washingtonmonthly--2020-09-25--How the Merchants of Doubt Are Planting the Seeds of Chaos About Election Results

At a campaign rally on September 19th , Donald Trump laid out his plan to steal the election .
“ 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 can actually have an evening where we know who wins , OK , ” the president said .
“ Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later.
” That brazen declaration came on the heels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to disenfranchise those who vote by mail .
He is counting on recent polls showing that Biden supporters overwhelmingly plan to vote by mail , while his supporters plan to go to the polls .
Trump ’ s scheme is to declare victory on election night , claiming that mail-in ballots—which are more likely to be counted after election day—are fraudulent and shouldn ’ t count at all .
In response , his supporters will engage in civil unrest that could make the Brooks Brothers Riot from the 2000 Florida recount look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , Trump ’ s plan is to unleash chaos , which is precisely why he won ’ t promise a peaceful transition of power .
He even offered the qualification that if we “ get rid of the ballots ” ( ie , mail-in ballots ) , “ there won ’ t be a transfer , frankly , there ’ ll be a continuation.
” An array of forces are lining up to support the president ’ s scheme .
Attorney General William Barr , for one , has been echoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots for months , with zero evidence—because there is none .
On Thursday , however , the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a bizarre press release announcing that it was in the midst of an inquiry into “ potential issues ” with mail-in military ballots .
That a U.S. Attorney is investigating something like that is not unusual .
What is alarming is that the press release announced an ongoing investigation into 2020 Trump ballots that were questionably discarded .
That allows the president and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance of possible mail-in ballot malfeasance .
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is also assisting Trump ’ s plot to sow chaos .
On Thursday he announced the arrest of a Democratic county commissioner and three associates for fraud related to 2018 mail-in ballots .
Paxton ’ s statement about the arrests made no effort to hide his intention to engage in the war on mail-in ballots .
According to Texas law , voters under 65 must justify the need for an absentee ballot .
Paxton is asserting that the defendants falsely claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question were disabled .
In prosecuting this case , Paxton sent a chilling message to anyone in Texas who might consider requesting an absentee ballot : doing so could result in prosecution after the fact if their reasons were deemed illegitimate .
In the midst of all of this , the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , which advises other government entities on computer protection , released a warning about how foreign actors like Vladimir Putin are likely to help Trump create chaos .
Finally , Senator Rick Scott , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different kind of assistance .
He has introduced a bill with the Orwellian title , “ Help America Vote Act of 2020.
” It makes it impossible for state election officials to count mail-in ballots .
The bill does this by moving back the date when votes can start to be counted and it moves up the date by which the count must end .
The time squeeze would give states less than 48 hours in which to count ballots .
Given the Democratic majority in the House , there is no chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law prior to the election .
But it gives Trump and his supporters bogus talking points about why mail-in ballots are pernicious .
All of these efforts have one thing in common : they are designed to cast doubt in the public ’ s mind about the legitimacy of the election .
It is yet another example of how Trump and his enablers have become “ merchants of doubt.
” When using that descriptor to explain how Republicans were attempting to spread lies about Biden ’ s ’ involvement in Ukraine , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ origins of that strategy ( emphasis mine ) : There is no unresolved controversy about the validity of mail-in ballots .
But by injecting doubt into the public discourse , the merchants of doubt are attempting to create a level of chaos , unlike anything we ’ ve ever seen in a presidential election .
That is precisely what Trump is counting on .

At a campaign rally on September 19th, Donald Trump laid out his plan to steal the election.
“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,” the president said. “Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later.”
That brazen declaration came on the heels of tweets like this:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288933078287745024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1288933078287745024%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwashingtonmonthly.com%2F2020%2F08%2F05%2Fthe-media-needs-to-prepare-now-for-a-very-different-kind-of-election-night%2F
The plan is to disenfranchise those who vote by mail. He is counting on recent polls showing that Biden supporters overwhelmingly plan to vote by mail, while his supporters plan to go to the polls. Trump’s scheme is to declare victory on election night, claiming that mail-in ballots—which are more likely to be counted after election day—are fraudulent and shouldn’t count at all. In response, his supporters will engage in civil unrest that could make the Brooks Brothers Riot from the 2000 Florida recount look like child’s play.
In other words, Trump’s plan is to unleash chaos, which is precisely why he won’t promise a peaceful transition of power. He even offered the qualification that if we “get rid of the ballots” (ie, mail-in ballots), “there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation.”
An array of forces are lining up to support the president’s scheme. Attorney General William Barr, for one, has been echoing Trump’s lies about fraudulent mail-in ballots for months, with zero evidence—because there is none. On Thursday, however, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a bizarre press release announcing that it was in the midst of an inquiry into “potential issues” with mail-in military ballots. That a U.S. Attorney is investigating something like that is not unusual. What is alarming is that the press release announced an ongoing investigation into 2020 Trump ballots that were questionably discarded. That allows the president and his enablers to point to at least one instance of possible mail-in ballot malfeasance.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is also assisting Trump’s plot to sow chaos. On Thursday he announced the arrest of a Democratic county commissioner and three associates for fraud related to 2018 mail-in ballots. Paxton’s statement about the arrests made no effort to hide his intention to engage in the war on mail-in ballots.
It is an unfortunate reality that elections can be stolen outright by mail ballot fraud. Election fraud, particularly an organized mail ballot fraud scheme orchestrated by political operatives, is an affront to democracy and results in voter disenfranchisement and corruption at the highest level…This case demonstrates my commitment to ensuring Texas has the most secure elections in the country.
According to Texas law, voters under 65 must justify the need for an absentee ballot. Paxton is asserting that the defendants falsely claimed that those who cast the ballots in question were disabled. In prosecuting this case, Paxton sent a chilling message to anyone in Texas who might consider requesting an absentee ballot: doing so could result in prosecution after the fact if their reasons were deemed illegitimate.
In the midst of all of this, the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which advises other government entities on computer protection, released a warning about how foreign actors like Vladimir Putin are likely to help Trump create chaos.
The increased use of mail-in ballots due to COVID-19 protocols could leave officials with incomplete results on election night. Foreign actors and cybercriminals could exploit the time required to certify and announce elections’ results by disseminating disinformation that includes reports of voter suppression, cyberattacks targeting election infrastructure, voter or ballot fraud, and other problems intended to convince the public of the elections’ illegitimacy.
Finally, Senator Rick Scott, the Florida Republican, is providing a different kind of assistance. He has introduced a bill with the Orwellian title, “Help America Vote Act of 2020.” It makes it impossible for state election officials to count mail-in ballots. The bill does this by moving back the date when votes can start to be counted and it moves up the date by which the count must end. The time squeeze would give states less than 48 hours in which to count ballots. Given the Democratic majority in the House, there is no chance that Scott’s bill will become law prior to the election. But it gives Trump and his supporters bogus talking points about why mail-in ballots are pernicious.
All of these efforts have one thing in common: they are designed to cast doubt in the public’s mind about the legitimacy of the election. It is yet another example of how Trump and his enablers have become “merchants of doubt.” When using that descriptor to explain how Republicans were attempting to spread lies about Biden’s’ involvement in Ukraine, this is how journalist Paul Waldman described the origins of that strategy (emphasis mine):
In 1969, a memo written at the Brown & Williamson tobacco company explained how they and their colleagues in the industry could push back against the growing public perception that their products were giving people cancer. It wasn’t necessary to disprove the scientific consensus, the author wrote, only to inject a sufficient amount of doubt into public debate so it would be seen as an unresolved controversy with two sides.
There is no unresolved controversy about the validity of mail-in ballots. But by injecting doubt into the public discourse, the merchants of doubt are attempting to create a level of chaos, unlike anything we’ve ever seen in a presidential election. That is precisely what Trump is counting on.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-25--Trump and McConnell Did Something Semi-Sane. It Wasn’t Nuts Enough for Senate Republicans

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has earned a reputation for efficiently pushing through the Trump administration ’ s nominations , despite often vociferous opposition from the Democrats .
This week , however , he moved through two Trump nominees who had more support from the minority party than from his own .
The two votes are illustrative of the sorry state of bipartisanship in our nation ’ s capital .
In the summer of 1991 , John Charles Hinderaker was a junior lifeguard instructor for the Parks & Recreation Department in Santa Barbara , California .
He ’ d later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ busboy , a warehouse laborer , a substitute teacher and a car salesman at a Nissan dealership .
As of September 23 , he ’ s a confirmed judge , awaiting his commission on the U.S. District of Arizona .
It ’ s a reminder that hard work can pay off , but Hinderaker ’ s case is interesting for another reason : he ’ s a Democrat .
Born in 1968 , Hinderaker graduated from the University of California-Santa Barbara in 1991 and the University of Arizona College of Law in 1996 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court judges before going into private practice .
In 2018 , Republican Gov .
Doug Ducey appointed him to the Pima County Superior Court .
In May 2019 , shortly after a Judge Rader Collins took senior status on the District of Arizona Court , Hinderaker was approached by staffers for U.S .
Senator Kyrsten Sinema ( D-AZ ) .
They were looking for someone to recommend to President Trump to fill the vacancy .
Sen. Sinema had some credibility with the Trump administration , particularly after she took heated criticism for signing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former general counsel to Gov .
Ducey known for his legal challenge to Arizona ’ s independent redistricting commission and his controversial work with Protect the Vote AZ .
As Matthew Brown of Deseret News reports , the Protect the Vote campaign in Arizona is aimed at reducing turnout among Native Americans and Latinos .
The Republican National Committee launched its Protect the Vote campaign…to counter efforts by the Democratic Party to expand vote by mail , ballot collecting and other measures that would make voting more accessible… … [ Ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Native American voters who approach voting as a community effort .
“ There ’ s a lot of distrust among the indigenous people toward government , ” said Democratic state Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales , of Tucson and a member of Pasqua Yaqui Tribe .
But “ people trust their neighbors , their family members , to help them mail or turn in their ballot ” if they can ’ t do it themselves .
Over the years , thousands of ballots have been collected by volunteers in Latino and Native American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it became an effective get-out-the-vote strategy for Democrats .
which eventually caught the attention of GOP lawmakers , like state Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita , who sponsored HB2023 , restricting and criminalizing the practice .
Despite his voter suppression actions , Liburdi was confirmed in July 2019 , in a 53-37 vote , with only Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Doug Jones of Alabama joining Sinema in support .
Armed with this good will , Sinema successfully lobbied President Trump to nominate Hinderaker .
It probably helped that Hinderaker had made political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was appointed to the Pima County court by Gov .
Ducey , which gave him some bipartisan credibility .
Nonetheless , when the roll call on his confirmation was held in the U.S. Senate , 25 Republicans voted against him .
Jocelyn Frances Samuels received degrees from Middlebury College ( 1977 ) and Columbia University Law School ( 1982 ) before serving as labor counsel to former Sen. Edward Kennedy .
During the Obama administration , she served as director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health & Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for civil rights at the Department of Justice .
She ’ s now executive director of The Williams Institute at UCLA , a think tank that “ conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.
” On September 23 , Samuels was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to a Democrat-reserved seat on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) .
The EEOC is a five-member body responsible for enforcing laws on hiring discrimination and sexual harassment .
With the confirmation of Samuels , it is fully staffed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration .
According to Bloomberg Law , the Senate Democrats sent Samuels ’ name to the White House in December 2019 , but they dragged their feet on nominating her to the Commission .
The delay wasn ’ t solely intended to keep the EEOC understaffed and ineffective .
The Senate HELP committee didn ’ t receive her nomination until March 16 , 2020 , and ultimately only eight Republican senators supported her confirmation .
As expected , Sens .
Rubio and Lee voted against her .
It shouldn ’ t be so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hinderaker was chosen as a judge by both a Republican governor and , in a rare gesture at bipartisanism , a Republican president .
Yet , Senate Republicans were still split 27-25 on his nomination , with opponents objecting simply because Hinderaker is known as a Democrat and was suggested by a Democratic colleague .
Meanwhile , the EEOC seat was reserved for the minority , so opposing Samuel ’ s nomination served little purpose other than signaling opposition to gay rights .
Forty-two of fifty voting Republican senators opposed her nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position .
Even on the rare occasions when Trump and McConnell do something semi-normal that the Democrats can support , rank-and-file Republicans can ’ t abide it .
As long as this kind of reflexive partisanship remains the norm , consensus in Washington will remain elusive .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has earned a reputation for efficiently pushing through the Trump administration’s nominations, despite often vociferous opposition from the Democrats. This week, however, he moved through two Trump nominees who had more support from the minority party than from his own. The two votes are illustrative of the sorry state of bipartisanship in our nation’s capital.
In the summer of 1991, John Charles Hinderaker was a junior lifeguard instructor for the Parks & Recreation Department in Santa Barbara, California. He’d later work as an errand runner, a busboy, a warehouse laborer, a substitute teacher and a car salesman at a Nissan dealership. As of September 23, he’s a confirmed judge, awaiting his commission on the U.S. District of Arizona. It’s a reminder that hard work can pay off, but Hinderaker’s case is interesting for another reason: he’s a Democrat.
Born in 1968, Hinderaker graduated from the University of California-Santa Barbara in 1991 and the University of Arizona College of Law in 1996. He clerked for two Arizona District Court judges before going into private practice. In 2018, Republican Gov. Doug Ducey appointed him to the Pima County Superior Court.
In May 2019, shortly after a Judge Rader Collins took senior status on the District of Arizona Court, Hinderaker was approached by staffers for U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). They were looking for someone to recommend to President Trump to fill the vacancy.
Sen. Sinema had some credibility with the Trump administration, particularly after she took heated criticism for signing off on the nomination of Michael Liburdi, a former general counsel to Gov. Ducey known for his legal challenge to Arizona’s independent redistricting commission and his controversial work with Protect the Vote AZ.
As Matthew Brown of Deseret News reports, the Protect the Vote campaign in Arizona is aimed at reducing turnout among Native Americans and Latinos.
The Republican National Committee launched its Protect the Vote campaign…to counter efforts by the Democratic Party to expand vote by mail, ballot collecting and other measures that would make voting more accessible… … [Ballot collecting] has a cultural component among the Native American voters who approach voting as a community effort. “There’s a lot of distrust among the indigenous people toward government,” said Democratic state Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales, of Tucson and a member of Pasqua Yaqui Tribe. But “people trust their neighbors, their family members, to help them mail or turn in their ballot” if they can’t do it themselves. Over the years, thousands of ballots have been collected by volunteers in Latino and Native American communities and delivered to voting locations as it became an effective get-out-the-vote strategy for Democrats. which eventually caught the attention of GOP lawmakers, like state Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, who sponsored HB2023, restricting and criminalizing the practice.
Despite his voter suppression actions, Liburdi was confirmed in July 2019, in a 53-37 vote, with only Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Doug Jones of Alabama joining Sinema in support.
Armed with this good will, Sinema successfully lobbied President Trump to nominate Hinderaker. It probably helped that Hinderaker had made political contributions to candidates for both parties and was appointed to the Pima County court by Gov. Ducey, which gave him some bipartisan credibility.
Nonetheless, when the roll call on his confirmation was held in the U.S. Senate, 25 Republicans voted against him.
Jocelyn Frances Samuels received degrees from Middlebury College (1977) and Columbia University Law School (1982) before serving as labor counsel to former Sen. Edward Kennedy. During the Obama administration, she served as director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health & Human Services and as acting assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice. She’s now executive director of The Williams Institute at UCLA, a think tank that “conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.”
On September 23, Samuels was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to a Democrat-reserved seat on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC is a five-member body responsible for enforcing laws on hiring discrimination and sexual harassment. With the confirmation of Samuels, it is fully staffed for the first time in the Trump administration.
According to Bloomberg Law, the Senate Democrats sent Samuels’ name to the White House in December 2019, but they dragged their feet on nominating her to the Commission.
Minority-party seats on the EEOC have traditionally been run through Democratic Senate leadership before being announced by the White House. The sources familiar with that process said all that remains is for the White House to make an announcement, but the timeline was not immediately clear…
The delay wasn’t solely intended to keep the EEOC understaffed and ineffective.
Samuels’ background as an LGBT rights advocate could create hurdles to confirmation in the Republican-majority Senate. Former EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum was nominated for a third term with the agency when a small group of Republican lawmakers led by Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Mike Lee (Utah) blocked her nomination, citing concerns about Feldblum’s ability to balance religious freedom and LGBT rights. Feldblum in January decided to not pursue another term.
The Senate HELP committee didn’t receive her nomination until March 16, 2020, and ultimately only eight Republican senators supported her confirmation. As expected, Sens. Rubio and Lee voted against her.
It shouldn’t be so hard to get consensus in the Senate. Hinderaker was chosen as a judge by both a Republican governor and, in a rare gesture at bipartisanism, a Republican president. Yet, Senate Republicans were still split 27-25 on his nomination, with opponents objecting simply because Hinderaker is known as a Democrat and was suggested by a Democratic colleague.
Meanwhile, the EEOC seat was reserved for the minority, so opposing Samuel’s nomination served little purpose other than signaling opposition to gay rights. Forty-two of fifty voting Republican senators opposed her nomination, despite her clear qualifications for the position.
Even on the rare occasions when Trump and McConnell do something semi-normal that the Democrats can support, rank-and-file Republicans can’t abide it. As long as this kind of reflexive partisanship remains the norm, consensus in Washington will remain elusive.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-26--Trump Gets China Wrong—Again

Trump Gets China Wrong—Again

Since before President Donald Trump ’ s destructive trade war , banks and military companies in China have been sucking money out of Americans ’ pockets .
China was America ’ s whipping boy again this week .
President Donald Trump used his United Nations General Assembly speech to accuse and to threaten Beijing for its role in covering up the early stages of the pandemic .
He said that the U.N. “ must hold China accountable for their actions.
” In other words , China must pay .
Tough words with the promise of an even tougher response .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because China continues to profit from Washington ’ s indifference , political ineptitude , and irresponsible policies .
In reality , American farmers , consumers , and middle-class citizens are paying the heftiest price for China ’ s misbehavior , rights abuses , cyber-espionage , and intellectual-property theft .
Tariffs have been the main tool that the administration has used to get China to clean up its trade act and to compete fairly in the global marketplace .
The problem , of course , is that tariffs haven ’ t hurt China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese goods — from tires to toilet paper , golf bags to car parts .
China hit back with tariffs of its own , directly hurting farmers and manufacturers who are finding it harder to export their goods .
That giant sucking sound is American wallets being emptied .
To add insult to U.S. citizens ’ financial injury , these tariffs were just ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) .
But not everyone is suffering or a victim of the administration ’ s get-tough-on-China policies .
Western banks are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profiting heavily despite the real threats of China ’ s state-owned industries .
On the same day the WTO released its ruling against U.S. tariffs , American financial institutions sent a supportive signal and inordinate amounts of cash to “ Communist Chinese military companies ” blacklisted by the Pentagon .
That ’ s right , on the one hand , the U.S. government was trying to ding China ’ s economy and industry while , at the same time , U.S. banks were floating billions of dollars in bonds to support and underwrite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not news to report that profitable banks don ’ t play by the same rules as lowly consumers .
Ask Wells Fargo .
Re-watch “ The Big Short.
” The year 2008 is not yet ancient history , and anyone with a mortgage from the last decade recalls how banks showed their compassion and patriotism : They both suckered unqualified homebuyers into time-bomb adjustable-rate loans and followed that questionable practice with snap foreclosures .
Yeah , banks are necessary , but at times they seem more like a necessary evil .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ underwriting a strategic competitor ’ s military to undermine American national interests and threaten U.S. national security .
Bank of America , Goldman Sachs , JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley all are involved — as are others — to help underwrite a bond issuance for China Three Gorges Corp. , one of the world ’ s largest energy companies .
That ’ s just one of China ’ s big strategic companies working to corner markets and feed its military machine .
China National Chemical Corp. ( CNCC ) , too , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both Three Gorges and CNCC are “ military companies ” benefiting from global capital .
They leverage open societies and free markets to drain U.S. dollars — money that comes from American consumers and investors — from the American marketplace .
Money going to China ’ s military companies is money that does not get spent in America first .
The administration has done a good job highlighting the disparity between China ’ s unfair global corporate practices and how the rest of the world operates in the free marketplace .
China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , for example — it also actively neglects basic workers ’ safety and health in construction and manufacturing .
China further fosters a system that encourages corruption for permits , proposals and private profiteering .
Contrast that with America ’ s friends and allies , who mostly play by international trade rules and factor in labor and environmental concerns in their projects and corporate principles .
Not so Three Gorges or CNCC .
When will this tough-talking administration hit the Western institutions — whether banks or multinationals — that are underwriting America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How much longer should Western citizens foot the bill in this lopsided trade war with China ?
There is no question that Americans have paid with their health and their pocketbooks in this growing geopolitical struggle .
Unfortunately , as in previous global battles , there are those who are paying the price and others who are profiting handsomely .
Allied nations , U.S.-headquartered multinational corporations , and global financial institutions scoff at policies that might bring China to heel .
They justify this by arguing for their fiduciary shareholder accountability and need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , unless they do so for China ’ s strategic benefit and at America ’ s peril .
It ’ s time for these corporations and banks to make a significant withdrawal from China .

Since before President Donald Trump’s destructive trade war, banks and military companies in China have been sucking money out of Americans’ pockets.
China was America’s whipping boy again this week. President Donald Trump used his United Nations General Assembly speech to accuse and to threaten Beijing for its role in covering up the early stages of the pandemic. He said that the U.N. “must hold China accountable for their actions.”
In other words, China must pay. Tough words with the promise of an even tougher response.
But rhetoric is where the toughness ends because China continues to profit from Washington’s indifference, political ineptitude, and irresponsible policies. In reality, American farmers, consumers, and middle-class citizens are paying the heftiest price for China’s misbehavior, rights abuses, cyber-espionage, and intellectual-property theft.
Tariffs have been the main tool that the administration has used to get China to clean up its trade act and to compete fairly in the global marketplace. The problem, of course, is that tariffs haven’t hurt China. Tariffs are taxes paid by Americans on Chinese goods — from tires to toilet paper, golf bags to car parts.
China hit back with tariffs of its own, directly hurting farmers and manufacturers who are finding it harder to export their goods. That giant sucking sound is American wallets being emptied. To add insult to U.S. citizens’ financial injury, these tariffs were just ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization (WTO).
But not everyone is suffering or a victim of the administration’s get-tough-on-China policies. Western banks are skirting rules, acting indifferently, and profiting heavily despite the real threats of China’s state-owned industries.
On the same day the WTO released its ruling against U.S. tariffs, American financial institutions sent a supportive signal and inordinate amounts of cash to “Communist Chinese military companies” blacklisted by the Pentagon. That’s right, on the one hand, the U.S. government was trying to ding China’s economy and industry while, at the same time, U.S. banks were floating billions of dollars in bonds to support and underwrite these very same suspect organizations.
It’s not news to report that profitable banks don’t play by the same rules as lowly consumers. Ask Wells Fargo. Re-watch “The Big Short.” The year 2008 is not yet ancient history, and anyone with a mortgage from the last decade recalls how banks showed their compassion and patriotism: They both suckered unqualified homebuyers into time-bomb adjustable-rate loans and followed that questionable practice with snap foreclosures. Yeah, banks are necessary, but at times they seem more like a necessary evil.
In this case, banks are effectively underwriting a strategic competitor’s military to undermine American national interests and threaten U.S. national security. Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley all are involved — as are others — to help underwrite a bond issuance for China Three Gorges Corp., one of the world’s largest energy companies. That’s just one of China’s big strategic companies working to corner markets and feed its military machine.
China National Chemical Corp. (CNCC), too, is a state-influenced, owned and dependent enterprise. Both Three Gorges and CNCC are “military companies” benefiting from global capital. They leverage open societies and free markets to drain U.S. dollars — money that comes from American consumers and investors — from the American marketplace. Money going to China’s military companies is money that does not get spent in America first.
The administration has done a good job highlighting the disparity between China’s unfair global corporate practices and how the rest of the world operates in the free marketplace. China spreads not only substandard infrastructure around the world, for example — it also actively neglects basic workers’ safety and health in construction and manufacturing. China further fosters a system that encourages corruption for permits, proposals and private profiteering.
Contrast that with America’s friends and allies, who mostly play by international trade rules and factor in labor and environmental concerns in their projects and corporate principles.
Not so Three Gorges or CNCC.
When will this tough-talking administration hit the Western institutions — whether banks or multinationals — that are underwriting America’s “strategic competitor”? How much longer should Western citizens foot the bill in this lopsided trade war with China?
There is no question that Americans have paid with their health and their pocketbooks in this growing geopolitical struggle. Unfortunately, as in previous global battles, there are those who are paying the price and others who are profiting handsomely.
Allied nations, U.S.-headquartered multinational corporations, and global financial institutions scoff at policies that might bring China to heel. They justify this by arguing for their fiduciary shareholder accountability and need for profit maximization. Reasonable considerations, of course, unless they do so for China’s strategic benefit and at America’s peril.
It’s time for these corporations and banks to make a significant withdrawal from China.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-26--GOP Leaders Are Using Weasel Words To Avoid Rejecting Trump’s Attempted Coup

After President Trump openly admitted his plans to scuttle a free and fair election and refuse to accept a peaceful transfer of power , Republican leaders received some positive press for supposedly pushing back against him .
Reuters claimed that Republicans were pledging a peaceful transition ; Politico announced that Republicans had broken with Trump over it .
But did they , really ?
Republicans have gotten away with looking like they ’ re rejecting Trump ’ s authoritarian putsch without actually rejecting the elements that would actually make it possible .
They ’ re getting to have their cake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , GOP leaders were concerned that Trump had squandered yet another precious news cycle by saying unpopular things about basic principles of democracy .
They knew they needed to repair the optics damage without directly offending their leader , which is why they made generic statements of support for a peaceful transition without directly condemning Trump for the most part .
For his part , Trump himself was reportedly tickled silly by the fact that he had made liberal heads explode by threatening to plunge the country into chaos and political violence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ endless discussion about whether Democrats and the press weren ’ t taking Trump ’ s authoritarian threats seriously enough , or whether by taking them seriously they were giving him undue agency and potentially demoralizing anti-Trump voters .
Lost in most of the discourse over the incident was whether any Republicans had , in fact , repudiated the core mechanism of Trump ’ s most recent threat to democracy .
Let ’ s take the elements of the actual threat in turn .
First , Trump has repeatedly claimed that he by definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair election.
” His statement that “ we would have to see ” about a peaceful transition was predicated on “ getting rid of the ballots ” –the implication being the false claim that mail ballots are inherently fraudulent .
His incendiary statements came at the same time as a bombshell story in The Atlantic stating that Trump officials and state Republican leaders had been in discussions about states with Republican leadership simply sending their state ’ s electors for Trump regardless of who had actually won the state .
Finally , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only that the Supreme Court would decide the election , but that ramming through a new Justice loyal to Trump before the election is also essential in order for the Supreme Court to make the ruling rather than allowing a 4-4 tie to confirm a lower court ruling .
Any of these strategies would inherently amount to a coup against democracy , and a rejection of the peaceful transfer of power .
That would remain true regardless of whether they were technically legal or rubberstamped by a court order .
A state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will of that state ’ s voters might be technically legal according to some readings of the Constitution , but it would be an unprecedented flat rejection of democracy itself .
The offense would be redoubled on considering that the state delegations taking said action would themselves be the product of anti-democratic gerrymandering .
Rejecting or discarding mail ballots in the middle of a pandemic , after partisanizing the response to the pandemic itself and pushing conservative voters against mail-in voting , would be an outrageous offense against decency and democracy that functionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a High Court hand-picked by the President ruled in favor of the President in an election dispute of this nature in any other country , we would consider it an authoritarian banana republic .
Yet in all of these cases , be it using unearned electors or rejecting millions of mail ballots or accepting a flagrantly unjust Bush v Gore SCOTUS decision on steroids , Trump and Republicans would claim that they had won a “ free and fair election ” under the law .
They would also claim that the onus of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power ” would be on furious Democrats , rather than on Trump himself .
For these reasons , it is wholly adequate to be content with letting Republicans speak platitudes about supporting peaceful transitions of power and free and fair elections .
What really matters is whether they will condemn the specific mechanisms .
Do Republican leaders countenance states sending electors regardless of the actual popular vote ?
They need to be put on record about this .
Do Republican leaders believe that all properly signed mail ballots should be counted ?
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do Republican leaders believe that Trump ’ s hand-picked Supreme Court should be able to decide the election on his behalf , even if the decision goes against every obvious ruling of the lower courts ?
They need to give a clear response .
Because that is the danger .
The looming crisis is not so much that Trump will lose under the law and simply refuse to leave .
The danger is that Trump and his allies will pervert the law to such a degree that democracy exists only as a sham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overriding the popular will , wildly unequal suppression of votes , an electoral system rigged at all levels to over-represent rural whites , and a stacked federal judiciary , that it will be impossible for conservatives to lose under the law even when they lose elections by a landslide .
That , too , would constitute the dismantling of free and fair elections in coup that disrupted the peaceful transition of power–and Republican leaders remain silent about it .

After President Trump openly admitted his plans to scuttle a free and fair election and refuse to accept a peaceful transfer of power, Republican leaders received some positive press for supposedly pushing back against him. Reuters claimed that Republicans were pledging a peaceful transition; Politico announced that Republicans had broken with Trump over it.
But did they, really? Republicans have gotten away with looking like they’re rejecting Trump’s authoritarian putsch without actually rejecting the elements that would actually make it possible. They’re getting to have their cake and eat it, too.
Certainly, GOP leaders were concerned that Trump had squandered yet another precious news cycle by saying unpopular things about basic principles of democracy. They knew they needed to repair the optics damage without directly offending their leader, which is why they made generic statements of support for a peaceful transition without directly condemning Trump for the most part. For his part, Trump himself was reportedly tickled silly by the fact that he had made liberal heads explode by threatening to plunge the country into chaos and political violence. As for liberals, the incident spurred endless discussion about whether Democrats and the press weren’t taking Trump’s authoritarian threats seriously enough, or whether by taking them seriously they were giving him undue agency and potentially demoralizing anti-Trump voters.
Lost in most of the discourse over the incident was whether any Republicans had, in fact, repudiated the core mechanism of Trump’s most recent threat to democracy. Let’s take the elements of the actual threat in turn. First, Trump has repeatedly claimed that he by definition cannot lose a “free and fair election.” His statement that “we would have to see” about a peaceful transition was predicated on “getting rid of the ballots”–the implication being the false claim that mail ballots are inherently fraudulent. His incendiary statements came at the same time as a bombshell story in The Atlantic stating that Trump officials and state Republican leaders had been in discussions about states with Republican leadership simply sending their state’s electors for Trump regardless of who had actually won the state. Finally, both Trump and Republican Senators have been claiming not only that the Supreme Court would decide the election, but that ramming through a new Justice loyal to Trump before the election is also essential in order for the Supreme Court to make the ruling rather than allowing a 4-4 tie to confirm a lower court ruling.
Any of these strategies would inherently amount to a coup against democracy, and a rejection of the peaceful transfer of power. That would remain true regardless of whether they were technically legal or rubberstamped by a court order. A state sending electors for Trump against the actual will of that state’s voters might be technically legal according to some readings of the Constitution, but it would be an unprecedented flat rejection of democracy itself. The offense would be redoubled on considering that the state delegations taking said action would themselves be the product of anti-democratic gerrymandering. Rejecting or discarding mail ballots in the middle of a pandemic, after partisanizing the response to the pandemic itself and pushing conservative voters against mail-in voting, would be an outrageous offense against decency and democracy that functionally amounts to an authoritarian coup. If a High Court hand-picked by the President ruled in favor of the President in an election dispute of this nature in any other country, we would consider that country to be an authoritarian banana republic and the result to be illegitimate.
Yet in all of these cases, be it using unearned electors or rejecting millions of mail ballots or accepting a flagrantly unjust Bush v Gore SCOTUS decision on steroids, Trump and Republicans would claim that they had won a “free and fair election” under the law. They would also claim that the onus of agreeing to a “peaceful transition of power” would be on furious Democrats, rather than on Trump himself.
For these reasons, it is wholly inadequate to be content with letting Republicans speak platitudes about supporting peaceful transitions of power and free and fair elections. What really matters is whether they will condemn the specific mechanisms.
Do Republican leaders countenance states sending electors regardless of the actual popular vote? They need to be put on record about this.
Do Republican leaders believe that all properly signed mail ballots should be counted? They need to answer this question directly.
Do Republican leaders believe that Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court should be able to decide the election on his behalf, even if the decision goes against every obvious ruling of the lower courts? They need to give a clear response.
Because that is the danger. The looming crisis is not so much that Trump will lose under the law and simply refuse to leave. The danger is that Trump and his allies will pervert the law to such a degree that democracy exists only as a sham on paper. That between gerrymandered legislatures overriding the popular will, wildly unequal suppression of votes, an electoral system rigged at all levels to over-represent rural whites, and a stacked federal judiciary, that it will be impossible for conservatives to lose under the law even when they lose elections by a landslide. That, too, would constitute the dismantling of free and fair elections in a coup that disrupts the peaceful transition of power–and Republican leaders remain silent about it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-26--Amy Coney Barrett’s Stare Decisis Problem–And Ours

The first question of any Senator to President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee should be : The President has publicly said that he wants you on the Court in anticipation of a case deciding the 2020 election .
Did he say anything like that to you in your meetings with him ?
Regardless of the answer to that question , do you think that statement has increased public confidence in you , or the Supreme Court as an unbiased tribunal ?
Will you commit to recusing yourself from a 2020 election dispute because of those comments ?
Will you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If she does not so commit , unequivocally and without wiggle room , no Democrat or Independent can vote “ aye.
” She will have left open the possibility of collusion in the crudest power grab since the Defenestrations of Prague .
She will be unqualified to serve .
By contrast , she should not be questioned about or opposed based on her religious faith or practice .
Not only are such questions always improper , but in this case , they are tactically ham-fisted : Barrett is ( as we shall all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should stipulate now ) personally a woman of great character , well-spoken , personally kind , and devoted in her personal life to family and good works .
She seems far less prone to judicial tantrums and rhetorical abuse than the mentor for whom she clerked , the late Justice Antonin Scalia , who concealed personal charm on the bench in favor of vulgar bullying .
But there are short-term and long-term legal and constitutional questions that should be posed .
She may or may not be willing to answer , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at stake in this rushed , improper appointment .
Senators will not get her to discuss specific cases or areas of doctrine .
But they should ask her for her view of precedent , which is vital since , if she lives as long as Ruth Ginsburg did , her tenure as a Justice may last until 2058 .
As Trump himself said on Friday , an appointment like this may set “ the tone of the country for 40 years , 50 years.
” A Justice Barrett seems to me likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a danger to democratic self-government than was Scalia .
The reason is that—from her writings– her view of precedent seems tailor-made to allow a conservative majority to slash and burn its way through important precedents .
The judicial doctrine of stare decisis cautions judges to follow their courts ’ precedents unless there is a good reason to depart from it .
In the minds of a contemporary judge , a previous decision may be a “ wrong ” interpretation of the law .
But there are often good reasons not to disturb it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and judges may have relied on it , or the present-day conclusion that it is “ wrong ” may be almost as doubtful an earlier court ’ s judgment that is correct .
Courts can and sometimes should overturn precedent ( think , for example , of Brown v. Board of Education ) but they should have a good reason and a persuasive explanation .
Scalia , who did more than any jurist to popularize the ide of “ originalism , ” embraced stare decisis even if , at some points , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue .
In that , he implicitly contrasted himself with Justice Clarence Thomas .
“ I am a textualist , I am an originalist , ” he said in 2008 .
“ I am not a nut.
” A judge who does not acknowledge stare decisis is a nut , and , worse , a nut with a hammer .
Thomas is one , and he has set his sights on overturning precedents in areas like freedom of the press and the right to counsel in criminal cases .
And Amy Coney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Thomas-style radicalism .
That is reason enough to oppose her .
I base this fear in part on a 2017 article , “ Originalism and Stare Decisis , ” published in the Notre Dame Law Review .
In it , she explains that she , as a committed “ originalist , ” believes in precedent as much as the next judge .
But then—in a move familiar to anyone who ever took Intro to Philosophy—she supports that claim by simply changing what “ precedent ” means .
“ Originalism can be understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she wrote— “ albeit one that does not look primarily to judicial decisions as to its guide.
” The picking of pockets begins there , and progresses thus : Originalists maintain that the decisions of prior generations , cast in ratified text , are controlling until lawfully changed .
The contours of those decisions are typically discerned by historical sources .
For example , the original Constitution ’ s meaning may be gleaned from sources like the Constitutional Convention , the ratification debates , the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers , actions of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinions of the federal courts .
Originalism thus places a premium on precedent , and to the extent that originalists reject the possibility of deviating from historically-settled meaning , one could say that their view of precedent is particularly strong , not weak as their critics often contend One “ could ” say that , but one would be grievously wrong , on the principle once cited by Abraham Lincoln , that a cow has only four legs no matter what you call the tail .
To a judge—one who is trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denotes decisions on the same or similar issues by prior courts , coupled with government practices in areas where there have been few actual cases .
It does not mean The Federalist , Gammer Gurton ’ s Needle , or The Letters of Heloise and Abelard .
Historical materials can inform discussion of what precedent means—but they aren ’ t law .
More to the point , judges are , by and large , singularly bad at reading these sources , and , when they do , they usually come up with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Scalia once called himself a faint-hearted originalist , ” meaning that , for one thing , he admitted to being constrained by precedent .
Barrett , by contrast , seems stout-hearted .
We can glean that from her lengthy dissent from the Seventh Circuit case of Kanter v. Barr .
That case was brought by a convicted fraudster named Ricky Kanter , who had pleaded guilty to defrauding Medicare ( he paid the government back $ 27 million ) and had served a year in prison .
Under long-established federal and state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms .
He argued that this was unfair to him since he did his robbing with a fountain pen and thus was no danger to anyone .
“ Felon in possession ” laws are of long standing and are very important to law enforcement because felons , in general , have a high rate of recidivism .
Kanter may be a choirboy when not defrauding , however , and his claim was entitled to respectful consideration .
How should a court assess it ?
To begin with , caselaw is important .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time held that there is an individual right to own handguns .
That decision , District of Columbia v. Heller , explicitly said it should not “ be taken to cast doubt ” on felon-possession laws .
In the decades since Heller , no federal circuit has cast doubt on them either .
By and large , courts applied the Heller language to suggest that the Second Amendment doesn ’ t cover any felons .
They have looked at the history of these laws and analyzed the benefit of keeping weapons away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to break the law .
Barrett , however , dissented—and in her dissent , she applied in full blast a technique pioneered by Scalia and Thomas .
There was no nonsense about weighing benefits for her ; she also asserted that Heller didn ’ t really mean that felon possession laws were constitutional .
Then she concluded that history nowhere says in so many words that felons who commit “ only ” fraud can be dispossessed .
Thus , history proved that Kanter should be allowed a weapon—the implication being that every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require prosecutors to prove that he or she as an individual is dangerous .
If that became the law , it would add a new procedural burden to felon dispossession–another spoke in the wheel of sensible gun regulation , It is also , to my mind , a dangerously unprincipled use of “ history ” –one that furthers , coincidentally , the long-term right-wing project of disabling all gun regulation .
Nor is there any reason to think a Justice Barrett would stop there .
As the Affordable Care Act comes yet again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it clear that she rejects—indeed ridicules– the Court ’ s decisions upholding the health program against constitutional and statutory challenges .
As for issues that may arise in the next four decades , there ’ s every reason to expect that , armed with her conservative social and economic views and her supple view of “ precedent , ” she will find marvelous arguments against any progressive policy .
Her ascent bids fair to cement Trump ’ s new Court—which is the role played by the Court through too much of American history—as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to die .
Again , she seems like a splendid person and would make a sparkling academic colleague , one with whom I ’ d be thrilled to lock theoretical horns over port and bickies in the Senior Common Room .
But her philosophy arises from the worst kind of academic theory and seems ill-suited to the practical work of judges .
Whether or not she promised Donald Trump to save his presidency , she has no more business being a judge than I do being Surgeon General of the United States .

The first question of any Senator to President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee should be: The President has publicly said that he wants you on the Court in anticipation of a case deciding the 2020 election. Did he say anything like that to you in your meetings with him? Regardless of the answer to that question, do you think that statement has increased public confidence in you, or the Supreme Court as an unbiased tribunal? Will you commit to recusing yourself from a 2020 election dispute because of those comments? Will you make that promise here and now?
If she does not so commit, unequivocally and without wiggle room, no Democrat or Independent can vote “aye.” She will have left open the possibility of collusion in the crudest power grab since the Defenestrations of Prague. She will be unqualified to serve.
By contrast, she should not be questioned about or opposed based on her religious faith or practice. Not only are such questions always improper, but in this case, they are tactically ham-fisted: Barrett is (as we shall all soon be reminded ad nauseam, and should stipulate now) personally a woman of great character, well-spoken, personally kind, and devoted in her personal life to family and good works. She seems far less prone to judicial tantrums and rhetorical abuse than the mentor for whom she clerked, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who concealed personal charm on the bench in favor of vulgar bullying.
But there are short-term and long-term legal and constitutional questions that should be posed. She may or may not be willing to answer, but the questions are essential for outlining what is at stake in this rushed, improper appointment.
Senators will not get her to discuss specific cases or areas of doctrine. But they should ask her for her view of precedent, which is vital since, if she lives as long as Ruth Ginsburg did, her tenure as a Justice may last until 2058. As Trump himself said on Friday, an appointment like this may set “the tone of the country for 40 years, 50 years.”
A Justice Barrett seems to me likely to be more, not less, of a danger to democratic self-government than was Scalia. The reason is that—from her writings– her view of precedent seems tailor-made to allow a conservative majority to slash and burn its way through important precedents.
The judicial doctrine of stare decisis cautions judges to follow their courts’ precedents unless there is a good reason to depart from it. In the minds of a contemporary judge, a previous decision may be a “wrong” interpretation of the law. But there are often good reasons not to disturb it. For example, generations of litigants and judges may have relied on it, or the present-day conclusion that it is “wrong” may be almost as doubtful an earlier court’s judgment that is correct. Courts can and sometimes should overturn precedent (think, for example, of Brown v. Board of Education) but they should have a good reason and a persuasive explanation.
Scalia, who did more than any jurist to popularize the ide of “originalism,” embraced stare decisis even if, at some points, a precedent conflicted with his preferred view of the issue. In that, he implicitly contrasted himself with Justice Clarence Thomas. “I am a textualist, I am an originalist,” he said in 2008. “I am not a nut.”
A judge who does not acknowledge stare decisis is a nut, and, worse, a nut with a hammer. Thomas is one, and he has set his sights on overturning precedents in areas like freedom of the press and the right to counsel in criminal cases. And Amy Coney Barrett may very well provide another vote for Thomas-style radicalism. That is reason enough to oppose her.
I base this fear in part on a 2017 article, “Originalism and Stare Decisis,” published in the Notre Dame Law Review. In it, she explains that she, as a committed “originalist,” believes in precedent as much as the next judge.
But then—in a move familiar to anyone who ever took Intro to Philosophy—she supports that claim by simply changing what “precedent” means. “Originalism can be understood as a quintessentially precedent-based theory,” she wrote—“albeit one that does not look primarily to judicial decisions as to its guide.”
The picking of pockets begins there, and progresses thus:
Originalists maintain that the decisions of prior generations, cast in ratified text, are controlling until lawfully changed. The contours of those decisions are typically discerned by historical sources. For example, the original Constitution’s meaning may be gleaned from sources like the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, actions of the early Congresses and Presidents, and early opinions of the federal courts. Originalism thus places a premium on precedent, and to the extent that originalists reject the possibility of deviating from historically-settled meaning, one could say that their view of precedent is particularly strong, not weak as their critics often contend
One “could” say that, but one would be grievously wrong, on the principle once cited by Abraham Lincoln, that a cow has only four legs no matter what you call the tail. To a judge—one who is trying to serve as a judge—“precedent” denotes decisions on the same or similar issues by prior courts, coupled with government practices in areas where there have been few actual cases. It does not mean The Federalist, Gammer Gurton’s Needle, or The Letters of Heloise and Abelard. Historical materials can inform discussion of what precedent means—but they aren’t law. More to the point, judges are, by and large, singularly bad at reading these sources, and, when they do, they usually come up with a principle that oddly mirrors their present desires.
Scalia once called himself a faint-hearted originalist,” meaning that, for one thing, he admitted to being constrained by precedent. Barrett, by contrast, seems stout-hearted. We can glean that from her lengthy dissent from the Seventh Circuit case of Kanter v. Barr. That case was brought by a convicted fraudster named Ricky Kanter, who had pleaded guilty to defrauding Medicare (he paid the government back $27 million) and had served a year in prison. Under long-established federal and state law, Kanter is barred from possessing firearms. He argued that this was unfair to him since he did his robbing with a fountain pen and thus was no danger to anyone.
“Felon in possession” laws are of long standing and are very important to law enforcement because felons, in general, have a high rate of recidivism. Kanter may be a choirboy when not defrauding, however, and his claim was entitled to respectful consideration. How should a court assess it? To begin with, caselaw is important. In 2008, the Supreme Court for the first time held that there is an individual right to own handguns. That decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, explicitly said it should not “be taken to cast doubt” on felon-possession laws. In the decades since Heller, no federal circuit has cast doubt on them either.
By and large, courts applied the Heller language to suggest that the Second Amendment doesn’t cover any felons. They have looked at the history of these laws and analyzed the benefit of keeping weapons away from those who have shown they are willing to break the law. Barrett, however, dissented—and in her dissent, she applied in full blast a technique pioneered by Scalia and Thomas. There was no nonsense about weighing benefits for her; she also asserted that Heller didn’t really mean that felon possession laws were constitutional. Then she concluded that history nowhere says in so many words that felons who commit “only” fraud can be dispossessed. Thus, history proved that Kanter should be allowed a weapon—the implication being that every felon in America should be able to require prosecutors to prove that he or she as an individual is dangerous. If that became the law, it would add a new procedural burden to felon dispossession–another spoke in the wheel of sensible gun regulation, It is also, to my mind, a dangerously unprincipled use of “history” –one that furthers, coincidentally, the long-term right-wing project of disabling all gun regulation.
Nor is there any reason to think a Justice Barrett would stop there. As the Affordable Care Act comes yet again before the Court, Barrett has made it clear that she rejects—indeed ridicules– the Court’s decisions upholding the health program against constitutional and statutory challenges. As for issues that may arise in the next four decades, there’s every reason to expect that, armed with her conservative social and economic views and her supple view of “precedent,” she will find marvelous arguments against any progressive policy. Her ascent bids fair to cement Trump’s new Court—which is the role played by the Court through too much of American history—as the place where the progressive movement goes to die.
Again, she seems like a splendid person and would make a sparkling academic colleague, one with whom I’d be thrilled to lock theoretical horns over port and bickies in the Senior Common Room. But her philosophy arises from the worst kind of academic theory and seems ill-suited to the practical work of judges.
Whether or not she promised Donald Trump to save his presidency, she has no more business being a judge than I do being Surgeon General of the United States.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-26--Trump Is Hurting America and Democracy by Letting China Take the Lead on Climate Change

Every day in the Trump administration brings such new immediate outrages and crises that must be addressed in the short term , that it can be difficult to maintain focus on the long-term damage it is doing to America and the world .
That said , since no amount of journalism seems to be making a dent in what is now a very divided nation , we should probably talk about the extended term more often among those with a modicum of responsibility for the future .
By the far the most devastating impact of the Trump administration on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years we have lost in the battle to address the climate crisis , as the president and his cronies have not only failed to move the country forward , but in fact taken hundreds of steps backward .
This is primarily a global humanitarian and ecological crisis , of course , but it also has national security and foreign relations implications for those who still care about such things .
Trump has spent much of his presidency posturing against China for the purported purpose of maintaining America ’ s premier position as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take the lead on climate change , Trump is allowing the United States ’ top geopolitical rival to set the leadership agenda for the future : China will scale up its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions by adopting more vigorous policies and measures .
We aim to have [ carbon dioxide ] emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.
” Xi Jinping ’ s speech via video link to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22 was not widely trailed in advance .
But with those two short sentences China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future prospects for humanity… Toward the outside world , the significance is no less momentous .
Hitherto the only big bloc fully committed to neutrality was the EU .
The hope for this year was an EU-China deal that would set the stage for ambitious new targets to be announced at the COP26 U.N. climate conference planned for Glasgow in November .
Rather than a summit in Leipzig , the Sino-EU meeting took place via videoconference .
The exchanges were surprisingly substantive .
The Europeans wanted China to commit to peak emissions by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes on imports from China if Beijing did not raise its ambition .
They have given a cautious welcome to Xi ’ s U.N. statement .
They can hardly have expected more .
The future will not be written in coal , natural gas and oil .
Fossil fuel sources are on the decline even if climate change were not the crisis that it is .
Pollution remains an enormous health and economic problem , and clean renewable energies are getting cheaper every day .
Whoever takes the lead on green energy will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the beneficiaries of a healthier , more productive citizenry .
Now , of course , the preceding paragraph sounds much like a center-right analysis from The Economist , as well as an America-first quasi-imperialist great power realism based on competition between nation-states rather than cooperation .
Why should a liberal or leftist care ?
Well , in part because a China-centered polarity would have serious negative consequences for liberal democracy and , by extension , leftism .
China is currently operating concentration camps to erase Uighur culture , oppresses journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through a mass surveillance state and total control of the Internet , conducts its own economic imperialism abroad , and constitutes a worst-of-all-worlds marriage of corporate plutocratic capitalism with ethnostate totalitarianism under single-party rule that gives only lip-service to leftist ideals .
Nor has increased economic power in China led to a more liberalized society ; rather , it has influenced Western corporations to bend to acceptance of Chinese standards of oppression .
It is important for the left generally speaking that liberal democracy continue to maintain a strong presence in world affairs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the most important issue for the future humanity is doubly concerning , then , given that both East Asian democracies and the European Union will increasingly be forced to take China ’ s side in a polarity battle between China and the United States : Though Europe will cheer Xi ’ s commitment , in strategic terms it underlines how awkward the EU ’ s position is .
On the one hand , the Europeans increasingly want to stake out a strong position on Hong Kong , Xinjiang , human rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China Sea .
Europe ’ s residual attachment to the United States is real .
But China has now underscored how firmly it aligns with a common agenda with the EU on climate policy .
The contrast to the Trump administration could hardly be starker .
By focusing the United States on fossil fuels , Trump and the GOP are not strengthening American interests .
They ’ re trapping us in dead-end technologies while forcing our allies to strengthen friendships with illiberal authoritarians .
Even if the world weren ’ t in serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a big problem for both the United States and the future of both democracy and the social democratic project .

Every day in the Trump administration brings such new immediate outrages and crises that must be addressed in the short term, that it can be difficult to maintain focus on the long-term damage it is doing to America and the world. That said, since no amount of journalism seems to be making a dent in what is now a very divided nation, we should probably talk about the extended term more often among those with a modicum of responsibility for the future.
By far the most devastating impact of the Trump administration on the medium and far future is the four years we have lost in the battle to address the climate crisis, as the president and his cronies have not only failed to move the country forward, but in fact taken hundreds of steps backward.
This is primarily a global humanitarian and ecological crisis, of course, but it also has national security and foreign relations implications for those who still care about such things. Trump has spent much of his presidency posturing against China for the purported purpose of maintaining America’s premier position as a world power. But by failing to take the lead on climate change, Trump is allowing the United States’ top geopolitical rival to set the leadership agenda for the future:
China will scale up its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions by adopting more vigorous policies and measures. We aim to have [carbon dioxide] emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.” Xi Jinping’s speech via video link to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22 was not widely trailed in advance. But with those two short sentences China’s leader may have redefined the future prospects for humanity… Toward the outside world, the significance is no less momentous. Hitherto the only big bloc fully committed to neutrality was the EU. The hope for this year was an EU-China deal that would set the stage for ambitious new targets to be announced at the COP26 U.N. climate conference planned for Glasgow in November. Rather than a summit in Leipzig, the Sino-EU meeting took place via videoconference. The exchanges were surprisingly substantive. The Europeans wanted China to commit to peak emissions by 2025 and made menacing references to carbon taxes on imports from China if Beijing did not raise its ambition. They have given a cautious welcome to Xi’s U.N. statement. They can hardly have expected more.
The future will not be written in coal, natural gas and oil. Fossil fuel sources are on the decline even if climate change were not the crisis that it is. Pollution remains an enormous health and economic problem, and clean renewable energies are getting cheaper every day. Whoever takes the lead on green energy will be the global leader in energy supply, as well as the beneficiaries of a healthier, more productive citizenry.
Now, of course, the preceding paragraph sounds much like a center-right analysis from The Economist, as well as an America-first quasi-imperialist great power realism based on competition between nation-states rather than cooperation. Why should a liberal or leftist care? Well, in part because a China-centered polarity would have serious negative consequences for liberal democracy and, by extension, leftism. China is currently operating concentration camps to erase Uighur culture, oppresses journalists, dissidents and the flow of information through a mass surveillance state and total control of the Internet, conducts its own economic imperialism abroad, and constitutes a worst-of-all-worlds marriage of corporate plutocratic capitalism with ethnostate totalitarianism under single-party rule that gives only lip-service to leftist ideals. Nor has increased economic power in China led to a more liberalized society; rather, it has influenced Western corporations to bend to acceptance of Chinese standards of oppression. It is important for the left generally speaking that liberal democracy continue to maintain a strong presence in world affairs.
Allowing China to take the lead on the most important issue for the future of humanity is doubly concerning, then, given that both East Asian democracies and the European Union will increasingly be forced to take China’s side in a polarity battle between China and the United States:
Though Europe will cheer Xi’s commitment, in strategic terms it underlines how awkward the EU’s position is. On the one hand, the Europeans increasingly want to stake out a strong position on Hong Kong, Xinjiang, human rights, and any geopolitical aggression in the South China Sea. Europe’s residual attachment to the United States is real. But China has now underscored how firmly it aligns with a common agenda with the EU on climate policy. The contrast to the Trump administration could hardly be starker.
By focusing the United States on fossil fuels, Trump and the GOP are not strengthening American interests. They’re trapping us in dead-end technologies while forcing our allies to strengthen friendships with illiberal authoritarians. Even if the world weren’t in serious peril from the climate crisis, this is a big problem for both the United States and the future of both democracy and the social democratic project.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-27--Trump Isn’t Trying to Win. Cheating Is All He Has Left.

The 2020 presidential election is historically unprecedented for many reasons : polarization unprecedented in the modern era , a pandemic preventing many traditional forms of politicking , and an 11th hour Supreme Court fight , just to name a few .
But one of the most remarkable features of this election is that the incumbent president is trailing substantially by all available metrics , yet doing very little to try to win .
Before you scoff at that claim , take a step back and consider .
Yes , Trump is holding rallies and making outrageous claims about Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an expensive campaign in full swing .
But he has been doing just that for over a year now in permanent campaign mode with very little to show for it .
His campaign has spent itself into near penury , and his taunts , insults and norm-shattering statements have done little to move the race .
It ’ s not just the pandemic , either : Biden has been leading Trump in head-to-head polling by essentially the same margin he is now since last October .
In order to win , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do something different from what he has been doing so far .
The president ’ s approach to politics has successfully polarized the electorate to an extreme degree–but not to his advantage .
The race is remarkably stable in spite of a chaotic news year , and almost nothing seems to shake the state of the race .
If nothing changes , Trump stands to lose by a wide margin .
The nation is still being ravaged by a virus he refuses to control .
Huge sectors of the economy , particularly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in economic crisis with no help in sight .
Trump could , if he wished , encourage mask wearing , allow the science to guide his pandemic policies and persuade Senate Republicans to push forward a major relief bill in cooperation with House Democrats .
In response to continuing protests against police violence , he could pledge to take the lead on reforming policing in America .
He could have nominated a moderate choice to the Supreme Court .
You may scoff once again that this would be unthinkably out of character for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it ’ s important to remember that Trump ’ s successful campaign in 2016 was not , in some ways , as far right as his presidency has been .
Yes , of course he said awful , racist and authoritarian things during the campaign .
But on many economic issues he campaigned to the left his GOP primary opponents , gave lip service to protecting DACA recipients , insisted he would provide a generous healthcare plan for all Americans , and promised to govern as an anti-ideological get-stuff-done businessman .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate Trump at the time .
But President Trump has governed well to the right of 2016 candidate Trump .
An incumbent president trailing by as many as ten points per the latest Washington Post-ABC poll even as nearly a million Americans have already cast their ballots , should be making some radical moves to change his campaign .
The last major chance to change the state of the race is the upcoming debates ( though it is doubtful even a major debate gaffe would do much to change the dynamics ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prepare for them .
The lack of preparation is ominous , since recent history suggests that incumbent presidents are often caught flat-footed in their first debate , unused to the forceful pushback from an opponent in a lengthy setting .
But any major change would entail work and risk , and might upset some elements of Trump ’ s most rabid base .
So instead , Trump continues to slam the racism lever hoping for vote pellets to pop out of the midwestern suburbs , even though the polling continues to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden as slow and mentally inept , despite the fact doing so is counterproductive in the debate expectations game .
He continues to act as if the COVID epidemic is already over , despite Americans being clearly upset over his handling of it–including seniors whose votes Trump desperately needs .
So in the absence of trying to win , what is left ?
Trying to cheat .
Finagling to stack courts to decide a contested election in his favor , talking to gerrymandered state legislatures about sending electors for him against the electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post Office , and pathetically conspiring with the Attorney General to discredit mail-in ballots .
But those attempts to cheat are not a sign of strength .
They arise from desperation , but also laziness .
Trump doesn ’ t want to try to do what it would take to win .
That would be hard .
Getting other people to cheat for him , though–that ’ s his whole life ’ s work .
It ’ s part of how he won in 2016 .
And he figures he might as well @ @ @ @ @

The 2020 presidential election is historically unprecedented for many reasons: polarization unprecedented in the modern era, a pandemic preventing many traditional forms of politicking, and an 11th hour Supreme Court fight, just to name a few.
But one of the most remarkable features of this election is that the incumbent president is trailing substantially by all available metrics, yet doing very little to try to win.
Before you scoff at that claim, take a step back and consider. Yes, Trump is holding rallies and making outrageous claims about Biden and Democrats in general. Yes, he has an expensive campaign in full swing. But he has been doing just that for over a year now in permanent campaign mode with very little to show for it. His campaign has spent itself into near penury, and his taunts, insults and norm-shattering statements have done little to move the race. It’s not just the pandemic, either: Biden has been leading Trump in head-to-head polling by essentially the same margin he is now since last October.
In order to win, it seems clear that Trump would have to do something different from what he has been doing so far. The president’s approach to politics has successfully polarized the electorate to an extreme degree–but not to his advantage. The race is remarkably stable in spite of a chaotic news year, and almost nothing seems to shake the state of the race. If nothing changes, Trump stands to lose by a wide margin.
The nation is still being ravaged by a virus he refuses to control. Huge sectors of the economy, particularly in service, dining and hospitality, remain in economic crisis with no help in sight. Trump could, if he wished, encourage mask wearing, allow the science to guide his pandemic policies and persuade Senate Republicans to push forward a major relief bill in cooperation with House Democrats. In response to continuing protests against police violence, he could pledge to take the lead on reforming policing in America. He could have nominated a moderate choice to the Supreme Court.
You may scoff once again that this would be unthinkably out of character for Trump. Yes, that is true. But it’s important to remember that Trump’s successful campaign in 2016 was not, in some ways, as far right as his presidency has been. Yes, of course he said awful, racist and authoritarian things during the campaign. But on many economic issues he campaigned to the left his GOP primary opponents, gave lip service to protecting DACA recipients, insisted he would provide a generous healthcare plan for all Americans, and promised to govern as an anti-ideological get-stuff-done businessman. Many voters who now support Biden believed candidate Trump at the time. But President Trump has governed well to the right of 2016 candidate Trump.
An incumbent president trailing by as many as ten points per the latest Washington Post-ABC poll even as nearly a million Americans have already cast their ballots, should be making some radical moves to change his campaign. The last major chance to change the state of the race is the upcoming debates (though it is doubtful even a major debate gaffe would do much to change the dynamics), but Trump isn’t even bothering to prepare for them. The lack of preparation is ominous, since recent history suggests that incumbent presidents are often caught flat-footed in their first debate, unused to the forceful pushback from an opponent in a lengthy setting.
But any major change would entail work and risk, and might upset some elements of Trump’s most rabid base. So instead, Trump continues to slam the racism lever hoping for vote pellets to pop out of the midwestern suburbs, even though the polling continues to run against him. He continues to attack Biden as slow and mentally inept, despite the fact doing so is counterproductive in the debate expectations game. He continues to act as if the COVID epidemic is already over, despite Americans being clearly upset over his handling of it–including seniors whose votes Trump desperately needs.
So in the absence of trying to win, what is left? Trying to cheat. Finagling to stack courts to decide a contested election in his favor, talking to gerrymandered state legislatures about sending electors for him against the electoral will of those states, sabotaging the Post Office, and pathetically conspiring with the Attorney General to discredit mail-in ballots.
But those attempts to cheat are not a sign of strength. They arise from desperation, but also laziness. Trump doesn’t want to try to do what it would take to win. That would be hard. Getting other people to cheat for him, though–that’s his whole life’s work. It’s part of how he won in 2016. And he figures he might as well try again in 2020.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-27--Opposition To Barrett Is Not Anti-Catholic. It Is Anti-Extremist And Anti-Fundamentalist.

Even before President Trump had officially announced his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , conservatives already had their talking points in order : all opposition to the nominee would be cast as “ anti-Catholic ” bigotry .
Conservative columnists were already proclaiming that anti-Catholic bias from the left would doom Democrats in the next election .
In reality , of course , there is no anti-Catholic bias against Barrett from the left , and the entire talking point is manufactured .
No one significant in Democratic politics has made any attacks on Barrett ’ s Catholic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sotomayor , the last Supreme Court Justice nominated by a Democratic president , is Catholic .
The 2020 Democratic nominee , Joe Biden , is a devout practicing Catholic .
The Democratic Speaker of the House is Catholic .
It was the Democratic Party that first elected a Catholic president , and today slightly more Catholics are Democratic voters than Republicans .
The notion that Democrats broadly or the left specifically are prejudiced against Catholics is absurd .
Indeed , by far the greatest source of anti-Catholic bigotry in America remains white protestant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the proponents of various ugly conspiracy groups like QAnon , some of which snare gross old anti-Catholic theories in their nets .
Insofar as anti-Catholic bigotry exists in America , it is principally among arch-conservatives and Republicans .
Even so , much of the Democratic establishment predictably wants to avoid the entire question of Barrett ’ s personal beliefs .
It is much easier and less controversial to point out the obvious hypocrisy and desperation of Trump and his allies in attempting to force through the nomination at all .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election to replace Ruth Bader-Ginsburg on the Court , and it easier to focus on the very real policy implications of yet another far-right Federalist Society apparatchik on the highest court in the land .
A 6-3 conservative court is likely to make deeply unpopular decisions over many facets of American life–from ending Roe and the right to an abortion , to striking down the Affordable Care Act on scurrilous grounds , to tilting the balance of power even farther in favor of corporations and against workers .
It could even deliver Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the will of the voters .
The Supreme Court is already stacked with devotees of an extremist legal philosophy , one that ignores both more and cultural change and judicial precedent in favor of a radically conservative interpretation of what the Founders might have meant when drafting the Constitution .
Barrett would be perhaps the most radically anti-precedent Justice on the court , with horrifying consequences across the landscape of American life .
She is an extremist ’ s extremist .
As Ruth Marcus writes at the Washington Post : But one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the personal moral beliefs of Supreme Court Justices from their judicial views that for both liberal and conservative justices , a personal moral ethics inflects a judicial ethics .
If you believe that the Constitution is a living , breathing document that must reflect the culture and morality of the nation for which it provides a legal structure , then your comfort with a modern moral culture will influence your interpretations .
If , on the other hand , you believe that modern society and law should conform itself to ancient scriptures and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adams ’ specific worldview at the time of the Constitution ’ s writing , then that too will influence your interpretation .
Given the cultural , moral and philosophical gulf between the today ’ s world and that of the 18th century when most of even America ’ s most radical revolutionaries still owned slaves ( or condoned owning them ) and treated women as less than human , a belief in absolute scriptural supremacy over human affairs and 18th century textual originalism can not help but lead to extremist , fundamentalist outcomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reality is that Americans do not want extremist fundamentalists running their lives , and do not want extremist fundamentalist policy outcomes .
Americans do not want the Affordable Care Act repealed .
Two-thirds of Americans , including a plurality of Republicans , want Roe v Wade to remain in place .
Two-thirds of Americans support marriage equality for adults of all sexual orientations .
Americans are also increasingly secular and skeptical of attempts by fundamentalists to pry into their personal lives or overturn progressive policy : There is nothing anti-Catholic about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all varieties , both religious and non-religious , judicial and ethical .
They want science , decency and empathy to drive policy .
And they don ’ t want radical conservatives to constrain the next two generations of policy on healthcare , climate change , and even the shape of American democracy itself–much less turn the clock back on rights and benefits they already enjoy .
Barrett ’ s nomination is an intrinsic insult not only to the memory of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg , but to the moral compass of modern America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to force her onto the nation ’ s highest court , it will be incumbent on Democrats to rebalance the court in accordance with the will of the majority of Americans .

Even before President Trump had officially announced his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, conservatives already had their talking points in order: all opposition to the nominee would be cast as “anti-Catholic” bigotry. Conservative columnists were already proclaiming that anti-Catholic bias from the left would doom Democrats in the next election.
In reality, of course, there is no anti-Catholic bias against Barrett from the left, and the entire talking point is manufactured. No one significant in Democratic politics has made any attacks on Barrett’s Catholic faith or on Catholicism generally. Sonia Sotomayor, the last Supreme Court Justice nominated by a Democratic president, is Catholic. The 2020 Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, is a devout practicing Catholic. The Democratic Speaker of the House is Catholic. It was the Democratic Party that first elected a Catholic president, and today slightly more Catholics are Democratic voters than Republicans.
The notion that Democrats broadly or the left specifically are prejudiced against Catholics is absurd. Indeed, by far the greatest source of anti-Catholic bigotry in America remains white protestant evangelicals–the very core of the Republican base, and the proponents of various ugly conspiracy groups like QAnon, some of which snare gross old anti-Catholic theories in their nets. Insofar as anti-Catholic bigotry exists in America, it is principally among arch-conservatives and Republicans.
Even so, much of the Democratic establishment predictably wants to avoid the entire question of Barrett’s personal beliefs. It is much easier and less controversial to point out the obvious hypocrisy and desperation of Trump and his allies in attempting to force through the nomination at all. Most Americans want the winner of the 2020 election to replace Ruth Bader-Ginsburg on the Court, and it easier to focus on the very real policy implications of yet another far-right Federalist Society apparatchik on the highest court in the land.
A 6-3 conservative court is likely to make deeply unpopular decisions over many facets of American life–from ending Roe and the right to an abortion, to striking down the Affordable Care Act on scurrilous grounds, to tilting the balance of power even farther in favor of corporations and against workers. It could even deliver Trump an unearned victory through court decisions defying the will of the voters.
The Supreme Court is already stacked with devotees of an extremist legal philosophy, one that ignores both more and cultural change and judicial precedent in favor of a radically conservative interpretation of what the Founders might have meant when drafting the Constitution. Barrett would be perhaps the most radically anti-precedent Justice on the court, with horrifying consequences across the landscape of American life. She is an extremist’s extremist. As Ruth Marcus writes at the Washington Post:
Also on the Barrett chopping block could be the right of same-sex couples to marry; the existence of affirmative action programs at colleges and universities; the constitutional protections against discrimination based on gender that Ginsburg made the center of her career; and environmental protections and other regulatory efforts enacted as part of the congressional power to oversee interstate commerce. Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor whose scholarship on stare decisis is cited extensively in Barrett’s writing, termed her approach to overturning precedent “radical.” If Barrett puts her academic views into action and four other justices go along, he said, “it will produce chaos and instability in constitutional law.”
But one of the reasons it is difficult to disentangle the personal moral beliefs of Supreme Court Justices from their judicial views that for both liberal and conservative justices, a personal moral ethics inflects a judicial ethics. If you believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that must reflect the culture and morality of the nation for which it provides a legal structure, then your comfort with a modern moral culture will influence your interpretations. If, on the other hand, you believe that modern society and law should conform itself to ancient scriptures and your personal wild guess as to John Adams’ specific worldview at the time of the Constitution’s writing, then that too will influence your interpretation. Given the cultural, moral and philosophical gulf between the today’s world and that of the 18th century when most of even America’s most radical revolutionaries still owned slaves (or condoned owning them) and treated women as less than human, a belief in absolute scriptural supremacy over human affairs and 18th century textual originalism cannot help but lead to extremist, fundamentalist outcomes. They are intimately connected.
And the reality is that Americans do not want extremist fundamentalists running their lives, and do not want extremist fundamentalist policy outcomes. Americans do not want the Affordable Care Act repealed. Two-thirds of Americans, including a plurality of Republicans, want Roe v Wade to remain in place. Two-thirds of Americans support marriage equality for adults of all sexual orientations. Americans are also increasingly secular and skeptical of attempts by fundamentalists to pry into their personal lives or overturn progressive policy:
There is nothing anti-Catholic about this. Americans are simply rejecting fundamentalist extremism of all varieties, both religious and non-religious, judicial and ethical. They want science, decency and empathy to drive policy. And they don’t want radical conservatives to constrain the next two generations of policy on healthcare, climate change, and even the shape of American democracy itself–much less turn the clock back on rights and benefits they already enjoy.
Barrett’s nomination is an intrinsic insult not only to the memory of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, but to the moral compass of modern America. If an extremist minority of Republicans manage to force her onto the nation’s highest court, it will be incumbent on Democrats to rebalance the court in accordance with the will of the majority of Americans.