thebulwark--2020-04-18--The Problem with the Rush to Reopen

The Problem with the Rush to Reopen

When President Donald Trump announced his “ Guidelines for Opening Up America Again ” this week , there were lots of feel-good , public-relations niceties attached .
The guidelines , which described “ a three-phased approach based on the advice of public health experts , ” would “ help state and local officials when reopening their economies , getting people back to work , and continuing to protect American lives.
” The key term used in the plan is “ downward trajectory.
” Before states consider proceeding to the first phase of reopening their businesses and other private activities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fourteen-day period with a downward trajectory of reports of “ covid-like syndromic cases ” ; • a fourteen-day period with a downward trajectory of “ influenza-like illnesses ” ; and • a fourteen-day period with a downward trajectory of documented COVID-19 cases a downward trajectory of positive COVID-19 tests ( assuming the volume of testing doesn ’ t shrink ) .
On the surface , this seems fairly simple .
If a state meets those downward-trajectory criteria over a fourteen-day period , it is advised to pass on to “ Phase One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers do not go down during that period , then start over again .
So , on a plain reading of these guidelines , if a state wanted to begin the process of reopening its businesses and cultural activities today , on April 18 , it would have to show it has had a downward trajectory in documented cases since April 4 .
Trump predicted that there are 29 states that can begin the opening soon and several that could start the process right away .
Those “ right away ” states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wyoming , and North Dakota .
Those states “ are in great shape already , ” Trump said Thursday .
“ They will be able to go literally tomorrow , yes.
” Let ’ s take a closer look at those states .
While the national news media has , understandably , been focused on some of the huge case numbers declining a bit in New York , California , and Washington—where COVID-19 cases first hit and may have peaked—the middle of the country is now seeing increases .
The disease hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be moving inland .
The case numbers in these more rural Middle America states may not be huge , but politically these states tend to be more red than blue , and the Trump administration appears to want them to move on from the crisis quickly .
But here ’ s the problem : the “ downward trajectory ” that the White House laid out as the key to reopening the economy is just not there .
The numbers are going up in Middle America , not down .
Consider the four states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literally tomorrow.
” None of them has big case numbers , but over the last fourteen days , the number of cases has been going up on about half of their day-to-day comparisons .
In Utah , the count of newly reported cases from April 13 to 15 went up from 48 to 122 to 134 .
In North Dakota , the new cases identified daily by the state health department from April 12 to 16 have been 23 , 10 , 24 , 28 , and 46 .
While the numbers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days during the last two weeks in which the number of new confirmed cases was equal to or higher than the day before .
In Montana , on several days in the past two weeks ( including April 8 and April 10 ) , the new cases were higher than the day before .
For the sake of argument , let ’ s accept that the “ downward trajectory ” criteria are the right ones for starting to reopen state economies .
What , exactly , does the term “ downward trajectory ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each day of the fourteen-day period , the relevant numbers must be lower than the day before ?
Or does it mean that the overall trend must point downward during those fourteen days , if you draw an average line through the graph , even if specific days might blip higher than the days that came before ?
And , given the lag time in data reporting , is fourteen days—roughly the outside of the normal range of the coronavirus incubation period—a long enough period for demonstrating declining cases ?
Again , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still low , and the day-to-day increases are , in some states , in the single digits .
It may seem unwise to , say , shut down restaurants in Bozeman , Montana because Gallatin County has reported just 142 total COVID-19 cases so far , and no deaths .
Fair point , but the problem here is not just these states but the other twenty-plus that Trump thinks will soon be able to get back to open restaurants and sporting events and no quarantining .
Trump is trying to sell his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not him , it ’ s the Democrats who are doing them damage .
In Michigan and Texas , there have already been protests over the stay-at-home orders , with some of the protesters claiming that a decline in cases means their state should open back up .
( See Charlie Sykes ’ s Bulwark piece on “ the coming populist libertarian rebellion , ” in case you missed it . )
But there has not been a clear decline in those states during the last two weeks .
In Michigan , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of new cases added each day has been 900 , 545 , 679 , 888 , 667 , 1,197 , and 647 .
In Texas , the daily new cases numbers from that same time period have been 1,441 , 890 , 923 , 422 , 718 , 868 , and 963 .
Hardly a downward trajectory .
Much the same is the case in Oklahoma , Kansas , and Kentucky .
In Florida , one of the last of the big states to shut down , Republican governor Ron DeSantis has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ re not going to have large gatherings out there .
You just got to do it in a way that is going to have low risk , ” he said at a recent press briefing .
Meanwhile , the rate at which new cases are being reported in the state looks more like a plateau so far than a clear decline : In recent days , several governors have raised the issue that unless COVID-19 testing is vastly ramped up , reopening state economies will be very risky .
Trump completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve already built sufficient testing capacity nationwide so states can begin their reopenings , ” he said on Friday .
He also took some political potshots on Twitter , including this : The same day Trump was tweeting about the number of swine flu deaths a decade ago , the U.S. death toll from the coronavirus passed 37,000 and the total U.S. number of confirmed cases crossed 700,000 .
Fourteen days ago there were 7,000 deaths recorded , and about 260,000 cases .
Meanwhile , Texas governor Greg Abbott on Friday announced the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical and economic experts to reopen the state in early May .
“ Because of the efforts by everyone to slow the spread , we ’ re now beginning to see glimmers that the worst of Covid-19 may soon be behind us , ” Abbott said at a news conference .
But in the week since April 10 , Texas has seen its cumulative confirmed cases of COVID-19 rise by 49 percent and its death count rise by 89 percent .
I ’ m not sure what “ glimmers ” Abbott is seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t yet look like a “ downward trajectory .
”

When President Donald Trump announced his “Guidelines for Opening Up America Again” this week, there were lots of feel-good, public-relations niceties attached. The guidelines, which described “a three-phased approach based on the advice of public health experts,” would “help state and local officials when reopening their economies, getting people back to work, and continuing to protect American lives.”
The key term used in the plan is “downward trajectory.” Before states consider proceeding to the first phase of reopening their businesses and other private activities, they are advised to demonstrate:
a fourteen-day period with a downward trajectory of reports of “covid-like syndromic cases”;
a fourteen-day period with a downward trajectory of “influenza-like illnesses”; and
a fourteen-day period with either a downward trajectory of documented COVID-19 cases or a downward trajectory of positive COVID-19 tests (assuming the volume of testing doesn’t shrink).
On the surface, this seems fairly simple. If a state meets those downward-trajectory criteria over a fourteen-day period, it is advised to pass on to “Phase One” of the reopening. If the numbers do not go down during that period, then start over again. So, on a plain reading of these guidelines, if a state wanted to begin the process of reopening its businesses and cultural activities today, on April 18, it would have to show it has had a downward trajectory in documented cases since April 4.
Trump predicted that there are 29 states that can begin the opening soon and several that could start the process right away. Those “right away” states, he said, include Utah, Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Those states “are in great shape already,” Trump said Thursday. “They will be able to go literally tomorrow, yes.”
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…
Let’s take a closer look at those states. While the national news media has, understandably, been focused on some of the huge case numbers declining a bit in New York, California, and Washington—where COVID-19 cases first hit and may have peaked—the middle of the country is now seeing increases. The disease hit the coasts first but now seems to be moving inland. The case numbers in these more rural Middle America states may not be huge, but politically these states tend to be more red than blue, and the Trump administration appears to want them to move on from the crisis quickly.
But here’s the problem: the “downward trajectory” that the White House laid out as the key to reopening the economy is just not there. The numbers are going up in Middle America, not down.
Consider the four states that Trump indicated could open up “literally tomorrow.” None of them has big case numbers, but over the last fourteen days, the number of cases has been going up on about half of their day-to-day comparisons.
In Utah, the count of newly reported cases from April 13 to 15 went up from 48 to 122 to 134. In North Dakota, the new cases identified daily by the state health department from April 12 to 16 have been 23, 10, 24, 28, and 46. While the numbers in Wyoming are tiny, there were five days during the last two weeks in which the number of new confirmed cases was equal to or higher than the day before. In Montana, on several days in the past two weeks (including April 8 and April 10), the new cases were higher than the day before.
For the sake of argument, let’s accept that the “downward trajectory” criteria are the right ones for starting to reopen state economies. What, exactly, does the term “downward trajectory” mean? Does it mean that during each day of the fourteen-day period, the relevant numbers must be lower than the day before? Or does it mean that the overall trend must point downward during those fourteen days, if you draw an average line through the graph, even if specific days might blip higher than the days that came before? And, given the lag time in data reporting, is fourteen days—roughly the outside of the normal range of the coronavirus incubation period—a long enough period for demonstrating declining cases?
Again, the number of cases in these four states is still low, and the day-to-day increases are, in some states, in the single digits. It may seem unwise to, say, shut down restaurants in Bozeman, Montana because Gallatin County has reported just 142 total COVID-19 cases so far, and no deaths.
Fair point, but the problem here is not just these states but the other twenty-plus that Trump thinks will soon be able to get back to open restaurants and sporting events and no quarantining. Trump is trying to sell his base on the idea that it is not him, it’s the Democrats who are doing them damage.
In Michigan and Texas, there have already been protests over the stay-at-home orders, with some of the protesters claiming that a decline in cases means their state should open back up. (See Charlie Sykes’s Bulwark piece on “the coming populist libertarian rebellion,” in case you missed it.) But there has not been a clear decline in those states during the last two weeks.
In Michigan, from April 10 to April 16, the number of new cases added each day has been 900, 545, 679, 888, 667, 1,197, and 647. In Texas, the daily new cases numbers from that same time period have been 1,441, 890, 923, 422, 718, 868, and 963. Hardly a downward trajectory.
Much the same is the case in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Kentucky. In Florida, one of the last of the big states to shut down, Republican governor Ron DeSantis has talked about reopening very soon. “You’re not going to have large gatherings out there. You just got to do it in a way that is going to have low risk,” he said at a recent press briefing. Meanwhile, the rate at which new cases are being reported in the state looks more like a plateau so far than a clear decline:
In recent days, several governors have raised the issue that unless COVID-19 testing is vastly ramped up, reopening state economies will be very risky. Trump completely dismissed that concern. “We’ve already built sufficient testing capacity nationwide so states can begin their reopenings,” he said on Friday.
He also took some political potshots on Twitter, including this:
Biden/Obama were a disaster in handling the H1N1 Swine Flu. Polling at the time showed disastrous approval numbers. 17,000 people died unnecessarily and through incompetence! Also, don’t forget their 5 Billion Dollar Obamacare website that should have cost close to nothing! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2020
The same day Trump was tweeting about the number of swine flu deaths a decade ago, the U.S. death toll from the coronavirus passed 37,000 and the total U.S. number of confirmed cases crossed 700,000. Fourteen days ago there were 7,000 deaths recorded, and about 260,000 cases.
Meanwhile, Texas governor Greg Abbott on Friday announced the creation of a statewide task force of medical and economic experts to reopen the state in early May. “Because of the efforts by everyone to slow the spread, we’re now beginning to see glimmers that the worst of Covid-19 may soon be behind us,” Abbott said at a news conference. But in the week since April 10, Texas has seen its cumulative confirmed cases of COVID-19 rise by 49 percent and its death count rise by 89 percent. I’m not sure what “glimmers” Abbott is seeing, but the Texas statistics certainly don’t yet look like a “downward trajectory.”


thebulwark--2020-04-19--Walking Out: How the Coronavirus Has Changed Socializing

The coronavirus shutdowns have caused people to look for safe ways to connect with each other .
Ironically , some of these ways have involved reversion to an older way of socializing—one not based on the conspicuous consumption entailed in going to restaurants and bars .
Instead , we are talking and establishing connections together-apart through simply walking .
This enterprise is free .
It is another instance of the de-commercialization of the public space since quarantine measures have been imposed .
With a visit to someone ’ s apartment probably involving a risky sojourn in the lobby and elevator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative .
It sounds trendy but it ’ s ripped from the pages of Jane Austen .
I am not joining the chorus of praise for solitary walking—for one thing , I could hardly hope to add anything fresh to the copious and distinguished literary genre established by Charles Baudelaire in 1863 .
Read Thoreau for the solitary walk in nature and Thomas De Quincey for the solitary walk in a city .
In fact , this is the perfect time to dive into the more contemporary but still philosophical treatment in Rebecca @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am interested in the way the walking date involves you in a shared enterprise , however small , so it builds intimacy more in an organic way .
As events were canceled and numerous New York establishments were closed , Mel Magazine reported on the rise of walking dates in the city : “ People are more open , vulnerable and emotionally available than ever before , and though no one is happy about the state of the world , the novel coronavirus has made dating novel again , too .
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the potential to feel just right.
” Walking , you understand your friends more clearly .
First of all , you can hear them since you ’ re not in a loud restaurant .
( These days even Manhattan streets are quiet enough to have a well-heard conversation . )
Second , there are fewer distractions .
Because there ’ s no food involved , you ’ re focusing on the conversation , including body language and tone .
Since you ’ re not drinking , your judgement remains unclouded .
You no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traps and faux pas of wining-and-dining dates where the stakes and expectations run high .
There is a New York type who always knows the most recherche restaurants , the hot new chef , the most bohemian outpost .
That knowledge is temporarily worthless .
Instead it ’ s cool to know where to walk , to know unusual neighborhoods to visit , obscure buildings to look at , the history of the city .
You can learn a lot about a person by what they notice and don ’ t notice and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a walk , maybe more than you learn by what people consume or don ’ t consume .
Of course this is another arena in which the economic and social disparities between the urban and rural environments across America are being thrown into stark relief .
What I say here describes the urban New York City version , but with modifications it would apply to many smaller cities and to the suburbs I grew up in .
New York has an urban infrastructure unlike anywhere else in the United States , with many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19th century .
By contrast , suburbs—due to poor planning and inaccessibility—tend to make it more difficult for their denizens seeking out the experience of walking that city-dwellers take for granted .
The problem is acute enough that , in many locales , people have had to take matters into their own hands to press officials to make streets more walkable .
Perhaps the post-pandemic world will take the need for accessible roads and public spaces more seriously as a matter of public health .
The walking date is reminiscent of the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was well known to our ancestors , rich and poor alike .
You can find it in the popular culture of the 19th century American working class for whom “ walking out ” meant dating leading to an engagement , and in 18th- and 19th-century English novels .
In both cases , being outside was a way to escape social surveillance .
It was also one of the few types of socially acceptable exercise for women As Sally Palmer summarizes in Persuasions : The Jane Austen Journal : I hope that as commerce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the perspective on dating and consuming and spending that the pandemic has forced upon us .

The coronavirus shutdowns have caused people to look for safe ways to connect with each other. Ironically, some of these ways have involved reversion to an older way of socializing—one not based on the conspicuous consumption entailed in going to restaurants and bars. Instead, we are talking and establishing connections together-apart through simply walking. This enterprise is free. It is another instance of the de-commercialization of the public space since quarantine measures have been imposed.
With a visit to someone’s apartment probably involving a risky sojourn in the lobby and elevator, the social walk is an attractive alternative. It sounds trendy but it’s ripped from the pages of Jane Austen.
I am not joining the chorus of praise for solitary walking—for one thing, I could hardly hope to add anything fresh to the copious and distinguished literary genre established by Charles Baudelaire in 1863. Read Thoreau for the solitary walk in nature and Thomas De Quincey for the solitary walk in a city. In fact, this is the perfect time to dive into the more contemporary but still philosophical treatment in Rebecca Solnit’s Wanderlust. But I am interested in the way the walking date involves you in a shared enterprise, however small, so it builds intimacy more in an organic way.
As events were canceled and numerous New York establishments were closed, Mel Magazine reported on the rise of walking dates in the city: “People are more open, vulnerable and emotionally available than ever before, and though no one is happy about the state of the world, the novel coronavirus has made dating novel again, too. . . . going for a distanced stroll—though risky—has the potential to feel just right.”
Walking, you understand your friends more clearly. First of all, you can hear them since you’re not in a loud restaurant. (These days even Manhattan streets are quiet enough to have a well-heard conversation.) Second, there are fewer distractions. Because there’s no food involved, you’re focusing on the conversation, including body language and tone. Since you’re not drinking, your judgement remains unclouded.
You no longer have to worry about the typical traps and faux pas of wining-and-dining dates where the stakes and expectations run high. There is a New York type who always knows the most recherché restaurants, the hot new chef, the most bohemian outpost. That knowledge is temporarily worthless. Instead it’s cool to know where to walk, to know unusual neighborhoods to visit, obscure buildings to look at, the history of the city.
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…
You can learn a lot about a person by what they notice and don’t notice and do and don’t do on a walk, maybe more than you learn by what people consume or don’t consume.
Of course this is another arena in which the economic and social disparities between the urban and rural environments across America are being thrown into stark relief. What I say here describes the urban New York City version, but with modifications it would apply to many smaller cities and to the suburbs I grew up in.
New York has an urban infrastructure unlike anywhere else in the United States, with many neighborhoods and streets intact from the early 19th century. By contrast, suburbs—due to poor planning and inaccessibility—tend to make it more difficult for their denizens seeking out the experience of walking that city-dwellers take for granted. The problem is acute enough that, in many locales, people have had to take matters into their own hands to press officials to make streets more walkable. Perhaps the post-pandemic world will take the need for accessible roads and public spaces more seriously as a matter of public health.
The walking date is reminiscent of the kind of one-on-one or small-group peripatetic socializing that was well known to our ancestors, rich and poor alike.
You can find it in the popular culture of the 19th century American working class for whom “walking out” meant dating leading to an engagement, and in 18th- and 19th-century English novels. In both cases, being outside was a way to escape social surveillance. It was also one of the few types of socially acceptable exercise for women.
As Sally Palmer summarizes in Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal:
In Pride and Prejudice the Bennet girls find that “a walk . . . was necessary to amuse their morning hours and furnish conversation for the evening.” Confronted with a walk in the rain to see her sister Jane at Netherfield, Elizabeth Bennet points out that “‘The distance is nothing, . . . only three miles’”; Persuasion’s Mary Musgrove protests that she is “‘very fond of a long walk’”; and the Dashwood sisters of Sense and Sensibility discover interesting sights a mile and a half from their cottage.
I hope that as commerce reopens in New York we can keep some of the perspective on dating and consuming and spending that the pandemic has forced upon us.


thebulwark--2020-04-19--John Paul II, Globalist

John Paul II, Globalist

In early February , U.S. , European , and Israeli proponents of what is being called national conservatism gathered in Rome for two days of presentations organized around a provocative theme : “ God , Honor , Country : President Ronald Reagan , Pope John Paul II , and the Freedom of Nations.
” The stated intention , expressed at the outset , was to make the case that the leaders of today ’ s populist right are the natural heirs to President Reagan and St. John Paul because of their supposedly common objective—freeing peoples all over the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlantic , from oppression and loss of their national identities .
One might be tempted to excuse , or at least ignore , the sidling up to Reagan .
It is hard to fathom the 40th president being comfortable with the most imitated populist on the world stage today—his successor Donald Trump .
The 45th U.S. president ’ s disruptive protectionism , anti-immigration rhetoric , dangerous deference to Vladimir Putin ’ s machinations , and purposeful weakening of alliances that advanced freedom for seventy years are at odds with the Reagan record .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ national conservatism worked for , or strongly supported , Reagan while he was president , and if they want to make the unconvincing argument that the conservative icon of U.S. politics would be one of their fellow travelers today , perhaps they have earned the right to try .
It is not that the former pontiff—now a canonized saint—needs defending .
His 26-year tenure leading the Catholic Church was so consequential—with profound effects on theology , church governance , global politics , cultural development , and much more—that its full impact on human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than years .
But John Paul was not a politician , and should not be treated as if he were .
He was a religious leader , and his views—reflected in an extensive library of official documents , formal speeches , and remarks delivered in thousands of settings—do not fit neatly into any political category .
He skillfully provided the moral leadership the West needed to prevail over totalitarian communism , and in that effort he did indeed collaborate closely with Reagan and U.K. prime minister Margaret Thatcher .
His admiration for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many direct interactions .
But while these great leaders formed a strong alliance , the pope never signed up for Reagan ’ s or Thatcher ’ s full agendas for either domestic or international politics .
Moreover , it is abundantly clear that John Paul would not have wanted to be associated with national conservatism , if that term is meant to describe the governing priorities of President Trump or the current leaders of today ’ s populist movements in Europe .
The former pope was a deft and capable head of state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with today ’ s populists diplomatically , but it is utterly implausible that he would have allowed his name to be attached to their political project , with its inward-looking orientation and its discomfort with , and sometimes open hostility towards , minority cultures and peoples .
The Rome conference was part of an ongoing effort by the national conservatism movement—both the American variant and its European counterparts—to define its political program in a manner that makes it less unacceptable to traditional conservatives , and thus more legitimately a contender for actual power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who spoke at the conference were careful to steer away from the issues and themes that , until recently , have left the various movements and parties they represent on the outer fringes of politics in their countries .
Conference speakers focused their rhetorical fire mainly on what was described repeatedly as the suffocating secularist cultures that dominate the media and elite institutions in their countries and the European Union bureaucracy .
They also made the case that their movement is , at bottom , an effort to provide true freedom to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and making it legitimate once again to express views that liberal elites have tried to expunge from public discourse .
The most notable speaker at the conference , Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán , was very explicit that he saw his political adversaries today as essentially no different from the Communists he battled when , as a young activist in the 1980s , he worked to end Soviet dominance of his country .
He also expressed the view , as did others , that cultivating a strong national identity is foundational to successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this regard—China , Russia , and Turkey—do not provide much comfort to those worried about the commitment to democratic principles among national conservatives .
Marion Maréchal—a prominent political activist in France and a scion of Le Pen family associated with French nationalist politics—ventured into realms that are plainly at odds with the vision of Pope John Paul .
She was explicit in expressing the view that a major problem in the world today , particularly for the environment , is what she described as explosive population growth in poorer countries , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she highlighted—the admission of large numbers of migrants into Europe .
She stated that a primary aim of her political movement is to protect Europe ’ s traditional ethnic identity by dramatically limiting immigration from other countries , especially those with a dominant Muslim culture .
She argued that parts of France today are under the control of “ Islamists.
” And she stipulated that France should erect even stronger protectionist barriers against global commerce to limit the import of products that would be disruptive to agriculture and other industries she deemed vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those attending the Rome conference seem to be under the impression that because they argue for protection of national “ sovereignty , ” a principle that is indeed found within the Catholic tradition , and are battling “ secularists , ” that somehow they have captured in their political program the governing principles supported by Pope John Paull II .
But from both the substance and tone of the remarks at the conference , it is clear that the national conservatives do not fully accept , or perhaps even grasp , the essence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In papal documents and numerous speeches , John Paul promulgated a vision of world affairs predicated on both the rights and the responsibilities of nations .
And he very specifically warned of the dangers of unbridled nationalism , of which he had much direct experience .
Like his predecessors and successors , he supported the United Nations and praised its role in bringing together countries in a setting of equality and open discourse .
He cited the crucial importance of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in both of his speeches before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.N. address , he described the declaration , which enumerates a series of individual rights that all nations should respect , as “ a real milestone on the path of the moral progress of humanity.
” Sovereignty provides no justification for violating these universal norms , which transcend specific forms of political organization .
In his 1995 U.N. address , he spoke directly to the topic of the “ rights of nations.
” Examining the trend toward globalization , he observed , presciently , that it was leading to a “ powerful re-emergence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as it were an explosive need for identity and survival , a sort of counterweight to the tendency toward uniformity.
” He went on : These reflections led the pope to forcefully condemn any effort to stamp out the rights of nations to exist .
Here he was clearly influenced by Poland ’ s experience of surviving both German and Soviet subjugation .
Poland remained a nation throughout those dark years because its people preserved their unique culture , and thus also their sense of identity as a community worthy of self-governance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view sovereignty , as exercised by states , as an absolute that is coincident with all nations .
Under some historical circumstances , nations could give up some of their sovereignty in order to participate in federations or other multinational organizations that are beneficial to their well-being .
Such organizations might be able to serve the interests of participating countries in certain spheres more ably than could be achieved if the countries chose to govern themselves without restriction .
The European Union is one such organization .
In 1988 , John Paul addressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for what the EU was trying to achieve through its gradual evolution in the post-war period : While defending the rights of nations , John Paul frequently condemned excessive nationalism and intolerance of cultural differences .
As he put it in his 1995 U.N. speech : John Paul also very specifically called on Europe to avoid the temptation to ignore the needs and rights of other nations .
From his 1988 address : The pope understood that the nation-state is an important component of the order of human affairs and fits within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling for respecting the appropriate levels of societal organization so that they can fulfill their roles without interference or usurpation by those that exist above it .
In a global context , that means that nation-states should not be prevented by international bodies from protecting and preserving their unique cultures , traditions , and identities .
He was especially insistent that powerful Western nations had no right to impose their pervasive secularism on poorer countries with more traditional cultures and mores .
This conflict came to a head in the famous United Nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1994 .
John Paul successfully opposed an effort by the Clinton administration and many international organizations to elevate a secular view of human reproduction and population planning ( including promotion of the unrestricted use of abortion to end pregnancies ) as a violation of the rights of countries with different understandings of these fundamental questions .
Subsidiarity , however , does not exist in isolation from the other key principles of Catholic social doctrine .
In particular , as John Paul also emphasized consistently throughout his pontificate , societal laws , norms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and especially the centrality of the family .
No nation has a right to violate this dignity with laws that undermine the integrity of family life , or by oppressing minorities or restricting legitimate religious freedom .
On religious freedom and Europe ’ s Christian roots , John Paul argued that the continent must avoid confusion over the what belongs to the realm of the state as opposed to that of the church .
He believed Europe would never be true to itself if it tried to erase its historic roots in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he argued against “ integralism ” in which the state and the church essentially become one .
As he put it to the European Parliament : Beyond protecting human dignity and a person ’ s right to pursue the meaning of his or her life through religious practice ( or perhaps no religion at all ) , nations also have a solemn responsibility to foster a spirit of solidarity , both within their borders by emphasizing policies that are good for the entire society and not just certain segments of it , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nations ( “ global solidarity ” ) over strictly narrower interests .
In both domestic and international policy , John Paul continuously stressed the importance of placing the needs of the poor and vulnerable ahead of other considerations when making governance decisions .
It is on this question of solidarity with other nations that the national conservatives are particularly out of step with John Paul .
As Adam K. Butman documented in an insightful 2007 article , the pope believed a spirit of solidarity with other nations imposed an obligation on rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , the United States—to support institutional arrangements and rules that serve the common interests of all nations .
Most especially , he saw an urgent need for the high-income West to provide opportunities for poorer countries to participate in global commerce .
The pope ’ s views on trade fit within his larger understanding of the role of economic questions in human affairs , which he presented most comprehensively in his seminal social encyclical Centesimus Annus ( “ One Hundred Years ” ) , issued in 1991 .
In that document @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suited to meeting the material needs of human society , and for providing workers with the freedom to use their skills and creativity to contribute to the good of society as well as to provide for their families .
But his endorsement of market economics was not unqualified .
Consistent with both his predecessors and successors , he argued that markets must be supervised to ensure they serve human dignity , the family , and the common good , and that economic questions should not be seen as the sum and substance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not be viewed as ends in themselves that are inviolable even when producing unsatisfactory results .
In particular , governments should ensure that markets do not leave whole segments of a national community with less opportunities than those who have wealth and political power .
He believed extreme inequality would lead to disruptions in social harmony .
He also understood that free markets and global trade were an opportunity for poorer countries to move up the development ladder .
As he put it in Centesimus Annus : John Paul believed the imperative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is fair and open to developing countries required rich countries to submit to uniform international rules , struck in multilateral agreements .
Again , in Centesimus Annus : In the ensuring years , the pope supported the creation of the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) for the reasons he articulated in the earlier encyclical .
He believed a strong , rules-based multilateral trade framework provided the best opportunity for ensuring that developing countries would gain access for their exports in the markets of powerful Western democracies , and thus enter into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to develop .
After the WTO began supervising international trade agreements , the pope continued to urge reforms that would open up markets to the goods produced in the developing world , even if that meant some dislocation in the economies of high-income nations .
As the Holy See put it in a document issued in 2003 as part of a WTO conference , “ It is particularly poorer countries and their peoples who are in need of an equitable , rules-based system in which they can participate in global trade on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity.
” In 2017 , top White House aides H.R .
McMaster and Gary Cohn penned an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal on the occasion of President Trump ’ s first international trip .
Their aim was to explain the foreign policy logic behind the president ’ s America First mantra , which is held up as a model to be followed by the national conservatives : In other words , might makes right .
It is hard to imagine a statement more in contradiction with John Paul ’ s vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pope would say he was naïve and unrealistic .
But is that really so ?
The current era is characterized by U.S. belligerence toward allies and adversaries alike .
The result is more global instability than has existed in decades , with high risks for setbacks on matters that are important to U.S. interests .
Among other things , the global COVID-19 pandemic has exposed wide deficiencies in U.S. preparedness for the virus .
Global cooperation might make it easier for goods and supplies to flow as needed to areas of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
But the administration ’ s strident unilateralism has made that kind of cooperation much less likely , which endangers patients both here and abroad .
U.S. leaders used to understand that the nation ’ s power came in large part from its willingness to provide global leadership on human rights , democratic norms , and fairness toward less powerful nations in matters of global trade .
Indeed , it was the United States that built a world order around these principles , to the great benefit of the American people as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the globe .
As the country steps back from its leadership role on these questions , in the name of pursuing its self-interest as recommended by the national conservatives , it will lose its ability to assume a leadership role on matters that require global cooperation , to the detriment of American interests .
John Paul II understood the important role the nation-state plays in human affairs .
He defended its rights , and saw firsthand the human despair that occurs when some nations try to impose their wills on others through force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that all nations have responsibilities as well as rights .
Among them is the duty to live in solidarity with citizens from other countries and to foster a culture that is open , not closed , and is tolerant of diversity .
As such , he would not have wanted to be associated with a political movement that defines itself in large part through its lack of interest in the concerns of “ outsiders , ” both those who have emigrated to Western countries and those living in other parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convene for a conference , it must be hoped that its planners will have come to understand that St. John Paul is not their patron .

In early February, U.S., European, and Israeli proponents of what is being called national conservatism gathered in Rome for two days of presentations organized around a provocative theme: “God, Honor, Country: President Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and the Freedom of Nations.” The stated intention, expressed at the outset, was to make the case that the leaders of today’s populist right are the natural heirs to President Reagan and St. John Paul because of their supposedly common objective—freeing peoples all over the world, but especially on both sides of the Atlantic, from oppression and loss of their national identities.
One might be tempted to excuse, or at least ignore, the sidling up to Reagan. It is hard to fathom the 40th president being comfortable with the most imitated populist on the world stage today—his successor Donald Trump. The 45th U.S. president’s disruptive protectionism, anti-immigration rhetoric, dangerous deference to Vladimir Putin’s machinations, and purposeful weakening of alliances that advanced freedom for seventy years are at odds with the Reagan record. But a few of the advocates for national conservatism worked for, or strongly supported, Reagan while he was president, and if they want to make the unconvincing argument that the conservative icon of U.S. politics would be one of their fellow travelers today, perhaps they have earned the right to try.
Invoking John Paul II is another story.
It is not that the former pontiff—now a canonized saint—needs defending. His 26-year tenure leading the Catholic Church was so consequential—with profound effects on theology, church governance, global politics, cultural development, and much more—that its full impact on human history will unfold over decades and centuries rather than years.
But John Paul was not a politician, and should not be treated as if he were. He was a religious leader, and his views—reflected in an extensive library of official documents, formal speeches, and remarks delivered in thousands of settings—do not fit neatly into any political category. He skillfully provided the moral leadership the West needed to prevail over totalitarian communism, and in that effort he did indeed collaborate closely with Reagan and U.K. prime minister Margaret Thatcher. His admiration for President Reagan was especially apparent from their many direct interactions. But while these great leaders formed a strong alliance, the pope never signed up for Reagan’s or Thatcher’s full agendas for either domestic or international politics.
Moreover, it is abundantly clear that John Paul would not have wanted to be associated with national conservatism, if that term is meant to describe the governing priorities of President Trump or the current leaders of today’s populist movements in Europe. The former pope was a deft and capable head of state, and would have handled his interactions with today’s populists diplomatically, but it is utterly implausible that he would have allowed his name to be attached to their political project, with its inward-looking orientation and its discomfort with, and sometimes open hostility towards, minority cultures and peoples.
The Rome conference was part of an ongoing effort by the national conservatism movement—both the American variant and its European counterparts—to define its political program in a manner that makes it less unacceptable to traditional conservatives, and thus more legitimately a contender for actual power. For the most part, those who spoke at the conference were careful to steer away from the issues and themes that, until recently, have left the various movements and parties they represent on the outer fringes of politics in their countries.
Conference speakers focused their rhetorical fire mainly on what was described repeatedly as the suffocating secularist cultures that dominate the media and elite institutions in their countries and the European Union bureaucracy. They also made the case that their movement is, at bottom, an effort to provide true freedom to their fellow citizens by throwing off this oppression and making it legitimate once again to express views that liberal elites have tried to expunge from public discourse.
The most notable speaker at the conference, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, was very explicit that he saw his political adversaries today as essentially no different from the Communists he battled when, as a young activist in the 1980s, he worked to end Soviet dominance of his country. He also expressed the view, as did others, that cultivating a strong national identity is foundational to successful countries. The three examples he cited in this regard—China, Russia, and Turkey—do not provide much comfort to those worried about the commitment to democratic principles among national conservatives.
Marion Maréchal—a prominent political activist in France and a scion of Le Pen family associated with French nationalist politics—ventured into realms that are plainly at odds with the vision of Pope John Paul. She was explicit in expressing the view that a major problem in the world today, particularly for the environment, is what she described as explosive population growth in poorer countries, which she connected to the other main problem she highlighted—the admission of large numbers of migrants into Europe. She stated that a primary aim of her political movement is to protect Europe’s traditional ethnic identity by dramatically limiting immigration from other countries, especially those with a dominant Muslim culture. She argued that parts of France today are under the control of “Islamists.” And she stipulated that France should erect even stronger protectionist barriers against global commerce to limit the import of products that would be disruptive to agriculture and other industries she deemed vital to the nation’s identity.
Those attending the Rome conference seem to be under the impression that because they argue for protection of national “sovereignty,” a principle that is indeed found within the Catholic tradition, and are battling “secularists,” that somehow they have captured in their political program the governing principles supported by Pope John Paull II. But from both the substance and tone of the remarks at the conference, it is clear that the national conservatives do not fully accept, or perhaps even grasp, the essence of the saint’s message.
In papal documents and numerous speeches, John Paul promulgated a vision of world affairs predicated on both the rights and the responsibilities of nations. And he very specifically warned of the dangers of unbridled nationalism, of which he had much direct experience.
Like his predecessors and successors, he supported the United Nations and praised its role in bringing together countries in a setting of equality and open discourse. He cited the crucial importance of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in both of his speeches before the General Assembly. In his October 1979 U.N. address, he described the declaration, which enumerates a series of individual rights that all nations should respect, as “a real milestone on the path of the moral progress of humanity.” Sovereignty provides no justification for violating these universal norms, which transcend specific forms of political organization.
In his 1995 U.N. address, he spoke directly to the topic of the “rights of nations.” Examining the trend toward globalization, he observed, presciently, that it was leading to a “powerful re-emergence of a certain ethnic and cultural consciousness, as it were an explosive need for identity and survival, a sort of counterweight to the tendency toward uniformity.” He went on:
This tension between the particular and the universal can be considered immanent in human beings. By virtue of sharing in the same human nature, people automatically feel that they are members of one great family, as is in fact the case. But as a result of the concrete historical conditioning of this same nature, they are necessarily bound in a more intense way to particular human groups, beginning with the family and going on to the various groups to which they belong and up to the whole of their ethnic and cultural group, which is called, not by accident, a “nation,” from the Latin word “nasci”: “to be born.” . . . The human condition thus finds itself between these two poles—universality and particularity—with a vital tension between them; an inevitable tension, but singularly fruitful if they are lived in a calm and balanced way. [Italics in original.]
These reflections led the pope to forcefully condemn any effort to stamp out the rights of nations to exist. Here he was clearly influenced by Poland’s experience of surviving both German and Soviet subjugation. Poland remained a nation throughout those dark years because its people preserved their unique culture, and thus also their sense of identity as a community worthy of self-governance.
However, John Paul did not view sovereignty, as exercised by states, as an absolute that is coincident with all nations. Under some historical circumstances, nations could give up some of their sovereignty in order to participate in federations or other multinational organizations that are beneficial to their well-being. Such organizations might be able to serve the interests of participating countries in certain spheres more ably than could be achieved if the countries chose to govern themselves without restriction.
The European Union is one such organization. In 1988, John Paul addressed the European Parliament and expressed his support for what the EU was trying to achieve through its gradual evolution in the post-war period:
A common political structure, the product of the free will of European citizens, far from endangering the identity of the peoples in the Community, will be able to guarantee more equitably the rights, in particular the cultural rights, of all its regions. These united European peoples will not accept the domination of one nation or culture over the others, but they will uphold the equal right of all to enrich others with their difference.
While defending the rights of nations, John Paul frequently condemned excessive nationalism and intolerance of cultural differences. As he put it in his 1995 U.N. speech:
From bitter experience, then, we know that the fear of “difference,” especially when it expresses itself in a narrow and exclusive nationalism which denies any rights to “the other,” can lead to a true nightmare of violence and terror. . . . In this context, we need to clarify the essential difference between an unhealthy form of nationalism, which teaches contempt for other nations or cultures, and patriotism, which is a proper love of one’s country. True patriotism never seeks to advance the well-being of one’s own nation at the expense of others. [Italics in original.]
John Paul also very specifically called on Europe to avoid the temptation to ignore the needs and rights of other nations. From his 1988 address:
It is unimaginable for a united Europe to close itself up in its egoism. Speaking with one single voice, joining forces, it will be able, even more than in the past, to dedicate new resources and energies to the great task of the development of countries in the Third World, especially those that have traditional bonds with Europe.
The pope understood that the nation-state is an important component of the order of human affairs and fits within the church’s understanding of subsidiarity—the doctrine calling for respecting the appropriate levels of societal organization so that they can fulfill their roles without interference or usurpation by those that exist above it. In a global context, that means that nation-states should not be prevented by international bodies from protecting and preserving their unique cultures, traditions, and identities.
He was especially insistent that powerful Western nations had no right to impose their pervasive secularism on poorer countries with more traditional cultures and mores. This conflict came to a head in the famous United Nations Population and Development conference held in Cairo in 1994. John Paul successfully opposed an effort by the Clinton administration and many international organizations to elevate a secular view of human reproduction and population planning (including promotion of the unrestricted use of abortion to end pregnancies) as a violation of the rights of countries with different understandings of these fundamental questions.
Subsidiarity, however, does not exist in isolation from the other key principles of Catholic social doctrine. In particular, as John Paul also emphasized consistently throughout his pontificate, societal laws, norms, and structures must respect human dignity, and especially the centrality of the family. No nation has a right to violate this dignity with laws that undermine the integrity of family life, or by oppressing minorities or restricting legitimate religious freedom.
On religious freedom and Europe’s Christian roots, John Paul argued that the continent must avoid confusion over the what belongs to the realm of the state as opposed to that of the church. He believed Europe would never be true to itself if it tried to erase its historic roots in Christianity. At the same time, he argued against “integralism” in which the state and the church essentially become one. As he put it to the European Parliament:
Our European history clearly shows how often the dividing line between “what is Caesar’s” and “what is God’s” has been crossed in both directions. Medieval Latin Christendom, to mention only one example, while theoretically elaborating the natural concept of the State, taking up the great tradition of Aristotle, did not always avoid the integralist temptation of excluding from the temporal community those who did not profess the true faith. Religious integralism, which makes no distinction between the proper spheres of faith and civil life, which is still practiced in other parts of the world, seems to be incompatible with the very spirit of Europe, as it has been shaped by the Christian message.
Beyond protecting human dignity and a person’s right to pursue the meaning of his or her life through religious practice (or perhaps no religion at all), nations also have a solemn responsibility to foster a spirit of solidarity, both within their borders by emphasizing policies that are good for the entire society and not just certain segments of it, and by prioritizing concern for the larger community of nations (“global solidarity”) over strictly narrower interests. In both domestic and international policy, John Paul continuously stressed the importance of placing the needs of the poor and vulnerable ahead of other considerations when making governance decisions.
It is on this question of solidarity with other nations that the national conservatives are particularly out of step with John Paul. As Adam K. Butman documented in an insightful 2007 article, the pope believed a spirit of solidarity with other nations imposed an obligation on rich developed countries—including those of Europe and, of course, the United States—to support institutional arrangements and rules that serve the common interests of all nations. Most especially, he saw an urgent need for the high-income West to provide opportunities for poorer countries to participate in global commerce.
The pope’s views on trade fit within his larger understanding of the role of economic questions in human affairs, which he presented most comprehensively in his seminal social encyclical Centesimus Annus (“One Hundred Years”), issued in 1991. In that document, he defended market economies as best suited to meeting the material needs of human society, and for providing workers with the freedom to use their skills and creativity to contribute to the good of society as well as to provide for their families.
But his endorsement of market economics was not unqualified. Consistent with both his predecessors and successors, he argued that markets must be supervised to ensure they serve human dignity, the family, and the common good, and that economic questions should not be seen as the sum and substance of human life. Thus, market principles should not be viewed as ends in themselves that are inviolable even when producing unsatisfactory results. In particular, governments should ensure that markets do not leave whole segments of a national community with less opportunities than those who have wealth and political power. He believed extreme inequality would lead to disruptions in social harmony.
He also understood that free markets and global trade were an opportunity for poorer countries to move up the development ladder. As he put it in Centesimus Annus:
Even in recent years, it was thought that the poorest countries would develop by isolating themselves from the world market and by depending only on their own resources. Recent experience has shown that countries which did this have suffered stagnation and recession, while the countries which experienced development were those which succeeded in taking part in the general interrelated economic activities at the international level. It seems therefore that the chief problem is that of gaining fair access to the international market, based not on the unilateral principle of the exploitation of the natural resources of these countries but on the proper use of human resources.
John Paul believed the imperative of creating a world trading system that is fair and open to developing countries required rich countries to submit to uniform international rules, struck in multilateral agreements. Again, in Centesimus Annus:
Today we are facing the so-called “globalization” of the economy, a phenomenon which is not to be dismissed, since it can create unusual opportunities for greater prosperity. There is a growing feeling, however, that this increasing internationalization of the economy ought to be accompanied by effective international agencies, which will oversee and direct the economy to the common good, something that an individual state, even if it were the most powerful on earth, would not be in a position to do.
In the ensuring years, the pope supported the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) for the reasons he articulated in the earlier encyclical. He believed a strong, rules-based multilateral trade framework provided the best opportunity for ensuring that developing countries would gain access for their exports in the markets of powerful Western democracies, and thus enter into the cycle of exchange that would allow them to develop.
After the WTO began supervising international trade agreements, the pope continued to urge reforms that would open up markets to the goods produced in the developing world, even if that meant some dislocation in the economies of high-income nations. As the Holy See put it in a document issued in 2003 as part of a WTO conference, “It is particularly poorer countries and their peoples who are in need of an equitable, rules-based system in which they can participate in global trade on the basis of the highest achievable equality of opportunity.”
In 2017, top White House aides H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn penned an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal on the occasion of President Trump’s first international trip. Their aim was to explain the foreign policy logic behind the president’s America First mantra, which is held up as a model to be followed by the national conservatives:
The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a “global community” but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage. We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.
In other words, might makes right. It is hard to imagine a statement more in contradiction with John Paul’s vision of appropriate relationships among nations.
Critics of the pope would say he was naïve and unrealistic. But is that really so? The current era is characterized by U.S. belligerence toward allies and adversaries alike. The result is more global instability than has existed in decades, with high risks for setbacks on matters that are important to U.S. interests. Among other things, the global COVID-19 pandemic has exposed wide deficiencies in U.S. preparedness for the virus. Global cooperation might make it easier for goods and supplies to flow as needed to areas of greatest need, including to the United States. But the administration’s strident unilateralism has made that kind of cooperation much less likely, which endangers patients both here and abroad.
U.S. leaders used to understand that the nation’s power came in large part from its willingness to provide global leadership on human rights, democratic norms, and fairness toward less powerful nations in matters of global trade. Indeed, it was the United States that built a world order around these principles, to the great benefit of the American people as well to citizens in all corners of the globe. As the country steps back from its leadership role on these questions, in the name of pursuing its self-interest as recommended by the national conservatives, it will lose its ability to assume a leadership role on matters that require global cooperation, to the detriment of American interests.
John Paul II understood the important role the nation-state plays in human affairs. He defended its rights, and saw firsthand the human despair that occurs when some nations try to impose their wills on others through force and raw power.
But he also argued that all nations have responsibilities as well as rights. Among them is the duty to live in solidarity with citizens from other countries and to foster a culture that is open, not closed, and is tolerant of diversity. As such, he would not have wanted to be associated with a political movement that defines itself in large part through its lack of interest in the concerns of “outsiders,” both those who have emigrated to Western countries and those living in other parts of the world.
The next time national conservatives convene for a conference, it must be hoped that its planners will have come to understand that St. John Paul is not their patron.


thebulwark--2020-04-19--Don’t Make a Federal Case Out of Drive-In Church Services

For weeks now , people have been wondering whether states have the power to restrict civil liberties through quarantine orders aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus , and whether the Constitution has anything to say about this situation .
The short answer is : Yes .
As a matter of the states ’ police power under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution , they can constrain individual liberties during the COVID-19 crisis .
But there ’ s a caveat .
Constitutional rights involve a balancing act , and at some point the facts will tip against government claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual liberty .
When that happens , there ’ s a chance that bad facts will make bad law , which could in turn hamper public safety efforts in the future .
A case in Mississippi reveals how precarious this line can be , and how the Trump administration is trying to walk it .
Last week , the Department of Justice formally weighed in on a complaint challenging the city of Greenville , Mississippi ’ s enforcement of a coronavirus-related executive order that has since been rescinded .
The facts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parishioners who attended the Temple Baptist Church ’ s drive-in service on April 8 .
According to the complaint , all of the congregants stayed within their cars in the church parking lot—with their windows rolled up—while a sermon was broadcast on FM radio .
Greenville ’ s ordinance was a gloss on Mississippi governor Tate Reeves ’ s state-at-home directive , which requires that religious services comply with Mississippi State Department of Health Guidelines .
Those guidelines state that , because the health department “ has identified COVID-19 cases specifically linked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all Mississippians not attend in-person church services at any church or other type of facility , ” and that “ limiting gatherings to fewer than 10 people is critical.
” The complaint alleges that Greenville ’ s mayor and city council issued a separate order forbidding drive-in services even without personal contact .
The church claims that the city ’ s order and $ 500 citations violated the First Amendment .
This is not the first action of its kind .
A group of churches sued California governor Gavin Newsom over his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violates religious freedom and the right to assemble under the First Amendment .
And a federal court recently sided with challengers to the Louisville , Kentucky mayor ’ s ban on drive-in church services on Easter Sunday .
But the difference with the Mississippi case is that the U.S. Department of Justice took pains to file a 14-page brief expressing its agreement with the allegations in the church ’ s complaint against the city .
So what happens next ?
Because the Greenville order and citations have been withdrawn , the church ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if such a case were to proceed , the Trump administration ’ s decision to jump into the fray could , down the road , be used to confine the government ’ s ability to take measures protecting public health .
Was the maneuver worth it ?
As DOJ explains in its filing , the seminal case on the subject is the Supreme Court ’ s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts , which held that it is within the state ’ s police power to criminally enforce a compulsory vaccination law to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also cites Prince v. Massachusetts , a case involving a clash between child labor laws and the practices of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses , in which the Court stated in 1944 that “ the right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community .
.
.
to communicable disease.
” DOJ nonetheless goes on to argue that the allegations in the Temple Baptist Church ’ s complaint indicate that Greenville “ single [ d ] out particular religious conduct for adverse treatment ” or “ treat [ ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undertaken for secular reasons but unlawful when undertaken for religious reasons.
” If this singling out was intentionally done to punish people for exercising their religion , DOJ submits , then the enforcement of the now-defunct order against a group of drive-in churchgoers is “ beyond all question , a plain , palpable ” violation of the Constitution .
Although it ’ s true that COVID-19 does not supplant the First Amendment , the federal Department of Justice ’ s intervention in this case is puzzling .
To be sure , it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else unwise to ban people from sitting inside their vehicles , in a parking lot , with their windows closed amidst the COVID-19 pandemic .
The plaintiffs note that , “ according to the City , you can buy a hamburger or sit in your car at a drive-in restaurant with your windows rolled down , but you can ’ t sit in your car at a drive-in church service with your windows rolled up.
” If the complaint ’ s allegations are true , the Temple Baptist Church congregation was not flouting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was making a reasonable accommodation to support such measures by modifying its worship in a prudent way that satisfied public health imperatives .
But it ’ s also not clear that the city ’ s order was designed to single out religious believers or that the police discriminatorily targeted churches .
Greenville mayor Errick Simmons stated that “ no officers raided or staked out a church ” ; instead , officers were responding to multiple calls complaining about the gathering .
“ To publicly state this mayor is targeting a church , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reprehensible.
” Of course , we do not know the full story here .
There has been no fact-finding in the case to test the plaintiffs ’ claim that the city ’ s actions were based on an intent to single out religion rather than a good faith ( though perhaps clumsy , unfair , or unwise ) attempt to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19 .
Yet the Justice Department seemed to take the complaint ’ s allegations as if they were all-but-proven—and in doing so toyed with a standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could chill future law enforcement from doing their jobs in circumstances that may be wildly different .
As always , bad facts make bad cases which make bad law .
Much like the TSA ’ s confiscation of water bottles and sunscreen at airport security checkpoints , breaking up drive-in church gatherings is imprudent for many reasons , the biggest of which is that public health in a time of pandemic relies on compliance .
The government only convinces people to comply by passing rules that make sense .
Once it starts imposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety , people will start disobeying them and then the virus will really spread .
The city of Greenville has since rescinded the ordinance , and the governor announced on April 15 that drive-in church services are allowed “ so long as families stay in their cars with windows up and all state and federal social distancing guidelines and standards are adhered to and complied with.
” Maybe the city changed course out of a sense of genuine reconsideration of its policy post-lawsuit .
Or maybe it was simple expediency .
But either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a live issue .
The congregation of Temple Baptist Church can have its drive-in services .
So what good was served by DOJ weighing in on the matter against the city of Greenville ?
Sometimes government lawyers are forced to deal with bad facts during an urgent moment .
This is not one of those times .
Instead of allowing state and local authorities to respond to the dust-up on their own accord , the Trump administration forced the issue of religious freedom by chastising Greenville—while , at the same time , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need of medical equipment to “ try getting it yourselves ” and “ to call your own shots ” on lifting restrictions in spite of the virus .
Note that , unlike the California cases , the Mississippi lawsuit does not challenge the governor ’ s ban on gatherings of ten or more people .
Across the country , similar orders are drawing protests .
In Raleigh , North Carolina , for example , a gathering of over a hundred people urged that the state “ re-open , ” resulting in an arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own choice , ” one protester said .
“ If you ’ re scared , stay home .
I ’ m not scared and I don ’ t want to stay home .
I ’ m a free American and we have to start acting like it.
” And in Charlotte and Greensboro , anti-abortion protesters were arrested outside abortion clinics for allegedly violating restrictions on travel for non-essential functions , prompting a “ faith-based ” nonprofit to file its own First Amendment lawsuit .
The claim that individuals can do whatever they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic reflects a fundamental—albeit widespread—misunderstanding of constitutional law .
Rights are not absolute .
In Employment Division v. Smith , Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1990 for a Supreme Court majority that “ a neutral law of general applicability ” does not violate the First Amendment .
Stay-at-home orders that incorporate churches or affect religious practices are simply not unconstitutional .
Keep in mind that , as the Court observed in Jacobson , “ the police power of a State must be held to embrace , at least , such reasonable regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the public health and the public safety.
” What the government can not do is single out individuals for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting public health—like religious beliefs , race , gender , or national origin .
If local law enforcement enforces unreasonable orders in an unfair manner—even as part of an effort to protect public health during a pandemic—then the federal government and the courts are right to step in .
And the street goes both ways .
In the absence of blatantly discriminatory or unreasonable orders being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an even greater interest in preserving room to maneuver so that , in the future , governments will be able to strike the balance between individual rights and public safety .
Which is why DOJ ’ s decision to deride Greenville ’ s coronavirus enforcement efforts as amounting to intentional religious discrimination—when the underlying facts have not been established and the ordinance itself is no longer in operation—is concerning .
It ’ s hard not to wonder whether this was really about Attorney General Barr ’ s fire-and-brimstone approach to religion and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of last year , he delivered a scathing speech at the University of Notre Dame law school , in which he accused “ militant secularists ” of pursuing a “ campaign to destroy the traditional moral order.
” He also charged that Catholicism and other Judeo-Christian religions were being subjected to “ organized destruction ” by “ ‘ progressives , ’ [ who ] have marshaled all the force of mass communications , popular culture , the entertainment industry , and academia , ” and who are responsible for a range of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and illegitimacy .
The mission of the Department of Justice is “ to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law , ” and “ to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
” Let ’ s hope this is what Barr was doing by throwing the weight of DOJ behind one Christian church in the midst of an invisible virus that is killing tens of thousands of people in the United States—regardless of their religious beliefs .

For weeks now, people have been wondering whether states have the power to restrict civil liberties through quarantine orders aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus, and whether the Constitution has anything to say about this situation.
The short answer is: Yes.
As a matter of the states’ police power under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, they can constrain individual liberties during the COVID-19 crisis. But there’s a caveat. Constitutional rights involve a balancing act, and at some point the facts will tip against government claims of public safety and in favor of individual liberty. When that happens, there’s a chance that bad facts will make bad law, which could in turn hamper public safety efforts in the future.
A case in Mississippi reveals how precarious this line can be, and how the Trump administration is trying to walk it.
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…
Last week, the Department of Justice formally weighed in on a complaint challenging the city of Greenville, Mississippi’s enforcement of a coronavirus-related executive order that has since been rescinded.
The facts of the case are these: The city ticketed parishioners who attended the Temple Baptist Church’s drive-in service on April 8. According to the complaint, all of the congregants stayed within their cars in the church parking lot—with their windows rolled up—while a sermon was broadcast on FM radio.
Greenville’s ordinance was a gloss on Mississippi governor Tate Reeves’s state-at-home directive, which requires that religious services comply with Mississippi State Department of Health Guidelines. Those guidelines state that, because the health department “has identified COVID-19 cases specifically linked to church gatherings, it is vitally important that all Mississippians not attend in-person church services at any church or other type of facility,” and that “limiting gatherings to fewer than 10 people is critical.”
The complaint alleges that Greenville’s mayor and city council issued a separate order forbidding drive-in services even without personal contact. The church claims that the city’s order and $500 citations violated the First Amendment.
This is not the first action of its kind. A group of churches sued California governor Gavin Newsom over his stay-at-home order on the ground that it violates religious freedom and the right to assemble under the First Amendment. And a federal court recently sided with challengers to the Louisville, Kentucky mayor’s ban on drive-in church services on Easter Sunday. But the difference with the Mississippi case is that the U.S. Department of Justice took pains to file a 14-page brief expressing its agreement with the allegations in the church’s complaint against the city.
So what happens next?
Because the Greenville order and citations have been withdrawn, the church’s complaint is probably moot. But if such a case were to proceed, the Trump administration’s decision to jump into the fray could, down the road, be used to confine the government’s ability to take measures protecting public health. Was the maneuver worth it?
As DOJ explains in its filing, the seminal case on the subject is the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which held that it is within the state’s police power to criminally enforce a compulsory vaccination law to prevent the spread of smallpox. DOJ also cites Prince v. Massachusetts, a case involving a clash between child labor laws and the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses, in which the Court stated in 1944 that “the right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community . . . to communicable disease.”
DOJ nonetheless goes on to argue that the allegations in the Temple Baptist Church’s complaint indicate that Greenville “single[d] out particular religious conduct for adverse treatment” or “treat[ed] the same conduct as lawful when undertaken for secular reasons but unlawful when undertaken for religious reasons.” If this singling out was intentionally done to punish people for exercising their religion, DOJ submits, then the enforcement of the now-defunct order against a group of drive-in churchgoers is “beyond all question, a plain, palpable” violation of the Constitution.
Although it’s true that COVID-19 does not supplant the First Amendment, the federal Department of Justice’s intervention in this case is puzzling.
To be sure, it seems clumsy, unfair, and above all else unwise to ban people from sitting inside their vehicles, in a parking lot, with their windows closed amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs note that, “according to the City, you can buy a hamburger or sit in your car at a drive-in restaurant with your windows rolled down, but you can’t sit in your car at a drive-in church service with your windows rolled up.” If the complaint’s allegations are true, the Temple Baptist Church congregation was not flouting public health suppression measures—if anything, it was making a reasonable accommodation to support such measures by modifying its worship in a prudent way that satisfied public health imperatives.
But it’s also not clear that the city’s order was designed to single out religious believers or that the police discriminatorily targeted churches. Greenville mayor Errick Simmons stated that “no officers raided or staked out a church”; instead, officers were responding to multiple calls complaining about the gathering. “To publicly state this mayor is targeting a church,” he added, “is unacceptable and reprehensible.”
Of course, we do not know the full story here. There has been no fact-finding in the case to test the plaintiffs’ claim that the city’s actions were based on an intent to single out religion rather than a good faith (though perhaps clumsy, unfair, or unwise) attempt to protect the public from the spread of COVID-19.
Yet the Justice Department seemed to take the complaint’s allegations as if they were all-but-proven—and in doing so toyed with a standard for pandemic-related orders implicating religious institutions that could chill future law enforcement from doing their jobs in circumstances that may be wildly different.
As always, bad facts make bad cases which make bad law.
Much like the TSA’s confiscation of water bottles and sunscreen at airport security checkpoints, breaking up drive-in church gatherings is imprudent for many reasons, the biggest of which is that public health in a time of pandemic relies on compliance. The government only convinces people to comply by passing rules that make sense. Once it starts imposing mandates that have no real grounding in safety, people will start disobeying them and then the virus will really spread.
The city of Greenville has since rescinded the ordinance, and the governor announced on April 15 that drive-in church services are allowed “so long as families stay in their cars with windows up and all state and federal social distancing guidelines and standards are adhered to and complied with.” Maybe the city changed course out of a sense of genuine reconsideration of its policy post-lawsuit. Or maybe it was simple expediency. But either way, the complaint no longer presents a live issue. The congregation of Temple Baptist Church can have its drive-in services.
So what good was served by DOJ weighing in on the matter against the city of Greenville?
Sometimes government lawyers are forced to deal with bad facts during an urgent moment. This is not one of those times. Instead of allowing state and local authorities to respond to the dust-up on their own accord, the Trump administration forced the issue of religious freedom by chastising Greenville—while, at the same time, the president has been telling states in desperate need of medical equipment to “try getting it yourselves” and “to call your own shots” on lifting restrictions in spite of the virus.
Note that, unlike the California cases, the Mississippi lawsuit does not challenge the governor’s ban on gatherings of ten or more people. Across the country, similar orders are drawing protests. In Raleigh, North Carolina, for example, a gathering of over a hundred people urged that the state “re-open,” resulting in an arrest. “Everybody gets to make their own choice,” one protester said. “If you’re scared, stay home. I’m not scared and I don’t want to stay home. I’m a free American and we have to start acting like it.” And in Charlotte and Greensboro, anti-abortion protesters were arrested outside abortion clinics for allegedly violating restrictions on travel for non-essential functions, prompting a “faith-based” nonprofit to file its own First Amendment lawsuit.
The claim that individuals can do whatever they want as “free Americans” during a pandemic reflects a fundamental—albeit widespread—misunderstanding of constitutional law.
Rights are not absolute. In Employment Division v. Smith, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1990 for a Supreme Court majority that “a neutral law of general applicability” does not violate the First Amendment. Stay-at-home orders that incorporate churches or affect religious practices are simply not unconstitutional.
Keep in mind that, as the Court observed in Jacobson, “the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.” What the government cannot do is single out individuals for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting public health—like religious beliefs, race, gender, or national origin. If local law enforcement enforces unreasonable orders in an unfair manner—even as part of an effort to protect public health during a pandemic—then the federal government and the courts are right to step in.
And the street goes both ways. In the absence of blatantly discriminatory or unreasonable orders being unfairly enforced, the federal government might have an even greater interest in preserving room to maneuver so that, in the future, governments will be able to strike the balance between individual rights and public safety.
Which is why DOJ’s decision to deride Greenville’s coronavirus enforcement efforts as amounting to intentional religious discrimination—when the underlying facts have not been established and the ordinance itself is no longer in operation—is concerning.
It’s hard not to wonder whether this was really about Attorney General Barr’s fire-and-brimstone approach to religion and American democracy. Recall that in October of last year, he delivered a scathing speech at the University of Notre Dame law school, in which he accused “militant secularists” of pursuing a “campaign to destroy the traditional moral order.” He also charged that Catholicism and other Judeo-Christian religions were being subjected to “organized destruction” by “‘progressives,’ [who] have marshaled all the force of mass communications, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia,” and who are responsible for a range of “social pathology” that includes drug abuse and illegitimacy.
Sigh.
The mission of the Department of Justice is “to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law,” and “to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”
Let’s hope this is what Barr was doing by throwing the weight of DOJ behind one Christian church in the midst of an invisible virus that is killing tens of thousands of people in the United States—regardless of their religious beliefs.


thebulwark--2020-04-19--Look What He Makes You Give

Look What He Makes You Give

A long time ago in a galaxy far , far away Republican elites claimed that they didn ’ t like Donald Trump very much .
They didn ’ t support him in the primary .
Many said or implied that they wouldn ’ t vote for him in the general election .
But at some point each one of them reasoned that the right thing to do was to don the MAGA hat in order to ensure that Trump made good on the policy priorities they most valued .
They acknowledged the trade-off .
Trump would make them eat some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption and the protectionism and the race baiting .
But they ’ d get theirs .
This was the genesis of the “ But Gorsuch ” meme .
At the time , some of us asked .
.
.
are you sure you know what ’ s in this sandwich ?
More than 39,000 Americans are dead from a pandemic that was ignored while the president was vainly consumed with the state of the stock market and keeping the numbers down .
We are confronted daily with a president utterly incapable of truthfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation to shared sacrifice , or even merely striking a tone that allows for communal grieving .
That elite Republicans have endorsed this horrifying display of tragic mismanagement lays bare what Trump has taken from each person who made this deal , how much of their soul he has sucked from their body .
It ’ s striking how little they actually got out of the bargain .
But what ’ s even more striking is that , instead of being angered at their having been being suckered by Trump , or ashamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even to celebrate—the parts of Trumpism that they had once regarded as the regrettable price of the exchange .
Look what he has made them give .
Accepting his party ’ s nod in Cleveland , Trump gave a dark , dispiriting , angry speech .
Those who cut the deal looked both ways and cheered .
Mounting the dais on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on Inauguration Day , he delivered his “ American Carnage ” address , the least uplifting , uniting , or optimistic inaugural address on record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in office , Trump turned his rhetoric on immigration to action at the border .
He ordered crackdowns on asylum seekers , separated children from their parents , and kept human beings in cages .
They cheered .
He went to Europe and insulted our NATO allies , praised Vladimir Putin , and began dismantling the post-World War II security apparatus .
They cheered .
He pushed through spending programs that blew a massive hole in our budget , grew the deficit , and sent our national debt into orbit .
He passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthy and large corporations .
And what did the Republicans , the party of fiscal responsibility and “ main street ” conservatism do ?
They cheered .
When Trump started a trade war with China that drove up prices of consumer goods and pushed small farms into bankruptcy what did Republicans say ?
Trump is showing the Chinese who ’ s boss !
When he then bailed out Big Ag and corporate farms to cover his losses , where was the GOP ?
Somewhere in a lonely field , kicking the dirt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his “ perfect phone call ” to the Ukrainian president pressuring him to undertake a domestic political errand , and subsequently withholding military aid from an ally facing down the Russian bear , how did Republicans respond ?
They said that the president can do what he wants .
That presidents do this all the time .
That Joe Biden is the real crook .
That no one can find Ukraine on a map .
After being impeached for abusing his office , what did Republicans say ?
That it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to keep us down .
That it ’ s all the media and socialist Democrats ’ fault .
As the evidence of Trump ’ s malfeasance mounted , what did Republicans do ?
They asked no questions , called no witnesses , and claimed the president was within his rights to do whatever he wants .
In February , when it became clear that COVID-19 was a crisis and that Trump had fumbled it , what did Republicans say ?
It ’ s not as bad as everyone says .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party .
Let the old people die .
And this week , when Donald Trump finally said the not-so-quiet part out loud , that he ’ s the president and that means he has “ total ” authority , as if he were a king ?
Where was the party of federalism and small government and the rule of law ?
At least this time , some of them didn ’ t cheer .
They just insisted that the media was worse .
The deal that Republicans made with Donald Trump was never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But with tens of thousands of people dead , the economy in shambles , and a historic crisis requiring a competent leader , do they still , in the silence of their own hearts , think , “ But Gorsuch ” ?
For it should no longer surprise us that Republicans have turned over the kingdom to Donald Trump .
It is sad , though , how cheaply they gave it up .

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away Republican elites claimed that they didn’t like Donald Trump very much. They didn’t support him in the primary. Many said or implied that they wouldn’t vote for him in the general election.
But at some point each one of them reasoned that the right thing to do was to don the MAGA hat in order to ensure that Trump made good on the policy priorities they most valued.
They acknowledged the trade-off. Trump would make them eat some shit sandwiches with the tweets and the corruption and the protectionism and the race baiting. But they’d get theirs. This was the genesis of the “But Gorsuch” meme.
At the time, some of us asked . . . are you sure you know what’s in this sandwich?
Today that’s now clear.
More than 39,000 Americans are dead from a pandemic that was ignored while the president was vainly consumed with the state of the stock market and keeping the numbers down. We are confronted daily with a president utterly incapable of truthfully explaining the stakes, or calling the nation to shared sacrifice, or even merely striking a tone that allows for communal grieving.
That elite Republicans have endorsed this horrifying display of tragic mismanagement lays bare what Trump has taken from each person who made this deal, how much of their soul he has sucked from their body.
It’s striking how little they actually got out of the bargain.
But what’s even more striking is that, instead of being angered at their having been being suckered by Trump, or ashamed of it, Republicans decided to accept—and even to celebrate—the parts of Trumpism that they had once regarded as the regrettable price of the exchange.
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…
Look what he has made them give.
Accepting his party’s nod in Cleveland, Trump gave a dark, dispiriting, angry speech. Those who cut the deal looked both ways and cheered.
Mounting the dais on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on Inauguration Day, he delivered his “American Carnage” address, the least uplifting, uniting, or optimistic inaugural address on record. And yet they cheered.
Once in office, Trump turned his rhetoric on immigration to action at the border. He ordered crackdowns on asylum seekers, separated children from their parents, and kept human beings in cages. They cheered.
He went to Europe and insulted our NATO allies, praised Vladimir Putin, and began dismantling the post-World War II security apparatus. They cheered.
He pushed through spending programs that blew a massive hole in our budget, grew the deficit, and sent our national debt into orbit. He passed a tax cut that overwhelmingly favored the wealthy and large corporations. And what did the Republicans, the party of fiscal responsibility and “main street” conservatism do? They cheered.
When Trump started a trade war with China that drove up prices of consumer goods and pushed small farms into bankruptcy what did Republicans say? Trump is showing the Chinese who’s boss! When he then bailed out Big Ag and corporate farms to cover his losses, where was the GOP? Somewhere in a lonely field, kicking the dirt.
Last summer, when Donald Trump made his “perfect phone call” to the Ukrainian president pressuring him to undertake a domestic political errand, and subsequently withholding military aid from an ally facing down the Russian bear, how did Republicans respond? They said that the president can do what he wants. That presidents do this all the time. That Joe Biden is the real crook. That no one can find Ukraine on a map.
After being impeached for abusing his office, what did Republicans say? That it’s a witch hunt. That they’re trying to keep us down. That it’s all the media and socialist Democrats’ fault.
As the evidence of Trump’s malfeasance mounted, what did Republicans do? They asked no questions, called no witnesses, and claimed the president was within his rights to do whatever he wants.
In February, when it became clear that COVID-19 was a crisis and that Trump had fumbled it, what did Republicans say? It’s not as bad as everyone says. It’s the fault of the Chinese Communist Party. Let the old people die.
And this week, when Donald Trump finally said the not-so-quiet part out loud, that he’s the president and that means he has “total” authority, as if he were a king? Where was the party of federalism and small government and the rule of law? At least this time, some of them didn’t cheer. They just insisted that the media was worse.
The deal that Republicans made with Donald Trump was never going to be a good one.
But with tens of thousands of people dead, the economy in shambles, and a historic crisis requiring a competent leader, do they still, in the silence of their own hearts, think, “But Gorsuch”?
For it should no longer surprise us that Republicans have turned over the kingdom to Donald Trump.
It is sad, though, how cheaply they gave it up.