and the fourth largest city in the country. This year, during a pandemic that continues to wreak havoc across Texas, the county’s two million registered voters will have just one location to securely drop off their ballots if they do not wish to vote in person or by mail.
Other populous and sprawling counties will also have a one-box limit.
This is just the latest example of Republicans working to make it harder for people to vote — even as the pandemic continues to force millions of Americans to stay at home to avoid getting the coronavirus.
Trump has sued to block mail-in voting and ballot drop boxes in swing states that could decide the presidential election. The Trump administration has also worked to undermine the U.S. Postal Service. Trump has raved about the election being “rigged” against him while working to rig the election in his favor. Republicans at the state level have followed Trump’s lead by pushing through legislation aimed at disenfranchising citizens.
If Trump and his GOP allies are able to ram through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court before the election, Trump will have nominated fully one-third of the high court’s justices. Experts have warned that the court’s 6-3 conservative majority could destroy what’s left of the Voting Rights Act.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-13--Extremists floated second kidnapping after Trump said 'liberate Virginia'

Virginia Democratic Gov .
Ralph Northam may also have been a target of a group of anti-government , right-wing extremists who allegedly were plotting to overthrow and kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , an FBI agent said Tuesday at a court hearing .
`` They discussed possible targets , taking a sitting governor , specifically issues with the governor of Michigan and Virginia based on the lockdown orders , '' Special Agent Richard Trask said at a court hearing , according to the Associated Press , which also reported that the alleged kidnappers `` were unhappy '' with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus .
The possible targeting of Northam came after Donald Trump tweeted a call to his followers to `` LIBERATE VIRGINIA . ''
Trump used that same rhetoric for Michigan , tweeting `` LIBERATE MICHIGAN . ''
It 's the latest incident in which Trump 's rhetoric appears to have inspired his supporters to either commit or plot to commit violence .
In 2019 , self-proclaimed white supremacist and Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson was arrested and charged with allegedly plotting to carry out a terror attack against `` a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists , political organizations , and MSNBC and CNN media personalities '' that Trump had attacked .
That same year , Trump superfan Cesar Sayoc pleaded guilty to mailing pipe bombs to Democratic politicians and media organizations that Trump frequently lashes out at .
Yet , despite evidence that his rhetoric is leading to this violence , Trump has not condemned the alleged terror plot against Whitmer .
Instead , Trump attacked Whitmer for not thanking him after the FBI foiled the alleged kidnapping plot against her .
`` My Justice Department and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foiled a dangerous plot against the Governor of Michigan .
Rather than say thank you , she calls me a White Supremacist — while Biden and Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa , Anarchists , Looters and Mobs that burn down Democrat run cities , '' Trump said after news of the plot broke — even though Whitmer did thank the law enforcement agents who uncovered and stopped the alleged attack .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam may also have been a target of a group of anti-government, right-wing extremists who allegedly were plotting to overthrow and kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, an FBI agent said Tuesday at a court hearing.
“They discussed possible targets, taking a sitting governor, specifically issues with the governor of Michigan and Virginia based on the lockdown orders,” Special Agent Richard Trask said at a court hearing, according to the Associated Press, which also reported that the alleged kidnappers “were unhappy” with Northam’s efforts to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
The possible targeting of Northam came after Donald Trump tweeted a call to his followers to “LIBERATE VIRGINIA.”
Trump used that same rhetoric for Michigan, tweeting “LIBERATE MICHIGAN.”
It’s the latest incident in which Trump’s rhetoric appears to have inspired his supporters to either commit or plot to commit violence.
In 2019, self-proclaimed white supremacist and Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson was arrested and charged with allegedly plotting to carry out a terror attack against “a list of prominent Democratic congressional leaders, activists, political organizations, and MSNBC and CNN media personalities” that Trump had attacked.
That same year, Trump superfan Cesar Sayoc pleaded guilty to mailing pipe bombs to Democratic politicians and media organizations that Trump frequently lashes out at.
Yet, despite evidence that his rhetoric is leading to this violence, Trump has not condemned the alleged terror plot against Whitmer.
Instead, Trump attacked Whitmer for not thanking him after the FBI foiled the alleged kidnapping plot against her.
“My Justice Department and Federal Law Enforcement announced today that they foiled a dangerous plot against the Governor of Michigan. Rather than say thank you, she calls me a White Supremacist — while Biden and Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, Anarchists, Looters and Mobs that burn down Democrat run cities,” Trump said after news of the plot broke — even though Whitmer did thank the law enforcement agents who uncovered and stopped the alleged attack.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-14--GOP senator: Barrett can't be racist because of her children

During the third day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's confirmation hearing , Sen. Mike Crapo ( R-ID ) expressed bewilderment that a woman with a multiracial family could be accused of perpetuating racism .
Responding to a plea from Sen. Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) , who had urged Barrett to look further into racial disparities in the justice system , Crapo seemed offended on Barrett 's behalf .
`` I think there was at least an implication from what was just said that you would not be sensitive to the need for equal justice for all under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Crapo said .
`` Would you like to respond to that ? ''
`` I am fully committed to equal justice under the law for all persons , '' she said .
Barrett added that she was `` fully committed '' to enforcing all laws to `` prohibit racial discrimination . ''
`` In my private life , I abhor racial discrimination , and obviously for both personal reasons and professional reasons , want to ensure that there 's equal justice for all , '' Barrett said .
She noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room , but she wanted them to know — `` especially Vivian and John Peter '' who are Black — that she `` unequivocally '' condemns racism and that she would do anything she could `` personally , and as a judge '' to combat racism .
`` I find it just incredible that a mother of children of different races could be accused of not being sensitive nor willing to protect the rights of all under the Constitution , '' he said .
It was n't the first time this week that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) asked Barrett on Tuesday how , as the mother of Black children , she would apply that experience to sitting on the Supreme Court bench .
`` You and your husband are the parents of a multiracial family , '' Hawley said .
`` Can you give us some sense just in your personal experience what that has been like for you , what that means to you , what experience you bring to the bench because of your experience as a parent in this unique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal experience of her life would not `` dictate '' how she decided cases , noting that `` in applying the law and deciding cases , '' she does n't `` let those experiences dictate the outcome . ''
Also on Tuesday , Sen. Ted Cruz expressed his deep `` admiration '' for Barrett adopting two children from Haiti , referring to their adoption as a `` remarkable '' story .
Throughout her hearing , however , Barrett 's recognition of racism in the legal system appeared superficial , at best .
Asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) how she could reconcile originalism with the continued existence of racism in the United States , Barrett acknowledged that racism exists , but stopped short of conceding it was in any way systemic .
She said she would leave `` broader diagnoses about the problem '' up to others .
`` I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement , given as we just talked about the George Floyd video , that racism persists in our country , '' Barrett said to Durbin .
`` As to putting my finger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether as you say it 's just outright or systemic racism , or how to tackle the issue of making it better , those things are policy questions . ''
While on the Seventh Circuit , Barrett ruled against an Illinois transportation employee claiming his supervisor used a racial slur .
In her opinion , she wrote that although `` the n-word is an egregious racial epithet , '' the plaintiff could n't `` win simply by proving that the word was uttered . ''
She added that his negative experience had `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' and that the plaintiff could not prove a hostile or abusive work environment solely on the basis of his supervisor using racial slurs .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

During the third day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) expressed bewilderment that a woman with a multiracial family could be accused of perpetuating racism.
Responding to a plea from Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who had urged Barrett to look further into racial disparities in the justice system, Crapo seemed offended on Barrett’s behalf.
“I think there was at least an implication from what was just said that you would not be sensitive to the need for equal justice for all under the law, for all peoples in America,” Crapo said. “Would you like to respond to that?”
Barrett’s words were measured.
“I am fully committed to equal justice under the law for all persons,” she said.
Barrett added that she was “fully committed” to enforcing all laws to “prohibit racial discrimination.”
“In my private life, I abhor racial discrimination, and obviously for both personal reasons and professional reasons, want to ensure that there’s equal justice for all,” Barrett said.
She noted that her children were no longer in the room, but she wanted them to know — “especially Vivian and John Peter” who are Black — that she “unequivocally” condemns racism and that she would do anything she could “personally, and as a judge” to combat racism.
Crapo thanked her.
“I find it just incredible that a mother of children of different races could be accused of not being sensitive nor willing to protect the rights of all under the Constitution,” he said.
It wasn’t the first time this week that Senate Republicans referred to Barrett’s family.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) asked Barrett on Tuesday how, as the mother of Black children, she would apply that experience to sitting on the Supreme Court bench.
“You and your husband are the parents of a multiracial family,” Hawley said. “Can you give us some sense just in your personal experience what that has been like for you, what that means to you, what experience you bring to the bench because of your experience as a parent in this unique context?”
Barrett said that any personal experience of her life would not “dictate” how she decided cases, noting that “in applying the law and deciding cases,” she doesn’t “let those experiences dictate the outcome.”


shareblue--2020-10-14--Federal judge OKs discrimination against LGBTQ students

A federal judge ruled just last week that a California seminary that expelled students for being married to someone of the same sex is protected by religious exemptions .
U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall said on Oct. 7 that , in the case of Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary , the evangelical Christian Fuller Theological Seminary , which receives federal funds , is protected by exemptions in Title IX .
`` The Court is not permitted to scrutinize the interpretation [ the seminary ] gives to its religious beliefs , '' Marshall wrote .
The religious right has since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attorney with the law firm that represented the Fuller Theological Seminary , the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty , told The Washington Times at the time of the decision , `` It would create a huge establishment clause [ issue ] if you have government agents going in and telling a seminary how to do their job and practice their faith . ''
The Becket Fund weighed in on the decision as well , calling it a `` landmark decision with nationwide impact . ''
The Southern Poverty Law Center has described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intellectual leader of right-wing religious liberty campaigns , '' noting that , among other things , it has `` falsely argue [ d ] that Roman Catholics will be forced to perform same-sex marriages with the passage of marriage equality . ''
Its board members have called for a `` national rebellion '' against marriage equality and described same-sex unions as a `` radical social experiment . ''
Under the Obama Administration , federally funded education institutions had to request a religious exemption from the federal government to discriminate against individuals or groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are not required to do the same .
The Education Department 's website states that although Title IX regulations provide a process for these institutions to reach out to the department 's Office for Civil Rights , an institution 's exemption status `` is not dependent upon '' it doing so .
Paul Southwick , the lawyer representing the two plaintiffs who brought the case , Nathan Brittsan and Joanna Maxon , told the Washington Times that the Trump administration guidance without a doubt affected Marshall 's ruling .
`` It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded their understanding of the exemption , '' he said .
Southwick said he is appealing the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit .
Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons , a fellow with the faith and progressive policy initiative at the Center for American Progress , said last week 's decision shows a willingness to broaden religious exemptions .
The seminary , he claimed , should be recognized as a secular board because it is n't tied to a religious organization .
He said the court 's justification , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of directors '' creates an overly broad definition of a religious organization .
`` ...
I think that is the danger , specifically because what religious right and conservative legal establishment want is such a broad definition ... you 're really opening up a can of worms , '' he added .
A 2018 Public Religion Research Institute survey found that 60 % of Americans across religious denominations oppose allowing discrimination by business owners against LGB customers .
Varying majorities of Christians said they were against this discrimination .
White evangelical Protestants and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % in support of giving business owners the right to deny service to LGB people .
The Trump administration guidance is consistent with its track record .
The Department of Education under Trump rolled back protections for the LGBTQ community in its earliest days .
It reversed Obama-era protections for transgender students in schools , and , in 2018 , the department clarified its position further and said transgender students complaints about a lack of access to the restrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender was not a form of discrimination under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't take action on those complaints .
The department also took a piecemeal approach in how it responded to a June Supreme Court ruling on anti-LGBTQ discrimination .
Its Office for Civil Rights , for instance , agreed to investigate a complaint on anti-LGB discrimination following the landmark decision but not anti-transgender discrimination .
This stance on LGBTQ equality and transgender people 's rights in particular is echoed in the department 's decision to give anti-LGBTQ activists prominent roles .
This year , the Office for Civil Rights said it would be making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Employee Engagement Advisory councils ; As HuffPost reported last week , Sarah Perry , who has a record of anti-transgender activism , has since become a co-chair on the council .
Perry is new to the agency and worked at the Family Research Council , which is designated as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center .
The former head of the Office for Civil Rights , Kenneth Marcus , also said he could n't name a single issue on which he disagrees with Donald Trump .
During his time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , under the Bush administration , Marcus refused to expand the scope of the agency to investigate LGBTQ rights violations , the Nation reported .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

A federal judge ruled just last week that a California seminary that expelled students for being married to someone of the same sex is protected by religious exemptions.
U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall said on Oct. 7 that, in the case of Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary, the evangelical Christian Fuller Theological Seminary, which receives federal funds, is protected by exemptions in Title IX.
“The Court is not permitted to scrutinize the interpretation [the seminary] gives to its religious beliefs,” Marshall wrote.
The religious right has since celebrated the decision.
Daniel Blomberg, an attorney with the law firm that represented the Fuller Theological Seminary, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told The Washington Times at the time of the decision, “It would create a huge establishment clause [issue] if you have government agents going in and telling a seminary how to do their job and practice their faith.”
The Becket Fund weighed in on the decision as well, calling it a “landmark decision with nationwide impact.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center has described the law firm previously as “the intellectual leader of right-wing religious liberty campaigns,” noting that, among other things, it has “falsely argue[d] that Roman Catholics will be forced to perform same-sex marriages with the passage of marriage equality.” Its board members have called for a “national rebellion” against marriage equality and described same-sex unions as a “radical social experiment.”
Under the Obama Administration, federally funded education institutions had to request a religious exemption from the federal government to discriminate against individuals or groups of people. Under the Trump administration, they are not required to do the same.
The Education Department’s website states that although Title IX regulations provide a process for these institutions to reach out to the department’s Office for Civil Rights, an institution’s exemption status “is not dependent upon” it doing so.
Paul Southwick, the lawyer representing the two plaintiffs who brought the case, Nathan Brittsan and Joanna Maxon, told the Washington Times that the Trump administration guidance without a doubt affected Marshall’s ruling.
“It’s unfortunate that the Trump administration has expanded their understanding of the exemption,” he said.
Southwick said he is appealing the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, a fellow with the faith and progressive policy initiative at the Center for American Progress, said last week’s decision shows a willingness to broaden religious exemptions. The seminary, he claimed, should be recognized as a secular board because it isn’t tied to a religious organization. He said the court’s justification, which is that it is “a religious board of directors” creates an overly broad definition of a religious organization.
“… I think that is the danger, specifically because what religious right and conservative legal establishment want is such a broad definition … you’re really opening up a can of worms,” he added.
A 2018 Public Religion Research Institute survey found that 60% of Americans across religious denominations oppose allowing discrimination by business owners against LGB customers. Varying majorities of Christians said they were against this discrimination. White evangelical Protestants and Mormons were the outliers, with 53% in support of giving business owners the right to deny service to LGB people.
The Trump administration guidance is consistent with its track record.
The Department of Education under Trump rolled back protections for the LGBTQ community in its earliest days. It reversed Obama-era protections for transgender students in schools, and, in 2018, the department clarified its position further and said transgender students complaints about a lack of access to the restrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender was not a form of discrimination under Title IX, stating that it wouldn’t take action on those complaints.
The department also took a piecemeal approach in how it responded to a June Supreme Court ruling on anti-LGBTQ discrimination. Its Office for Civil Rights, for instance, agreed to investigate a complaint on anti-LGB discrimination following the landmark decision but not anti-transgender discrimination.
This stance on LGBTQ equality and transgender people’s rights in particular is echoed in the department’s decision to give anti-LGBTQ activists prominent roles.
This year, the Office for Civil Rights said it would be making changes to its Diversity and Inclusion and Employee Engagement Advisory councils; As HuffPost reported last week, Sarah Perry, who has a record of anti-transgender activism, has since become a co-chair on the council.
Perry is new to the agency and worked at the Family Research Council, which is designated as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The former head of the Office for Civil Rights, Kenneth Marcus, also said he couldn’t name a single issue on which he disagrees with Donald Trump. During his time at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, under the Bush administration, Marcus refused to expand the scope of the agency to investigate LGBTQ rights violations, the Nation reported.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-14--Amy Coney Barrett refuses to say whether Medicare is constitutional

On the third day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's Senate confirmation hearing , ranking Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( CA ) asked her some hard questions regarding protections for senior citizens — for which Barrett had no real answer .
`` Do you agree with originalists who say that the Medicare program is unconstitutional ? ''
Feinstein asked the Supreme Court nominee .
`` Well , let 's see , '' Barrett said , pondering a moment .
`` So I think I ca n't answer that question in the abstract . ''
During the course of proceedings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Discrimination in Employment Act , which was signed into law in 1967 and prohibits employment discrimination against people 40 years of age and older .
`` What do you understand to be the purpose of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ? ''
asked Feinstein .
Barrett responded with a reference to Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. , a case that came before her on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals , which centered on a 58-year-old plaintiff who sued for being overlooked for a job in favor of a less-experienced 29-year-old applicant .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined a majority , '' Barrett answered .
`` ... and the question is whether the prohibition on age discrimination covered applicants or only employees , and the statute said employees , and so an applicant is n't an employee , so the majority said that the statute by its terms didn ’ t cover the conduct . ''
In that case , Barrett joined her peers on the court in ruling against the plaintiff , finding that the age discrimination act does not protect applicants , only employees .
If confirmed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care Act could jeopardize the health of seniors if she votes to overturn it in California v. Texas , which will come before the court just after Election Day .
The high court 's decision on whether to strike down the entirety of the ACA will have a far-reaching effect on seniors who rely on its protections .
And it 's not hard to read the handwriting on the wall .
In 2012 , Barrett signed a public statement alongside other leaders referring to Obamacare 's contraception coverage as an `` assault on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she roundly critiqued Chief Justice John Roberts , saying he used unconstitutional loopholes in order to preserve Obamacare .
Seniors would be disproportionally affected if the health care law is struck down .
Sixty million Americans depend on Medicare , the federal program for Americans over 65 and those with disabilities .
If Obamacare is repealed , Medicare beneficiaries will likely see a marked increase in the cost of prescription drugs and preventive care , as well as their health insurance premiums .
A vote against Obamacare would also get rid of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wealthy , which means Medicare funding for vulnerable groups like seniors and the disabled would be lower than ever .
Senior Vice President of the Kaiser Family Foundation Tricia Neuman said a repeal would be `` very disruptive '' for seniors and would touch `` virtually every part of Medicare . ''
Moreover , Obama 's health care law reformed nursing homes across the nation and improved oversight and protections for residents .
It 's clear that nursing homes facing an influx of coronavirus during a global pandemic would suffer irreparable harm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care , lessened protections for residents , and decreased quality of care .
Anne Montgomery , a policy adviser to the Senate Special Committee on Aging who helped write Obamacare 's nursing home provisions , said if it were repealed it would send to seniors `` a very unhelpful message '' that `` nursing-home transparency , accountability and improvement '' are `` not so important . ''
Barrett 's positions endangering seniors are par for the GOP course : Donald Trump came under well-deserved fire Tuesday night when he shared a meme scorning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disabled .
And Trump trails Biden among senior voters — which is why he 's desperately currying favor with them by launching a last-minute multimillion-dollar ad campaign .
But nominating a Supreme Court Justice who 's an existential threat to American seniors is n't going to help his cause .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

On the third day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing, ranking Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) asked her some hard questions regarding protections for senior citizens — for which Barrett had no real answer.
“Do you agree with originalists who say that the Medicare program is unconstitutional?” Feinstein asked the Supreme Court nominee.
“Well, let’s see,” Barrett said, pondering a moment. “So I think I can’t answer that question in the abstract.”
During the course of proceedings, Feinstein also questioned Barrett about the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which was signed into law in 1967 and prohibits employment discrimination against people 40 years of age and older.
“What do you understand to be the purpose of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?” asked Feinstein.
Barrett responded with a reference to Kleber v. CareFusion Corp., a case that came before her on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which centered on a 58-year-old plaintiff who sued for being overlooked for a job in favor of a less-experienced 29-year-old applicant.
“In Kleber v. CareFusion, I joined a majority,” Barrett answered. “… and the question is whether the prohibition on age discrimination covered applicants or only employees, and the statute said employees, and so an applicant isn’t an employee, so the majority said that the statute by its terms didn’t cover the conduct.”
In that case, Barrett joined her peers on the court in ruling against the plaintiff, finding that the age discrimination act does not protect applicants, only employees.
If confirmed, Barrett’s long-standing opposition to the Affordable Care Act could jeopardize the health of seniors if she votes to overturn it in California v. Texas, which will come before the court just after Election Day.
The high court’s decision on whether to strike down the entirety of the ACA will have a far-reaching effect on seniors who rely on its protections.
And it’s not hard to read the handwriting on the wall. In 2012, Barrett signed a public statement alongside other leaders referring to Obamacare’s contraception coverage as an “assault on religious liberty.”
Five years later, she roundly critiqued Chief Justice John Roberts, saying he used unconstitutional loopholes in order to preserve Obamacare.
Seniors would be disproportionally affected if the health care law is struck down.
Sixty million Americans depend on Medicare, the federal program for Americans over 65 and those with disabilities. If Obamacare is repealed, Medicare beneficiaries will likely see a marked increase in the cost of prescription drugs and preventive care, as well as their health insurance premiums.
A vote against Obamacare would also get rid of a 0.9% payroll tax increase for the wealthy, which means Medicare funding for vulnerable groups like seniors and the disabled would be lower than ever.
Senior Vice President of the Kaiser Family Foundation Tricia Neuman said a repeal would be “very disruptive” for seniors and would touch “virtually every part of Medicare.”
Moreover, Obama’s health care law reformed nursing homes across the nation and improved oversight and protections for residents. It’s clear that nursing homes facing an influx of coronavirus during a global pandemic would suffer irreparable harm — such as limited options for long-term care, lessened protections for residents, and decreased quality of care.
Anne Montgomery, a policy adviser to the Senate Special Committee on Aging who helped write Obamacare’s nursing home provisions, said if it were repealed it would send to seniors “a very unhelpful message” that “nursing-home transparency, accountability and improvement” are “not so important.”
Barrett’s positions endangering seniors are par for the GOP course: Donald Trump came under well-deserved fire Tuesday night when he shared a meme scorning Joe Biden and depicting him as elderly and disabled.
And Trump trails Biden among senior voters — which is why he’s desperately currying favor with them by launching a last-minute multimillion-dollar ad campaign.
But nominating a Supreme Court Justice who’s an existential threat to American seniors isn’t going to help his cause.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.