washingtonmonthly--2020-09-18--Let’s Use Stimulus Money to Boost Entrepreneurs

Time is not on the side of small businesses seeking federal assistance to cope with COVID-19 and the economic collapse .
This is especially unfortunate since time is essentially what Congress bought with the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) , a short-term mechanism designed to give businesses cash to keep their doors open and employees on the payroll .
And while PPP supported at least two-thirds of small business jobs ( through early July ) , Congress has dithered on additional support .
With about one out of four small businesses expecting to need additional government assistance this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this fall to provide longer-term relief for small businesses .
They range from more low-interest loans to money to states to provide grants to smaller Main Street businesses .
Yet while policymakers are rightly focused on preserving businesses , Congress should help entrepreneurs create new ones .
New businesses are the source of most net new job creation and economic downturns can present opportunities for new business creation .
With new business applications running unusually high , suggesting perhaps that newly unemployed may be trying to start their own enterprises , Congress can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tool that proved successful a decade ago .
The State Small Business Credit Initiative ( SSBCI ) was enacted as part of the JOBS Act of 2010 , a follow-up to the 2009 stimulus .
It is an example of a federal-state partnership that actually boosted job retention , creation , and private capital investment .
Under SSBCI , the Treasury Department allocated $ 1.5 billion to states allowing them to experiment with ways to support small businesses and help entrepreneurs get capital .
Some states used SSBCI to help traditional small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the program to jumpstart venture capital programs .
It worked well .
The federal move grew out of a Michigan proposal during the financial crisis .
In 2009 the federal government extended bridge loans to General Motors and Chrysler , and loan guarantees to many “ Tier I ” auto suppliers , the manufacturers who supply parts and systems directly to the carmakers .
Yet there are thousands of parts in every car and the supplier sector is layered with tiers all the way down to small tool-and-die shops throughout the Midwest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller suppliers struggled to get credit and stay open .
To help them , the Michigan Economic Development Corporation , a quasi-state agency , piloted a program that assisted credit-worthy Michigan manufacturers and small businesses who were unable to find financing .
The Michigan program became a model for what became the SSBCI .
Governors and Members of Congress from the industrial Midwest warned that Congress and the president needed a new law to help downstream suppliers .
At the time , Congress and the Obama Administration did not want to limit this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even to small businesses and start-ups .
So instead of giving it to the Small Business Administration ( SBA ) or the Commerce Department , the law put it under the aegis of the Treasury Department to allow greater flexibility .
Utilizing Treasury ’ s Capital Access Program , it leveraged private funding and equity markets .
States were required to develop programs that would maintain private capital leverage of 1:1 at all times and , with guidance from private sector partners , could reasonably expect to generate $ 10 of leverage for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over the course of three Treasury disbursements , SSBCI moved over $ 8.4 billion in just under 17,000 new loans and investments that impacted every state and territory , resulting in nearly 200,000 jobs created or retained by 2017 , in sectors ranging from sheet metal to farming to health care .
More than half of all SSBCI loans or investments went to young businesses less than five years old , and over 40 percent of the loans or investments were in low- or moderate-income communities .
Firms that have the potential to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , But the supply of venture capital is geographically concentrated in just a few places .
The National Venture Capital Association reported that in 1995 , areas outside the Bay Area , Los Angeles , Boston , and New York accounted for still 48.6 percent of venture capital investment .
By 2015 , that figure was down to 22 percent .
The geographically uneven distribution of venture capital investments not only leaves out most parts of the country , it further excludes more minority and women-owned entrepreneurs .
The federal government is great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and development , from Small Business Innovation Research ( SBIR ) programs across agencies to the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) and National Science Foundation ( NSF ) .
The feds generally don ’ t take equity stakes in the companies they help .
States , on the other hand , have a range of capital formation initiatives that essentially allow them to bet on companies .
About one-third of total SSBCI funding went to state venture capital programs .
The Treasury Department reported in 2016 that $ 278 million in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent private financing , ultimately generating about $ 11 for every $ 1 in SSBCI funds .
Yet beyond the loans processed or jobs created , SSBCI helped states develop or expand their own networks of venture capital investors .
Venture capital is concentrated in a handful of cities , but innovation should be supported in every state .
The upper Midwest , for instance , boasts more than 20 percent of all patents , 25 percent of all computer science graduates , and attracts just five percent of venture capital .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Business Preservation Act , The Minnesota Democrat ’ s bill would expand upon the basic structure of the SSBCI , but focus on stimulating private investment in new businesses in locations often ignored by equity investors .
If enacted it would allocate $ 2 billion in federal funds through formulas based on state population .
As noted by the Center for American Entrepreneurship , a research and policy group focused on start-ups , more than 80 percent of funding under the Klobuchar bill would go to states in the Midwest , Southeast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 17 percent of the venture capital market .
The Klobuchar bill is consistent with efforts to enable more communities to thrive in the way places like Silicon Valley have , by increasing research and development , boosting skills training , and caulking the drain of talent from heartland communities to the superstar metro areas .
Furthermore , Congress should consider a plain vanilla reauthorization of SSBCI by Senator Gary Peters , the Michigan Democrat .
Former Vice President Joe Biden has put forward proposals to expand upon the SSBCI and policies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a model that worked during the last recovery .
It can ’ t come soon enough .

Time is not on the side of small businesses seeking federal assistance to cope with COVID-19 and the economic collapse. This is especially unfortunate since time is essentially what Congress bought with the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a short-term mechanism designed to give businesses cash to keep their doors open and employees on the payroll. And while PPP supported at least two-thirds of small business jobs (through early July), Congress has dithered on additional support.
With about one out of four small businesses expecting to need additional government assistance this year, there are steps Congress can take this fall to provide longer-term relief for small businesses. They range from more low-interest loans to money to states to provide grants to smaller Main Street businesses.
Yet while policymakers are rightly focused on preserving businesses, Congress should help entrepreneurs create new ones. New businesses are the source of most net new job creation and economic downturns can present opportunities for new business creation.
With new business applications running unusually high, suggesting perhaps that newly unemployed may be trying to start their own enterprises, Congress can begin to spark an entrepreneurial renaissance with a tool that proved successful a decade ago.
The State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) was enacted as part of the JOBS Act of 2010, a follow-up to the 2009 stimulus. It is an example of a federal-state partnership that actually boosted job retention, creation, and private capital investment.
Under SSBCI, the Treasury Department allocated $1.5 billion to states allowing them to experiment with ways to support small businesses and help entrepreneurs get capital. Some states used SSBCI to help traditional small businesses with financial support. Many used the program to jumpstart venture capital programs. It worked well.
The federal move grew out of a Michigan proposal during the financial crisis. In 2009 the federal government extended bridge loans to General Motors and Chrysler, and loan guarantees to many “Tier I” auto suppliers, the manufacturers who supply parts and systems directly to the carmakers.
Yet there are thousands of parts in every car and the supplier sector is layered with tiers all the way down to small tool-and-die shops throughout the Midwest. As the auto industry contracted, these smaller suppliers struggled to get credit and stay open.
To help them, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, a quasi-state agency, piloted a program that assisted credit-worthy Michigan manufacturers and small businesses who were unable to find financing.
The Michigan program became a model for what became the SSBCI. Governors and Members of Congress from the industrial Midwest warned that Congress and the president needed a new law to help downstream suppliers. At the time, Congress and the Obama Administration did not want to limit this new funding mechanism to manufacturers, or even to small businesses and start-ups. So instead of giving it to the Small Business Administration (SBA) or the Commerce Department, the law put it under the aegis of the Treasury Department to allow greater flexibility. Utilizing Treasury’s Capital Access Program, it leveraged private funding and equity markets. States were required to develop programs that would maintain private capital leverage of 1:1 at all times and, with guidance from private sector partners, could reasonably expect to generate $10 of leverage for every $1 in SSBCI funding.
Over the course of three Treasury disbursements, SSBCI moved over $8.4 billion in just under 17,000 new loans and investments that impacted every state and territory, resulting in nearly 200,000 jobs created or retained by 2017, in sectors ranging from sheet metal to farming to health care. More than half of all SSBCI loans or investments went to young businesses less than five years old, and over 40 percent of the loans or investments were in low- or moderate-income communities.
Firms that have the potential to be high growth often require equity financing, But the supply of venture capital is geographically concentrated in just a few places. The National Venture Capital Association reported that in 1995, areas outside the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Boston, and New York accounted for still 48.6 percent of venture capital investment. By 2015, that figure was down to 22 percent. The geographically uneven distribution of venture capital investments not only leaves out most parts of the country, it further excludes more minority and women-owned entrepreneurs.
The federal government is great at spending billions to support early-stage research and development, from Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs across agencies to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF). The feds generally don’t take equity stakes in the companies they help. States, on the other hand, have a range of capital formation initiatives that essentially allow them to bet on companies.
About one-third of total SSBCI funding went to state venture capital programs. The Treasury Department reported in 2016 that $278 million in initial funding of venture capital programs set-up subsequent private financing, ultimately generating about $11 for every $1 in SSBCI funds. Yet beyond the loans processed or jobs created, SSBCI helped states develop or expand their own networks of venture capital investors.
Venture capital is concentrated in a handful of cities, but innovation should be supported in every state. The upper Midwest, for instance, boasts more than 20 percent of all patents, 25 percent of all computer science graduates, and attracts just five percent of venture capital.
In March, Senator Amy Klobuchar introduced the New Business Preservation Act, The Minnesota Democrat’s bill would expand upon the basic structure of the SSBCI, but focus on stimulating private investment in new businesses in locations often ignored by equity investors. If enacted it would allocate $2 billion in federal funds through formulas based on state population. As noted by the Center for American Entrepreneurship, a research and policy group focused on start-ups, more than 80 percent of funding under the Klobuchar bill would go to states in the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest which currently sees just about 17 percent of the venture capital market.
The Klobuchar bill is consistent with efforts to enable more communities to thrive in the way places like Silicon Valley have, by increasing research and development, boosting skills training, and caulking the drain of talent from heartland communities to the superstar metro areas. Furthermore, Congress should consider a plain vanilla reauthorization of SSBCI by Senator Gary Peters, the Michigan Democrat. Former Vice President Joe Biden has put forward proposals to expand upon the SSBCI and policies to support entrepreneurship have historically attracted bipartisan support. It’s a model that worked during the last recovery. It can’t come soon enough.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-18--Is America Strong Enough to Confront Its Racist Past?

For the last couple of months , Donald Trump has been promising to restore patriotic education in our schools .
He mentioned it during his speech at the Republican Convention , during a press conference , and at his campaign rally in Nevada this week .
In the midst of his attacks on the 1619 Project—a series published by the New York Times documenting the impact of slavery on our country ’ s history—it hasn ’ t been difficult to guess what the president means by that promise , even though his references have been fairly cryptic .
But during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday , the president clarified his intentions .
He directly attacked the 1619 Project by calling it “ ideological poison ” that would “ dissolve the civic bonds ” in America .
In addition , he claimed that critical race theory is “ toxic propaganda , ” suggesting that it is an effort to impose tyranny and a “ new segregation.
” He even went so far as to claim that it was abuse to teach it to children .
That is the context in which Trump proposes to restore patriotic education .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1776 Commission ” ( a direct hit on the 1619 Project ) to promote the effort .
But as is often the case with the president , his remarks were long on attacks and short on his proposed alternatives , although he did say that , “ We want our sons and daughters to know that they are the citizens of the most exceptional nation in the history of the world.
” The crux of the matter for him is to ensure that school curriculums are stripped of the perspective of people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as white history .
It is important to keep in mind what Trump is referring to when he talks about critical race theory .
According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs , it was developed by legal scholars in order to provide an analysis of race and racism from a legal perspective .
In other words , it is a theory that examines the role of systemic racism , which has been embedded in institutions and affects people of color in almost every aspect of their lives—including housing , employment , education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist attitudes of individuals .
Trump presented a straw man when he suggested that teaching critical race theory to children was akin to child abuse .
No one is suggesting that we immerse six-year-olds in all of that any more than we would expect them to be able to handle a course in macroeconomics .
Instead , CRT informs how we teach children in a way that “ perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
” That is precisely what threatens both Trump and his supporters .
To confront the role that racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
First of all , we must recognize that , since our founding , U.S. institutions have been grounded in white supremacy .
Secondly , in order to ensure that our principles of equality and justice apply to everyone , those institutions have to change .
That first step presents an obstacle for people like Trump , who view any admission of error as a sign of weakness .
During his speech on Thursday , the president said that the narratives being pushed by the left resemble the anti-American propaganda of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to see America weakened , derided and totally diminished.
” But Trump ’ s approach is the one that broadcasts weakness .
It takes strength to examine ourselves , identify shortcomings , and correct them to the best of our ability .
It is at moments when we ’ ve been able to do that as a country that we have demonstrated our exceptionalism .
As Barack Obama said during his speech at the 50th anniversary of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma , that is what it means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of faith in the American experiment than this , what greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished , that we are strong enough to be self-critical , that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals ?
… For we were born of change .
We broke the old aristocracies , declaring ourselves entitled not by bloodline , but endowed by our Creator with certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and responsibilities through a system of self-government , of and by and for the people .
That ’ s why we argue and fight with so much passion and conviction — because we know our efforts matter .
We know America is what we make of it .
In many ways , what is on the ballot in November are these two views of what it means to be an American .
Are we a country that is too afraid to even admit our shortcomings , or are we strong enough to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process of aligning the country with our highest ideals ?

For the last couple of months, Donald Trump has been promising to restore patriotic education in our schools. He mentioned it during his speech at the Republican Convention, during a press conference, and at his campaign rally in Nevada this week. In the midst of his attacks on the 1619 Project—a series published by the New York Times documenting the impact of slavery on our country’s history—it hasn’t been difficult to guess what the president means by that promise, even though his references have been fairly cryptic.
But during a speech at the National Archives on Thursday, the president clarified his intentions. He directly attacked the 1619 Project by calling it “ideological poison” that would “dissolve the civic bonds” in America. In addition, he claimed that critical race theory is “toxic propaganda,” suggesting that it is an effort to impose tyranny and a “new segregation.” He even went so far as to claim that it was abuse to teach it to children.
That is the context in which Trump proposes to restore patriotic education. He announced the formation of a “1776 Commission” (a direct hit on the 1619 Project) to promote the effort. But as is often the case with the president, his remarks were long on attacks and short on his proposed alternatives, although he did say that, “We want our sons and daughters to know that they are the citizens of the most exceptional nation in the history of the world.” The crux of the matter for him is to ensure that school curriculums are stripped of the perspective of people of color and that American history is viewed as white history.
It is important to keep in mind what Trump is referring to when he talks about critical race theory. According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs, it was developed by legal scholars in order to provide an analysis of race and racism from a legal perspective.
CRT recognizes that racism is ingrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures.
In other words, it is a theory that examines the role of systemic racism, which has been embedded in institutions and affects people of color in almost every aspect of their lives—including housing, employment, education, health, and wealth—regardless of the racist attitudes of individuals.
Trump presented a straw man when he suggested that teaching critical race theory to children was akin to child abuse. No one is suggesting that we immerse six-year-olds in all of that any more than we would expect them to be able to handle a course in macroeconomics. Instead, CRT informs how we teach children in a way that “perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.”
That is precisely what threatens both Trump and his supporters. To confront the role that racism plays in our society is a two-step process. First of all, we must recognize that, since our founding, U.S. institutions have been grounded in white supremacy. Secondly, in order to ensure that our principles of equality and justice apply to everyone, those institutions have to change.
That first step presents an obstacle for people like Trump, who view any admission of error as a sign of weakness. During his speech on Thursday, the president said that the narratives being pushed by the left resemble the anti-American propaganda of our adversaries, concluding that “both groups want to see America weakened, derided and totally diminished.”
But Trump’s approach is the one that broadcasts weakness. It takes strength to examine ourselves, identify shortcomings, and correct them to the best of our ability. It is at moments when we’ve been able to do that as a country that we have demonstrated our exceptionalism. As Barack Obama said during his speech at the 50th anniversary of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, that is what it means to be patriotic.
What greater expression of faith in the American experiment than this, what greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?… For we were born of change. We broke the old aristocracies, declaring ourselves entitled not by bloodline, but endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self-government, of and by and for the people. That’s why we argue and fight with so much passion and conviction — because we know our efforts matter. We know America is what we make of it.
In many ways, what is on the ballot in November are these two views of what it means to be an American. Are we a country that is too afraid to even admit our shortcomings, or are we strong enough to be self-critical and seize our power to continue the process of aligning the country with our highest ideals?


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-21--What Drives Leonard Leo’s Campaign to Remake the Courts?

At a campaign rally in North Carolina on Saturday , Trump promised to nominate a woman to the seat on the Supreme Court that opened with the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
That indicates that his pick is likely to come down to a choice between Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa .
Barrett was previously appointed by Trump to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and became a serious contender for a nomination to the Supreme Court when Justice Anthony Kennedy retired .
In the end , however , Trump chose Brett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat .
Similarly , Trump nominated Lagoa to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit .
As a Cuban American from Miami , Florida Republicans are organizing to support her nomination as a way for Trump to improve his electoral chances in that state .
Of course , there is always the chance that Trump will surprise us with his pick , but there is one thing we can know for certain : whoever he chooses will have been vetted by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will shepherd her through the confirmation process .
But that ’ s nothing new , the only Supreme Court nominee put forward by a Republican president since the 1990s who wasn ’ t tied to the Federalist Society was Harriet Miers , and we all know what happened to her .
There were many things that upended the Miers nomination , but the fact that she didn ’ t have the Federalist Society in her corner when the criticisms started meant that she was on her own and doomed from the start .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has helped shepherd the confirmation process for Clarence Thomas , John Roberts , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh is Leonard Leo .
In other words , he has already played a major role in giving conservatives their majority on the Supreme Court .
So it is important to know what drives his commitment to remake the courts .
It is the Federalist Society ’ s focus on limiting the role of government via lower taxes and deregulation that funnels the flow of dark money into the network of nonprofits Leo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in support of the judges he puts forward .
Robert O ’ Harrow Jr. and Shawn Boburg documented that process extensively in an expose titled , “ A conservative activist ’ s behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nation ’ s courts.
” Dark money donors invest in a Supreme Court nominee in order to reduce the regulatory power of the state by placing limits on what Congress and judges can do , which comes right out of the Republican playbook .
But what is less known about Leo is how his religious views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You might call it a coincidence that Leo is Catholic and all of the Supreme Court justices he has been involved with since the 1990s have been Catholic – with the exception of Gorsuch , who was raised Catholic but attended an Episcopal church after he married an Anglican .
At this point , the two women who appear to be in contention for nomination by Trump ( and put forward by Leo and the Federalist Society ) are also Catholic .
What is of concern , however , is not their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view of the role of the courts .
For example , while a professor at Notre Dame , Barrett said that a “ legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God.
” Given what we know about Leo , that is probably a sentiment he would endorse .
He currently serves on the board of the Catholic Information Center—as have Attorney General Bill Barr and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone .
Founded by Opus Dei , it is akin to the Protestant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book , “ The Family : The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.
” Leo even went so far as to launch the Catholic alternative to that group ’ s National Prayer Breakfast .
The priest who put the Catholic Information Center at the heart of national politics , Rev .
C. John McCloskey , was removed from that position by Opus Dei in 2003 on the heels of several allegations of sexual assault .
But it was McCloskey ’ s approach that gained the CIC prominence in national politics and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because McCloskey brought to Catholicism an emphasis that has been more visible in some Protestant denominations : evangelism .
Incorporating the need to proselytize moves religious faith beyond the arena of the personal to one in which , as Barrett suggested , it ’ s all about “ building the Kingdom of God.
” To accomplish that goal , McCloskey set out to influence the rich and powerful , writing that , “ [ I ] n the first several centuries of Christianity the Gospel was most successfully preached not to the poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prosperous middle classes and educated upper classes in the cities.
” As Chris Suellentrop wrote , McCloskey ’ s authoritarian approach is revealed by the anti-intellectual expectation that followers make a leap of faith , “ with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears.
” When it comes to what is involved in that leap of faith , Suellentrop provides this summary : As someone who grew up in the Protestant version of that kind of faith , it is fascinating to see how various forms of religious fundamentalism converge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular doctrines .
Perhaps that is why there has been a joining of Christian nationalists across the more traditional divide between Catholics and Protestants to fight the so-called “ culture wars.
” However , the latter might be uncomfortable with the fact that McCloskey predicted the demise of Protestantism , saying , “ Over time , most of them will fall away from Christianity or become Catholics.
” What we can see from this is that there are two wings of Christian nationalism : the Protestant and the Catholic .
There hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court since Justice Stevens retired in 2010 , which has caused some grumbling from the protestant wing .
With the two most likely Trump nominees under consideration , that ’ s not likely to change anytime soon .
While it is the protestant wing of Christian nationalism and its “ court evangelicals ” that have garnered the most attention , it is the Catholic wing that is gaining influence in the courts , primarily due to the efforts of Leonard Leo .
At this point , that seems to be working for both @ @

At a campaign rally in North Carolina on Saturday, Trump promised to nominate a woman to the seat on the Supreme Court that opened with the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That indicates that his pick is likely to come down to a choice between Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa.
Barrett was previously appointed by Trump to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and became a serious contender for a nomination to the Supreme Court when Justice Anthony Kennedy retired. In the end, however, Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh and announced that he was saving Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.
Similarly, Trump nominated Lagoa to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As a Cuban American from Miami, Florida Republicans are organizing to support her nomination as a way for Trump to improve his electoral chances in that state.
Of course, there is always the chance that Trump will surprise us with his pick, but there is one thing we can know for certain: whoever he chooses will have been vetted by the Federalist Society, the same people who will shepherd her through the confirmation process. But that’s nothing new, the only Supreme Court nominee put forward by a Republican president since the 1990s who wasn’t tied to the Federalist Society was Harriet Miers, and we all know what happened to her. There were many things that upended the Miers nomination, but the fact that she didn’t have the Federalist Society in her corner when the criticisms started meant that she was on her own and doomed from the start.
The man at the Federalist Society who has helped shepherd the confirmation process for Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh is Leonard Leo. In other words, he has already played a major role in giving conservatives their majority on the Supreme Court. So it is important to know what drives his commitment to remake the courts.
It is the Federalist Society’s focus on limiting the role of government via lower taxes and deregulation that funnels the flow of dark money into the network of nonprofits Leo has created to run public relations campaigns in support of the judges he puts forward. Robert O’Harrow Jr. and Shawn Boburg documented that process extensively in an expose titled, “A conservative activist’s behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nation’s courts.”
Even as Leo counseled Trump on judicial picks, he and his allies were raising money for nonprofits that under IRS rules do not have to disclose their donors. Between 2014 and 2017 alone, they collected more than $250 million in such donations, sometimes known as “dark money,” according to a Post analysis of the most recent tax filings available. The money was used in part to support conservative policies and judges, through advertising and through funding for groups whose executives appeared as television pundits.
Dark money donors invest in a Supreme Court nominee in order to reduce the regulatory power of the state by placing limits on what Congress and judges can do, which comes right out of the Republican playbook. But what is less known about Leo is how his religious views have had an impact on the courts.
You might call it a coincidence that Leo is Catholic and all of the Supreme Court justices he has been involved with since the 1990s have been Catholic – with the exception of Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic but attended an Episcopal church after he married an Anglican. At this point, the two women who appear to be in contention for nomination by Trump (and put forward by Leo and the Federalist Society) are also Catholic. What is of concern, however, is not their religion, but how it influences their view of the role of the courts. For example, while a professor at Notre Dame, Barrett said that a “legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”
Given what we know about Leo, that is probably a sentiment he would endorse. He currently serves on the board of the Catholic Information Center—as have Attorney General Bill Barr and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Founded by Opus Dei, it is akin to the Protestant group Jeff Sharlet wrote about in his book, “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.” Leo even went so far as to launch the Catholic alternative to that group’s National Prayer Breakfast.
The priest who put the Catholic Information Center at the heart of national politics, Rev. C. John McCloskey, was removed from that position by Opus Dei in 2003 on the heels of several allegations of sexual assault. But it was McCloskey’s approach that gained the CIC prominence in national politics and attracted luminaries like Leo. That is because McCloskey brought to Catholicism an emphasis that has been more visible in some Protestant denominations: evangelism. Incorporating the need to proselytize moves religious faith beyond the arena of the personal to one in which, as Barrett suggested, it’s all about “building the Kingdom of God.”
To accomplish that goal, McCloskey set out to influence the rich and powerful, writing that, “[I]n the first several centuries of Christianity the Gospel was most successfully preached not to the poor and the outcasts, but rather to the prosperous middle classes and educated upper classes in the cities.” As Chris Suellentrop wrote, McCloskey’s authoritarian approach is revealed by the anti-intellectual expectation that followers make a leap of faith, “with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears.” When it comes to what is involved in that leap of faith, Suellentrop provides this summary:
He describes the period after Vatican II as a “generally unfortunate period for our country and our Church,” calls coeducation a “failure,” and notes the “particular needs of the complementary yet quite different sexes.” He advises college students to avoid “nominal” Catholic colleges (meaning Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, and the like) that emphasize concepts like “openness, just society, search, diversity, and professional preparation.”
As someone who grew up in the Protestant version of that kind of faith, it is fascinating to see how various forms of religious fundamentalism converge when you get beyond some of the particular doctrines. Perhaps that is why there has been a joining of Christian nationalists across the more traditional divide between Catholics and Protestants to fight the so-called “culture wars.” However, the latter might be uncomfortable with the fact that McCloskey predicted the demise of Protestantism, saying, “Over time, most of them will fall away from Christianity or become Catholics.”
What we can see from this is that there are two wings of Christian nationalism: the Protestant and the Catholic. There hasn’t been a Protestant on the Supreme Court since Justice Stevens retired in 2010, which has caused some grumbling from the protestant wing. With the two most likely Trump nominees under consideration, that’s not likely to change anytime soon.
While it is the protestant wing of Christian nationalism and its “court evangelicals” that have garnered the most attention, it is the Catholic wing that is gaining influence in the courts, primarily due to the efforts of Leonard Leo. At this point, that seems to be working for both groups.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-22--Ginsburg Vacancy: Will it Cause White Voters to Move Back to Trump?

With fewer than 40 days left before Election Day , Nate Silver ’ s FiveThirtyEight gives Joe Biden a 77 percent chance of winning and wresting the presidency away from Donald Trump .
In fact , according to calculations by Harry Enten of CNN , “ Biden has a better chance ( about 45 % ) of winning 340 electoral votes than Trump has of winning the election ( about 25 % ) .
Biden ’ s chance of taking 400 electoral votes is pretty much the same of Trump winning.
” The demographic explanation for the state of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of support among white voters .
This point was explored here in early-September in a piece by Robert Shapiro , a former Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs for President Clinton , and it ’ s reiterated by David Siders of Politico .
Polling indicates that Trump has lost support from every kind of white voter , whether male or female , working-class or professional , college-educated or not .
This is more than offsetting a slightly rosier picture for him than four years ago with Black and Latinx voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ point when he argues that “ Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation to the court one month before the midterm elections two year [ sic ] ago did nothing to stop Democrats from steamrolling Trump and the GOP.
” When Nate Cohn of the New York Times did a post-mortem on polling performance in the 2018 midterms , he noted that they were much-improved at the state level over 2016 , when they missed Trump ’ s strength in several traditionally blue states .
Still , the polls underestimated the Democratic candidates in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida , Indiana , Ohio , and Missouri .
What happened is that blue states got bluer and red states got redder .
Silver ’ s post-mortem showed much the same thing , with most of the error in his projections explained by upset Senate and gubernatorial wins for the Republicans in Florida and Mike Braun ’ s unseating of Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana , who was leading in most late polls .
It ’ s possible that Kavanaugh polarized the electorate and thereby helped the GOP hold on to enough traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were primed to lose .
With the startling death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Trump ’ s decision to announce a nominee , we have a repeat of the Supreme Court taking center stage in the election cycle .
If the vacant seat polarizes the electorate , it could make it harder for the Democrats to win in red districts and states and affect both the outcome of the presidential election and the battle for control of the Senate .
Consider Mississippi , where the last three presidential polls , dating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning comfortably by 10 or 11 points .
Yet , the most recent poll of the Senate election there shows signs of trouble for incumbent Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith .
In former Mississippi member of congress and Secretary of Agriculture , Mike Espy , she faces a black challenger who she leads , by a single point .
The same poll taken in April had her up by 26 points .
The dramatic narrowing of the race is partly attributable to Hyde-Smith ’ s weaknesses as a candidate .
Adam Ganucheau of Mississippi Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win enthusiastic support from her base , the death of Ginsburg could change that .
It certainly changed things for her opponent : Outsiders tend to think of Mississippi as implacably conservative , largely indistinguishable from its neighbors .
But it has by far the largest black population ( 37 percent ) and , contrary to its reputation for disenfranchising its black voters , a Kaiser Family Foundation study of the 2018 electorate found a higher percentage ( 78 percent ) of eligible black voters are registered in Mississippi than in any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white voters there are registered .
What makes Mississippi reliably Republican is the inelasticity of its electorate .
According to a post-2018 midterm study by Silver , only Georgia and Alabama had less wiggle in their vote .
Both white and black Mississippians are nearly impervious to shifting winds and prevailing political narratives .
Yet , if whites begin to abandon the Republican candidates , Mississippi can tip blue faster than any other Deep Southern state .
Trump has been losing white support from every quarter , and Mississippi is no different .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 18 points , so a 10-11 point poll advantage in 2020 already shows some serious erosion .
Espy closing a spring deficit of 26 points down to a 1 point race is not unrelated to this national trend .
But Mississippi is also a deeply religious state with a strong anti-choice majority .
The white community there has had a contentious relationship with the Supreme Court ever since the 1954 ruling in Brown v. the Kansas Board of Education .
Nothing reminds white voters in Mississippi why they vote Republican more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court and roll back Roe v. Wade .
I used Mississippi as an example to examine a possible Ginsburg effect because it has the starkest racial polarization combined with a clear preference for a big Republican majority on the Supreme Court .
The impact might be bigger in the Magnolia State than in places like Montana and Alaska which also have contested Senate elections but where the voters are less religious and more libertarian-minded than in Deep South .
Yet , even in Mississippi , it cuts both ways .
Espy ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
Admittedly , almost all of that money probably came from out of state , but it will still have an impact .
The problem for the Democrats is that they were already energized while a lot of white Trump voters were drifting away from him .
If they come back in the fold over the Ginsburg vacancy , it will make it harder for the Democrats to win red states .
Mississippi was always a long shot for both Espy and Biden , but the contests in places like Kansas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are probably tougher lifts for the Democrats now .
In 2018 , the Democrats over-performed in the House , winning 40 seats .
But they suffered a major disappointment in the Senate , and the same thing could happen again , perhaps for the same reason .

With fewer than 40 days left before Election Day, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight gives Joe Biden a 77 percent chance of winning and wresting the presidency away from Donald Trump. In fact, according to calculations by Harry Enten of CNN, “Biden has a better chance (about 45%) of winning 340 electoral votes than Trump has of winning the election (about 25%). Biden’s chance of taking 400 electoral votes is pretty much the same of Trump winning.” The demographic explanation for the state of the race is that Trump has lost a lot of support among white voters.
This point was explored here in early-September in a piece by Robert Shapiro, a former Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs for President Clinton, and it’s reiterated by David Siders of Politico. Polling indicates that Trump has lost support from every kind of white voter, whether male or female, working-class or professional, college-educated or not. This is more than offsetting a slightly rosier picture for him than four years ago with Black and Latinx voters.
Yet, Silver makes a highly contestable point when he argues that “Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the court one month before the midterm elections two year [sic] ago did nothing to stop Democrats from steamrolling Trump and the GOP.”
When Nate Cohn of the New York Times did a post-mortem on polling performance in the 2018 midterms, he noted that they were much-improved at the state level over 2016, when they missed Trump’s strength in several traditionally blue states. Still, the polls underestimated the Democratic candidates in New York and California and overestimated them in Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri. What happened is that blue states got bluer and red states got redder. Silver’s post-mortem showed much the same thing, with most of the error in his projections explained by upset Senate and gubernatorial wins for the Republicans in Florida and Mike Braun’s unseating of Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who was leading in most late polls. It’s possible that Kavanaugh polarized the electorate and thereby helped the GOP hold on to enough traditional Republicans to win some statewide races they were primed to lose.
With the startling death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Trump’s decision to announce a nominee, we have a repeat of the Supreme Court taking center stage in the election cycle. If the vacant seat polarizes the electorate, it could make it harder for the Democrats to win in red districts and states and affect both the outcome of the presidential election and the battle for control of the Senate.
Consider Mississippi, where the last three presidential polls, dating from April to August, show Trump winning comfortably by 10 or 11 points. Yet, the most recent poll of the Senate election there shows signs of trouble for incumbent Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith. In former Mississippi member of congress and Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy, she faces a black challenger who she leads, by a single point. The same poll taken in April had her up by 26 points.
The dramatic narrowing of the race is partly attributable to Hyde-Smith’s weaknesses as a candidate. Adam Ganucheau of Mississippi Today reports:
Hyde-Smith, meanwhile, has struggled to raise cash this cycle. Among incumbent senators, Hyde-Smith has raised less than 96 incumbent senators, including Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, who faces reelection in 2024. The three Senate incumbents who raised less than Hyde-Smith have announced they will not seek re-election
If Hyde-Smith is struggling to win enthusiastic support from her base, the death of Ginsburg could change that. It certainly changed things for her opponent:
Espy has raised nearly $200,000 since Ginsburg’s passing was announced on Friday evening, according to Espy campaign sources. That total — a single-day fundraising record for Espy this cycle — is close to one-third of what he raised from April to June.
Outsiders tend to think of Mississippi as implacably conservative, largely indistinguishable from its neighbors. But it has by far the largest black population (37 percent) and, contrary to its reputation for disenfranchising its black voters, a Kaiser Family Foundation study of the 2018 electorate found a higher percentage (78 percent) of eligible black voters are registered in Mississippi than in any other state. Only 72 percent of eligible white voters there are registered.
What makes Mississippi reliably Republican is the inelasticity of its electorate. According to a post-2018 midterm study by Silver, only Georgia and Alabama had less wiggle in their vote. Both white and black Mississippians are nearly impervious to shifting winds and prevailing political narratives. Yet, if whites begin to abandon the Republican candidates, Mississippi can tip blue faster than any other Deep Southern state.
Trump has been losing white support from every quarter, and Mississippi is no different. He carried the state in 2016 by nearly 18 points, so a 10-11 point poll advantage in 2020 already shows some serious erosion. Espy closing a spring deficit of 26 points down to a 1 point race is not unrelated to this national trend. But Mississippi is also a deeply religious state with a strong anti-choice majority. The white community there has had a contentious relationship with the Supreme Court ever since the 1954 ruling in Brown v. the Kansas Board of Education. Nothing reminds white voters in Mississippi why they vote Republican more than the battle to win conservative control of the Court and roll back Roe v. Wade.
I used Mississippi as an example to examine a possible Ginsburg effect because it has the starkest racial polarization combined with a clear preference for a big Republican majority on the Supreme Court. The impact might be bigger in the Magnolia State than in places like Montana and Alaska which also have contested Senate elections but where the voters are less religious and more libertarian-minded than in Deep South.
Yet, even in Mississippi, it cuts both ways. Espy’s huge infusion of cash benefits his campaign. Admittedly, almost all of that money probably came from out of state, but it will still have an impact. The problem for the Democrats is that they were already energized while a lot of white Trump voters were drifting away from him. If they come back in the fold over the Ginsburg vacancy, it will make it harder for the Democrats to win red states. Mississippi was always a long shot for both Espy and Biden, but the contests in places like Kansas and Georgia with a lot of social conservatives are probably tougher lifts for the Democrats now.
In 2018, the Democrats over-performed in the House, winning 40 seats. But they suffered a major disappointment in the Senate, and the same thing could happen again, perhaps for the same reason.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-22--Chuck Schumer’s Last Desperate Options to Stop a Supreme Court Vote

The Senate Democrats held a caucus call on Saturday .
Their aim was to develop a strategy for opposing a rushed replacement for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Sam Stein and Sam Brodey of The Daily Beast report that there was a split between liberals who advocate “ a dramatic show of resistance with overt political threats ” and moderates who want to remain “ squarely focused on the implications that the confirmation would have on health care.
” Yet , there was agreement on the goal : Keep the seat open in the hope that Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans can thwart this goal , provided they stay united .
The question is whether any strategy can stop them .
The first arrow in the Democrats ’ quiver is Senate procedure .
Unfortunately , recent rule changes have all but eliminated their ability to resist .
In 2013 , then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reached a breaking point with the Republicans ’ refusal to seat President Obama ’ s nominees to the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals , the nation ’ s second highest court .
At one point during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the D.C .
Circuit and Senate Republicans were arguing that none of them should be filled , but rather the court ’ s size should be reduced .
This led Reid to deploy the “ nuclear option.
” He changed the Senate ’ s filibuster .
Instead of needing 60 votes to confirm a cabinet member or federal judge , a simple majority of 50 ( plus the tie-breaking vice-president ) would suffice .
The only exception was the Supreme Court .
Its justices were considered too important to be confirmed without broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in control of the Senate , Mitch McConnell eliminated this exception , too , so he could shepherd Neil Gorsuch ’ s nomination to the high court .
Without the filibuster available as a procedural tool , the Democrats must rely on a motley collection of improvised tactics none of which are likely to thwart a GOP united behind President Trump ’ s nominee who he plans to announce on Saturday .
But there are some .
The first strategy is to delay .
It ’ s found in Rule VI of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that a quorum consists of “ a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn , ” and Vice-President Mike Pence doesn ’ t count for this purpose .
One Democratic senator would have to be present to raise objections , but if the rest refused to show up , the Republicans would need 50 of their 53 senators in attendance in order to begin debate on the nomination .
With many GOP senators campaigning for reelection , this could present some challenges .
Two of them , Susan Collins of Maine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already stated their opposition to confirming Ginsburg ’ s replacement before the election .
If they could be convinced to join the Democrats in denying a quorum , only one more vote would be needed to stop the process .
That though presents a lot of “ ifs.
” Collins and Murkowski oppose a pre-election nominee , but they might well back McConnell and join the rest of their Republican colleagues to stop this Democratic gambit .
The second strategy is try to prevent a vote .
The same basic strategy can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over a nomination to prevent a vote : The Democrats can also use quorum rules to harass the Republicans ’ efforts to move the nomination through the committee process .
The rules state that at least two members of the minority must be present in order for a hearing to proceed .
The problem is , it ’ s not likely to be effective because the chairman can just ignore the requirement .
This was demonstrated in August 2019 , when Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham brushed off the lack of a quorum to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He also simply ignored a provision of the committee rules that states , “ At the request of any member…a bill , matter , or nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week , whichever occurs later.
” No doubt , Chairman Graham would ignore these rules again to speed along the confirmation of a new Supreme Court Justice , but forcing him to do so would still be a smart strategic move .
The more it looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and violating norms , the less legitimate their process will appear to the public .
The Democrats might have more assured success by invoking Rule XVII to cause a two-day delay .
With only 41 days until the election , every bit of delay can help .
But , as Andrew Prokop of Vox states , “ If Republican senators are unconcerned about the appearances of an unseemly rush to a vote , they can certainly ” get a confirmation in that window .
In theory , the House of Representatives could intervene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rule VII on Morning Business which requires the presiding officer to “ lay before the Senate…messages from the House of Representatives as may remain upon his table from any previous day ’ s session undisposed of.
” By sending a flurry of messages to the Senate each day , she could cause some mild headaches .
Super longshots from the House .
One is to impeach Trump again which is utterly implausible and would likely backfire politically but that would force the Senate to stop all business and conduct a trial .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , using the same brinksmanship that the GOP has used in the past .
Pelosi has already said that she won ’ t go there .
Perhaps a combination of these stalling and harassment tactics could create such a truncated confirmation process that some Republican senators balk .
If the confirmation is not completed before Election Day , some new opportunities arise .
There are two Special Elections , one in Georgia and one in Arizona .
The winners of those elections will be seated as soon as the results are certified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a runoff election if no one gets an outright majority , but the Democrats are heavily favored to win the Arizona seat .
By the end of November , it ’ s likely that astronaut Mark Kelly , the Democrat , will have defeated incumbent Republican Martha McSally in the Senate , giving the Democrats a potentially decisive extra vote in the Lame Duck session .
( But it ’ s also possible the Republican majority in the Senate could find a way to delay seating Kelly . )
The Republicans are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but cleverly employed they can raise the political costs for them .
Supreme Court confirmations typically take two or three months .
Obviously , any lifelong assignment should require very thorough vetting .
A rushed process is politically problematic for this reason alone , so the fewer days they have to operate the most suspect their process will seem .
Additionally , the Republicans are operating right at the margin with approximately 51 votes .
A delay past the election would put them under more pressure , as it ’ s expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes once Mark Kelly is seated .
If Biden wins the election , as he currently favored to do , and the Democrats take control of the Senate , the costs of pushing through a confirmation following a Democratic sweep will be considerably higher .
If the Republicans nonetheless succeed in their effort to replace Ginsburg , the Democrats will have opportunities to respond , perhaps by expanding the Supreme Court , or ending the filibuster entirely , depriving a future GOP minority in the Senate of any real leverage .
For now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best and only option and it ’ s not very good .

The Senate Democrats held a caucus call on Saturday. Their aim was to develop a strategy for opposing a rushed replacement for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Sam Stein and Sam Brodey of The Daily Beast report that there was a split between liberals who advocate “a dramatic show of resistance with overt political threats” and moderates who want to remain “squarely focused on the implications that the confirmation would have on health care.”
Yet, there was agreement on the goal: Keep the seat open in the hope that Joe Biden can fill it next year. The Republicans can thwart this goal, provided they stay united. The question is whether any strategy can stop them.
The first arrow in the Democrats’ quiver is Senate procedure. Unfortunately, recent rule changes have all but eliminated their ability to resist. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reached a breaking point with the Republicans’ refusal to seat President Obama’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second highest court. At one point during the struggle, there were four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit and Senate Republicans were arguing that none of them should be filled, but rather the court’s size should be reduced.
This led Reid to deploy the “nuclear option.” He changed the Senate’s filibuster. Instead of needing 60 votes to confirm a cabinet member or federal judge, a simple majority of 50 (plus the tie-breaking vice-president) would suffice. The only exception was the Supreme Court. Its justices were considered too important to be confirmed without broader consensus. In 2017, with Republicans in control of the Senate, Mitch McConnell eliminated this exception, too, so he could shepherd Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the high court.
Without the filibuster available as a procedural tool, the Democrats must rely on a motley collection of improvised tactics none of which are likely to thwart a GOP united behind President Trump’s nominee who he plans to announce on Saturday. But there are some.
The first strategy is to delay. It’s found in Rule VI of the Senate Rules.
RULE VI
QUORUM—ABSENT SENATORS MAY BE SENT FOR
Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order.
The important thing here is that a quorum consists of “a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn,” and Vice-President Mike Pence doesn’t count for this purpose. One Democratic senator would have to be present to raise objections, but if the rest refused to show up, the Republicans would need 50 of their 53 senators in attendance in order to begin debate on the nomination. With many GOP senators campaigning for reelection, this could present some challenges.
Two of them, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have already stated their opposition to confirming Ginsburg’s replacement before the election. If they could be convinced to join the Democrats in denying a quorum, only one more vote would be needed to stop the process. That though presents a lot of “ifs.” Collins and Murkowski oppose a pre-election nominee, but they might well back McConnell and join the rest of their Republican colleagues to stop this Democratic gambit.
The second strategy is try to prevent a vote. The same basic strategy can be deployed at the end of the debate over a nomination to prevent a vote:
RULE XII
VOTING PROCEDURE No request by a Senator for unanimous consent for the taking of a final vote on a specified date upon the passage of a bill or joint resolution shall be submitted to the Senate for agreement thereto until after a quorum call ordered for the purpose by the Presiding Officer, it shall be disclosed that a quorum of the Senate is present; and when a unanimous consent is thus given the same shall operate as the order of the Senate, but any unanimous consent may be revoked by another unanimous consent granted in the manner prescribed above upon one day’s notice.
The Democrats can also use quorum rules to harass the Republicans’ efforts to move the nomination through the committee process. The rules state that at least two members of the minority must be present in order for a hearing to proceed. The problem is, it’s not likely to be effective because the chairman can just ignore the requirement. This was demonstrated in August 2019, when Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham brushed off the lack of a quorum to push through the Secure and Protect Act. He also simply ignored a provision of the committee rules that states, “At the request of any member…a bill, matter, or nomination on the agenda of the Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later.” No doubt, Chairman Graham would ignore these rules again to speed along the confirmation of a new Supreme Court Justice, but forcing him to do so would still be a smart strategic move. The more it looks like the Senate Republicans are breaking rules and violating norms, the less legitimate their process will appear to the public.
The Democrats might have more assured success by invoking Rule XVII to cause a two-day delay.
RULE XVII
REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; REPORTS OF COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE 5.4 Any measure or matter reported by any standing committee shall not be considered in the Senate unless the report of that committee upon that measure or matter has been available to Members for at least two calendar days (excluding Sundays and legal holidays) prior to the consideration of that measure or matter. If hearings have been held on any such measure or matter so reported, the committee reporting the measure or matter shall make every reasonable effort to have such hearings printed and available for distribution to the Members of the Senate prior to the consideration of such measure or matter in the Senate.
With only 41 days until the election, every bit of delay can help. But, as Andrew Prokop of Vox states, “If Republican senators are unconcerned about the appearances of an unseemly rush to a vote, they can certainly” get a confirmation in that window.
In theory, the House of Representatives could intervene. Speaker Nancy Pelosi could exploit Senate Rule VII on Morning Business which requires the presiding officer to “lay before the Senate…messages from the House of Representatives as may remain upon his table from any previous day’s session undisposed of.” By sending a flurry of messages to the Senate each day, she could cause some mild headaches.
Super longshots from the House. One is to impeach Trump again which is utterly implausible and would likely backfire politically but that would force the Senate to stop all business and conduct a trial. The other is to threaten to shutdown the government, using the same brinksmanship that the GOP has used in the past. Pelosi has already said that she won’t go there.
Perhaps a combination of these stalling and harassment tactics could create such a truncated confirmation process that some Republican senators balk.
If the confirmation is not completed before Election Day, some new opportunities arise. There are two Special Elections, one in Georgia and one in Arizona. The winners of those elections will be seated as soon as the results are certified. The Georgia race will go to a runoff election if no one gets an outright majority, but the Democrats are heavily favored to win the Arizona seat. By the end of November, it’s likely that astronaut Mark Kelly, the Democrat, will have defeated incumbent Republican Martha McSally in the Senate, giving the Democrats a potentially decisive extra vote in the Lame Duck session. (But it’s also possible the Republican majority in the Senate could find a way to delay seating Kelly.)
The Republicans are not likely to be deterred by procedural moves, but cleverly employed they can raise the political costs for them. Supreme Court confirmations typically take two or three months. Obviously, any lifelong assignment should require very thorough vetting. A rushed process is politically problematic for this reason alone, so the fewer days they have to operate the most suspect their process will seem.
Additionally, the Republicans are operating right at the margin with approximately 51 votes. A delay past the election would put them under more pressure, as it’s expected they’ll be down to 50 votes once Mark Kelly is seated.
If Biden wins the election, as he currently favored to do, and the Democrats take control of the Senate, the costs of pushing through a confirmation following a Democratic sweep will be considerably higher.
If the Republicans nonetheless succeed in their effort to replace Ginsburg, the Democrats will have opportunities to respond, perhaps by expanding the Supreme Court, or ending the filibuster entirely, depriving a future GOP minority in the Senate of any real leverage. For now, delay is Chuck Schumer’s best and only option and it’s not very good.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-22--Can Democracy Survive the Demise of the GOP?

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus is credited with the observation that : “ The only constant in life is change.
” In the 21st century , the pace of change has accelerated and , as activist and educator Tim Wise pointed out back in 2009 , one of its manifestations created a “ perfect storm for white anxiety.
” The “ perfect storm ” Wise refers to includes ( 1 ) the demographics of whites becoming a plurality and no longer a majority by 2040 , ( 2 ) the election of the country ’ s first African American president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the first time in 75 years , white people experienced double-digit unemployment , and ( 4 ) the “ cross-pollination ” of racial diversity in our entertainment culture .
Over the last few years , prophetic voices have warned us about what would happen in response to that kind of change .
In 2014 , blogger Doug Muder made the prescient comparison between what had become known as the Tea Party and the Confederacy .
Documenting how the Civil War didn ’ t end when Lee surrendered at Appomattox , he identified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has relied on winning with a white majority is increasingly finding itself at odds with our democratic processes .
Muder ’ s warning was repeated by David Frum in “ Trumpocracy ” where he wrote that “ if conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically , they will not abandon conservatism .
They will reject democracy.
” In The Great Suppression , journalist Zachary Roth outlined the steps Republicans took when they realized that their party could no longer claim to represent the majority .
Following their defeat in the 2008 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-democratic strategies such as voter suppression , gerrymandering , preemption , and judicial engagement .
They have now escalated into being a party that will do anything to hang on to power .
As an example , Majority Leader McConnell didn ’ t cross the Rubicon when he proposed jamming through Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee weeks before an election ( or even during a lame-duck session ) .
That happened back when he refused to even hold hearings , much less a vote , on a Democratic president ’ s nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McConnell ’ s abandonment of precedents must be put into the context of his reveling in being the “ grim reaper ” who refuses to consider any major legislation in the Senate after passing tax cuts for the wealthy in 2017 .
His only goal has been to confirm the extremist judges that Trump has nominated to the federal courts .
As I ’ ve previously explained , McConnell knows that his party is in decline and has been willing to castrate Congress in order to allow judges—who serve lifetime appointments—to legislate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years , Republicans have demonstrated how far they ’ ll go to stand with a criminal president .
That could reach its peak when all of Trump ’ s lies about fraud associated with mail-in ballots become his pathway to stealing the election .
Just recently he told the crowd at a campaign rally that , “ We ’ re gon na have a victory on November 3rd the likes of which you ’ ve never seen .
Now we ’ re counting on the federal court system to make it so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know who wins , OK ?
Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later.
” That ’ s the plan—simply disenfranchise the millions of people who vote by mail during a pandemic .
Will Republicans stand by while Trump uses the courts McConnell has stacked to steal the election ?
We ’ ve seen nothing to indicate that they wouldn ’ t .
Since the mid-nineteenth century , politics in the U.S. has been dominated by two parties : Republicans and Democrats .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties fought back from minority status , we have no history to inform us about what happens when one of them retreats from seeking a majority and thus begins to die .
Fighting back has always meant building a coalition large enough to win elections .
The reason the Republican Party faces its demise is that , ever since Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 , it has rejected any attempt to reach out to a changing America .
Instead , Republicans have relied on firing up their existing base .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s problem is that “ we ’ re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the longer term.
” We don ’ t know what happens when an American political party dies .
But what we ’ re seeing from Republicans is an attempt to take democracy down with them .

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus is credited with the observation that: “The only constant in life is change.” In the 21st century, the pace of change has accelerated and, as activist and educator Tim Wise pointed out back in 2009, one of its manifestations created a “perfect storm for white anxiety.”
The “perfect storm” Wise refers to includes (1) the demographics of whites becoming a plurality and no longer a majority by 2040, (2) the election of the country’s first African American president, (3) the fact that, for the first time in 75 years, white people experienced double-digit unemployment, and (4) the “cross-pollination” of racial diversity in our entertainment culture.
Over the last few years, prophetic voices have warned us about what would happen in response to that kind of change. In 2014, blogger Doug Muder made the prescient comparison between what had become known as the Tea Party and the Confederacy. Documenting how the Civil War didn’t end when Lee surrendered at Appomattox, he identified the Confederate mindset.
The essence of the Confederate worldview is that the democratic process cannot legitimately change the established social order, and so all forms of legal and illegal resistance are justified when it tries…The Confederate sees a divinely ordained way things are supposed to be, and defends it at all costs. No process, no matter how orderly or democratic, can justify fundamental change.
The party that has relied on winning with a white majority is increasingly finding itself at odds with our democratic processes. Muder’s warning was repeated by David Frum in “Trumpocracy” where he wrote that “if conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
In The Great Suppression, journalist Zachary Roth outlined the steps Republicans took when they realized that their party could no longer claim to represent the majority.
Today’s conservatives have no such confidence that the people are on their side. In fact, they are beginning to perceive that they’re in the minority – perhaps more glaringly than ever before. And yet this realization has brought with it another more hopeful one: being outnumbered doesn’t have to mean losing.
Following their defeat in the 2008 election, the GOP increasingly relied on anti-democratic strategies such as voter suppression, gerrymandering, preemption, and judicial engagement. They have now escalated into being a party that will do anything to hang on to power.
As an example, Majority Leader McConnell didn’t cross the Rubicon when he proposed jamming through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee weeks before an election (or even during a lame-duck session). That happened back when he refused to even hold hearings, much less a vote, on a Democratic president’s nominee almost a year prior to an election.
McConnell’s abandonment of precedents must be put into the context of his reveling in being the “grim reaper” who refuses to consider any major legislation in the Senate after passing tax cuts for the wealthy in 2017. His only goal has been to confirm the extremist judges that Trump has nominated to the federal courts. As I’ve previously explained, McConnell knows that his party is in decline and has been willing to castrate Congress in order to allow judges—who serve lifetime appointments—to legislate from the bench.
Over the last four years, Republicans have demonstrated how far they’ll go to stand with a criminal president. That could reach its peak when all of Trump’s lies about fraud associated with mail-in ballots become his pathway to stealing the election. Just recently he told the crowd at a campaign rally that, “We’re gonna have a victory on November 3rd the likes of which you’ve never seen. Now we’re counting on the federal court system to make it so we can actually have an evening where we know who wins, OK? Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later.” That’s the plan—simply disenfranchise the millions of people who vote by mail during a pandemic. Will Republicans stand by while Trump uses the courts McConnell has stacked to steal the election? We’ve seen nothing to indicate that they wouldn’t.
Since the mid-nineteenth century, politics in the U.S. has been dominated by two parties: Republicans and Democrats. While we have many examples of how those parties fought back from minority status, we have no history to inform us about what happens when one of them retreats from seeking a majority and thus begins to die.
Fighting back has always meant building a coalition large enough to win elections. The reason the Republican Party faces its demise is that, ever since Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012, it has rejected any attempt to reach out to a changing America. Instead, Republicans have relied on firing up their existing base. As Lindsey Graham once said, the GOP’s problem is that “we’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the longer term.”
We don’t know what happens when an American political party dies. But what we’re seeing from Republicans is an attempt to take democracy down with them.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-22--Trump’s Manufacturing Record Stinks, Newest Data Shows

To hear President Trump describe it , “ the manufacturing sector is booming , ” and “ we ’ ve witnessed one manufacturing miracle after another.
” These paeons to his own success with manufacturing are the economic equivalent to his claims that he has masterfully handled the pandemic .
In fact , under his presidency , foreign outsourcing by U.S. manufacturers rose frighteningly while the number of U.S. manufacturing workers fell sharply .
Under Barack Obama , U.S. manufacturers cut back substantially on outsourcing , and manufacturing jobs at home rose sharply .
Trump ’ s grim record on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade wars .
He slapped tariffs on imports from our major trade partners , including China , Mexico , Canada , and all of Europe , as his way of encouraging American multinational companies to downsize their foreign operations and produce more here .
He failed .
The most recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show that during Trump ’ s first two years in office , as he imposed the tariffs ( 2017 and 2018 ) , employment by the foreign affiliates and subsidiaries of U.S. manufacturers ( which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including 58,700 more outsourced jobs in China , 26,300 more in Mexico , and 112,100 more jobs across Europe .
Job Outsourcing by U.S. Manufacturers under President Trump and President Obama Economists warned that Trump ’ s tariffs could backfire .
They were right : Other countries retaliated with new tariffs on U.S. exports and , in any case , the tariffs could not offset the savings from producing abroad for foreign markets .
Instead of tariffs , Obama had focused on enforcing trade laws and respecting our treaties .
During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 , and 2016 , foreign outsourcing by the U.S. , manufacturers actually fell by 90,300 jobs worldwide , including 27,800 fewer U.S. outsourced jobs in China , 50,900 fewer in Mexico , 12,700 fewer in Canada , and 153,300 fewer in Europe .
The pandemic and Trump ’ s unapologetic mismanagement of it also have been an additional blow to U.S. manufacturing workers .
American manufacturing employment declined by 237,000 jobs from January 2017 to August 2020 .
Unhappily for Trump , most of those job losses have occurred in six states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term .
The latest data show that since Trump took office , U.S. manufacturers have downsized by 77,400 jobs in Michigan , 31,400 jobs in Ohio , 28,900 jobs in North Carolina , 24,000 jobs in Pennsylvania , 14,700 jobs in Minnesota , and 11,900 jobs in Wisconsin .
All told , manufacturing employment in those six states has fallen , thus far , by 188,3000 jobs under Trump .
It is another sea change from the comparable period under Obama when those six states added 126,700 new jobs in manufacturing .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could matter a great deal on November 3rd added manufacturing jobs under Trump : Those jobs have increased by 10,200 jobs in Florida and by 8,300 jobs in Arizona .
For the record , those two states also added 39,000 and 5,100 manufacturing jobs , respectively , during the comparable period under Obama .
U.S. Manufacturing Jobs under President Trump and President Obama U.S. manufacturing workers have lost ground under Trump in other ways as well .
Their real wage gains slowed sharply since Trump took office .
From January 2017 to August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of manufacturing workers increased less than $ 10 , from $ 1,147.51 to $ 1,156,80 ( in August 2020 $ ) .
Over the corresponding part of Obama ’ s second term , from January 2013 to August 2016 , their average real earnings increased nearly $ 43 , from $ 1,101.64 to $ 1,144.62 ( again , August 2020 $ ) .
The difference is meaningful : On an annual basis , the average earnings of American manufacturing workers have risen $ 483 under Trump , small stuff compared to their average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of Obama ’ s second term .
With this dismal record , the president has the same options as he does with the pandemic : He can ignore his record , he can lie about it , or he can offer a better plan and policy for a second term .
Biden is out campaigning for $ 400 billion in “ Buy American ” federal procurement , a new tax credit for modernizing manufacturing facilities and ending tax provisions that reward outsourcing .
Trump is proposing … .
nothing new .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and most other important matters , from climate change to racial justice , Donald Trump ’ s default position , sadly , is the empty combination of the first two options .

To hear President Trump describe it, “the manufacturing sector is booming,” and “we’ve witnessed one manufacturing miracle after another.” These paeons to his own success with manufacturing are the economic equivalent to his claims that he has masterfully handled the pandemic. In fact, under his presidency, foreign outsourcing by U.S. manufacturers rose frighteningly while the number of U.S. manufacturing workers fell sharply. Under Barack Obama, U.S. manufacturers cut back substantially on outsourcing, and manufacturing jobs at home rose sharply.
Trump’s grim record on outsourcing is a testament to his failed trade wars. He slapped tariffs on imports from our major trade partners, including China, Mexico, Canada, and all of Europe, as his way of encouraging American multinational companies to downsize their foreign operations and produce more here. He failed. The most recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show that during Trump’s first two years in office, as he imposed the tariffs (2017 and 2018), employment by the foreign affiliates and subsidiaries of U.S. manufacturers (which is all overseas) jumped by 257,400 jobs, including 58,700 more outsourced jobs in China, 26,300 more in Mexico, and 112,100 more jobs across Europe.
Job Outsourcing by U.S. Manufacturers under President Trump and President Obama
TRUMP OBAMA 2016 2018 Change 2014 2016 Change China 860,000 918,700 + 58,700 884,400 860,600 – 23,800 Mexico 885,400 911,700 + 26,300 936,300 885,400 – 50,900 Canada 342,900 352,800 + 9,900 355,600 342,900 – 12,700 Europe 2,162,700 2,274,800 + 112,100 2,318,000 2,162,700 – 153,300 Worldwide 6,355,600 6,613,000 + 247,400 6,445,900 6,355,600 – 90,300
Economists warned that Trump’s tariffs could backfire. They were right: Other countries retaliated with new tariffs on U.S. exports and, in any case, the tariffs could not offset the savings from producing abroad for foreign markets. Instead of tariffs, Obama had focused on enforcing trade laws and respecting our treaties. During the two years before Trump took office, 2015, and 2016, foreign outsourcing by the U.S., manufacturers actually fell by 90,300 jobs worldwide, including 27,800 fewer U.S. outsourced jobs in China, 50,900 fewer in Mexico, 12,700 fewer in Canada, and 153,300 fewer in Europe.
The pandemic and Trump’s unapologetic mismanagement of it also have been an additional blow to U.S. manufacturing workers. American manufacturing employment declined by 237,000 jobs from January 2017 to August 2020. Unhappily for Trump, most of those job losses have occurred in six states critical to his hopes for a second term. The latest data show that since Trump took office, U.S. manufacturers have downsized by 77,400 jobs in Michigan, 31,400 jobs in Ohio, 28,900 jobs in North Carolina, 24,000 jobs in Pennsylvania, 14,700 jobs in Minnesota, and 11,900 jobs in Wisconsin. All told, manufacturing employment in those six states has fallen, thus far, by 188,3000 jobs under Trump. It is another sea change from the comparable period under Obama when those six states added 126,700 new jobs in manufacturing.
To be fair, two other states that could matter a great deal on November 3rd added manufacturing jobs under Trump: Those jobs have increased by 10,200 jobs in Florida and by 8,300 jobs in Arizona. For the record, those two states also added 39,000 and 5,100 manufacturing jobs, respectively, during the comparable period under Obama.
U.S. Manufacturing Jobs under President Trump and President Obama
TRUMP OBAMA 1/2017 8/2020 Change 1/2013 8/2016 Change MI 617,100 539,700 – 77,400 538,500 603,800 + 65,300 MN 317,800 303,100 – 14,700 307,100 318,200 + 11,100 NC 465,900 437,000 – 28,900 442,100 465,200 + 23,100 OH 686,800 655,400 – 31,400 660,200 686,200 + 26,000 PA 561,000 537,000 – 24,000 565,900 560,200 – 5,700 WI 467,900 456,000 – 11,900 460,300 467,200 + 6,900 Total 3,116,500 2,928,200 – 188,300 2,974,100 3,100,800 126,700 AZ 162,800 171,100 + 8,300 156,300 161,400 + 5,100 FL 361,100 371,300 + 10,200 318,200 357,200 + 39,000 All US 12,369,000 12,132,000 – 237,000 11,983,000 12,348,000 + 365,000
U.S. manufacturing workers have lost ground under Trump in other ways as well. Their real wage gains slowed sharply since Trump took office. From January 2017 to August 2020, the average real weekly earnings of manufacturing workers increased less than $10, from $1,147.51 to $1,156,80 (in August 2020 $). Over the corresponding part of Obama’s second term, from January 2013 to August 2016, their average real earnings increased nearly $43, from $1,101.64 to $1,144.62 (again, August 2020 $).
The difference is meaningful: On an annual basis, the average earnings of American manufacturing workers have risen $483 under Trump, small stuff compared to their average gains of $2,235 during the comparable period of Obama’s second term.
With this dismal record, the president has the same options as he does with the pandemic: He can ignore his record, he can lie about it, or he can offer a better plan and policy for a second term. Biden is out campaigning for $400 billion in “Buy American” federal procurement, a new tax credit for modernizing manufacturing facilities and ending tax provisions that reward outsourcing. Trump is proposing …. nothing new. In this area, as with the pandemic and most other important matters, from climate change to racial justice, Donald Trump’s default position, sadly, is the empty combination of the first two options.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-22--Ginsburg Vacancy: Will It Cause White Voters to Move Back to Trump?