thebulwark--2020-12-21--The Trade: Meet the New Red Dog Democrats

In 2013 my beloved Denver Nuggets traded Carmelo Anthony to the New York Knicks for Wilson Chandler , Raymond Felton , Danilo Gallinari , Timofey Mozgov , three draft picks , $ 3 million in cash , and four coupons to an all-you-can-eat buffet .
Fans of the organizations were mixed on the trade .
In Denver , we experienced the full panoply human emotion : • Anger at Melo for forcing the trade .
• Worry that the return package wouldn ’ t have anywhere near the same ceiling for success .
Meanwhile the perpetually ( and deservedly ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had given away too much and would be shackled with a star who couldn ’ t carry them to the next level .
( As it turned out , they were right . )
But no matter what the coaches and fans and general managers and commentators wanted to happen , everyone had to embrace the trade and move forward with the guys that they got .
And that is the prism through which I view the state of affairs when analyzing the current realignment in American politics .
Over the last four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been with the Republicans are finding that they were traded to a new team .
And vice versa .
Everyone intuitively knows that has happened , but for various reasons , many in the Washington political class don ’ t seem willing to accept the reality of it .
I get it .
Changing political identities isn ’ t always easy .
You don ’ t have to tell me .
But if you want your team to be successful , you need to understand who is on it .
So let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to figure out what just happened .
In the 1990s , after the GOP won control of both houses of Congress , moderate Democrats who believed their party had moved too far to the left started calling themselves the “ Blue Dogs.
” Today , it ’ s the “ Red Dogs ” who are looking for a home in the Democratic party : college-educated , largely white suburbanites in major metropolitan areas who used to be Republicans or swing voters .
( Remember the security moms ?
Most of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are people who voted for Mitt Romney and/or George W. Bush but who pulled the lever for Democratic House candidates during the 2018 mini-wave ; voted for Joe Biden/Mike Bloomberg/Mayor Pete/Amy K , powering a massive suburban turnout surge in the 2020 Democratic primaries ; and then pushed Biden over the top in the general election .
They live in the suburban sprawl of major metropolitan areas , like my hometown of Denver .
The congressional district that I grew up in , which forms a suburban horseshoe around the city , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in just six years !
In Atlanta , Red Dogs helped create a Democratic ring around the city , electing Lucy McBath to the House in 2018 and carrying Joe Biden to a surprise win in 2020 .
The Red Dogs might still vote for a Republican in a local race , maybe even enthusiastically if they live in a blue state or a swing district where the Republican candidate is more pragmatic .
But in the nationalized races ( which most are these days ) they ’ re now aligned with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diners + The Contrarians The Republicans have added culturally conservative white voters in the exurbs , rural America , and small towns , particularly those without a college degree .
These are the people whose diners were frequented by New York Times profile writers for the past four years .
They don ’ t much care for the globalist GOP establishment or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ’ s policy priorities .
As part of the deal the Republicans also are picking up : • A smattering of very online contrarians who don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the most important issue facing the country is whether they can call people faggots on Facebook without being shadowbanned .
Also mostly men ( of course ) .
As a demographic matter , Republicans also face something akin to having to give up a future pick in the 2028 draft .
While cottagecore might be all the rage on TikTok during the pandemic , the growing parts of the population are going to continue to shift towards the Red Dogs ’ dynamic metros , not rural America or the industrial Midwest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people moving to Erie , Pennsylvania these days .
Despite this , Republican strategists are happy with the trade and not fretting about this longer-term trend , because they are built to win now .
It might be more precise to say they are built to “ win ” now .
What you have to understand is that the GOP is a solid minority party—they have no real plan to win a majority of the vote in a national election in the foreseeable future—but because of the Electoral College , the Senate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key advantage .
This is because all of those diner folks bring with them a big geographic benefit—having the right land mass carries influence in our system .
And since Republicans have no aspirations to be a majority party , they are content with a trade that solidifies this geographic advantage .
As is always the case , not everybody is happy with the trade .
The populist wing of the Democratic party , which carries disproportionate weight on Twitter dot com , loathes the Red Dogs .
It has a weird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person who has ever attended a brunch .
Many Red Dogs like to go to brunch .
So there ’ s some tension in the ranks there .
Some of the identitarian Democrats wish their coalition could succeed only with people of color and don ’ t want to invite new white women to the party .
Many Red Dogs are white women , so there ’ s some tension there , as well .
Conversely , some of the Red Dogs don ’ t really feel at home yet with their new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broaches that they bought for the 2004 Republican National Convention , just in case .
The remaining Chamber of Commerce Republican types don ’ t really like their new teammates and are wishing they could get back to their “ normal ” Ryanomics ways after Trump magically disappears .
Many of the diner types and contrarians who are newly minted MAGAt Republicans are pissed that the old GOP men are just quietly going along with Trump ’ s clown coup rather than actively supporting martial law and wish they would get out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these groups ’ concerns about the trade are ( 1 ) when a country as big and diverse as ours has only two political parties there are always going to be internal conflicts ; and ( 2 ) how people feel about the trade doesn ’ t really matter—it already happened .
When the Nuggets traded their once-in-a-generation star for a stone-footed Russian center , I wasn ’ t happy either .
But it was a fait accompli .
Certainly the team couldn ’ t pretend it hadn ’ t happened : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offensive sets with Timofey Mozgov as with Melo .
So Denver ’ s coaching staff adapted , tried to leverage their strengths , and make the best of it .
As a wildly irresponsible SecDef once kind of said , You go to war with the team you have , not the team you wish you had .
And the same principle holds for the Democrats and the Red Dogs , who , as Politico reported last week , are trying to figure out their future options .
Here ’ s an example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trade could backfire : Red Dog former Rep. David Jolly has been floated as an independent candidate for Marco Rubio ’ s Senate seat in Florida .
Now I like David Jolly .
I think he ’ d be a great senator .
I ’ d love to donate to his campaign against wee , widdle whataboutist Marco .
There ’ s a problem though .
Jolly ’ s voters are mostly Red Dogs and MSNBC-viewing Democratic regulars—not Republicans .
Meaning that if Jolly ran as an independent , he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat .
Sure he ’ d pick up a few votes from marginal Republicans too , but when push comes to shove , almost all of those folks are fine with Rubio .
When you think about it , this shouldn ’ t be surprising : Despite being a former Republican , David Jolly agrees with the Democrats and disagrees with Nationalist New Coke Marco on basically all of the animating issues of our time .
This is evidenced by a recent New York Times op-ed from 2016 independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP with a “ new conservative alternative.
” Here is how McMullin describes what that alternative party would stand for : But here ’ s the thing : With the exception of the words “ limited government , ” Joe Biden agrees with everything this third party would stand for too .
And he is the president-elect and standard bearer of a party that already exists and just got over 50 percent of the vote in a national election .
I don ’ t want to minimize the differences over scope of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats .
They are real and genuine and deeply held .
But are the passions around limited government so widespread to make a new party centered around it viable ?
Are the disagreements between the Red Dogs and the Democrats over the size of government so vast that they merit blowing up this new coalition and potentially helping a populist , nationalist , anti-democratic Republican party ?
( Which , by the way , has no interest in “ limited government ” either . )
It seems to me the answer to these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This scope-of-government debate between the Red Dogs and the establishment Democrats seems much more akin to the genuine disagreements that Blue Dog Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans had with their parties in the past than it does the kind of fundamental fissure that requires a new party .
Now , there might be specific campaigns or parts of the country where the calculus is different .
Maybe two candidates closer to the fringes—a DSA socialist and a member of the GOP Q-Squad , say—win primaries for the same Senate seat , making room for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put together a plurality of the vote .
Some version of this has happened in the near past , with Lisa Murkowski and Joe Lieberman winning Senate races as independents by holding the middle .
Red Dogs supporting such a candidate would make a ton of sense .
In certain GOP districts maybe the entire ballgame is a Republican primary between a Trumper and a more old-line Republican that the Red Dogs would prefer .
And in places with ranked-choice voting or a top-two nonpartisan primary the calculus may get funky .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the exception , not the norm .
At least for a while .
At some point in the future this will change—political coalitions are always in motion .
But that motion is slow and the truth is , the realignment that happened with Donald Trump had been under way for about 25-30 years .
So maybe things will be more or less like they are for a generation .
Or maybe not .
It ’ s possible that Biden could lose hold of the center and the Democrats break up their new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( again ) .
If that happened , there would be another realignment .
Maybe it would open up a more realistic avenue for a third party .
Or maybe it would result in a snap-back of some of the illiberal strains in the GOP .
I don ’ t have a crystal ball .
But the future will take care of itself .
All that we can do is look at the present and assess the teams that are on the floor .
The existence of these new teams is , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But for the liberals who are cranky about the trade , let me give you a scouting report on your new teammates .
( 1 ) You can keep the Reds in the tent without doing any of the dog-whistle pandering to white grievance culture that will be required to win back the Obama-Trump voters .
• Kneeling for the anthem ?
You do you , Kaep !
( 2 ) There are substantial progressive policy priorities that Red Dog voters either actively support or won ’ t make a stink about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ items : • They ’ d rather the COVID relief bill include assistance for the working class and tax breaks for families than a three-martini-lunch tax credit .
( 3 ) There ’ s another batch of policies where the Red Dogs will go along with liberals either part , or most , of the way .
• Climate regulations , re-entering the Paris Agreement , and investing in green energy—yes !
( But banning fossil fuels is going to hurt you with the charter Red Dogs in places like Dallas and Houston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police reform—awesome !
( “ Defunding ” the police is not going to be a winner . )
• Dream Act , refugee resettlement , pathway to citizenship—sweet .
Republicans used to be for this !
( Decriminalizing the border , not so much . )
• Reasonable gun-control legislation .
Think of it this way : Anything that has a prayer of getting through Joe Manchin and Jon Tester , the Red Dogs will support enthusiastically .
• Taxing the rich .
( Okay .
Just don ’ t stick it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) • A new Trans-Pacific Partnership .
( Do Democrats support free trade agreements anymore ?
That ’ s unclear at this stage .
But if they do , the Red Dogs are with them . )
Not every Red Dog will agree with everything on the above list .
And there will be areas of disagreement within the coalition not covered above .
Abortion rights , education reform , and the like .
But for the most part , this new team can unite behind a broadly popular center-left agenda that is—let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is realistically achievable in our current political environment .
With both values and substance aligning , for at least the next two cycles , these are the teams and this is the battlefield that they will have to build their coalitions on .
That is , if they want to maximize their chance for victory .
As Midge Decter—the Democrat turned neocon Republican—famously put it , “ There comes a time to join the side you ’ re on.
” So here we are .

In 2011 my beloved Denver Nuggets traded Carmelo Anthony to the New York Knicks for Wilson Chandler, Raymond Felton, Danilo Gallinari, Timofey Mozgov, three draft picks, $3 million in cash, and four coupons to an all-you-can-eat buffet.
Fans of the organizations were mixed on the trade. In Denver, we experienced the full panoply human emotion:
Anger at Melo for forcing the trade.
Jealousy that a bigger city can draw star players.
Worry that the return package wouldn’t have anywhere near the same ceiling for success.
Meanwhile the perpetually (and deservedly) grumpy Knicks fans were fretting that they had given away too much and would be shackled with a star who couldn’t carry them to the next level. (As it turned out, they were right.)
But no matter what the coaches and fans and general managers and commentators wanted to happen, everyone had to embrace the trade and move forward with the guys that they got.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
And that is the prism through which I view the state of affairs when analyzing the current realignment in American politics.
Over the last four years, some people who have traditionally been with the Republicans are finding that they were traded to a new team. And vice versa. Everyone intuitively knows that has happened, but for various reasons, many in the Washington political class don’t seem willing to accept the reality of it.
I get it. Changing political identities isn’t always easy. You don’t have to tell me.
But if you want your team to be successful, you need to understand who is on it.
So let’s go to the political Trade Machine to try to figure out what just happened.
The Democrats Receive: The Red Dogs
In the 1990s, after the GOP won control of both houses of Congress, moderate Democrats who believed their party had moved too far to the left started calling themselves the “Blue Dogs.” Today, it’s the “Red Dogs” who are looking for a home in the Democratic party: college-educated, largely white suburbanites in major metropolitan areas who used to be Republicans or swing voters. (Remember the security moms? Most of them are Red Dogs now.)
These are people who voted for Mitt Romney and/or George W. Bush but who pulled the lever for Democratic House candidates during the 2018 mini-wave; voted for Joe Biden/Mike Bloomberg/Mayor Pete/Amy K, powering a massive suburban turnout surge in the 2020 Democratic primaries; and then pushed Biden over the top in the general election.
They live in the suburban sprawl of major metropolitan areas, like my hometown of Denver. The congressional district that I grew up in, which forms a suburban horseshoe around the city, has gone from R +10 to D +18 in just six years! In Atlanta, Red Dogs helped create a Democratic ring around the city, electing Lucy McBath to the House in 2018 and carrying Joe Biden to a surprise win in 2020.
The Red Dogs might still vote for a Republican in a local race, maybe even enthusiastically if they live in a blue state or a swing district where the Republican candidate is more pragmatic. But in the nationalized races (which most are these days) they’re now aligned with the Democrats.
The Republicans Receive: The Diners + The Contrarians
The Republicans have added culturally conservative white voters in the exurbs, rural America, and small towns, particularly those without a college degree. These are the people whose diners were frequented by New York Times profile writers for the past four years. They don’t much care for the globalist GOP establishment or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s policy priorities.
As part of the deal the Republicans also are picking up:
Some culturally conservative Latinos, particularly men.
A smattering of very online contrarians who don’t like “wokeness” and think the most important issue facing the country is whether they can call people faggots on Facebook without being shadowbanned. Also mostly men (of course).
Cash considerations.
As a demographic matter, Republicans also face something akin to having to give up a future pick in the 2028 draft. While cottagecore might be all the rage on TikTok during the pandemic, the growing parts of the population are going to continue to shift towards the Red Dogs’ dynamic metros, not rural America or the industrial Midwest. You don’t see too many people moving to Erie, Pennsylvania these days.
Despite this, Republican strategists are happy with the trade and not fretting about this longer-term trend, because they are built to win now.
Kind of.
It might be more precise to say they are built to “win” now.
What you have to understand is that the GOP is a solid minority party—they have no real plan to win a majority of the vote in a national election in the foreseeable future—but because of the Electoral College, the Senate, and state-level gerrymandering, their coalition has a key advantage.
This is because all of those diner folks bring with them a big geographic benefit—having the right land mass carries influence in our system. And since Republicans have no aspirations to be a majority party, they are content with a trade that solidifies this geographic advantage.
As is always the case, not everybody is happy with the trade.
The populist wing of the Democratic party, which carries disproportionate weight on Twitter dot com, loathes the Red Dogs. It has a weird obsession with extirpating from the party every person who has ever attended a brunch. Many Red Dogs like to go to brunch. So there’s some tension in the ranks there.
Some of the identitarian Democrats wish their coalition could succeed only with people of color and don’t want to invite new white women to the party. Many Red Dogs are white women, so there’s some tension there, as well.
Conversely, some of the Red Dogs don’t really feel at home yet with their new team and are still keeping the elephant brooches that they bought for the 2004 Republican National Convention, just in case.
The remaining Chamber of Commerce Republican types don’t really like their new teammates and are wishing they could get back to their “normal” Ryanomics ways after Trump magically disappears.
Many of the diner types and contrarians who are newly minted MAGAt Republicans are pissed that the old GOP men are just quietly going along with Trump’s clown coup rather than actively supporting martial law and wish they would get out of the way.
The problems with all of these groups’ concerns about the trade are (1) when a country as big and diverse as ours has only two political parties there are always going to be internal conflicts; and (2) how people feel about the trade doesn’t really matter—it already happened.
When the Nuggets traded their once-in-a-generation star for a stone-footed Russian center, I wasn’t happy either. But it was a fait accompli. Certainly the team couldn’t pretend it hadn’t happened: You don’t run the same offensive sets with Timofey Mozgov as with Melo. So Denver’s coaching staff adapted, tried to leverage their strengths, and make the best of it.
As a wildly irresponsible SecDef once kind of said, You go to war with the team you have, not the team you wish you had.
And the same principle holds for the Democrats and the Red Dogs, who, as Politico reported last week, are trying to figure out their future options.
Here’s an example of how not embracing the reality of the trade could backfire: Red Dog former Rep. David Jolly has been floated as an independent candidate for Marco Rubio’s Senate seat in Florida.
Now I like David Jolly. I think he’d be a great senator. I’d love to donate to his campaign against wee, widdle whataboutist Marco. There’s a problem though. Jolly’s voters are mostly Red Dogs and MSNBC-viewing Democratic regulars—not Republicans.
Meaning that if Jolly ran as an independent, he’d mostly just take votes away from the Democrat. Sure he’d pick up a few votes from marginal Republicans too, but when push comes to shove, almost all of those folks are fine with Rubio.
When you think about it, this shouldn’t be surprising: Despite being a former Republican, David Jolly agrees with the Democrats and disagrees with Nationalist New Coke Marco on basically all of the animating issues of our time.
This is evidenced by a recent New York Times op-ed from 2016 independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin about the potential need to replace the GOP with a “new conservative alternative.” Here is how McMullin describes what that alternative party would stand for:
It should start with unyielding commitment to the equality and liberty of all, and then to facts, reason and knowledge. It should champion democracy and its improvement and cherish life in all its phases. It should promote personal responsibility, limited government and government’s vital role for the common good. It should advance justice for all, and uphold the personal and religious freedom of a diverse people. It should expand economic opportunity, rejecting cronyism and protectionism, while defending innovators and workers from theft and predatory practices abroad. It should recognize immigration as a vital national asset and universal access to quality health care, public and private, a national obligation. It should imagine new methods of learning and work. It should be decent, ethical and loyal to the Constitution.
I agree with all of that!
But here’s the thing: With the exception of the words “limited government,” Joe Biden agrees with everything this third party would stand for too. And he is the president-elect and standard bearer of a party that already exists and just got over 50 percent of the vote in a national election.
I don’t want to minimize the differences over scope of government between the Red Dogs and the mainline Democrats. They are real and genuine and deeply held.
But are the passions around limited government so widespread to make a new party centered around it viable? Are the disagreements between the Red Dogs and the Democrats over the size of government so vast that they merit blowing up this new coalition and potentially helping a populist, nationalist, anti-democratic Republican party? (Which, by the way, has no interest in “limited government” either.)
It seems to me the answer to these questions is a big fat No.
This scope-of-government debate between the Red Dogs and the establishment Democrats seems much more akin to the genuine disagreements that Blue Dog Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans had with their parties in the past than it does the kind of fundamental fissure that requires a new party.
Now, there might be specific campaigns or parts of the country where the calculus is different.
Maybe two candidates closer to the fringes—a DSA socialist and a member of the GOP Q-Squad, say—win primaries for the same Senate seat, making room for a “conservative independent” who can put together a plurality of the vote.
Some version of this has happened in the near past, with Lisa Murkowski and Joe Lieberman winning Senate races as independents by holding the middle. Red Dogs supporting such a candidate would make a ton of sense.
In certain GOP districts maybe the entire ballgame is a Republican primary between a Trumper and a more old-line Republican that the Red Dogs would prefer. And in places with ranked-choice voting or a top-two nonpartisan primary the calculus may get funky.
But those types of races are going to be the exception, not the norm. At least for a while. At some point in the future this will change—political coalitions are always in motion. But that motion is slow and the truth is, the realignment that happened with Donald Trump had been under way for about 25-30 years.
So maybe things will be more or less like they are for a generation. Or maybe not. It’s possible that Biden could lose hold of the center and the Democrats break up their new coalition, leaving the Red Dogs homeless (again).
If that happened, there would be another realignment. Maybe it would open up a more realistic avenue for a third party. Or maybe it would result in a snap-back of some of the illiberal strains in the GOP. I don’t have a crystal ball.
But the future will take care of itself. All that we can do is look at the present and assess the teams that are on the floor.
The existence of these new teams is, I realize, frustrating for many involved. But for the liberals who are cranky about the trade, let me give you a scouting report on your new teammates.
(1) You can keep the Reds in the tent without doing any of the dog-whistle pandering to white grievance culture that will be required to win back the Obama-Trump voters.
Black Lives Matter? Got the t-shirt.
Kneeling for the anthem? You do you, Kaep!
Gay and Trans rights: Hell yes!
Mask wearing: The Red Dogs triple bag it!
(2) There are substantial progressive policy priorities that Red Dog voters either actively support or won’t make a stink about. Here are just a few of those items:
Pro-democracy reforms
Marijuana legalization
Raising the minimum wage
Infrastructure spending
Universal pre-K
Cracking down on predatory lenders
Environmental conservation
They’d rather the COVID relief bill include assistance for the working class and tax breaks for families than a three-martini-lunch tax credit.
(3) There’s another batch of policies where the Red Dogs will go along with liberals either part, or most, of the way.
Climate regulations, re-entering the Paris Agreement, and investing in green energy—yes! (But banning fossil fuels is going to hurt you with the charter Red Dogs in places like Dallas and Houston.)
Major criminal justice and police reform—awesome! (“Defunding” the police is not going to be a winner.)
Dream Act, refugee resettlement, pathway to citizenship—sweet. Republicans used to be for this! (Decriminalizing the border, not so much.)
Reasonable gun-control legislation. Think of it this way: Anything that has a prayer of getting through Joe Manchin and Jon Tester, the Red Dogs will support enthusiastically.
Taxing the rich. (Okay. Just don’t stick it to the HENRY’s too hard.)
Health care public option. (Key word: “option.”)
A new Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Do Democrats support free trade agreements anymore? That’s unclear at this stage. But if they do, the Red Dogs are with them.)
Not every Red Dog will agree with everything on the above list. And there will be areas of disagreement within the coalition not covered above. Abortion rights, education reform, and the like.
But for the most part, this new team can unite behind a broadly popular center-left agenda that is—let’s just be honest here—already beyond what is realistically achievable in our current political environment.
With both values and substance aligning, for at least the next two cycles, these are the teams and this is the battlefield that they will have to build their coalitions on. That is, if they want to maximize their chance for victory.
As Midge Decter—the Democrat turned neocon Republican—famously put it, “There comes a time to join the side you’re on.”
So here we are.
Correction, December 21, 2020 9:54 a.m.: The article originally stated that Carmelo Anthony was traded in 2013. He was traded in 2011. The text has been changed accordingly.


thebulwark--2020-12-22--The Scary Spectacle of Trump’s Last Month in Office

Some may think of these as “ the last days of Pompeii.
” If that reference strikes you as too erudite to be fitting , you might prefer to think of the month ahead as “ the last days of chaos in a blender.
” Whatever you call them , the final days of the Donald Trump administration are upon us , and they look much like every other day at the White House for the last four years .
From the point of view of the White House press corps , it goes something like this : You start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House as to what will happen , something batshit nuts will occur , people will become irate , Trump ’ s fans will circle the wagons and start shooting at mirages , and the press corps will sigh and keep going .
Friday was no different .
It started with Vice President Mike Pence getting his coronavirus vaccination on television .
In theory , this should have been a moment of joy in the country—an opportunity to celebrate scientific ingenuity and the beginning of the end of the pandemic that has dominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment was filled with contradictions .
Outside the Brady Press Briefing Room in the White House is a sign that tells anyone who proceeds into the staff offices in the rest of the West Wing to wear a mask .
Yet the White House staff routinely does not—even though dozens of White House staffers , Secret Service officers , and campaign personnel have been infected by the coronavirus .
The Trump team routinely calls people who wear masks “ Karens ” or “ snowflakes ” or other words you admonish young children not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many Trump fans are QAnon supporters and believe that vaccines are ineffective , or will leave patients with autism , or are an attempt at mind control , or other things you tell young children are mere fiction .
So Trump telling us that he is responsible for a quick and easy vaccine and Pence getting his so quickly comes across as just more mixed messaging of the sort the administration has offered all year .
If the pandemic is a serious problem , why isn ’ t mask-wearing strictly enforced in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a serious problem , why take credit for a vaccine ?
As it turns out , Trump has lived in a world of fiction and alternate facts for four years—and that does no one any good .
Early Friday morning , Larry Kudlow gaggled on the North Lawn driveway .
He thanked the press— “ I appreciate our discussions and relationships ” —leaving the impression that at least he had a grasp on reality and accepted that a new administration would be arriving in January .
Less than four minutes after Kudlow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sudden call for the presidential press pool to assemble and enter the Oval Office .
A few minutes later it was called off .
We never found out why .
Trump , meanwhile , still hasn ’ t conceded .
Friday a staffer told me he was “ stewing ” and “ angry.
” Another staffer said “ It ’ s just a normal Friday ” —that is , you would not have the impression that the administration is winding up its work .
By the afternoon , new details were emerging about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. federal government—an attack that included vital defense installations and key components of our nuclear arsenal .
Trump said nothing .
( When he finally did remark on the hacking—in tweets over the weekend , of course—he downplayed and distorted what happened , contradicting remarks from his own secretary of state . )
Another big story that broke on Friday reported that Jared Kushner created a shell corporation that funneled millions from the Trump campaign into private coffers .
Meanwhile , that same afternoon , in a private interview in front of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caller reporter , White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany criticized activist journalists—including a Playboy reporter ( that would be me ) for “ heckling ” and shouting out questions at the end of briefings .
Harry Truman had it right : If you can ’ t stand the heat , get out of the kitchen .
So it ’ s odd that the Trump administration is full of people complaining about the heat , but you ’ ll have to drag them kicking and screaming from the kitchen .
The child-like efforts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a nutshell , everything the administration has been about for four years .
Rudy Giuliani showed up before lunch .
We all caught a glimpse of him walking without a mask into the West Wing .
Speculation was he was on the hunt for a pre-emptive pardon , or—more than likely—he was there for additional “ campaign ” strategy .
Late Friday afternoon , Trump reportedly had an Oval Office meeting with Giuliani , Sidney Powell , Michael Flynn , and others about strategy going into his final month in office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ House source said , regarding martial law and hoax investigations .
Other sources said nothing happened in the Oval on Friday .
But the talk of invoking martial law scared enough who heard it that it was passed to several of us in the press .
By the end of the day on Friday , some of the photographers and technicians from the press pool returned from a Pence appearance with “ Space Force ” cookies that looked just like Star Trek comm badges and announced that the administration was stealing from Guardians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guardians ” for the members of Space Force .
So all in all , it was a typical day in this White House .
The pandemic raged .
Hundreds of thousands have died .
Millions have been infected .
And tens of millions of Americans carry on in confusion about reality—regarding the pandemic and the election .
Like Trump , they are willfully ignorant or inconceivably obtuse about the truth .
They can not digest facts that don ’ t fit their preconceived notions .
If we were to be told by scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that killed the dinosaurs is plummeting toward Earth , perhaps half the American population would deny it was real .
( I guess our Space Force guardians would have their work cut out for them . )
Mix Trump ’ s incompetence with his anti-democratic desire to overturn the election and his anti-republican willingness to consider doing so through martial law , and you have a recipe for an unprecedented and profoundly dangerous moment in American political history .
This last month in office will be historic , that is all we know @

Some may think of these as “the last days of Pompeii.”
If that reference strikes you as too erudite to be fitting, you might prefer to think of the month ahead as “the last days of chaos in a blender.”
Whatever you call them, the final days of the Donald Trump administration are upon us, and they look much like every other day at the White House for the last four years.
From the point of view of the White House press corps, it goes something like this: You start each day having little guidance from the White House as to what will happen, something batshit nuts will occur, people will become irate, Trump’s fans will circle the wagons and start shooting at mirages, and the press corps will sigh and keep going.
Friday was no different.
It started with Vice President Mike Pence getting his coronavirus vaccination on television. In theory, this should have been a moment of joy in the country—an opportunity to celebrate scientific ingenuity and the beginning of the end of the pandemic that has dominated this annus horribilis.
However, the moment was filled with contradictions. Outside the Brady Press Briefing Room in the White House is a sign that tells anyone who proceeds into the staff offices in the rest of the West Wing to wear a mask. Yet the White House staff routinely does not—even though dozens of White House staffers, Secret Service officers, and campaign personnel have been infected by the coronavirus. The Trump team routinely calls people who wear masks “Karens” or “snowflakes” or other words you admonish young children not to use.
Making matters worse, many Trump fans are QAnon supporters and believe that vaccines are ineffective, or will leave patients with autism, or are an attempt at mind control, or other things you tell young children are mere fiction.
So Trump telling us that he is responsible for a quick and easy vaccine and Pence getting his so quickly comes across as just more mixed messaging of the sort the administration has offered all year. If the pandemic is a serious problem, why isn’t mask-wearing strictly enforced in the White House? If it isn’t a serious problem, why take credit for a vaccine?
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
As it turns out, Trump has lived in a world of fiction and alternate facts for four years—and that does no one any good.
Early Friday morning, Larry Kudlow gaggled on the North Lawn driveway. He thanked the press—“I appreciate our discussions and relationships”—leaving the impression that at least he had a grasp on reality and accepted that a new administration would be arriving in January. Less than four minutes after Kudlow arrived, however, there was a sudden call for the presidential press pool to assemble and enter the Oval Office. A few minutes later it was called off. We never found out why.
Trump, meanwhile, still hasn’t conceded. Friday a staffer told me he was “stewing” and “angry.” Another staffer said “It’s just a normal Friday”—that is, you would not have the impression that the administration is winding up its work.
By the afternoon, new details were emerging about Russia’s massive hacking attack on the U.S. federal government—an attack that included vital defense installations and key components of our nuclear arsenal.
Trump said nothing. (When he finally did remark on the hacking—in tweets over the weekend, of course—he downplayed and distorted what happened, contradicting remarks from his own secretary of state.)
Another big story that broke on Friday reported that Jared Kushner created a shell corporation that funneled millions from the Trump campaign into private coffers.
Trump said nothing.
Meanwhile, that same afternoon, in a private interview in front of a West Wing fireplace with a Daily Caller reporter, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany criticized activist journalists—including a Playboy reporter (that would be me) for “heckling” and shouting out questions at the end of briefings.
Harry Truman had it right: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. So it’s odd that the Trump administration is full of people complaining about the heat, but you’ll have to drag them kicking and screaming from the kitchen.
The child-like efforts of the Trump administration on Friday were, in a nutshell, everything the administration has been about for four years.
But wait, there’s more.
Rudy Giuliani showed up before lunch. We all caught a glimpse of him walking without a mask into the West Wing. Speculation was he was on the hunt for a pre-emptive pardon, or—more than likely—he was there for additional “campaign” strategy.
Late Friday afternoon, Trump reportedly had an Oval Office meeting with Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Michael Flynn, and others about strategy going into his final month in office. There were screaming matches, one White House source said, regarding martial law and hoax investigations. Other sources said nothing happened in the Oval on Friday. But the talk of invoking martial law scared enough who heard it that it was passed to several of us in the press.
“This is nuts,” I was told.
“What in this administration hasn’t been?” I responded.
By the end of the day on Friday, some of the photographers and technicians from the press pool returned from a Pence appearance with “Space Force” cookies that looked just like Star Trek comm badges and announced that the administration was stealing from Guardians of the Galaxy with the name “guardians” for the members of Space Force.
So all in all, it was a typical day in this White House.
Trump never showed. He tweeted.
McEnany never briefed—she whined to a favorable news organization.
The pandemic raged. Hundreds of thousands have died. Millions have been infected.
And tens of millions of Americans carry on in confusion about reality—regarding the pandemic and the election. Like Trump, they are willfully ignorant or inconceivably obtuse about the truth. They cannot digest facts that don’t fit their preconceived notions. If we were to be told by scientists today that an asteroid like the one that killed the dinosaurs is plummeting toward Earth, perhaps half the American population would deny it was real. (I guess our Space Force guardians would have their work cut out for them.)
Mix Trump’s incompetence with his anti-democratic desire to overturn the election and his anti-republican willingness to consider doing so through martial law, and you have a recipe for an unprecedented and profoundly dangerous moment in American political history.
This last month in office will be historic, that is all we know.


thebulwark--2020-12-22--The Military Would Not Participate in a Coup. Trump Can’t Understand Why.

The president of the United States considered using the military to overturn an election , according to press reports .
Clearly , any president—any person—who would suggest such a thing doesn ’ t understand the whole point of American democratic politics .
But more than that , the president clearly doesn ’ t understand the American military .
In the months before the election , there were concerns that Donald Trump might refuse to leave office .
Some observers suggested that he might use his powers as the commander in chief to retain power .
Others , including retired officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the will of the voters and remove him .
Joe Biden said back in June that he was “ absolutely convinced ” that the military would do so .
Former Vice President Al Gore echoed him , as did some congressional candidates .
Since the election , Michael Flynn—retired Army general , Trump ’ s first national security advisor , a former lobbyist for the government of Turkey , recipient of a recent Trump pardon , and now a crackpot conspiracy theorist—has suggested that the president should invoke martial law ( not “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheesh ) .
How , in Flynn ’ s mind , martial law would prevent Biden from taking the oath of office or extend Trump ’ s term past its constitutionally mandated date of expiry is unclear .
First things first .
Senior Defense Department leaders have already expressed that there is no role for the military in domestic political disputes .
Gen. Mark Milley , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , said as much in October—and repeated the point last week : “ We do not take an oath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tyrant or a dictator .
We do not take an oath to an individual .
No , we do not take an oath to a country , a tribe or a religion .
We take an oath to the Constitution.
” Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville also issued a joint statement on Friday that “ there is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.
” Granted , none of these three men is in the chain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops , but they all represent the view of the military , including the combatant commanders who are in the chain of command .
In the unlikely scenario that Trump were to issue an order to use the military to prevent the transfer of power , the order would go to the secretary of defense .
In the unlikely scenario that the secretary were to decide to enforce the order ( which , it should go without saying , would be illegal ) , he would relay the order to commander of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There , VanHerck would consult with his team of legal advisers , who would inform him that the order was a grotesque violation of the Constitution , and VenHerck would refuse the order and send it back to the secretary of defense .
Because , as Gen. Milley said , VenHeck ’ s loyalty lies with the Constitution , not a king or queen , and certainly not Donald Trump .
At noon on January 20 , Biden will be sworn in as president , and the military will immediately recognize him as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump refuses to concede .
Concession is not a constitutional requirement but a ceremonial act , and the transfer of power does not require it .
Americans need not worry about a military coup , and they certainly should stop asking for military intervention either to keep Trump in power or to remove him from office .
If he refuses to leave the White House after Biden is inaugurated , he will simply be a trespasser and will be removed by the Secret Service ( part of the Department of Homeland Security ) @ @ @ @

The president of the United States considered using the military to overturn an election, according to press reports. Clearly, any president—any person—who would suggest such a thing doesn’t understand the whole point of American democratic politics. But more than that, the president clearly doesn’t understand the American military.
In the months before the election, there were concerns that Donald Trump might refuse to leave office. Some observers suggested that he might use his powers as the commander in chief to retain power. Others, including retired officers, pleaded with the military to enforce the will of the voters and remove him. Joe Biden said back in June that he was “absolutely convinced” that the military would do so. Former Vice President Al Gore echoed him, as did some congressional candidates.
Since the election, Michael Flynn—retired Army general, Trump’s first national security advisor, a former lobbyist for the government of Turkey, recipient of a recent Trump pardon, and now a crackpot conspiracy theorist—has suggested that the president should invoke martial law (not “marshall law,” Senator Rubio, sheesh). How, in Flynn’s mind, martial law would prevent Biden from taking the oath of office or extend Trump’s term past its constitutionally mandated date of expiry is unclear.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
First things first. Senior Defense Department leaders have already expressed that there is no role for the military in domestic political disputes. Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said as much in October—and repeated the point last week: “We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or a religion. We take an oath to the Constitution.”
Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville also issued a joint statement on Friday that “there is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.”
Granted, none of these three men is in the chain of command between the president and combat troops, but they all represent the view of the military, including the combatant commanders who are in the chain of command.
In the unlikely scenario that Trump were to issue an order to use the military to prevent the transfer of power, the order would go to the secretary of defense. In the unlikely scenario that the secretary were to decide to enforce the order (which, it should go without saying, would be illegal), he would relay the order to commander of the Northern Command, Gen. Glen VanHerck. There, VanHerck would consult with his team of legal advisers, who would inform him that the order was a grotesque violation of the Constitution, and VenHerck would refuse the order and send it back to the secretary of defense. Because, as Gen. Milley said, VenHeck’s loyalty lies with the Constitution, not a king or queen, and certainly not Donald Trump.
At noon on January 20, Biden will be sworn in as president, and the military will immediately recognize him as the commander in chief, even if Trump refuses to concede. Concession is not a constitutional requirement but a ceremonial act, and the transfer of power does not require it.
Americans need not worry about a military coup, and they certainly should stop asking for military intervention either to keep Trump in power or to remove him from office. If he refuses to leave the White House after Biden is inaugurated, he will simply be a trespasser and will be removed by the Secret Service (part of the Department of Homeland Security)—not the military.


thebulwark--2020-12-22--Holding the House 31 Accountable

Holding the House 31 Accountable

Woody Guthrie ’ s “ The Sinking of the Reuben James , ” a ballad honoring World War II Navy sailors who died at sea , poignantly asks , “ What were their names ?
” The same question should be asked about the 31 lawyers among the 126 House Republicans who recently signed a “ friend of the court ” brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn four battleground states ’ election results .
The 100 officers and enlisted sailors who died on the torpedoed Reuben James were heroes ; the 31 lawyer amici curiae were anything but .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be known and renounced before the episode fades .
The brief to which they lent their names abused the process of the highest court in the land .
Their constituents and fellow bar members should know what they did .
The House members endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ’ s startling effort to persuade the Court to overturn President-elect Joe Biden ’ s victory in Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin .
Paxton ’ s petition was preposterous .
Its argument violated conservatives ’ core belief in federalism , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s theory were the law , chaos would engulf every election because states supporting the loser could contest the results in states voting for the winner .
The Court summarily dismissed Paxton ’ s effort on December 11 .
Frivolous claims like this violate the American Bar Association ’ s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 , which states that “ a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding .
.
.
unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.
” As Stephen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at NYU Law , stated , From the biographies on the Congress.gov website , it appears that 31 of the 126 representatives who put their names put on this meritless , unprincipled brief have law degrees : Importantly , these representatives also violated the oaths that they took as lawyers and members of Congress to uphold the Constitution .
Attempting to disenfranchise millions of Americans in other states is antithetical to that duty .
Constitutional scholar Garrett Epps called the claim to which they lent their names a “ deliberate effort to destroy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adherence to oaths and professional standards requires vigilance .
Bar leaders in these members ’ districts should disavow these lawyer-politicians ’ unprofessional behavior .
Doing so may take courage , since the bar in a congressional district can be tight-knit .
Many lawyers may have contributed to the 31 members ’ campaigns , or even practiced with them .
But election to office does not exempt a lawyer from criticism by fellow practitioners or from potential bar discipline .
Their breach of the rules of professional conduct was visible to the entire nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this case , the country , calls upon the bar to find its voice .
If our fellow citizens are to have an ounce of respect for the law and its institutions , the profession must condemn these 31 lawyers ’ abuse of the legal system for self-serving political purposes .

Neal R. Sonnett, Eugene R. Fidell, and Dennis Aftergut

Woody Guthrie’s “The Sinking of the Reuben James,” a ballad honoring World War II Navy sailors who died at sea, poignantly asks, “What were their names?”
The same question should be asked about the 32 lawyers among the 126 House Republicans who recently signed a “friend of the court” brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn four battleground states’ election results.
The 100 officers and enlisted sailors who died on the torpedoed Reuben James were heroes; the 32 lawyer amici curiae were anything but. Their role in this sordid affair should be known and renounced before the episode fades.
The brief to which they lent their names abused the process of the highest court in the land. Their constituents and fellow bar members should know what they did.
The House members endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s startling effort to persuade the Court to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Paxton’s petition was preposterous.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Its argument violated conservatives’ core belief in federalism, that each state is sovereign. If Texas’s theory were the law, chaos would engulf every election because states supporting the loser could contest the results in states voting for the winner. The Court summarily dismissed Paxton’s effort on December 11.
Frivolous claims like this violate the American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1, which states that “a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding . . . unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.” As Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at NYU Law, stated,
Ethics rules forbid lawyers to file garbage claims. . . . Lawyers who filed or joined [Paxton’s suit] ill-treated the Court, harmed the rule of law, and ill-served the public. Disciplinary investigation is necessary.
From the biographies on the Congress.gov website, it appears that 32 of the 126 representatives who put their names put on this meritless, unprincipled brief have law degrees:
Robert B. Aderholt (AL)
Andy Biggs (AZ)
Gus Bilirakis (FL)
Dan Bishop (NC)
Mo Brooks (AL)
Ken Buck (CO)
Bradley Byrne (AL)
Ben Cline (VA)
Doug Collins (GA)
Tom Emmer (MN)
Chuck Fleischmann (TN)
Matt Gaetz (FL)
Louis Gohmert (TX)
Morgan Griffith (VA)
Michael Guest (MS)
Mike Johnson (LA)
Jim Jordan (OH)
Trent Kelly (MS)
David Kustoff (TN)
Darin M. LaHood (IL)
Doug Lamborn (CO)
Robert E. Latta (OH)
Guy Reschenthaler (PA)
Tom Rice (SC)
Mike D. Rogers (AL)
John Rose (TN)
Jason Smith (MO)
Ross Spano (FL)
Greg Steube (FL)
William Timmons (SC)
Joe Wilson (SC)
Lee Zeldin (NY)
Importantly, these representatives also violated the oaths that they took as lawyers and members of Congress to uphold the Constitution. Attempting to disenfranchise millions of Americans in other states is antithetical to that duty. Constitutional scholar Garrett Epps called the claim to which they lent their names a “deliberate effort to destroy American democracy for political advantage.”
Ensuring adherence to oaths and professional standards requires vigilance. Bar leaders in these members’ districts should disavow these lawyer-politicians’ unprofessional behavior.
Doing so may take courage, since the bar in a congressional district can be tight-knit. Many lawyers may have contributed to the 32 members’ campaigns, or even practiced with them.
But election to office does not exempt a lawyer from criticism by fellow practitioners or from potential bar discipline.
Their breach of the rules of professional conduct was visible to the entire nation. Duty to the profession and, in this case, the country, calls upon the bar to find its voice.
If our fellow citizens are to have an ounce of respect for the law and its institutions, the profession must condemn these 32 lawyers’ abuse of the legal system for self-serving political purposes.
Correction (December 26, 2020): We have added to the list of members of Congress with law degrees who signed the amicus brief the name of Gus Bilirakis of Florida, and updated the number in the headline and body from 31 to 32 members.


thebulwark--2020-12-23--The Squishiness of Federal Courts’ ‘Standing’ Doctrine

Among the many wonky constitutional-law doctrines that have become headline news in the Trump era , “ standing ” has , of late , been the most , erm , outstanding .
In two high-profile cases—Texas Attorney General Paxton ’ s lawsuit seeking to cancel millions of votes in four other states and the challenge to the Trump administration ’ s ploy to exclude non-citizens from the census count—the Supreme Court tossed out the suits on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue .
The question for the newly minted 6-3 conservative majority , poised to review challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , is whether they are willing to put politics aside for the sake of fidelity to a doctrine that is core to their conservative sensibility , and particularly near and dear to the heart of an icon on the right , the late Justice Antonin Scalia .
The word “ standing ” is nowhere in the Constitution , but it ’ s a critical means by which the federal courts confine the scope of the kinds of cases that they hear .
In theory , courts are charged exclusively with calling balls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not positioned to “ legislate from the bench , ” and they can not give general advice on the law if it would have no actual impact on a concrete injury of an actual litigant .
As a consequence , lawsuits that basically aim to get courts to do the jobs of politicians will often get tossed out on standing grounds , a concept that derives from Article III ’ s restriction of federal court jurisdiction to “ cases ” or “ controversies.
” In general terms , a court case arises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party .
The court is invoked to make the injured party whole .
This is unlike legislation , which makes rules for everyone prospectively—not for any particular party to remedy a particular injury that occurred in the past .
For standing doctrine , identification of the concrete injury is crucial .
If a plaintiff comes to court as a “ citizen of the U.S. ” complaining about the Trump administration ’ s general malfeasance , the lawsuit will be tossed .
That plaintiff has no special injury—no “ broken arm ” — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting populace .
Her remedy lies , if anywhere , in the legislature or at the ballot box in the next presidential election .
As explained by then-D.C .
Circuit Judge Scalia in a 1983 law review article ( somewhat famous among legal academics ) , “ the requirement of distinctive injury not shared by the entire body politic ” is a cornerstone of the “ original understanding ” of the separation of powers .
For lawyers who think a lot about federal court jurisdiction , the Supreme Court ’ s brief decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ The State of Texas ’ s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution .
Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
” Recall that Texas was complaining about Pennsylvania ’ s mail-in voting procedures , among other things .
But what did that have to do with Texas voters ?
Nothing .
There were no “ broken arms ” in Texas caused by other states ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sue .
And no jurisdiction in the federal courts under Article III of the Constitution .
Case dismissed .
The census case was trickier , which gets to an uncomfortable reality about standing doctrine : It ’ s squishy and subjective , essentially enabling federal judges to kill cases on the grounds that they don ’ t have the power to hear them in the first place .
( I wrote on this at length in a 2009 law review article . )
Often , the arguments for and against standing can go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump v. New York , is an example .
In July , President Trump issued a memorandum to the secretary of commerce announcing a policy of excluding “ from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.
” This was important , because census numbers are used to determine how many members of the House of Representative are allotted to each state .
If states with high numbers of undocumented individuals can not count those people , they get fewer members of Congress for the next 10 years—and perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars for infrastructure , schools , and social programs .
The argument made by New York and other plaintiffs was that , unlike the Texas attorney general , they were actually harmed by the memorandum because the census process is happening right now , and if their populations are undercounted in violation of the Constitution ( which refers to “ whole persons , ” not just citizens ) , they have a broken arm that needs a remedy through the courts .
The 6-3 conservative majority disagreed , reasoning that the “ census @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if non-citizens didn ’ t participate , it ’ s too late to remedy the problem .
As for the apportionment of members of Congress and federal funding , the majority reasoned that “ the President , to be sure , has made clear his desire to exclude aliens without lawful status from the apportionment base , ” but included caveat language “ to the extent practicable ” and “ to the extent feasible.
” The injury , therefore , was conjectural .
The Court basically told the plaintiffs to stay tuned and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something more significant .
Arguably , with a Biden administration on the horizon , the majority was correct to punt this one on the theory that the problem will just go away when a revised presidential memorandum inevitably undoes the Trumpian one .
For the dissenting justices , that wasn ’ t up to the Court , which has—according to its own precedent—a “ virtually unflagging obligation .
.
.
to exercise the jurisdiction ” it ’ s been given .
But here again is the rub with standing : Whether an injury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a variety of interpretations and , yes , unarticulated policy preferences .
Thus , for example , the Court held in 2007 that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had standing to complain about the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s refusal to regulate air pollutant emissions from new motor vehicles on the theory that global warming affects the state through rising sea levels along its coast , changes in natural ecosystems , the spread of disease , and the ferocity of weather events .
But the other plaintiffs—including 19 private organizations devoted to environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing .
Huh ?
Chief Justice Roberts wrote a powerful dissent , in which Justices Scalia , Thomas , and Alito joined .
“ Global warming , ” he wrote , “ may be a ‘ crisis , ’ even ‘ the most pressing environmental problem of our time , ’ ” one that “ may ultimately affect nearly everyone on the planet in some potentially adverse way , and it may be that governments have done too little to address it.
” But , he urged , “ redress of grievances of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the function of Congress and the Chief Executive , ’ not the federal courts.
” Chief Justice Roberts is probably correct—courts should err on the side of staying out of disputes that belong to politicians who , unlike judges with life tenure , can be held accountable at the polls for making decisions at odds with the voting public .
The question for the new Supreme Court is whether , with Biden at the helm , conservatives will be equally deferential to a president whose plans for restoring public trust in elected government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month , or whether they will discern “ injuries ” that are sufficient to enable the Court to second-guess this administration ’ s work .

Among the many wonky constitutional-law doctrines that have become headline news in the Trump era, “standing” has, of late, been the most, erm, outstanding. In two high-profile cases—Texas Attorney General Paxton’s lawsuit seeking to cancel millions of votes in four other states and the challenge to the Trump administration’s ploy to exclude non-citizens from the census count—the Supreme Court tossed out the suits on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The question for the newly minted 6-3 conservative majority, poised to review challenges to the policies of incoming President-elect Joe Biden, is whether they are willing to put politics aside for the sake of fidelity to a doctrine that is core to their conservative sensibility, and particularly near and dear to the heart of an icon on the right, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
The word “standing” is nowhere in the Constitution, but it’s a critical means by which the federal courts confine the scope of the kinds of cases that they hear. In theory, courts are charged exclusively with calling balls and strikes in disputes between discrete parties—they are not positioned to “legislate from the bench,” and they cannot give general advice on the law if it would have no actual impact on a concrete injury of an actual litigant.
As a consequence, lawsuits that basically aim to get courts to do the jobs of politicians will often get tossed out on standing grounds, a concept that derives from Article III’s restriction of federal court jurisdiction to “cases” or “controversies.” In general terms, a court case arises when one party is injured by another party. The court is invoked to make the injured party whole. This is unlike legislation, which makes rules for everyone prospectively—not for any particular party to remedy a particular injury that occurred in the past.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
For standing doctrine, identification of the concrete injury is crucial. If a plaintiff comes to court as a “citizen of the U.S.” complaining about the Trump administration’s general malfeasance, the lawsuit will be tossed. That plaintiff has no special injury—no “broken arm”— that distinguishes her from the rest of the voting populace. Her remedy lies, if anywhere, in the legislature or at the ballot box in the next presidential election. As explained by then-D.C. Circuit Judge Scalia in a 1983 law review article (somewhat famous among legal academics), “the requirement of distinctive injury not shared by the entire body politic” is a cornerstone of the “original understanding” of the separation of powers.
For lawyers who think a lot about federal court jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s brief decision in Texas v. Pennsylvania was no surprise: “The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” Recall that Texas was complaining about Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting procedures, among other things. But what did that have to do with Texas voters? Nothing. There were no “broken arms” in Texas caused by other states’ election systems. So no standing to sue. And no jurisdiction in the federal courts under Article III of the Constitution. Case dismissed.
The census case was trickier, which gets to an uncomfortable reality about standing doctrine: It’s squishy and subjective, essentially enabling federal judges to kill cases on the grounds that they don’t have the power to hear them in the first place. (I wrote on this at length in a 2009 law review article.) Often, the arguments for and against standing can go either way.
The census case, Trump v. New York, is an example. In July, President Trump issued a memorandum to the secretary of commerce announcing a policy of excluding “from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.” This was important, because census numbers are used to determine how many members of the House of Representative are allotted to each state. If states with high numbers of undocumented individuals cannot count those people, they get fewer members of Congress for the next 10 years—and perhaps beyond. Census numbers also determine federal dollars for infrastructure, schools, and social programs.
The argument made by New York and other plaintiffs was that, unlike the Texas attorney general, they were actually harmed by the memorandum because the census process is happening right now, and if their populations are undercounted in violation of the Constitution (which refers to “whole persons,” not just citizens), they have a broken arm that needs a remedy through the courts. The 6-3 conservative majority disagreed, reasoning that the “census response period was already over”—so if non-citizens didn’t participate, it’s too late to remedy the problem. As for the apportionment of members of Congress and federal funding, the majority reasoned that “the President, to be sure, has made clear his desire to exclude aliens without lawful status from the apportionment base,” but included caveat language “to the extent practicable” and “to the extent feasible.” The injury, therefore, was conjectural. The Court basically told the plaintiffs to stay tuned and come back if their gripe ripens into something more significant.
Arguably, with a Biden administration on the horizon, the majority was correct to punt this one on the theory that the problem will just go away when a revised presidential memorandum inevitably undoes the Trumpian one. For the dissenting justices, that wasn’t up to the Court, which has—according to its own precedent—a “virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction” it’s been given.
But here again is the rub with standing: Whether an injury is concrete enough is subjective and amenable to a variety of interpretations and, yes, unarticulated policy preferences. Thus, for example, the Court held in 2007 that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had standing to complain about the Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to regulate air pollutant emissions from new motor vehicles on the theory that global warming affects the state through rising sea levels along its coast, changes in natural ecosystems, the spread of disease, and the ferocity of weather events. But the other plaintiffs—including 19 private organizations devoted to environmental and other public interest causes—did not have standing. Huh?
Chief Justice Roberts wrote a powerful dissent, in which Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. “Global warming,” he wrote, “may be a ‘crisis,’ even ‘the most pressing environmental problem of our time,’” one that “may ultimately affect nearly everyone on the planet in some potentially adverse way, and it may be that governments have done too little to address it.” But, he urged, “redress of grievances of the sort at issue here ‘is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive,’ not the federal courts.”
Chief Justice Roberts is probably correct—courts should err on the side of staying out of disputes that belong to politicians who, unlike judges with life tenure, can be held accountable at the polls for making decisions at odds with the voting public. The question for the new Supreme Court is whether, with Biden at the helm, conservatives will be equally deferential to a president whose plans for restoring public trust in elected government were endorsed by a 7 million-vote margin last month, or whether they will discern “injuries” that are sufficient to enable the Court to second-guess this administration’s work.


thebulwark--2020-12-23--The Broad Coalition Uniting to Try to Take Down Viktor Orbán

From Russia to Turkey to Hungary , the power of authoritarians reflects the weakness and dysfunction of their opponents .
While often a result of government repression , the inability of the opposition to get its act together is sometimes self-inflicted and driven by the narcissism of small differences , political disagreements that may have mattered in earlier times but are irrelevant to the defeat of the local strongman .
For over a decade , the Hungarian opposition was fragmented , disorganized , and generally hapless .
In the meantime , Prime Minister Viktor Orbán ’ s political movement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packed the courts , repeatedly defied EU institutions , spouted conspiracy theories featuring George Soros , and cozied up to Russia—and rewrote the electoral rules .
Today , Fidesz ’ s control of the government administration , public broadcasting , print media , and even much of the economy is near-complete .
As the recent compromise on the EU ’ s budget shows , Europe has largely resigned itself to the situation .
The tide might be turning , however .
In the 2022 parliamentary election , Hungary ’ s six leading opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common manifesto , to draw a single electoral list—running one joint candidate to oppose Fidesz in each district , and to present a shared candidate for prime minister .
The move responds to the latest changes to Hungary ’ s highly complex electoral law , which distinguishes between national party lists and candidates fielded in specific constituencies .
According to the most recent reform , rushed through parliament during the current state of emergency , national lists will be allowed only for parties that run candidates everywhere in the country .
Not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it also means a mutual cannibalization of opposition candidates .
Orbán is betting that the broad-based alliance , which includes the formerly far-right Jobbik , the Socialists , as well as the Greens and the liberal , pro-Western Momentum Movement , will fail .
He may be right—not so long ago , Jobbik was a de facto neo-Nazi movement that once called for compiling lists of publicly active Jews .
Since then , it has pivoted strongly to the center , because Orbán ’ s governing Fidesz leaves no room to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration and national identity .
The Socialists are ( reformed and democratized ) heirs to Hungary ’ s pre-1989 Workers Party , still drawing , in part , on communist-era cadres .
Meanwhile , Momentum has built its following among highly educated , liberal , young , and urban voters .
Yet there is a non-trivial chance that the Hungarian prime minister is overplaying his cards .
Opinion polls suggest that a single opposition bloc would stand a decent chance of winning—and in fact turning Orbán ’ s highly majoritarian reforms against him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The country may see a strong economic recovery after the pandemic .
After having mobilized his supporters against globalist financiers , asylum seekers , and gays , Orbán will doubtless seek to set them against some other external threat .
He will need to identify enemies , scapegoats , and hate figures to counterbalance rising dissatisfaction with the status quo , marked by a brain drain and ( pre-pandemic ) fragile economic growth .
Past experiences of opposition cooperation should make Fidesz nervous too .
Shortly before the 2018 parliamentary election , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single candidate in a mayoral race in Fidesz ’ s stronghold of Hódmezővásárhely .
The opposition candidate comfortably defeated Fidesz in a city that had not had a non-Fidesz mayor since the fall of communism .
Last year , in a mayoral election in Budapest , much of the opposition united behind Gergely Karácsony .
While Jobbik did not explicitly endorse him , it did not run its own candidate either , allowing Karácsony to win handily .
Of course , the obstacles to cooperation and coordination for the new opposition bloc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local ones .
At the same time , as Samuel Johnson famously argued , the prospect of being hanged in a fortnight concentrates one ’ s mind .
Should Orbán win a fourth term in a country lacking basic checks and balances , the prospect of a democratic Hungary would be gone for good .
The EU ’ s current tolerance of Orbán ’ s regime notwithstanding , the 2022 election will be about the country ’ s fundamental character—can Hungary still be a European democracy , or is the brief post-communist period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The answer to that question has ramifications beyond Hungary .
Poland , under the Law and Justice party , has followed Hungary ’ s lead in breaking down checks and balances , centralizing power , and using scapegoats ( in Poland ’ s case , mostly the “ threat ” of LGBT rights ) to justify it .
If Hungary can save itself , it could provide a model for the democratic opposition in Warsaw , and perhaps as far away as Ankara and Manila .
If the opposition fails , Hungarians will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy .
And while neither Washington nor Brussels can make the decision for them , the Biden administration should be clear about what kind of Hungary is in the West ’ s interest—and indeed in the long-term interest of the Hungarian public .
Hint : not a cronyist , authoritarian one .

From Russia to Turkey to Hungary, the power of authoritarians reflects the weakness and dysfunction of their opponents. While often a result of government repression, the inability of the opposition to get its act together is sometimes self-inflicted and driven by the narcissism of small differences, political disagreements that may have mattered in earlier times but are irrelevant to the defeat of the local strongman.
For over a decade, the Hungarian opposition was fragmented, disorganized, and generally hapless. In the meantime, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s political movement, Fidesz, adopted a new constitution, packed the courts, repeatedly defied EU institutions, spouted conspiracy theories featuring George Soros, and cozied up to Russia—and rewrote the electoral rules. Today, Fidesz’s control of the government administration, public broadcasting, print media, and even much of the economy is near-complete. As the recent compromise on the EU’s budget shows, Europe has largely resigned itself to the situation.
The tide might be turning, however. In the 2022 parliamentary election, Hungary’s six leading opposition parties are planning to agree on a common manifesto, to draw a single electoral list—running one joint candidate to oppose Fidesz in each district, and to present a shared candidate for prime minister.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The move responds to the latest changes to Hungary’s highly complex electoral law, which distinguishes between national party lists and candidates fielded in specific constituencies. According to the most recent reform, rushed through parliament during the current state of emergency, national lists will be allowed only for parties that run candidates everywhere in the country. Not only is that condition onerous for smaller parties, but it also means a mutual cannibalization of opposition candidates.
Orbán is betting that the broad-based alliance, which includes the formerly far-right Jobbik, the Socialists, as well as the Greens and the liberal, pro-Western Momentum Movement, will fail. He may be right—not so long ago, Jobbik was a de facto neo-Nazi movement that once called for compiling lists of publicly active Jews. Since then, it has pivoted strongly to the center, because Orbán’s governing Fidesz leaves no room to its right, especially on issues of immigration and national identity. The Socialists are (reformed and democratized) heirs to Hungary’s pre-1989 Workers Party, still drawing, in part, on communist-era cadres. Meanwhile, Momentum has built its following among highly educated, liberal, young, and urban voters.
Yet there is a non-trivial chance that the Hungarian prime minister is overplaying his cards. Opinion polls suggest that a single opposition bloc would stand a decent chance of winning—and in fact turning Orbán’s highly majoritarian reforms against him.
A lot of uncertainty remains. The country may see a strong economic recovery after the pandemic. After having mobilized his supporters against globalist financiers, asylum seekers, and gays, Orbán will doubtless seek to set them against some other external threat. He will need to identify enemies, scapegoats, and hate figures to counterbalance rising dissatisfaction with the status quo, marked by a brain drain and (pre-pandemic) fragile economic growth.
Past experiences of opposition cooperation should make Fidesz nervous too. Shortly before the 2018 parliamentary election, the opposition, including Jobbik, agreed on a single candidate in a mayoral race in Fidesz’s stronghold of Hódmezővásárhely. The opposition candidate comfortably defeated Fidesz in a city that had not had a non-Fidesz mayor since the fall of communism. Last year, in a mayoral election in Budapest, much of the opposition united behind Gergely Karácsony. While Jobbik did not explicitly endorse him, it did not run its own candidate either, allowing Karácsony to win handily.
Of course, the obstacles to cooperation and coordination for the new opposition bloc are larger in national races than in local ones. At the same time, as Samuel Johnson famously argued, the prospect of being hanged in a fortnight concentrates one’s mind. Should Orbán win a fourth term in a country lacking basic checks and balances, the prospect of a democratic Hungary would be gone for good. The EU’s current tolerance of Orbán’s regime notwithstanding, the 2022 election will be about the country’s fundamental character—can Hungary still be a European democracy, or is the brief post-communist period of freedom and democracy emphatically over?
The answer to that question has ramifications beyond Hungary. Poland, under the Law and Justice party, has followed Hungary’s lead in breaking down checks and balances, centralizing power, and using scapegoats (in Poland’s case, mostly the “threat” of LGBT rights) to justify it. If Hungary can save itself, it could provide a model for the democratic opposition in Warsaw, and perhaps as far away as Ankara and Manila.
If the opposition fails, Hungarians will not have another chance to save their democracy. And while neither Washington nor Brussels can make the decision for them, the Biden administration should be clear about what kind of Hungary is in the West’s interest—and indeed in the long-term interest of the Hungarian public. Hint: not a cronyist, authoritarian one.