thebulwark--2020-09-18--Don’t Let Iran Get Away with Murder

Don’t Let Iran Get Away with Murder

Last Saturday , Iranian media reported that Navid Afkari , a wrestler who had won medals in Iranian and international matches , had been executed .
His killing is a sick mockery of justice—a state-sanctioned murder intended to terrorize Iranian dissidents .
While it doesn ’ t reveal anything we didn ’ t already know about the depravity of the Iranian regime , the circumstances of his death deserve particular attention from international observers—and cry out for them to take action .
Afkari had been accused of murdering a security agent during the summer of 2018 protests against the regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later retracted the confession , explaining that he had given it under torture .
Iran ’ s own official forensic medicine organization , upon examination , found that Afkari had indeed been tortured .
Furthermore , there was no evidence , beyond his confession under duress , that connected Afkari to the killing .
Shortly before his death , Afkari remarked that the persistence of the death sentence , despite all the evidence of his innocence , proved that “ they were looking for a neck for their noose , ” and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime was his outspoken opposition to the regime .
There is also evidence that Afkari was not executed by hanging—as is typical in Iranian executions—but rather was killed under torture .
A few days before the sudden news of his death , his family had been informed only that Afkari was scheduled to be transferred from Shiraz to a prison in Tehran .
The execution had not been scheduled ; it happened with no prior notice .
The authorities have claimed that the rush was due to his alleged victim ’ s family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not present at the ceremony , as is custom .
Another violated custom was the absence of Afkari ’ s family at the execution ceremony to say farewell ; they found out about his death only afterwards .
They were permitted to see only his face—and they reported that his nose appeared to have been broken .
Last , but not least , Afkari died during Muharram , a month of mourning in Shi ’ ite Islam ; for religious reasons , it is very rare , if not completely unprecedented , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past few weeks , Afkari had become an international cause célèbre .
The State Department issued a statement to condemn his death sentence ; so did Germany ’ s foreign ministry .
President Trump tweeted to express his support .
Athletic organizations also issued statements of support for Afkari .
Since his killing , condemnations have poured in .
Germany ’ s embassy in Iran , UFC president Dana White , the European Union , , the association for German athletes , the International Olympic Committee ( IOC ) , and FIFA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two are uniquely important .
For years , Iran has violated the IOC ’ s rules of sportsmanship .
Iran ’ s politicians routinely interfere in issues related to sport federations , against IOC rules .
The regime bans Iranian athletes from competing against Israeli athletes—again against IOC rules .
FIFA , the governing body of international soccer , has rules regarding the politicization of sports similar to those of the IOC .
Yet the Iranian regime constantly violates FIFA ’ s rules and interferes with the soccer federation ’ s internal issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federation ’ s bylaws and manipulating the selection of its president .
Concerted pressure from FIFA finally forced Iran to allow a very small number of women into the stadium to see matches involving the national team last year , but in general Iranian women are still not allowed into soccer stadiums .
And Iranian state TV airs international games without paying for the rights .
More generally , the Iranian regime uses sports , especially soccer , for embezzlement—as a way of enriching the regime ’ s affiliates .
For four decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran to get away with murder , metaphorically .
Now , they face a decision : Can they just let Iran get away with the literal murder of one of their own—an athlete ?
Can they just move on ?
As a matter of self-defense , mustn ’ t they act ?
If the IOC and FIFA were to punish Iran—say , by banning Iranian sport teams from international competitions until serious improvements are made—the vast majority of Iranians won ’ t blame those international bodies .
As usual , when things go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the regime .
( This includes the current sanctions imposed by the United States . )
There is a clear right and clear wrong here for the IOC and FIFA .
An innocent man has been murdered , likely under torture .
He was one of them .
And the regime that killed him constantly violates the rules of IOC and FIFA and exploits sport for financial benefits of its supporters .
They should stand up for Afkari and punish his murderer .

Last Saturday, Iranian media reported that Navid Afkari, a wrestler who had won medals in Iranian and international matches, had been executed. His killing is a sick mockery of justice—a state-sanctioned murder intended to terrorize Iranian dissidents. While it doesn’t reveal anything we didn’t already know about the depravity of the Iranian regime, the circumstances of his death deserve particular attention from international observers—and cry out for them to take action.
Afkari had been accused of murdering a security agent during the summer of 2018 protests against the regime. He had confessed to the crime—but later retracted the confession, explaining that he had given it under torture. Iran’s own official forensic medicine organization, upon examination, found that Afkari had indeed been tortured. Furthermore, there was no evidence, beyond his confession under duress, that connected Afkari to the killing.
Shortly before his death, Afkari remarked that the persistence of the death sentence, despite all the evidence of his innocence, proved that “they were looking for a neck for their noose,” and they came down to his. His real crime was his outspoken opposition to the regime.
There is also evidence that Afkari was not executed by hanging—as is typical in Iranian executions—but rather was killed under torture. A few days before the sudden news of his death, his family had been informed only that Afkari was scheduled to be transferred from Shiraz to a prison in Tehran. The execution had not been scheduled; it happened with no prior notice. The authorities have claimed that the rush was due to his alleged victim’s family’s pressure, yet that family was not present at the ceremony, as is custom. Another violated custom was the absence of Afkari’s family at the execution ceremony to say farewell; they found out about his death only afterwards. They were permitted to see only his face—and they reported that his nose appeared to have been broken. Last, but not least, Afkari died during Muharram, a month of mourning in Shi’ite Islam; for religious reasons, it is very rare, if not completely unprecedented, to have executions during Muharram.
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…
Over the past few weeks, Afkari had become an international cause célèbre. The State Department issued a statement to condemn his death sentence; so did Germany’s foreign ministry. President Trump tweeted to express his support. Athletic organizations also issued statements of support for Afkari.
Since his killing, condemnations have poured in. Germany’s embassy in Iran, UFC president Dana White, the European Union,, the association for German athletes, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and FIFA have issued critical statements.
The last two are uniquely important. For years, Iran has violated the IOC’s rules of sportsmanship. Iran’s politicians routinely interfere in issues related to sport federations, against IOC rules. The regime bans Iranian athletes from competing against Israeli athletes—again against IOC rules.
FIFA, the governing body of international soccer, has rules regarding the politicization of sports similar to those of the IOC. Yet the Iranian regime constantly violates FIFA’s rules and interferes with the soccer federation’s internal issues, including pushing through changes to the federation’s bylaws and manipulating the selection of its president. Concerted pressure from FIFA finally forced Iran to allow a very small number of women into the stadium to see matches involving the national team last year, but in general Iranian women are still not allowed into soccer stadiums. And Iranian state TV airs international games without paying for the rights.
More generally, the Iranian regime uses sports, especially soccer, for embezzlement—as a way of enriching the regime’s affiliates.
For four decades, the IOC and FIFA have allowed Iran to get away with murder, metaphorically. Now, they face a decision: Can they just let Iran get away with the literal murder of one of their own—an athlete? Can they just move on? As a matter of self-defense, mustn’t they act?
If the IOC and FIFA were to punish Iran—say, by banning Iranian sport teams from international competitions until serious improvements are made—the vast majority of Iranians won’t blame those international bodies. As usual, when things go wrong, the people know to blame the regime. (This includes the current sanctions imposed by the United States.)
There is a clear right and clear wrong here for the IOC and FIFA. An innocent man has been murdered, likely under torture. He was one of them. And the regime that killed him constantly violates the rules of IOC and FIFA and exploits sport for financial benefits of its supporters. They should stand up for Afkari and punish his murderer.


thebulwark--2020-09-18--Why Sweden Should Join NATO

Why Sweden Should Join NATO

As American foreign policy observers begin cautiously to look beyond the Trump era , what they see is not pretty : The United States ’ s reputation lies in shatters .
Whereas George W. Bush ( justly or not ) earned the U.S. a reputation of aggression and carelessness in leading the free world , Donald Trump has earned the U.S. a reputation of uninterest in leading at all .
His isolationism has weakened and divided NATO , which is why it is so vital that as soon as possible after Trump leaves office , NATO demonstrates to the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the current chapter of orange-flavored isolationism and kowtowing to Russia has ended .
What better way than to recruit Sweden as a member ?
There are several reasons why Sweden would strengthen and reinvigorate NATO , starting with plain old geography : Sweden shares a sea border with Russia ( Kaliningrad ) , and we possess the island of Gotland in the Baltic sea that is vital to NATO ’ s ability to defend the Baltics ( Latvia , Lithuania and Estonia ) in the event of Russian aggression .
Put yourself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you want to attack and occupy the Baltic states , and you want to do so in such a way as to make it hard or impossible for NATO to come to their aid until it ’ s too late .
The easiest way to accomplish this would be to simultaneously take Gotland , install anti-aircraft and anti-naval batteries , and fight off any NATO forces that would attempt to cross the Baltic Sea .
With Sweden neutral ( or neutralized ) , the only feasible NATO response to Russian aggression against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : either attacking the highly militarized Russian exclave of Kaliningrad , or attacking through the narrow corridor where Lithuania shares a border with Poland .
This corridor , known as the Suwalki Gap after the town that lies in the middle of it , is bound by Kaliningrad to the northwest and Belarus to the southeast—not an ideal strategic position for NATO troops .
Put another way : Without Sweden , NATO ’ s implicit assumption is that there is no way to prevent Russia from steamrolling the Baltics if they really wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia occupies Gotland , Stockholm and its 1.5 million people would be within firing range .
If and when Russia holds Gotland , Sweden is out of the game .
In theory Sweden could defend Gotland by itself… for a few hours .
Despite its strategic importance , Gotland is home to Sweden ’ s smallest military unit .
It would pose no match to Russia ’ s elite Spetsnaz commandos .
How did it end up this way ?
Remember when everyone laughed at Romney for labeling Russia as a geopolitical threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Swedish government , which for decades had lulled itself into thinking Russia was no longer a military threat .
Does this not mean then that Sweden would be just another country that the US would have to pay to defend ?
After four years of hearing from their president about how other NATO members are not “ paying their share , ” it may seem like a bad idea to many Americans to add another weak link to the chain .
Sweden spends just over 1 percent of GDP on defense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but is already correcting this deficiency .
But in the event of an all-out war with Russia , Sweden—or at least Gotland—would be drawn in .
The benefit of its inclusion in the alliance wouldn ’ t be in manpower or technology , but in geography ( which is much harder for other members to replicate ) .
While Sweden would benefit from joining the alliance , NATO would benefit as much or more , as Swedish inclusion in NATO would make it possible for NATO to deter aggression in the Baltics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gotland , instead of just reacting once a war has already begun .
While Stockholm ’ s past ignorance of Russia ’ s imperialist ambitions is inexcusable , Sweden has taken steps to remedy the dire situation of its military .
Defense spending is set to reach 1.5 percent of GDP by 2025 .
While that ’ s still below NATO ’ s 2 percent target , only 15 out of NATO ’ s 30 member countries spend more than 1.5 percent as it is .
And though the size of Sweden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it can still punch above its weight : Sweden ’ s navy has defeated the U.S. Navy in multiple war games , and its snipers have won against U.S. Marines and Navy SEALsin several competitions .
The Swedish Air Force also has arguably the best fighter jets in the world .
All things considered , Sweden would not be a weak link .
While Sweden may need NATO more than NATO needs Sweden , there is no doubt that closer cooperation and military integration would be mutually beneficial .
But all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political considerations : Would Sweden want to join NATO in the first place ?
The answer is , perhaps somewhat surprisingly , yes .
While historically support for NATO has been a minority position , today , after years of Russian aggression and interference , a plurality of Swedish voters support NATO .
Accession to NATO is also supported by all but one opposition party .
Given where NATO currently stands after almost four years of Donald Trump , the alliance should be equally enthusiastic about accepting Sweden as a member .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ having Sweden join NATO would provoke Russia and create tension in the region .
Russia has indeed made it clear that if Sweden were to join NATO , they would have to “ consider an appropriate response.
” Back when many seriously believed that Russia was on a path towards democracy and Western values , that may have been a valid argument .
But as we ’ ve seen over the past decade , and in particular the past four years , Russia has imperialist ambitions which they seek to fulfill whether or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not .
Just ask the Georgians , Ukrainians , Syrians , Belarussians , Sergei Skripal , or John Podesta whether the Russians need to be provoked to act aggressively .
It was the Obama administration ’ s “ reset ” of 2009 and the “ flexibility ” of 2013 that made way for Russian intervention in Syria in 2015 .
The U.S. did not provoke Russia into supporting Donald Trump ’ s 2016 campaign—Russia did it anyway , because it was beneficial to Russia .
Nor did the U.S. did not provoke Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American soldiers .
NATO ’ s deterrence against Russia is slowly breaking down , both in the “ grey zone ” of influence operations , and in the traditional sphere of invading neighbors .
Bolstering deterrence in the Baltics by admitting Sweden as a member will reverse this trend .
And that in turn will inspire and encourage defenders of freedom and democracy around the globe .
After Trump , American planners and strategists will have their hands full trying to rebuild the Western alliance .
Sweden should be on the top of @ @ @

As American foreign policy observers begin cautiously to look beyond the Trump era, what they see is not pretty: The United States’s reputation lies in tatters. Whereas George W. Bush (justly or not) earned the U.S. a reputation of aggression and carelessness in leading the free world, Donald Trump has earned the U.S. a reputation of uninterest in leading at all. His isolationism has weakened and divided NATO, which is why it is so vital that as soon as possible after Trump leaves office, NATO demonstrates to the rest of the world in a definitive way that the current chapter of orange-flavored isolationism and kowtowing to Russia has ended.
What better way than to recruit Sweden as a member?
There are several reasons why Sweden would strengthen and reinvigorate NATO, starting with plain old geography: Sweden shares a sea border with Russia (Kaliningrad), and we possess the island of Gotland in the Baltic sea that is vital to NATO’s ability to defend the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) in the event of Russian aggression. Put yourself in Russia’s shoes and suppose that you want to attack and occupy the Baltic states, and you want to do so in such a way as to make it hard or impossible for NATO to come to their aid until it’s too late.
The easiest way to accomplish this would be to simultaneously take Gotland, install anti-aircraft and anti-naval batteries, and fight off any NATO forces that would attempt to cross the Baltic Sea. With Sweden neutral (or neutralized), the only feasible NATO response to Russian aggression against the Baltics would feature a terrible choice: either attacking the highly militarized Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, or attacking through the narrow corridor where Lithuania shares a border with Poland. This corridor, known as the Suwalki Gap after the town that lies in the middle of it, is bound by Kaliningrad to the northwest and Belarus to the southeast—not an ideal strategic position for NATO troops.
Put another way: Without Sweden, NATO’s implicit assumption is that there is no way to prevent Russia from steamrolling the Baltics if they really wanted to.
In the scenario in which Russia occupies Gotland, Stockholm and its 1.5 million people would be within firing range. If and when Russia holds Gotland, Sweden is out of the game.
In theory Sweden could defend Gotland by itself… for a few hours. Despite its strategic importance, Gotland is home to Sweden’s smallest military unit. It would pose no match to Russia’s elite Spetsnaz commandos. How did it end up this way? Remember when everyone laughed at Romney for labeling Russia as a geopolitical threat? Well, nobody laughed harder than the Swedish government, which for decades had lulled itself into thinking Russia was no longer a military threat.
Does this not mean then that Sweden would be just another country that the US would have to pay to defend? After four years of hearing from their president about how other NATO members are not “paying their share,” it may seem like a bad idea to many Americans to add another weak link to the chain. Sweden spends just over 1 percent of GDP on defense, which is low even by NATO standards, but is already correcting this deficiency.
But in the event of an all-out war with Russia, Sweden—or at least Gotland—would be drawn in. The benefit of its inclusion in the alliance wouldn’t be in manpower or technology, but in geography (which is much harder for other members to replicate). While Sweden would benefit from joining the alliance, NATO would benefit as much or more, as Swedish inclusion in NATO would make it possible for NATO to deter aggression in the Baltics by setting up a military base on Gotland, instead of just reacting once a war has already begun.
While Stockholm’s past ignorance of Russia’s imperialist ambitions is inexcusable, Sweden has taken steps to remedy the dire situation of its military. Defense spending is set to reach 1.5 percent of GDP by 2025. While that’s still below NATO’s 2 percent target, only 15 out of NATO’s 30 member countries spend more than 1.5 percent as it is.
And though the size of Sweden’s military certainly is less than impressive, it can still punch above its weight: Sweden’s navy has defeated the U.S. Navy in multiple war games, and its snipers have won against U.S. Marines and Navy SEALsin several competitions. The Swedish Air Force also has arguably the best fighter jets in the world. All things considered, Sweden would not be a weak link. While Sweden may need NATO more than NATO needs Sweden, there is no doubt that closer cooperation and military integration would be mutually beneficial.
But all of the military considerations are ultimately secondary to the political considerations: Would Sweden want to join NATO in the first place? The answer is, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, yes. While historically support for NATO has been a minority position, today, after years of Russian aggression and interference, a plurality of Swedish voters support NATO. Accession to NATO is also supported by all but one opposition party.
Given where NATO currently stands after almost four years of Donald Trump, the alliance should be equally enthusiastic about accepting Sweden as a member. In the past, many argued that having Sweden join NATO would provoke Russia and create tension in the region. Russia has indeed made it clear that if Sweden were to join NATO, they would have to “consider an appropriate response.”
Back when many seriously believed that Russia was on a path towards democracy and Western values, that may have been a valid argument. But as we’ve seen over the past decade, and in particular the past four years, Russia has imperialist ambitions which they seek to fulfill whether or not they’ve been provoked or not. Just ask the Georgians, Ukrainians, Syrians, Belarussians, Sergei Skripal, or John Podesta whether the Russians need to be provoked to act aggressively.
It was the Obama administration’s “reset” of 2009 and the “flexibility” of 2013 that made way for Russian intervention in Syria in 2015. The U.S. did not provoke Russia into supporting Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign—Russia did it anyway, because it was beneficial to Russia. Nor did the U.S. did not provoke Russia into putting bounties on the heads of American soldiers.
NATO’s deterrence against Russia is slowly breaking down, both in the “grey zone” of influence operations, and in the traditional sphere of invading neighbors. Bolstering deterrence in the Baltics by admitting Sweden as a member will reverse this trend. And that in turn will inspire and encourage defenders of freedom and democracy around the globe. After Trump, American planners and strategists will have their hands full trying to rebuild the Western alliance. Sweden should be on the top of their list.


thebulwark--2020-09-18--Dress for Success, Even in Distress

Dress for Success, Even in Distress

COVID-19 is accelerating change in every field of life : from schooling to work habits to how we enjoy our movies , the pandemic has sped up societal disruptions that were out on the horizon by a decade , at least .
Then there are our personal habits : how we exercise or date or dine out in the midst of a pandemic .
Without market forces bearing down on our own personal choices , we are somewhat adrift .
It is perhaps a small thing , but I wonder what it means to get up and get dressed every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is little or no professional expectation of in-person communication beyond a grainy Zoom call , how does a man dress above his most basic level of comfort ?
In normal times , I head off to class in a coat and tie and to church in a suit .
But these have not been normal times .
It ’ s hard to bring myself to don a tie for an online class broadcast from my basement guest room , so most days it ’ s been a dress shirt for the camera but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ve been to church twice since March , in a shaded parking lot with instructions to “ dress comfortably , ” which in the Alabama humidity means imitating Bill Murray in Moonrise Kingdom .
Whatever these new circumstances are , they are hardly calling forth our best selves .
Without the rituals of work and worship , we are mostly left to ourselves .
And when we are left to ourselves , we do what is right in our own eyes .
We create our own identities .
Most days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without even thinking about it , that ’ s how I dress .
We become , in other words , exactly what we want to be .
But what if what we want to be isn ’ t a good thing ?
What if we stand in need of correction and formation ?
I talked to my friend Scott Pyburn , owner of Harrison Limited in Mountain Brook , Alabama .
Harrison Limited is a small but wonderfully curated menswear retailer with a national reputation , selling brands like Alden , Samuelsohn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When asked what men are wearing these days , Scott said it ’ s mostly golf polos and shorts .
No one expects anything of men away from the office , and so that ’ s where they ’ re naturally inclined .
As for the future , Pyburn said it ’ s all in the hands of corporate culture .
Traditionally , tough times and economic downturns bring a renewed seriousness to corporate life .
However , that didn ’ t happen during the Great Recession , even with the Mad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his customers acknowledge that their business slacks off in conjunction with relaxed modes of dress , the allure of the casual and the comfortable is too seductive .
Decline , as they say , is a choice .
A few days after my visit with Scott , I went back to Harrison Limited , this time to speak with Robert Jenson , the tie marker and former creative director for Robert Talbott .
With most trade shows and markets closed for the time being , Jensen has been traveling the country and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On this day , he was helping a young man and his father pick out tie fabric for the son ’ s wedding party .
After they left , Jensen echoed what Scott said earlier that week .
So much of what men do depends ultimately on what is demanded of them ; if workplaces do not demand that their employees dress well , they rarely will .
In other words , if our institutions will not form us , we ’ re left to form ourselves—and that often does not work out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are truly democratizing .
In a recent Twitter post , Matt Yglesias argued that we would all be better off if suit-and-tie dress codes made a strong comeback .
Amanda Mull responded in dissent at the Atlantic , arguing that dress codes are ultimately oppressive means of reinforcing inequities of class , gender , and race .
Derek Guy of Die , Workwear !
tried to think through all the various issues of equity that surround dress codes , and he settled on a rather Hayekian point : “ Open office spaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ softly coded as social norms , not hard written into rulebooks.
” And given the difficulty of reading social cues and cultural “ fits , ” perhaps it ’ s best that offices establish some uniform rules that work for all employees , leaving social cues to the outside world .
Yglesias is correct , and Guy ’ s analysis is sharp and thoughtful : strong dress codes help level the playing field while serving a pedagogical function .
Dress codes teach us to be better ; we no longer have any confusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sign for respect for either an occasion or for other people .
Dress codes also demand something of us , in much the same way that work itself is meant to discourage vice and reward virtue , a facet of capitalism understood by everyone from Adam Smith to Dierdre McCloskey .
The man or woman who is undisciplined and carefree in appearance is likely to be undisciplined in work .
The longer businesses tell themselves they can avoid those demands , the harder the crash when it ’ s time for real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me back to our current predicament : What do we do when we are not at work ?
Or when work demands nothing more than logging into a Zoom call ?
Our work—our vocations—are important , but we are also formed by other , better institutions .
We are neighbors , friends , sons and daughters and it is in those relationships that we learn to be our best selves .
Capitalism may not demand much of us anymore ; our work may allow us to be as free and whimsical as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ourselves , recognizing that the image we give to those around us carries incalculable weight that may last far longer than we do .
Cultivated seriousness need not become uncaring stoicism , but we should be serious people , all the same .
It ’ s probably not the case that every man can have the learned sprezzatura of Sid Mashburn or Brunello Cuccinelli .
But like other important virtues—thrift , temperance , patience , diligence—we should try , because to be thoughtful in one ’ s dress , or in one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitably entails other virtues .
In our own minds , we may never fully cultivate those things that we want to be , but that is due as much to the dark glass through which we view ourselves as much as it is our actual shortcomings .
Like it or not , we ’ re building a world for those who come after us , and every movement away from vice and towards virtue is a step in the right direction .

COVID-19 is accelerating change in every field of life: from schooling to work habits to how we enjoy our movies, the pandemic has sped up societal disruptions that were out on the horizon by a decade, at least. Then there are our personal habits: how we exercise or date or dine out in the midst of a pandemic. Without market forces bearing down on our own personal choices, we are somewhat adrift. It is perhaps a small thing, but I wonder what it means to get up and get dressed every morning. In a time where there is little or no professional expectation of in-person communication beyond a grainy Zoom call, how does a man dress above his most basic level of comfort?
In normal times, I head off to class in a coat and tie and to church in a suit. But these have not been normal times. It’s hard to bring myself to don a tie for an online class broadcast from my basement guest room, so most days it’s been a dress shirt for the camera but fishing shorts and old boat shoes otherwise. I’ve been to church twice since March, in a shaded parking lot with instructions to “dress comfortably,” which in the Alabama humidity means imitating Bill Murray in Moonrise Kingdom. Whatever these new circumstances are, they are hardly calling forth our best selves.
Without the rituals of work and worship, we are mostly left to ourselves. And when we are left to ourselves, we do what is right in our own eyes. We create our own identities. Most days, I would rather be fishing so, without even thinking about it, that’s how I dress. We become, in other words, exactly what we want to be. But what if what we want to be isn’t a good thing? What if we stand in need of correction and formation?
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…
I talked to my friend Scott Pyburn, owner of Harrison Limited in Mountain Brook, Alabama. Harrison Limited is a small but wonderfully curated menswear retailer with a national reputation, selling brands like Alden, Samuelsohn, Oxxford, and Drake’s. When asked what men are wearing these days, Scott said it’s mostly golf polos and shorts. No one expects anything of men away from the office, and so that’s where they’re naturally inclined. As for the future, Pyburn said it’s all in the hands of corporate culture. Traditionally, tough times and economic downturns bring a renewed seriousness to corporate life. However, that didn’t happen during the Great Recession, even with the Mad Men boomlet that followed. Though many of his customers acknowledge that their business slacks off in conjunction with relaxed modes of dress, the allure of the casual and the comfortable is too seductive. Decline, as they say, is a choice.
A few days after my visit with Scott, I went back to Harrison Limited, this time to speak with Robert Jenson, the tie marker and former creative director for Robert Talbott. With most trade shows and markets closed for the time being, Jensen has been traveling the country and checking in with his best stores. On this day, he was helping a young man and his father pick out tie fabric for the son’s wedding party. After they left, Jensen echoed what Scott said earlier that week. So much of what men do depends ultimately on what is demanded of them; if workplaces do not demand that their employees dress well, they rarely will. In other words, if our institutions will not form us, we’re left to form ourselves—and that often does not work out so well.
Dress codes, ironically, are truly democratizing. In a recent Twitter post, Matt Yglesias argued that we would all be better off if suit-and-tie dress codes made a strong comeback. Amanda Mull responded in dissent at the Atlantic, arguing that dress codes are ultimately oppressive means of reinforcing inequities of class, gender, and race. Derek Guy of Die, Workwear! tried to think through all the various issues of equity that surround dress codes, and he settled on a rather Hayekian point: “Open office spaces still have dress codes—they’re just softly coded as social norms, not hard written into rulebooks.” And given the difficulty of reading social cues and cultural “fits,” perhaps it’s best that offices establish some uniform rules that work for all employees, leaving social cues to the outside world.
Yglesias is correct, and Guy’s analysis is sharp and thoughtful: strong dress codes help level the playing field while serving a pedagogical function. Dress codes teach us to be better; we no longer have any confusion about how we ought to dress as a sign for respect for either an occasion or for other people. Dress codes also demand something of us, in much the same way that work itself is meant to discourage vice and reward virtue, a facet of capitalism understood by everyone from Adam Smith to Dierdre McCloskey. The man or woman who is undisciplined and carefree in appearance is likely to be undisciplined in work. The longer businesses tell themselves they can avoid those demands, the harder the crash when it’s time for real work to be done.
Which brings me back to our current predicament: What do we do when we are not at work? Or when work demands nothing more than logging into a Zoom call? Our work—our vocations—are important, but we are also formed by other, better institutions. We are neighbors, friends, sons and daughters and it is in those relationships that we learn to be our best selves. Capitalism may not demand much of us anymore; our work may allow us to be as free and whimsical as we like. We can still demand more of ourselves, recognizing that the image we give to those around us carries incalculable weight that may last far longer than we do. Cultivated seriousness need not become uncaring stoicism, but we should be serious people, all the same.
It’s probably not the case that every man can have the learned sprezzatura of Sid Mashburn or Brunello Cuccinelli. But like other important virtues—thrift, temperance, patience, diligence—we should try, because to be thoughtful in one’s dress, or in one’s housework or yard work, inevitably entails other virtues. In our own minds, we may never fully cultivate those things that we want to be, but that is due as much to the dark glass through which we view ourselves as much as it is our actual shortcomings. Like it or not, we’re building a world for those who come after us, and every movement away from vice and towards virtue is a step in the right direction.


thebulwark--2020-09-19--William Barr’s Disastrous Misunderstanding of the Attorney General’s Role

In a speech on September 16 sponsored by the famously conservative Hillsdale College , William Barr offered a vigorous articulation of his view that all power in the DOJ resides with him .
He also unleashed an unprecedented attack on the ethics , integrity , and professionalism of lawyers throughout the department that he leads .
The speech was an Orwellian defense of the politicization of the DOJ that has occurred under Barr ’ s leadership .
He argued , in a thinly veiled reference to the so-called “ deep state , ” that “ political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake .
Government power , ” he continued , “ completely divorced from politics is tyranny.
” Yet , at every turn , Barr has stood in the way of efforts to make the DOJ accountable to anyone other than President Trump .
In addition , he now is playing an important role in efforts to ensure that voters will not succeed in holding the president and his AG accountable in the November election .
Like a latter-day Louis the XIV proclaiming “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moi , ” Barr used his speech to assert that “ ‘ All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General.
’ ” A dodgy invocation of 28 U.S.C .
§ 509 , the Functions of the Attorney General .
The examples and logic in Barr ’ s speech betray a dangerous misunderstanding of the AG ’ s role , of the legal authority of line prosecutors and of the meaning of lawyers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like all government officials , is broader and more nuanced than can be grasped by reciting the literal language of any regulation .
It is also defined by long-standing policies , practices , and principles of the DOJ and of previous occupants of the AG ’ s office .
Barr ’ s predecessors have , of course , variously defined the AG ’ s role , with some being more closely aligned with the president ’ s political agenda and others more focused on protecting the DOJ ’ s independence from politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history reveals that its establishment in the 19th century recognized the professionalization of American lawyers and the value of bureaucratic autonomy and expertise .
That history has been marked by traditions of respect and deference rather than denigration and direction in the AG ’ s dealings with line prosecutors .
Indeed , in only extraordinary circumstances would even the most partisan AG ’ s have interfered with , or second-guessed , decisions made by DOJ lawyers .
But Barr ’ s view of both the AG ’ s authority and that of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deeply antithetical to the Constitution ’ s commitment to limited powers .
In past speeches , Barr has embraced the theory of the “ unitary executive.
” That theory holds that all executive powers are lodged in the person of the president of the United States .
As a result , no exercise of authority , discretion , or judgment legitimately resides with any official other than the president .
And it encourages presidents like Trump to run the executive branch in a top-down , command and control manner and to regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of at his whim and pleasure .
Barr is providing the ideological underpinning for Trump ’ s belief that under the Constitution ’ s Article II , which defines the jurisdiction of the executive branch , the president ’ s authority is “ total.
” Under this view he can determine and direct the DOJ ’ s prosecutorial work .
It helps explain why Trump regarded former AG Jeff Sessions ’ recusal in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election as a betrayal .
Barr ’ s record and his actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies , like Michael Flynn and Roger Stone and one-time allies like Michael Cohen , have made what was once extraordinary now ordinary .
Moreover , his grandiose conception of the AG ’ s role and denigration of those who work in the DOJ has undermined morale throughout the Justice Department and led to resignations by numerous highly-respected career prosecutors .
That denigration was on full display in Barr ’ s speech last Wednesday .
That speech was filled with references to overzealous federal prosecutors plumbing every legal technicality to vex ordinary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is even more the case when they become what Barr called “ headhunters ” of prominent political figures .
Referencing without naming Robert Mueller or the people who have served as US Attorneys in the Southern District of New York , he accused “ our prosecutors ” of “ all too often insert ( ing ) themselves into the political process based on the flimsiest of legal theories .
We have seen this time and again , with prosecutors bringing ill-conceived charges against prominent political figures and launching debilitating investigations….
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he suggested that his subordinates were guilty of “ the criminalization of politics.
” He warned against going “ the way of third world nations where new administrations routinely prosecute their predecessors for various ill-defined crimes against the state.
” All of this from a man who accused the Obama Administration of “ spying ” on the Trump campaign in 2016 and recently suggested that the DOJ consider bringing criminal charges against Seattle , Washington ’ s Democratic Mayor .
Barr , of course , dutifully serves a president still making allusions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private server when she was Secretary of State and who gleefully has led “ Lock her up “ chants at his political rallies .
Bizarrely , Barr compared the DOJ to “ a Montessori preschool ” which for too long has let “ the most junior members set the agenda.
” He offered a caricature of the department ’ s history as one in which the top leadership has “ blindly ” deferred to “ whatever those subordinates want to do.
” In fact , as Barr knows , DOJ practice provides for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line prosecutors .
But this is the way authoritarians operate .
They treat adults as misbehaving children and their predecessors as dangerously permissive .
The professionalism that Barr demeans requires cultivation of independent judgment and adherence to strict codes of ethics .
Professionals , especially prosecutors , take pride in their judiciousness and earn the respect of their peers not by blindly persecuting the innocent but by displaying what Yale law professor Anthony Kronman labels “ practical wisdom.
” Moreover , the courts generally have shown great respect for the professionalism of federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respecting their discretionary charging decisions .
As the late Justice Antonin Scalia once explained , those decisions necessarily involve a complex “ balancing of innumerable legal and practical considerations.
” This is hardly the kind of work expected in even the best Montessori preschools .
Barr ’ s speech was a masterful piece of Trumpian-propaganda , cynically and with a straight face accusing others of the very sins that he himself has committed .
His high-minded appeals to the rule of law and the American spirit of liberty should not distract us from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those values .
He has made a habit of defying subpoenas , mocking legitimate Congressional oversight , and using duplicity , deception , and strong arm tactics to protect President Trump ’ s political cronies and punish his opponents .
The AG concluded his Hilldale College remarks by repeating the admonition of Robert Jackson who was AG from 1940-1941 .
Jackson said that the qualities of a good prosecutor involve what he called “ a sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship.
” He noted that the “ best protection against the abuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with human kindness , who seeks truth not victims , who serves the law not factional purposes , and who approaches his task with humility.
” The United States will be better off when we have an AG with a sense of fair play , human kindness , and humility – all virtues which Barr regularly betrays .

In a speech on September 16 sponsored by the famously conservative Hillsdale College, William Barr offered a vigorous articulation of his view that all power in the DOJ resides with him. He also unleashed an unprecedented attack on the ethics, integrity, and professionalism of lawyers throughout the department that he leads.
The speech was an Orwellian defense of the politicization of the DOJ that has occurred under Barr’s leadership. He argued, in a thinly veiled reference to the so-called “deep state,” that “political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures our system does its work fairly and with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake. Government power,” he continued, “completely divorced from politics is tyranny.”
Yet, at every turn, Barr has stood in the way of efforts to make the DOJ accountable to anyone other than President Trump. In addition, he now is playing an important role in efforts to ensure that voters will not succeed in holding the president and his AG accountable in the November election.
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…
Like a latter-day Louis the XIV proclaiming “l’etat, c’est moi,” Barr used his speech to assert that “‘All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General.’” A dodgy invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 509, the Functions of the Attorney General.
The examples and logic in Barr’s speech betray a dangerous misunderstanding of the AG’s role, of the legal authority of line prosecutors and of the meaning of lawyers’ professionalism.
The role of the AG, like all government officials, is broader and more nuanced than can be grasped by reciting the literal language of any regulation. It is also defined by long-standing policies, practices, and principles of the DOJ and of previous occupants of the AG’s office.
Barr’s predecessors have, of course, variously defined the AG’s role, with some being more closely aligned with the president’s political agenda and others more focused on protecting the DOJ’s independence from politics.
Yet examining the department’s history reveals that its establishment in the 19th century recognized the professionalization of American lawyers and the value of bureaucratic autonomy and expertise. That history has been marked by traditions of respect and deference rather than denigration and direction in the AG’s dealings with line prosecutors.
Indeed, in only extraordinary circumstances would even the most partisan AG’s have interfered with, or second-guessed, decisions made by DOJ lawyers.
But Barr’s view of both the AG’s authority and that of the President is authoritarian in spirit and execution and deeply antithetical to the Constitution’s commitment to limited powers.
In past speeches, Barr has embraced the theory of the “unitary executive.” That theory holds that all executive powers are lodged in the person of the president of the United States. As a result, no exercise of authority, discretion, or judgment legitimately resides with any official other than the president. And it encourages presidents like Trump to run the executive branch in a top-down, command and control manner and to regard his subordinates as vassals to be disposed of at his whim and pleasure.
Barr is providing the ideological underpinning for Trump’s belief that under the Constitution’s Article II, which defines the jurisdiction of the executive branch, the president’s authority is “total.” Under this view he can determine and direct the DOJ’s prosecutorial work. It helps explain why Trump regarded former AG Jeff Sessions’ recusal in the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election as a betrayal.
Barr’s record and his actions in cases involving the president’s allies, like Michael Flynn and Roger Stone and one-time allies like Michael Cohen, have made what was once extraordinary now ordinary.
Moreover, his grandiose conception of the AG’s role and denigration of those who work in the DOJ has undermined morale throughout the Justice Department and led to resignations by numerous highly-respected career prosecutors.
That denigration was on full display in Barr’s speech last Wednesday.
That speech was filled with references to overzealous federal prosecutors plumbing every legal technicality to vex ordinary, decent Americans. This, he contended, is even more the case when they become what Barr called “headhunters” of prominent political figures.
Referencing without naming Robert Mueller or the people who have served as US Attorneys in the Southern District of New York, he accused “our prosecutors” of “all too often insert(ing) themselves into the political process based on the flimsiest of legal theories. We have seen this time and again, with prosecutors bringing ill-conceived charges against prominent political figures and launching debilitating investigations….”
And, without a hint of irony, he suggested that his subordinates were guilty of “the criminalization of politics.” He warned against going “the way of third world nations where new administrations routinely prosecute their predecessors for various ill-defined crimes against the state.”
All of this from a man who accused the Obama Administration of “spying” on the Trump campaign in 2016 and recently suggested that the DOJ consider bringing criminal charges against Seattle, Washington’s Democratic Mayor. Barr, of course, dutifully serves a president still making allusions to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server when she was Secretary of State and who gleefully has led “Lock her up“ chants at his political rallies.
Bizarrely, Barr compared the DOJ to “a Montessori preschool” which for too long has let “the most junior members set the agenda.” He offered a caricature of the department’s history as one in which the top leadership has “blindly” deferred to “whatever those subordinates want to do.” In fact, as Barr knows, DOJ practice provides for several layers of review of decisions of line prosecutors.
But this is the way authoritarians operate. They treat adults as misbehaving children and their predecessors as dangerously permissive.
The professionalism that Barr demeans requires cultivation of independent judgment and adherence to strict codes of ethics. Professionals, especially prosecutors, take pride in their judiciousness and earn the respect of their peers not by blindly persecuting the innocent but by displaying what Yale law professor Anthony Kronman labels “practical wisdom.”
Moreover, the courts generally have shown great respect for the professionalism of federal prosecutors by according them wide latitude and respecting their discretionary charging decisions. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia once explained, those decisions necessarily involve a complex “balancing of innumerable legal and practical considerations.”
This is hardly the kind of work expected in even the best Montessori preschools.
Barr’s speech was a masterful piece of Trumpian-propaganda, cynically and with a straight face accusing others of the very sins that he himself has committed.
His high-minded appeals to the rule of law and the American spirit of liberty should not distract us from recognizing the damage Barr has done to those values. He has made a habit of defying subpoenas, mocking legitimate Congressional oversight, and using duplicity, deception, and strong arm tactics to protect President Trump’s political cronies and punish his opponents.
The AG concluded his Hilldale College remarks by repeating the admonition of Robert Jackson who was AG from 1940-1941. Jackson said that the qualities of a good prosecutor involve what he called “a sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship.” He noted that the “best protection against the abuse of power…lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth not victims, who serves the law not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”
The United States will be better off when we have an AG with a sense of fair play, human kindness, and humility – all virtues which Barr regularly betrays.


thebulwark--2020-09-19--Justice Ginsburg: A Model of Civility

Justice Ginsburg: A Model of Civility

One could almost feel the collective , international gasp at the breaking news of the death on Friday of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , at the age of 87 , from complications related to pancreatic cancer .
Justice Ginsburg was first diagnosed in 2009 , beating back for years a demonic malignancy that claims most lives in less than half that time .
She was a warrior—a warrior for civil rights , for gender rights , for constitutional rights , to be sure .
But in this moment of American history when democracy itself hangs by a thread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ menacingly before us , perhaps her most important contribution is a reminder of a life lived with an unflinching value system—a value system defined by civility , compassion , critical thinking , decency , and grace .
She was exactly what the soul of America is lacking right now .
Famously , RBG and the late Justice Antonin Scalia were close friends .
Upon his unexpected death , her remarks modeled the kind of integrity and friendship that we hope for our own children : Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duet : “ We are different , we are one , ” different in our interpretation of written texts , one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve .
From our years together at the D.C .
Circuit , we were best buddies .
We disagreed now and then , but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent , the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation .
Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “ applesauce ” and “ argle bargle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to strengthen the majority opinion .
He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit , with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh .
Where has RBG ’ s spirit of respect and tolerance gone ?
Does it still live amid the purple mountain majesties and amber waves of grain ?
To be sure , Justice Ginsburg was not alone among members of the Supreme Court in her penchant for putting civility and professionalism over politics—it is an ethos of that institution that , so far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history .
But as a woman who , despite her top grades at Harvard and Columbia Law Schools , took a job teaching law when no law firm would hire her , Justice Ginsburg occupied a Supreme Court class by herself .
An icon of popular culture , with two hit films to her name and a Saturday Night Live impersonation that only a cultural phenomenon would merit , she started off with humble beginnings in Brooklyn .
She married her sweetheart and reared an infant as a law student in the 1950s—a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is all the better due to her work as a tireless champion of gender equality .
Unlike many of the bullies now dotting Washington , D.C. , Justice Ginsburg gained her power and stature through relentlessly hard work , along with impeccable intellectual study and rigor .
She took her last breath at a moment when—thanks to White House and Kremlin lies , political gaslighting , and cruel gamesmanship—we find ourselves fighting about whether facts are facts and law is law .
The days when we debated policy , not reality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues without kneejerk hatred and demonization of those who disagree with us .
Tragically , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time—just hours after she died , while the grieving grasped for the implications of this loss—to poke half the population in the eye with the callous announcement that Ginsburg ’ s replacement will come swiftly and decidedly .
Of course , the hypocrisy of this maneuver is bone-chilling , as McConnell infamously deprived President Obama of his constitutional prerogative to appoint Judge Merrick Garland—a moderate—to the Supreme Court on the cynical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 election .
This will surprise no one ; Mitch McConnell long ago revealed himself to be a ruthless , unprincipled political operator .
The trouble is that he does have the power—with a slim Republican Senate majority in his grasp—to carry out his promise .
For now , RBG ’ s spirit still lingers .
Let ’ s hope that Senate Republicans—assuming they accept the timeline that the “ dear leader ” duo of Trump and McConnell has already established—will be prompted by their better angels to insist on two things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with competence to do the job .
With all the upset over the confirmations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , no one can accuse either of lacking the intellectual chops for the job .
Second , refuse to confirm a divider , a splitter , a fearmongerer .
Have a shred of compassion for the millions who quake at the thought of what generations of a solidly conservative 6-3 majority will mean for themselves , their families , and the less advantaged of society .
If Senate Republicans don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very least , all of their accolades for the life well lived by Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become utterly meaningless .

One could almost feel the collective, international gasp at the breaking news of the death on Friday of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at the age of 87, from complications related to pancreatic cancer. Justice Ginsburg was first diagnosed in 2009, beating back for years a demonic malignancy that claims most lives in less than half that time. She was a warrior—a warrior for civil rights, for gender rights, for constitutional rights, to be sure. But in this moment of American history when democracy itself hangs by a thread, with a yawning crevasse of authoritarianism menacingly before us, perhaps her most important contribution is a reminder of a life lived with an unflinching value system—a value system defined by civility, compassion, critical thinking, decency, and grace. She was exactly what the soul of America is lacking right now.
Famously, RBG and the late Justice Antonin Scalia were close friends. Upon his unexpected death, her remarks modeled the kind of integrity and friendship that we hope for our own children:
Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh.
Where has RBG’s spirit of respect and tolerance gone? Does it still live amid the purple mountain majesties and amber waves of grain?
To be sure, Justice Ginsburg was not alone among members of the Supreme Court in her penchant for putting civility and professionalism over politics—it is an ethos of that institution that, so far, has survived this dark era of American history. But as a woman who, despite her top grades at Harvard and Columbia Law Schools, took a job teaching law when no law firm would hire her, Justice Ginsburg occupied a Supreme Court class by herself.
An icon of popular culture, with two hit films to her name and a Saturday Night Live impersonation that only a cultural phenomenon would merit, she started off with humble beginnings in Brooklyn. She married her sweetheart and reared an infant as a law student in the 1950s—a feat that humbles women even today, and is all the better due to her work as a tireless champion of gender equality.
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…
Unlike many of the bullies now dotting Washington, D.C., Justice Ginsburg gained her power and stature through relentlessly hard work, along with impeccable intellectual study and rigor. She took her last breath at a moment when—thanks to White House and Kremlin lies, political gaslighting, and cruel gamesmanship—we find ourselves fighting about whether facts are facts and law is law. The days when we debated policy, not reality, seem halcyon now—when we could talk about issues without kneejerk hatred and demonization of those who disagree with us.
Tragically, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time—just hours after she died, while the grieving grasped for the implications of this loss—to poke half the population in the eye with the callous announcement that Ginsburg’s replacement will come swiftly and decidedly. Of course, the hypocrisy of this maneuver is bone-chilling, as McConnell infamously deprived President Obama of his constitutional prerogative to appoint Judge Merrick Garland—a moderate—to the Supreme Court on the cynical rationale that it was too close to the 2016 election.
This will surprise no one; Mitch McConnell long ago revealed himself to be a ruthless, unprincipled political operator. The trouble is that he does have the power—with a slim Republican Senate majority in his grasp—to carry out his promise.
For now, RBG’s spirit still lingers. Let’s hope that Senate Republicans—assuming they accept the timeline that the “dear leader” duo of Trump and McConnell has already established—will be prompted by their better angels to insist on two things in a nominee.
First, someone with competence to do the job. With all the upset over the confirmations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, no one can accuse either of lacking the intellectual chops for the job. Second, refuse to confirm a divider, a splitter, a fearmongerer. Have a shred of compassion for the millions who quake at the thought of what generations of a solidly conservative 6-3 majority will mean for themselves, their families, and the less advantaged of society.
If Senate Republicans don’t do those two things, at the very least, all of their accolades for the life well lived by Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become utterly meaningless.


thebulwark--2020-09-19--Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Coming Political Crisis

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at age 87 , while in harness as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court .
She remained at her post for 21 years after being diagnosed with cancer .
First , she faced down colon cancer .
After beating that disease , she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009 , which she battled on and off for fully 11 years while serving as a beacon of civility and personal kindness—even for those who did not share her politics .
Ginsburg ’ s death moves the Court one step closer to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the class of justices appointed during the ’ 80s and ’ 90s .
And it moves America one step closer to another political crisis .
In February 2016 , Ginsburg ’ s dear friend Antonin Scalia passed away .
His death did not need to spark a political crisis , but it did .
Barack Obama , with 11 months left in his term , nominated Merrick Garland for Scalia ’ s seat .
But Republicans controlled the Senate and Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote for Obama ’ s nominee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters have more input about the nomination than a lame-duck president .
Senate Republicans and most of the Republican commentariat agreed , going on the record about how it would be wrong for the Senate to consider the nomination .
We are now 46 days away from a presidential election that the current president is—just as a statistical matter—more likely to lose than win .
Republicans still control the Senate , but this majority is also in jeopardy .
( 1 ) Will he and the Republican Senate attempt to ram a replacement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ render a verdict on them ?
( 2 ) Will he wait until after the election , but before January 20 , to replace Ginsburg ?
( 3 ) Or will he abide by the same rationales that were deployed in the case of Merrick Garland , and allow the next president and Senate to attend to this matter ?
It is not clear that any of these pathways leads to a good outcome for the country .
This may be—forgive the mixed metaphor—the black swan that breaks America ’ s back .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of consequences for each branch of the tree .
If Trump and Republicans replace Ginsburg it will destroy the remaining public legitimacy of the Supreme Court .
Full stop .
The Republican party ’ s willingness to invent , bend , cherry-pick , or break rules and norms as needed in the pursuit of power would be undeniable .
Already Republican activists have begun creating ludicrous , tortured rationales : Since 1880 , no Senate with more than three left-handed members has failed to vote on the nominee of a president whose name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see , these justifications are an affront to common sense and basic fairness .
If Republicans choose this route , their ruthlessness would have resulted in not one , but two SCOTUS seats that will be widely regarded as stolen .
And worse : stolen by a president who was himself elected despite a decisive loss in the popular vote .
Imagine what would happen if Ginsburg were replaced before November , and then Joe Biden wins the presidency and Democrats capture the Senate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform the Supreme Court .
And it is not clear what principled counterargument might be mounted against such ideas , even if the “ reform ” proposals amount to enlarging and packing the Court .
The Supreme Court has become increasingly politicized since the failed nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 .
But it still retains a great deal of independence and popular legitimacy .
This is largely a testament to the character of the justices , which has mostly outbalanced the cravenness of the politicians who have appointed and confirmed them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing—compared to what would happen if Ginsburg is replaced before November 3 .
Yet in truth , even that would be preferable to what would happen should Trump try to replace Ginsburg during the interregnum between Election Day and Inauguration Day .
If Trump and Senate Republicans are defeated in the election , but then try to replace Ginsburg before leaving office , the political retribution would be incalculable .
The Democratic party would believe—with good reason—that there are no limits to majoritarian rule .
At which point , the powder keg would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nominate Ginsburg ’ s replacement or , if he did issue a nomination , the Senate could decline to consider his nominee .
But even these choices would probably not be enough to avoid strife .
Trump ’ s white nationalist base is already demanding that the president fill Ginsburg ’ s seat immediately .
If Trump bucks his base—which would be a first—and Joe Biden is victorious , then the delegitimization of the Court will come from the other direction .
And what if Trump makes a nomination and the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Would there be enough Republican defectors to stop the nomination ?
If so , then both sides would emerge from this crisis believing that they had been screwed .
No one gets away clean and the Court loses , again .
There are only a handful of ways out of this trap and all of them require the prudential coordination of elites .
Which is .
.
.
not something we have seen a great deal of in the last , say , generation of American life .
The conservative legal establishment could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vacant , thus taking out of play most potential nominees—and also giving cover to elected Republicans to agree that the decision should wait .
If the Federalist Society declines to defuse this bomb , then Mitch McConnell could do so by simply announcing that what was good for the goose is good for the gander , and that his caucus will not entertain a nominee .
( More on this in a moment . )
If McConnell declines this path , then a small group of Republican senators could prospectively announce that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination .
This would be risky , both because it would tempt Trump and Senate Republicans to call their bluff and force them to actually make the vote , and because it would free both Trump and other Republicans to demagogue the issue and preemptively delegitimize any justice not appointed by Trump .
There is only one pathway that leads to comity , and Ginsburg herself opened the door to it : Trump could , seeing this , take the high road .
He could issue a statement with both Mitch McConnell and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Democrats—intend to respect this great American ’ s last wish .
That they recognize that what happened to Merrick Garland had poisoned the Supreme Court and that , by postponing this nomination , they hoped to create the space for this organ of the political system to heal .
Blood for blood .
And by having Republicans endure being on the other side of the exact same situation , no more scores will need to be settled .
At least in this one arena .
That would be not just a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And a fitting final service which Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have rendered to America .
So instead we have Mitch McConnell—in literally the same statement in which he mourns Ginsburg ’ s passing—announcing his intention to hold a vote on any Trump nominee .
It ’ s going to get worse .

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at age 87, while in harness as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.
She remained at her post for 21 years after being diagnosed with cancer. First, she faced down colon cancer. After beating that disease, she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009, which she battled on and off for fully 11 years while serving as a beacon of civility and personal kindness—even for those who did not share her politics.
Ginsburg’s death moves the Court one step closer to the turnover that will close the book on the class of justices appointed during the ’80s and ’90s.
And it moves America one step closer to another political crisis.
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…
In February 2016, Ginsburg’s dear friend Antonin Scalia passed away. His death did not need to spark a political crisis, but it did. Barack Obama, with 11 months left in his term, nominated Merrick Garland for Scalia’s seat. But Republicans controlled the Senate and Mitch McConnell refused to hold a vote for Obama’s nominee, claiming that concerns about legitimacy demanded that voters have more input about the nomination than a lame-duck president. Senate Republicans and most of the Republican commentariat agreed, going on the record about how it would be wrong for the Senate to consider the nomination.
We are now 46 days away from a presidential election that the current president is—just as a statistical matter—more likely to lose than win.
Republicans still control the Senate, but this majority is also in jeopardy.
And so President Trump faces a decision:
(1) Will he and the Republican Senate attempt to ram a replacement for Ginsburg through the Senate before voters render a verdict on them?
(2) Will he wait until after the election, but before January 20, to replace Ginsburg?
(3) Or will he abide by the same rationales that were deployed in the case of Merrick Garland, and allow the next president and Senate to attend to this matter?
It is not clear that any of these pathways leads to a good outcome for the country. This may be—forgive the mixed metaphor—the black swan that breaks America’s back.
Let’s walk through the chain of consequences for each branch of the tree.
If Trump and Republicans replace Ginsburg it will destroy the remaining public legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Full stop.
The Republican party’s willingness to invent, bend, cherry-pick, or break rules and norms as needed in the pursuit of power would be undeniable. Already Republican activists have begun creating ludicrous, tortured rationales: Since 1880, no Senate with more than three left-handed members has failed to vote on the nominee of a president whose name contains the letter “d.” To anyone with ears to hear and eyes to see, these justifications are an affront to common sense and basic fairness.
If Republicans choose this route, their ruthlessness would have resulted in not one, but two SCOTUS seats that will be widely regarded as stolen. And worse: stolen by a president who was himself elected despite a decisive loss in the popular vote.
Imagine what would happen if Ginsburg were replaced before November, and then Joe Biden wins the presidency and Democrats capture the Senate. There would be enormous pressure to somehow reform the Supreme Court. And it is not clear what principled counterargument might be mounted against such ideas, even if the “reform” proposals amount to enlarging and packing the Court.
The Supreme Court has become increasingly politicized since the failed nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. But it still retains a great deal of independence and popular legitimacy. This is largely a testament to the character of the justices, which has mostly outbalanced the cravenness of the politicians who have appointed and confirmed them.
But this politicization will be as nothing—absolutely nothing—compared to what would happen if Ginsburg is replaced before November 3.
Yet in truth, even that would be preferable to what would happen should Trump try to replace Ginsburg during the interregnum between Election Day and Inauguration Day.
If Trump and Senate Republicans are defeated in the election, but then try to replace Ginsburg before leaving office, the political retribution would be incalculable. The Democratic party would believe—with good reason—that there are no limits to majoritarian rule.
At which point, the powder keg would explode.
Which leaves the Garland gambit.
Either Donald Trump could decline to nominate Ginsburg’s replacement or, if he did issue a nomination, the Senate could decline to consider his nominee.
But even these choices would probably not be enough to avoid strife.
Trump’s white nationalist base is already demanding that the president fill Ginsburg’s seat immediately.
https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/status/1307111719064436737
If Trump bucks his base—which would be a first—and Joe Biden is victorious, then the delegitimization of the Court will come from the other direction.
And what if Trump makes a nomination and the Republican caucus is split on moving forward? Would there be enough Republican defectors to stop the nomination? If so, then both sides would emerge from this crisis believing that they had been screwed. No one gets away clean and the Court loses, again.
There are only a handful of ways out of this trap and all of them require the prudential coordination of elites. Which is . . . not something we have seen a great deal of in the last, say, generation of American life.
The conservative legal establishment could announce its preference to leave the seat vacant, thus taking out of play most potential nominees—and also giving cover to elected Republicans to agree that the decision should wait.
If the Federalist Society declines to defuse this bomb, then Mitch McConnell could do so by simply announcing that what was good for the goose is good for the gander, and that his caucus will not entertain a nominee. (More on this in a moment.)
If McConnell declines this path, then a small group of Republican senators could prospectively announce that they will join with Democrats to block any nomination. This would be risky, both because it would tempt Trump and Senate Republicans to call their bluff and force them to actually make the vote, and because it would free both Trump and other Republicans to demagogue the issue and preemptively delegitimize any justice not appointed by Trump.
There is only one pathway that leads to comity, and Ginsburg herself opened the door to it:
Justice Ginsburg dictated a statement before her death: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." https://t.co/XLzhPiLSng — Justin Miller (@justinjm1) September 18, 2020
Trump could, seeing this, take the high road. He could issue a statement with both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer stating that all parties—both Republicans and Democrats—intend to respect this great American’s last wish. That they recognize that what happened to Merrick Garland had poisoned the Supreme Court and that, by postponing this nomination, they hoped to create the space for this organ of the political system to heal.
Blood for blood. And by having Republicans endure being on the other side of the exact same situation, no more scores will need to be settled. At least in this one arena.
That would be not just a good outcome, but a great one. And a fitting final service which Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have rendered to America.
But it’s 2020.
So instead we have Mitch McConnell—in literally the same statement in which he mourns Ginsburg’s passing—announcing his intention to hold a vote on any Trump nominee.
It’s going to get worse.