alternet--2020-10-25--Amy Coney Barrett and the Second Amendment: Why her 'expansive view' is total BS

`` Pro-life '' Judge Amy Coney Barrett , who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week , seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom , Dick and Kyle .
She reportedly takes `` an expansive view '' of the Second Amendment , writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered `` a second-class amendment . ''
A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety , including Everytown for Gun Safety , Moms Demand Action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Violence , expressed their deep concerns with Barrett 's nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress .
The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not .
And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett 's mentor , Justice Antonin Scalia .
It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the `` textualist '' approach to reading statutes and the `` originalist '' approach to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett .
There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett .
She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education , taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame .
She 's a mother ( of seven ) who manages to work in a demanding career .
At her gym , she 's apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups , for gosh sakes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' or `` originalist '' when she looks at statutes or the Constitution .
In rendering decisions as a judge , she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution , seeking the reasonable meaning of that text , in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be .
In speaking to Sen. Joni Ernst , R-Iowa , during the confirmation hearings , Barrett put it this way : `` My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The intent of a statute is best expressed through the words — so , looking at what the words would communicate to a skilled user of the language . ''
Barrett works both as a textualist and as a particular kind of `` originalist , '' one who focuses on the original meaning , not the intent , of the founders , taking the same approach most recently popularized by Scalia , for whom she clerked in 1998-1999 .
( Apparently , the `` intent '' approach had been discredited in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a seemingly paradoxical `` new originalist '' approach of looking for original meaning . )
To understand how this can work , a look at the language of the Second Amendment may be instructive , followed by a brief discussion of the Heller decision resulting from Scalia 's divining of the text of the framers , as ratified by Congress as part of the Bill of Rights in 1789 .
As we all know , that 's it — 27 words with some oddly placed commas and capitalized terms .
( Odd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era ; look , you are newly on your way to being a new originalist ! )
Given that Barrett has a bachelor 's in English , from Rhodes College in Memphis , it seems fair to turn to a well-regarded reference here .
According to `` Fowler 's Modern English Usage , '' there should be , in this case , no comma after `` Militia '' because what we see in the amendment is an instance of something called `` absolute construction . ''
Fowler defines it this way : That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given that Barrett was an English literature major and is a textualist , her imperative to avoid misinterpretation here would seem like a piece of cake .
To me ( and to many others , including a number of Supreme Court justices ) , the obvious sense here is `` In that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . ''
The latter thing , the right , is contingent on the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need for such .
The original Congress that passed the Bill of Rights might have chosen to turn it around , as in `` The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State '' ( and it was in that order in an original draft by Madison ) , but they chose to emphasize the `` well-regulated Militia being necessary '' clause , which in effect makes it a conditional clause — if this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But a textualist and/or originalist looks not at what the text reasonably means to people today but to the people at the time the provision or statute was enacted .
The argument is that in doing so , they are honoring the enacted law , as explained in a 2019 article on The Federalist Society blog : Hold that thought , because when the text is considered to be not as clear as it needs to be , the textualist then is able to hunt for more information — in history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murky , in more esoteric areas , say , sea shanties .
( Okay , likely not sea shanties , unless the statute has to do with , say , whaling or piracy .
Then maybe so . )
Speaking of militias , the Militia Act of 1903 , also known ( somewhat hilariously ) as the Dick Act , for Ohio congressman Charles Dick , was passed after militia groups sent by states proved untrained and disorderly and generally lacking standards ( e.g.
, different uniforms ) during the Spanish-American War .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of both an `` organized '' and an `` unorganized '' militia , and thereby confused the issue .
The organized militia became the National Guard ; what was meant by the `` unorganized militia '' was simply a reserve of all men 17 to 45 years of age who might be called into service , if needed .
It certainly did not mean a ragtag militia that gathers together for regular gun-fondling sessions or , just for instance , to concoct a plot to kidnap , `` try '' and execute a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , for tyranny . )
The `` Dick Act '' works on a few levels , then — it 's all male , and it 's a bit confused , like many men ( I include myself ) .
Although that particular Dick served long ago , it seems we still have a slew of Dicks in Congress purposely drawing up vaguely worded legislation , the very bane of a textualist .
Muscle-bound ponytailed oldsters riding around on choppers and those odd insect-like three-wheeled motorbikes as `` militia '' members often claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolute right to amass a personal armory as part of an unorganized militia .
But , again , that is not what was meant.By the way , The Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) estimates there are at least 300 private militia groups in the United States , nearly all of them far-right so-called patriot groups .
According to the SPLC blog Hatewatch , far-right militia member Ryan Balch , who was photographed walking with Kyle Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse killed two protesters in Kenosha , Wisconsin , in August , said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : That last bit is worth repeating : `` There would have to be some organization . ''
The Scalia-led Heller decision took gun ownership beyond even the contested context of a well-regulated militia , extending it to personal ownership of handguns in defending `` hearth and home . ''
Further , it dispensed with the part of the law in Washington , D.C. , that called for guns in the home to be locked up or otherwise secured when not in use .
Soon after Heller , states began to pass laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they desired .
Walmart ?
City Hall ?
Church ?
Sure , why not ?
But despite Scalia 's freewheeling textualist reading of the Second Amendment , ownership outside the context of service in that annoyingly modified militia was never mentioned in the Constitution or in Madison 's drafts preparing for the convention .
According to author Michael Waldman , It 's also worth repeating that last line : In fact , every other time the court had ruled previously , it had ruled otherwise .
As you will see , Scalia 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a militia .
The prefatory clause ( `` A well-regulated Militia , being necessary… '' ) was reduced to a mere example of why Americans need to keep and bear arms : Once you take that leap , well , you can go anywhere you like .
Scalia was likely humming the `` Theme of the Fast Carriers '' from `` Victory at Sea '' when he got over that hump .
The justice looked to history and tradition , to philosophy and English law and `` natural law '' in justifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right from the idea of a militia .
He invokes an `` ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms '' and notes that most state constitutions allowed gun ownership .
All of that may be true , but none of it can be found in the enacted text .
Scalia might as well have just gone ahead and adopted the NRA 's concept of gun ownership as a `` God-given right . ''
Speaking of that , a 2019 paper on the NRA and religious nationalism published in Nature notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not make law from the bench , that she will mostly be guided by precedent .
But if textualism/originalism got us to a unprecedented precedent that has resulted in people brandishing guns in schools , churches and city halls , how much stock should we reasonably put into this technique ?
Whose right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness obtains here — the gun fetishist or the family of the murdered child ?
The family of the teenager whose suicide was made perfectly efficient by the presence of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chief Justice Warren Burger , a Nixon appointee , famously wrote that the NRA had promulgated fraud about the meaning of the Second Amendment : In an 2018 opinion piece published in response to the student-led nationwide March for Our Lives , retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the original fears of a national standing army creating problems for states was no longer a legitimate concern .
Stevens called the Second Amendment `` a relic of the 18th century '' and advocated that it should be repealed .
Even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening clause means for the rest of the statement .
According to Waldman , who writes of the takeover of NRA leadership by gun-rights radicals in 1977 , the NRA dropped that portion of the Second Amendment on their headquarters in Fairfax , Virginia , posting only the latter part in large letters in the lobby , as if there were no contingency : … the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed .
Nice trick , that , just removing the offending clause — as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
The Second Amendment 's `` well regulated '' may be the most willfully ignored modifier in history .
The Heller decision also ensured that no one had to store guns at home with safety in mind .
In his book `` American Dialogue : The Founders and Us , '' historian Joseph Ellis , a Pulitzer Prize winner , criticized Scalia 's Heller decision as a kind of parlor trick used to push a political agenda : On a larger level , a number of the founders — James Madison and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution as a living document .
Jefferson wrote that `` laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind . ''
In a review of Ellis ' book for the New York Times , Jeff Shesol wrote : Another American historian , Heather Cox Richardson , covering the confirmation hearings for her `` Letters from an American '' newsletter , addressed Barrett and the real purpose of originalism , which is to serve `` a radical capitalism '' : If I were to try to play `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it notable that the framers capitalized `` Militia '' in the amendment .
Though they were also a bit `` cap-happy '' in those days , the fact that they capitalized the word is an intriguing clue as to what they intended .
To me , that `` well regulated Militia '' reads as one entity — something perhaps in existence in all 13 states , but to be organized into a whole in defense of one nation — not the innumerable little `` militias , '' heavily armed and running amok in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we despairingly see today .
Judge Barrett is smarter than I am .
I have no doubt she can do more pull-ups , both physically and linguistically .
But I 'll stand on the side of a multitude of other very intelligent people who read the right to bear arms as constituting a right only when , and if , it is done as part of a well-regulated militia .
And we have that — it 's called the National Guard .
You want to play with people-killing weapons ?
Join the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or shotgun and go hunting , if that 's your thing .
If you read anything else into that while claiming to be an originalist , you are perpetrating a very solemn-sounding con on the American public and likely should wear a tricorn hat when out in publick .
You know , so we can see you coming .
Conservatives naturally want to keep the founders alive and the Constitution dead .
Unless it serves a purpose for them ; then , with originalism , they perform a kind of séance to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sham life — and if the words themselves are a burden , they blithely look to English common law , philosophy and elsewhere for guidance .
I myself have cherry-picked some quotes for this piece .
It 's human nature — and I 'm trying to keep this article from becoming so long that no one reads it .
We may all be textualists now , as Justice Elena Kagan put it in her 2015 Scalia Lecture at Harvard ( to the glee of the Federalist Society and some of her conservative colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — sometimes we see what we want to see .
Or as Paul Simon put it , `` A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest . ''
What will Justice Barrett find in the words of the founders to help her rule on challenges to the Affordable Care Act , or Medicare , or the environmental regulations so critical to addressing climate change ?
The way I read it , if Barrett were to be faithful in her reading of the amendment , she would stand less on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute and the NRA — precedents that have caused unending misery and grief and have made our society much less safe — and actually begin to curtail the so-called rights of gun owners .
In that last sentence , Barrett and other textualists might note that I purposively use the subjunctive .
It is a mood that is already disappearing from the language , but in my time it was often used for contrary-to-fact statements .

"Pro-life" Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who will almost certainly be seated on the Supreme Court this week, seems to have no problem putting guns in the hands of individual Americans who want to buy them — every Tom, Dick and Kyle. She reportedly takes "an expansive view" of the Second Amendment, writing in her only ruling on gun regulation that it should not be considered "a second-class amendment."
A number of groups advocating gun control and gun safety, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, expressed their deep concerns with Barrett's nomination in a recent letter sent to leading members of Congress.
The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the meaning of the Second Amendment far beyond militias — regulated or not. And that 5-4 majority opinion was written by Barrett's mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia.
It might be useful to look back on that ruling to take another look at the "textualist" approach to reading statutes and the "originalist" approach to reading constitutional questions, and to learn what one might then expect of a Justice Barrett.
There are a number of things one might find admirable about Barrett. She was a seriously engaged student at all levels of her education, taking an English degree at Rhodes College and graduating at the top of her law school class at Notre Dame. She's a mother (of seven) who manages to work in a demanding career. At her gym, she's apparently known for her commitment to doing pull-ups, for gosh sakes.
Barrett is also a self-proclaimed "textualist" or "originalist" when she looks at statutes or the Constitution. In rendering decisions as a judge, she says she believes in adhering to precedent but also in closely reading the text of an enacted statute or the Constitution, seeking the reasonable meaning of that text, in the context of what most people at the time it was written would consider it to be.
In speaking to Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, during the confirmation hearings, Barrett put it this way: "My own approach to it would be textualism. The intent of a statute is best expressed through the words — so, looking at what the words would communicate to a skilled user of the language."
Barrett works both as a textualist and as a particular kind of "originalist," one who focuses on the original meaning, not the intent, of the founders, taking the same approach most recently popularized by Scalia, for whom she clerked in 1998-1999. (Apparently, the "intent" approach had been discredited in the 1990s, so conservative judges moved on to a seemingly paradoxical "new originalist" approach of looking for original meaning.)
To understand how this can work, a look at the language of the Second Amendment may be instructive, followed by a brief discussion of the Heller decision resulting from Scalia's divining of the text of the framers, as ratified by Congress as part of the Bill of Rights in 1789.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As we all know, that's it — 27 words with some oddly placed commas and capitalized terms. (Odd for us, but not for that era; look, you are newly on your way to being a new originalist!)
Given that Barrett has a bachelor's in English, from Rhodes College in Memphis, it seems fair to turn to a well-regarded reference here. According to "Fowler's Modern English Usage," there should be, in this case, no comma after "Militia" because what we see in the amendment is an instance of something called "absolute construction." Fowler defines it this way:
Defined by the OED [Oxford English Dictionary] as 'standing out of the usual grammatical relation or syntactical construction with other words', it consists in English of a noun or pronoun that is not the subject or object of any verb or the object of any preposition but is attached to a participle or an infinitive, e.g., The play being over, we went home./Let us toss for it, loser to pay.
That might be a bit dizzying, but given that Barrett was an English literature major and is a textualist, her imperative to avoid misinterpretation here would seem like a piece of cake.
To me (and to many others, including a number of Supreme Court justices), the obvious sense here is "In that a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The latter thing, the right, is contingent on the former thing, the well-regulated militia and the need for such.
The original Congress that passed the Bill of Rights might have chosen to turn it around, as in "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State" (and it was in that order in an original draft by Madison), but they chose to emphasize the "well-regulated Militia being necessary" clause, which in effect makes it a conditional clause — if this is true, then this other thing follows.
But a textualist and/or originalist looks not at what the text reasonably means to people today but to the people at the time the provision or statute was enacted. The argument is that in doing so, they are honoring the enacted law, as explained in a 2019 article on The Federalist Society blog:
… the bottom-line principle of textualism is that the enacted text of a law is to be given supreme deference as the ultimate repository of the law's purpose. Because the object of textualist interpretation is enacted text, many mainstream textualists reject the use of legislative history — history that has never been enacted into law.
Hold that thought, because when the text is considered to be not as clear as it needs to be, the textualist then is able to hunt for more information — in history, traditions and, if things are still murky, in more esoteric areas, say, sea shanties. (Okay, likely not sea shanties, unless the statute has to do with, say, whaling or piracy. Then maybe so.)
Speaking of militias, the Militia Act of 1903, also known (somewhat hilariously) as the Dick Act, for Ohio congressman Charles Dick, was passed after militia groups sent by states proved untrained and disorderly and generally lacking standards (e.g., different uniforms) during the Spanish-American War. Unfortunately, the act mentioned the creation of both an "organized" and an "unorganized" militia, and thereby confused the issue.
The organized militia became the National Guard; what was meant by the "unorganized militia" was simply a reserve of all men 17 to 45 years of age who might be called into service, if needed. It certainly did not mean a ragtag militia that gathers together for regular gun-fondling sessions or, just for instance, to concoct a plot to kidnap, "try" and execute a duly elected state governor. (You know, for tyranny.)
The "Dick Act" works on a few levels, then — it's all male, and it's a bit confused, like many men (I include myself). Although that particular Dick served long ago, it seems we still have a slew of Dicks in Congress purposely drawing up vaguely worded legislation, the very bane of a textualist.
Muscle-bound ponytailed oldsters riding around on choppers and those odd insect-like three-wheeled motorbikes as "militia" members often claim that the Dick Act gives them an absolute right to amass a personal armory as part of an unorganized militia. But, again, that is not what was meant.By the way, The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) estimates there are at least 300 private militia groups in the United States, nearly all of them far-right so-called patriot groups.
According to the SPLC blog Hatewatch, far-right militia member Ryan Balch, who was photographed walking with Kyle Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse killed two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August, said they were not part of a well-regulated militia:
"There was not a whole lot of communication [that night], and that was even within the protesters themselves," Balch told Hatewatch. Asked what he would need to call a militia well-regulated, Balch said, "There would have to be some organization."
That last bit is worth repeating: "There would have to be some organization."
The Scalia-led Heller decision took gun ownership beyond even the contested context of a well-regulated militia, extending it to personal ownership of handguns in defending "hearth and home." Further, it dispensed with the part of the law in Washington, D.C., that called for guns in the home to be locked up or otherwise secured when not in use.
Soon after Heller, states began to pass laws allowing citizens to carry guns nearly anywhere they desired. Walmart? City Hall? Church? Sure, why not?
But despite Scalia's freewheeling textualist reading of the Second Amendment, ownership outside the context of service in that annoyingly modified militia was never mentioned in the Constitution or in Madison's drafts preparing for the convention. According to author Michael Waldman,
Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn't rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital's law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.
It's also worth repeating that last line: In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.
As you will see, Scalia's originalist reading somehow dispensed with the idea of a militia. The prefatory clause ("A well-regulated Militia, being necessary…") was reduced to a mere example of why Americans need to keep and bear arms:
The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Once you take that leap, well, you can go anywhere you like. Scalia was likely humming the "Theme of the Fast Carriers" from "Victory at Sea" when he got over that hump. The justice looked to history and tradition, to philosophy and English law and "natural law" in justifying his decision to divorce the meaning of the right from the idea of a militia. He invokes an "ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms" and notes that most state constitutions allowed gun ownership. All of that may be true, but none of it can be found in the enacted text.
Scalia might as well have just gone ahead and adopted the NRA's concept of gun ownership as a "God-given right."
Speaking of that, a 2019 paper on the NRA and religious nationalism published in Naturenotes:
Over the last 40 years, the NRA has deliberately pivoted to protecting the Second Amendment, not as something merely important but as something sacred to be defended at all costs from the profane hands of the government. The NRA has done this by deliberately using religious imagery, language, and icons such as Charlton Heston, that map onto the largely Protestant religious beliefs and religious nationalism tracing back to the founding of the nation.
Judge Barrett piously promises that she will not make law from the bench, that she will mostly be guided by precedent. But if textualism/originalism got us to a unprecedented precedent that has resulted in people brandishing guns in schools, churches and city halls, how much stock should we reasonably put into this technique? Whose right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness obtains here — the gun fetishist or the family of the murdered child? The family of the teenager whose suicide was made perfectly efficient by the presence of a handgun in the home?
The late Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee, famously wrote that the NRA had promulgated fraud about the meaning of the Second Amendment:
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood apart from the purpose, the setting, and the objectives of the draftsmen. At the time of the Bill of Rights, people were apprehensive about the new national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. It guarantees, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago.
In an 2018 opinion piece published in response to the student-led nationwide March for Our Lives, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the original fears of a national standing army creating problems for states was no longer a legitimate concern. Stevens called the Second Amendment "a relic of the 18th century" and advocated that it should be repealed.
Even the NRA itself has tacitly admitted what the opening clause means for the rest of the statement. According to Waldman, who writes of the takeover of NRA leadership by gun-rights radicals in 1977, the NRA dropped that portion of the Second Amendment on their headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, posting only the latter part in large letters in the lobby, as if there were no contingency: … the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Nice trick, that, just removing the offending clause — as Scalia, in essence, did as well. The Second Amendment's "well regulated" may be the most willfully ignored modifier in history. The Heller decision also ensured that no one had to store guns at home with safety in mind.
In his book "American Dialogue: The Founders and Us," historian Joseph Ellis, a Pulitzer Prize winner, criticized Scalia's Heller decision as a kind of parlor trick used to push a political agenda:
If Heller reads like a prolonged exercise in legalistic legerdemain … that is because Scalia's preordained outcome forced him to perform three challenging tasks: to show that the words of the Second Amendment do not mean what they say; to ignore the historical conditions his originalist doctrine purportedly required him to emphasize; and to obscure the radical implications of rejecting completely the accumulated wisdom of his predecessors on the court.
On a larger level, a number of the founders — James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in particular — saw the Constitution as a living document. Jefferson wrote that "laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind." In a review of Ellis' book for the New York Times, Jeff Shesol wrote:
It would never have occurred to Madison … that the Constitution should dictate every answer or foreclose all debate, no matter what is said at meetings of the Federalist Society or in Supreme Court confirmation hearings. As Ellis argues, the prevailing conservative doctrine of "originalism" is a pose that rests on a fiction: the idea that there is a "single source of constitutional truth back there at the founding," easily discovered by any judge who cares to see it.
Another American historian, Heather Cox Richardson, covering the confirmation hearings for her "Letters from an American" newsletter, addressed Barrett and the real purpose of originalism, which is to serve "a radical capitalism":
The originalism of scholars like Barrett is an answer to the judges who, in the years after World War Two, interpreted the law to make American democracy live up to its principles, making all Americans equal before the law. With the New Deal in the 1930s, the Democrats under Franklin Delano Roosevelt had set out to level the economic playing field between the wealthy and ordinary Americans. They regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and promoted infrastructure…. Their desire to roll back the changes of the modern era serves traditional concepts of society and evangelical religion, of course, but it also serves a radical capitalism. If the government is as limited as they say, it cannot protect the rights of minorities or women. But it also cannot regulate business. It cannot provide a social safety net, or promote infrastructure, things that cost tax dollars and, in the case of infrastructure, take lucrative opportunities from private businesses. In short, under the theory of originalism, the government cannot do anything to rein in corporations or the very wealthy.
If I were to try to play "textualist" myself, I would find it notable that the framers capitalized "Militia" in the amendment. Though they were also a bit "cap-happy" in those days, the fact that they capitalized the word is an intriguing clue as to what they intended. To me, that "well regulated Militia" reads as one entity — something perhaps in existence in all 13 states, but to be organized into a whole in defense of one nation — not the innumerable little "militias," heavily armed and running amok in their QAnon T-shirts and mail-order camouflage, that we despairingly see today.
Judge Barrett is smarter than I am. I have no doubt she can do more pull-ups, both physically and linguistically. But I'll stand on the side of a multitude of other very intelligent people who read the right to bear arms as constituting a right only when, and if, it is done as part of a well-regulated militia. And we have that — it's called the National Guard. You want to play with people-killing weapons? Join the Guard. Otherwise, grab a rifle or shotgun and go hunting, if that's your thing.
If you read anything else into that while claiming to be an originalist, you are perpetrating a very solemn-sounding con on the American public and likely should wear a tricorn hat when out in publick. You know, so we can see you coming.
Conservatives naturally want to keep the founders alive and the Constitution dead. Unless it serves a purpose for them; then, with originalism, they perform a kind of séance to bring the document back to a sort of sham life — and if the words themselves are a burden, they blithely look to English common law, philosophy and elsewhere for guidance.
I myself have cherry-picked some quotes for this piece. It's human nature — and I'm trying to keep this article from becoming so long that no one reads it. We may all be textualists now, as Justice Elena Kagan put it in her 2015 Scalia Lecture at Harvard (to the glee of the Federalist Society and some of her conservative colleagues), but we are also human — sometimes we see what we want to see. Or as Paul Simon put it, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
What will Justice Barrett find in the words of the founders to help her rule on challenges to the Affordable Care Act, or Medicare, or the environmental regulations so critical to addressing climate change?
The way I read it, if Barrett were to be faithful in her reading of the amendment, she would stand less on the recent precedents funded by the Cato Institute and the NRA — precedents that have caused unending misery and grief and have made our society much less safe — and actually begin to curtail the so-called rights of gun owners.
In that last sentence, Barrett and other textualists might note that I purposively use the subjunctive. It is a mood that is already disappearing from the language, but in my time it was often used for contrary-to-fact statements.


alternet--2020-10-25--Watch: Obama drowns Trump in a flood of mockery in a brutally hilarious speech

Former President Barack Obama took the stage in Miami , Florida , for a drive-in rally where people could social distance safely .
That did n't stop Obama from bringing the heat against the president , however .
Speaking to a honking crowd , Obama mocked Trump for the overwhelming ignorance and cruelty that has persisted throughout his four years in office .
`` When the daily intelligence briefings are flashing warning signs about a virus , the president ca n't be AWOL , '' Obama said .
`` When Russians put bounties on the heads of our brave soldiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ca n't be MIA .
He ca n't be somebody who does n't read the briefings .
Joe Biden would never call the men and women of our military suckers and losers .
He knows those troops are somebody 's husband , somebody 's wife , somebody 's kids , somebody 's spouse , somebody 's father .
And when a hurricane devastates Puerto Rico , a president is supposed to help it rebuild , not toss paper towels withhold billions of dollars in aid until just before an election .
We 've @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Puerto Rico . ''
The former president then went on to blast Trump for being so weak he could n't even handle a `` 60 Minutes '' interview .
Obama continued : `` Believe it or not , could have been worse .
He once asked national security officials if he could nuke hurricanes .
I mean , at least he did n't do that .
A nuclear hurricane seems like it would have been bad .
I mean , it would be funny if it was n't .
Look , some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in south Florida , it 's just made up .
It 's just nonsense .
Listening to the Republicans , you think Joe was more communist than the Castros .
Do n't follow for that baloney .
Do n't fall for that okie-doke .
Joe Biden was a senator from Delaware ; he was my vice president .
I think people would know if he was a socialist by now . ''
See the videos below : https : //twitter.com/mayaharris_/status/1320103196933672960

Former President Barack Obama took the stage in Miami, Florida, for a drive-in rally where people could social distance safely. That didn't stop Obama from bringing the heat against the president, however. Speaking to a honking crowd, Obama mocked Trump for the overwhelming ignorance and cruelty that has persisted throughout his four years in office. "When the daily intelligence briefings are flashing warning signs about a virus, the president can't be AWOL," Obama said. "When Russians put bounties on the heads of our brave soldiers in Afghanistan, the commander in chief can't be MIA . He can't be somebody who doesn't read the briefings. Joe Biden would never call the men and women of our military suckers and losers. He knows those troops are somebody's husband, somebody's wife, somebody's kids, somebody's spouse, somebody's father. And when a hurricane devastates Puerto Rico, a president is supposed to help it rebuild, not toss paper towels withhold billions of dollars in aid until just before an election. We've got a president who actually suggested selling Puerto Rico." The former president then went on to blast Trump for being so weak he couldn't even handle a "60 Minutes" interview . Obama continued: "Believe it or not, could have been worse. He once asked national security officials if he could nuke hurricanes. I mean, at least he didn't do that. A nuclear hurricane seems like it would have been bad. I mean, it would be funny if it wasn't. Look, some of the rhetoric you're hearing down here in south Florida, it's just made up. It's just nonsense. Listening to the Republicans, you think Joe was more communist than the Castros. Don't follow for that baloney. Don't fall for that okie-doke. Joe Biden was a senator from Delaware; he was my vice president. I think people would know if he was a socialist by now." See the videos below: https://twitter.com/mayaharris_/status/1320103196933672960


alternet--2020-10-25--'This isn't over': Lincoln Project issues lawyer letter mocking Jared and Ivanka's billboard threat

The Lincoln Project is staffed with a slate of Republicans using a unique set of ads to bring down President Donald Trump .
One of the latest is a billboard in New York City 's Times Square , where many tourists often visit when they are in town .
https : //twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/1319821537520750592 The ad features a photo of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner , which prompted the first family to lash out at the organization demanding the billboard be taken down or they would sue for `` what will doubtless be enormous compensatory and punitive damages . ''
In response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's lawyers fired off a letter of their own : `` Please peddle your scare tactics elsewhere .
The Lincoln Project will not be intimidated by such empty bluster , '' the letter says .
`` Your clients are no longer more Upper East Side socialites , able to sue at the slightest offense to their personal sensitivities .
Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump are public officials .
They have been public officials since President Trump , in a gross act of nepotism , awarded Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump senior White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump in these high-level White House offices has been disastrous for Americans everywhere , but it is now also devastating to the prospects of your would-be lawsuit . ''
They included a footnote saying that to have standing for such a case , Jared and Ivanka must `` satisfy the First Amendment 'actual malice ' standard to bring a libel claim . ''
`` The Lincoln Project plans to avail itself of these constitutional protections to duly criticize Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump until they cease to be public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Time on January 20 , 2021 , '' the letter goes on .
Contrary to your claim that 'Mr .
Kushner never made any such statement , ' Vanity Fair reported in a widely circulated article that Mr. Kushner did indeed say that New Yorkers `` are going to suffer and that 's their problem '' during the time that he was entrusted to lead our nation 's COVID-19 response , '' the Lincoln Project lawyers continue .
`` The Lincoln Project explicitly cited Vanity Fair as the source for Mr. Kushner 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if , at some point , you somehow succeed in convincing Vanity Fair to retract its article , but I trust that this supplemental explanation settles the matter for now as to Mr. Kushner 's reported remark . ''
They went on to dispute that Ivanka Trump `` never made any such gesture . ''
Ms. Trump took a photo of herself , `` in violation of federal ethics rules , '' to promote a commercial product in July 2020 .
The photo was of her holding a can of Goya beans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsing Goya beans and in the Lincoln Project 's photo , she `` endorses the Trump Administration policies that have led to an unacceptable number of American deaths every bit as much as she once endorsed that can of beans . ''
They closed by saying that 'd love an opportunity to `` establish their truthfulness through litigation and discovery , '' which would be one of the most disastrous things the Trump children could face .
It would mean they would be required to turn over a host of documents , emails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the COVID-19 pandemic .
`` This is n't over , '' the Lincoln Project letter says .
`` Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump will hear more from The Lincoln Project soon . ''
Read the full letter below : https : //twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1320150701947846656

The Lincoln Project is staffed with a slate of Republicans using a unique set of ads to bring down President Donald Trump. One of the latest is a billboard in New York City's Times Square, where many tourists often visit when they are in town. https://twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/1319821537520750592 The ad features a photo of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, which prompted the first family to lash out at the organization demanding the billboard be taken down or they would sue for "what will doubtless be enormous compensatory and punitive damages." In response to the letter, the Lincoln Project's lawyers fired off a letter of their own: "Please peddle your scare tactics elsewhere. The Lincoln Project will not be intimidated by such empty bluster," the letter says. "Your clients are no longer more Upper East Side socialites, able to sue at the slightest offense to their personal sensitivities. Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump are public officials. They have been public officials since President Trump, in a gross act of nepotism, awarded Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump senior White House positions in 2017. The placement of Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump in these high-level White House offices has been disastrous for Americans everywhere, but it is now also devastating to the prospects of your would-be lawsuit." They included a footnote saying that to have standing for such a case, Jared and Ivanka must "satisfy the First Amendment 'actual malice' standard to bring a libel claim." "The Lincoln Project plans to avail itself of these constitutional protections to duly criticize Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump until they cease to be public officials, at approximately Noon Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2021," the letter goes on. Contrary to your claim that 'Mr. Kushner never made any such statement,' Vanity Fair reported in a widely circulated article that Mr. Kushner did indeed say that New Yorkers "are going to suffer and that's their problem" during the time that he was entrusted to lead our nation's COVID-19 response," the Lincoln Project lawyers continue. "The Lincoln Project explicitly cited Vanity Fair as the source for Mr. Kushner's featured statement. Please contact us again if, at some point, you somehow succeed in convincing Vanity Fair to retract its article, but I trust that this supplemental explanation settles the matter for now as to Mr. Kushner's reported remark." They went on to dispute that Ivanka Trump "never made any such gesture." Ms. Trump took a photo of herself, "in violation of federal ethics rules," to promote a commercial product in July 2020. The photo was of her holding a can of Goya beans. They explained that the photo of her endorsing Goya beans and in the Lincoln Project's photo, she "endorses the Trump Administration policies that have led to an unacceptable number of American deaths every bit as much as she once endorsed that can of beans." They closed by saying that'd love an opportunity to "establish their truthfulness through litigation and discovery," which would be one of the most disastrous things the Trump children could face. It would mean they would be required to turn over a host of documents, emails and other things about Kushner's communications about the COVID-19 pandemic. "This isn't over," the Lincoln Project letter says. "Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump will hear more from The Lincoln Project soon." Read the full letter below: https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1320150701947846656


alternet--2020-10-25--SNL: 'Village People' threaten to shave Ivanka's head if Donald Trump won't stop using 'YMCA' at ral

SNL: 'Village People' threaten to shave Ivanka's head if Donald Trump won't stop using 'YMCA' at rallies

The fake Village People made a surprise appearance on `` Saturday Night Live '' to tell President Donald Trump to stop using their music at his rallies or they 'll shave Ivanka Trump 's head .
`` If you have been watching the Trump rallies , you probably noticed Trump dancing to The Village People , '' said Colin Jost during the Weekend Update segment .
`` If you have n't , let 's take a look . ''
He explained that the Village People had their own special message for the president .
The group of SNL cast members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outfits and sang their cease and desist for the president .
`` Stop it !
Yeah I 'm talking to you , '' they sang .
`` I said , stop it .
This is long overdue because we never said that we support you .
You must pay us to use our songs , Donald .
Because of all of your lies , we 're playing hardball , and we got a surprise he 's a lawyer who you might recognize he is Alan Dershowitz Hello !
He 's going to send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready for a cease and desist .
Alan knows where you been .
He knows what you 've seen on that island with Epstein ... '' '' Wait , wait , wait , wait , '' Jost cut in .
`` You ca n't say that !
You ca n't just say that ! ''
`` What ?
I mean , why ?
It 's just music , man .
We 're just singing , '' said Kenan Thompson .
`` No , because that 's a really serious allegation .
Also , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' `` Oh , he flipped , '' Thompson said .
`` Do you guys all feel the same way about Trump ?
You 're all from different walks of life , right ? ''
asked Jost .
`` It 's kind of complicated .
You see -- '' Thompson before the group started to sing again .
`` The soldier said that you let him down .
And the gay man said you do n't want him around .
And the Native is sick with COVID-19 .
Only the construction worker still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man , he must comply with all our demands .
So , we voted and came up with a plan .
I promise you we will shave Ivanka 's head we 're going to shave Ivanka 's head it wo n't be that hard she 'll look like Jean-Luc Picard . ''
`` Hey , hey , stop !
Wait .
You 're saying you 're going shave Ivanka 's head ?
You ca n't just say that ! ''
shouted Jost .
`` That 's got to be , like a felony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal if you sing it in a song !
See the video below :

The fake Village People made a surprise appearance on "Saturday Night Live" to tell President Donald Trump to stop using their music at his rallies or they'll shave Ivanka Trump's head.
"If you have been watching the Trump rallies, you probably noticed Trump dancing to The Village People," said Colin Jost during the Weekend Update segment. "If you haven't, let's take a look."
He explained that the Village People had their own special message for the president. The group of SNL cast members came out dressed in traditional Village People outfits and sang their cease and desist for the president.
"Stop it! Yeah I'm talking to you," they sang. "I said, stop it. This is long overdue because we never said that we support you. You must pay us to use our songs, Donald. Because of all of your lies, we're playing hardball, and we got a surprise he's a lawyer who you might recognize he is Alan Dershowitz Hello! He's going to send you a cease and desist. Get ready for a cease and desist. Alan knows where you been. He knows what you've seen on that island with Epstein..."
"Wait, wait, wait, wait," Jost cut in. "You can't say that! You can't just say that!"
"What? I mean, why? It's just music, man. We're just singing," said Kenan Thompson.
"No, because that's a really serious allegation. Also, isn't Alan Dershowitz for Trump?"
"Oh, he flipped," Thompson said.
"Do you guys all feel the same way about Trump? You're all from different walks of life, right?" asked Jost.
"It's kind of complicated. You see --" Thompson before the group started to sing again.
"The soldier said that you let him down. And the gay man said you don't want him around. And the Native is sick with COVID-19. Only the construction worker still believes. Although he is only one man, he must comply with all our demands. So, we voted and came up with a plan. I promise you we will shave Ivanka's head we're going to shave Ivanka's head it won't be that hard she'll look like Jean-Luc Picard."
"Hey, hey, stop! Wait. You're saying you're going shave Ivanka's head? You can't just say that!" shouted Jost. "That's got to be, like a felony!"
Thompson explained that everything is legal if you sing it in a song!
See the video below:


alternet--2020-10-25--70-plus science journalists pen open letter condemning Barrett for enabling 'ecological crisis of ou

70-plus science journalists pen open letter condemning Barrett for enabling 'ecological crisis of our times'

More than 70 science journalists have signed an open letter warning that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett 's close ties to the fossil fuel industry and refusal to publicly acknowledge the established science behind human-caused climate change make her an enabler of `` the ecological crisis of our times . ''
First published in Rolling Stone on Sunday , the letter slams Barrett 's responses to basic climate questions during her confirmation hearings as `` factually inaccurate , scientifically unsound , and dangerous . ''
As Common Dreams reported , the right-wing judge insisted she has `` no firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in later written responses , called the science of climate change `` controversial . ''
`` It is frightening that a Supreme Court nominee—a position that is in essence one of the highest fact-checkers in the land—has bought into the same propaganda we have worked so hard to dispel , '' reads the letter , which was signed by author and environmentalist Naomi Klein , 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben , and other prominent climate writers .
`` How can Judge Coney Barrett rule on pending issues of climate change liability , regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice , and accountability if she fails to accept even the underlying premise of global warming ?
The answer is that she can not , '' continues the letter , which comes hours before the Republican-controlled Senate is set to clear a procedural hurdle and pave the way for a final vote on Barrett 's confirmation Monday .
Below is the full letter and list of signatories :

More than 70 science journalists have signed an open letter warning that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's close ties to the fossil fuel industry and refusal to publicly acknowledge the established science behind human-caused climate change make her an enabler of "the ecological crisis of our times."
First published in Rolling Stone on Sunday, the letter slams Barrett's responses to basic climate questions during her confirmation hearings as "factually inaccurate, scientifically unsound, and dangerous." As Common Dreamsreported, the right-wing judge insisted she has "no firm views" on the climate crisis and, in later written responses, called the science of climate change "controversial."
"It is frightening that a Supreme Court nominee—a position that is in essence one of the highest fact-checkers in the land—has bought into the same propaganda we have worked so hard to dispel," reads the letter, which was signed by author and environmentalist Naomi Klein, 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben, and other prominent climate writers.
"How can Judge Coney Barrett rule on pending issues of climate change liability, regulation, finance, mitigation, equity, justice, and accountability if she fails to accept even the underlying premise of global warming? The answer is that she cannot," continues the letter, which comes hours before the Republican-controlled Senate is set to clear a procedural hurdle and pave the way for a final vote on Barrett's confirmation Monday.
Below is the full letter and list of signatories:
We are science and climate journalists. We are researchers and weavers of information, creating a fabric that explains the work of scientists who themselves are working to describe our natural world and universe. We are published in the nation's leading outlets, both large and small, including Scientific American, Nature, National Geographic, MIT Technology Review, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and many more. Over decades of reporting on the threats and now deadly and devastating harms of worsening climate change, we have succeeded in at least one respect. The vast majority of the world's people, including those in the United States, not only acknowledge the scientific certainty of climate change, but also want action taken to address it.
We have succeeded because the science is clear, despite there being a massive well-orchestrated effort of propaganda, lies, and denial by the world's largest fossil fuel corporations, including ExxonMobil and Koch Industries and fossil-fuel-backed institutes and think tanks. It is frightening that a Supreme Court nominee—a position that is in essence one of the highest fact-checkers in the land—has bought into the same propaganda we have worked so hard to dispel.
And it is facts—a word under repeated assault by the Trump administration, which nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett—that are at issue here. "I'm certainly not a scientist…I've read things about climate change. I would not say I have firm views on it," Judge Coney Barrett told Sen. John Kennedy during the Senate confirmation hearings on October 13th.
The next day, Sen. Richard Blumenthal asked Judge Coney Barrett if she believed "human beings cause global warming." She replied: "I don't think I am competent to opine on what causes global warming or not. I don't think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge."
When asked that same day by Sen. Kamala Harris if she accepts that "COVID-19 is infectious," Coney Barrett said yes. When asked if "smoking causes cancer," Coney Barrett said yes. But when asked if "climate change is happening, and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink," Judge Coney Barrett said that while the previous topics are "completely uncontroversial," climate change is instead, "a very contentious matter of public debate." She continued: "I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial because that's inconsistent with the judicial role, as I have explained."
Judge Coney Barrett repeatedly refused to acknowledge the scientific certainty of climate change. This is an untenable position, particularly when the world's leading climate scholars warned in 2018 that we have just 12 years to act to bring down global average temperature rise and avert the most dire predictions of the climate crisis.
At the moment when the facts of the case were presented to her, this arbiter of justice freely chose to side with mistruths. Judge Coney Barrett's responses are factually inaccurate, scientifically unsound, and dangerous.
How can Judge Coney Barrett rule on pending issues of climate change liability, regulation, finance, mitigation, equity, justice, and accountability if she fails to accept even the underlying premise of global warming? The answer is that she cannot.
Judge Coney Barrett's ties to the fossil fuel industry have already proved problematic, forcing recusal from cases involving Shell Oil entities related to her father's work as a long-time attorney for the company. She may also need to recuse herself from future cases due to her father's former position as chairman of the Subcommittee on Exploration and Production Law of the American Petroleum Institute—the nation's leading fossil fuel lobby.
Climate change is already an increasingly dominant aspect of American life, and an issue of growing import in American law. On the Supreme Court docket is BP P.L.C v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore—a case that involves Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other major oil companies, and could impact about a dozen U.S. states and localities suing Big Oil over its contribution to climate change.
Judge Coney Barrett says, "I'm certainly not a scientist," but she does not need to be a scientist, rather she needs to have faith in science. Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is an ardent supporter of action on climate change, releasing in 2015 the "Encyclical on Climate Change & Inequality: On Care for Our Common Home." The Pope embraces hard science in order to keep close to his faith.
Judge Coney Barrett has displayed a profound inability to understand the ecological crisis of our times, and in so doing she enables it.
Signed,
Bill McKibben, journalist and author, the Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College
Rebecca Solnit, author and journalist
Sonia Shah, science journalist and author
Jonathan Weiner, Pulitzer Prize winning author, science journalist, and professor at Columbia Journalism School
Jeff Goodell, climate journalist and author of The Water Will Come
Naomi Klein, journalist and author
Michelle Nijhuis, science journalist and author
Amy Westervelt, climate journalist
Rachel Ramirez, environmental justice reporter
Iris Crawford, climate justice journalist
Anoa Changa, movement and environmental justice journalist
Tiên Nguyễn, multimedia science journalist
Eric Holthaus, meteorologist, climate journalist at The Phoenix
Jenni Monet (Laguna Pueblo), climate affairs journalist and founder of Indigenously
Nina Lakhani, environmental justice reporter
Samir S. Patel, science journalist and editor
Clinton Parks, freelance science writer
Meehan Crist, writer in residence in biological sciences, Columbia University
Elizabeth Rush, science writer, author of Rising: Dispatches from the New American Shore
Anne McClintock, climate journalist, photographer and author, professor of environmental humanities and writing at Princeton University
Ruth Hopkins (Oceti Sakowin, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate), tribal attorney, Indigenous journalist
Wade Roush, science and technology journalist and author
Kim Stanley Robinson, New York Times bestselling author of climate science fiction, Hugo, Nebula, and Locus Awards
Jason Mark, editor in chief, Sierra
Kate Aronoff, climate journalist
Richard Louv, journalist and author
Heather Smith, science journalist
Judith Lewis Mernit, California climate editor, Capital & Main
Madeline Ostrander, climate journalist
Julie Dermansky, multimedia environmental and social justice journalist
Kenneth Brower, environmental journalist and author
Alexander Zaitchik, science and political journalist and author
Hillary M. Rosner, science journalist and scholar in residence, University of Colorado
Wudan Yan, science journalist
Debra Atlas, environmental journalist and author
Rucha Chitnis, climate, environmental justice and human rights documentarian
Drew Costley, environmental justice reporter
Jonathan Thompson, environmental author and journalist
Carol Clouse, environmental journalist
Brian Kahn, climate journalist
Geoff Dembicki, climate journalist and author
Peter Fairley, energy and environment journalist
Nicholas Cunningham, energy reporter
Nina Berman, documentary photographer focusing on issues of climate and the environment, professor of journalism at Columbia University
Michele C. Hollow, freelance journalist
Ben Depp, documentary photographer, focusing on issues of climate and the environment
Virginia Hanusik, climate photographer
Philip Yam, science journalist and author
Maura R. O'Connor, science journalist and author
Chad J. Reich, audio and visual journalist covering energy and environment in rural communities
Steve Ross, environmental writer/editor, former Columbia environmental reporting professor
Starre Vartan, science journalist
Michael Snyder, climate photographer
Brandon Keim, science and nature journalist
Tom Athanasiou, climate equity writer and researcher
Hope Marcus, climate writer
Jocelyn C. Zuckerman, freelance journalist
Dana Drugmand, climate journalist
Tom Molanphy, climate journalist
Roxanne Szal, associate digital editor, Ms.Magazine
Dashka Slater, author and climate reporter
Jenn Emerling, documentary photographer, focusing on issues of climate and culture in the American West
Christine Heinrichs, science writer and author
Clayton Aldern, climate and environmental journalist
Karen Savage, climate journalist
Charlotte Dennett, author, investigative journalist, attorney
Carly Berlin, environmental reporter
Ben Ehrenreich, author and journalist
Ibby Caputo, science journalist
Lawrence Weschler, former New Yorker staff writer, environmental author, most recently with David Opdyke, of This Land: An Epic Postcard Mural on the Future of a Country in Ecological Peril.
Justin Nobel, science journalist
Antonia Juhasz, climate and energy journalist and author


alternet--2020-10-25--Watch: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez teaches CNN how a representative democracy is supposed to work

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was on CNN Sunday morning with Jake Tapper on his State of the Union show .
In part because Democratic reps going on Sunday shows , like Republican reps going on Sunday shows , is about this coming election , and in part because newscasters are not particularly deep or creative when it comes to talking about politics , Tapper decided to spend a lot of time trying to get Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to attack Joe Biden for their differences of political opinions .
Newsflash : Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , progressive hero , co-author of the ambitious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Joe Biden are n't exactly on the same page as to how to handle climate change .
More to the point , Tapper asked Ocasio-Cortez whether or not she was bothered by the fact that Joe Biden has not said he would outright ban fracking .
The move to ban fracking in states across the country has been a seesaw battle of fossil fuel interests fighting against progressive environmentalism and science .
Biden 's refusal to provide whole-throated support for a ban on fracking is disappointing to many of us on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprising .
Even more importantly , it is below the most essential first step the progressive movement—and the country for that matter—needs to take : getting rid of Donald Trump from the White House , and getting rid of the Republican majority in the Senate .
Let 's send the corporate welfare class of elected officials packing .
Donate what you can to help take back the Senate .
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is n't going to be pulled into a pointless argument about fracking with Jake Tapper .
Her position is well-reported .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very clearly that this is how politics work in a representative democracy .
Tapper now wonders whether this will depress the youth vote , a vote that AOC represents more closely than Joe Biden .
This , of course , is literally the only reason Trump and his surrogates have been bringing up this difference of positions the last couple of weeks .
The hope is that it will depress the more progressive vote , while spooking some more conservative-leaning folks in fossil-fuel heavy states like Pennsylvania and Texas .
Ocasio-Cortez points out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of years has not simply become more sophisticated since 2016 , it has brought in more progressive candidates and officials into local elections .
The turn out in 2018 showed that , and Ocasio-Cortez believes that this election is very clearly a choice between Donald Trump , someone who is a non-starter of a human being , and Joe Biden .
Tapper then plays a clip of Biden telling reporters that he is n't `` getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time , '' but that he 's talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free-marketeers enjoy in the fossil fuel industry .
While Tapper is hoping that this will illustrate how Biden is n't AOC and the youth vote may be turned off by this statement , Ocasio-Cortez sees it as an important step in the right direction .
Get out and vote .

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was on CNN Sunday morning with Jake Tapper on his State of the Union show. In part because Democratic reps going on Sunday shows, like Republican reps going on Sunday shows, is about this coming election, and in part because newscasters are not particularly deep or creative when it comes to talking about politics, Tapper decided to spend a lot of time trying to get Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to attack Joe Biden for their differences of political opinions. Newsflash: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, progressive hero, co-author of the ambitious Green New Deal environmental package, and Vice President Joe Biden aren't exactly on the same page as to how to handle climate change.
More to the point, Tapper asked Ocasio-Cortez whether or not she was bothered by the fact that Joe Biden has not said he would outright ban fracking. The move to ban fracking in states across the country has been a seesaw battle of fossil fuel interests fighting against progressive environmentalism and science. Biden's refusal to provide whole-throated support for a ban on fracking is disappointing to many of us on the left, but it isn't surprising. Even more importantly, it is below the most essential first step the progressive movement—and the country for that matter—needs to take: getting rid of Donald Trump from the White House, and getting rid of the Republican majority in the Senate.
Let's send the corporate welfare class of elected officials packing. Donate what you can to help take back the Senate.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez isn't going to be pulled into a pointless argument about fracking with Jake Tapper. Her position is well-reported. So is Joe Biden's. AOC explains very clearly that this is how politics work in a representative democracy.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: It does not bother me. I believe, and I have a very strong position on fracking. You know, the science is very clear, the methane emissions from fracking are up to 64 times more powerful than CO2 emissions and trapping heat in the air, and from a perspective of stopping climate change there is a scientific consensus. However, that is my view. Vice President Biden has made very clear that he does not agree with the fracking ban and I consider that, you know—it will be a privilege to lobby him should we win the White House but we need to focus on winning the White House first. I am happy to make my case but I understand he is in disagreement with that issue.
Tapper now wonders whether this will depress the youth vote, a vote that AOC represents more closely than Joe Biden. This, of course, is literally the only reason Trump and his surrogates have been bringing up this difference of positions the last couple of weeks. The hope is that it will depress the more progressive vote, while spooking some more conservative-leaning folks in fossil-fuel heavy states like Pennsylvania and Texas. Ocasio-Cortez points out that the youth vote over the past couple of years has not simply become more sophisticated since 2016, it has brought in more progressive candidates and officials into local elections. The turn out in 2018 showed that, and Ocasio-Cortez believes that this election is very clearly a choice between Donald Trump, someone who is a non-starter of a human being, and Joe Biden.
Tapper then plays a clip of Biden telling reporters that he isn't "getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time," but that he's talking about getting rid of the subsidies the fake free-marketeers enjoy in the fossil fuel industry. While Tapper is hoping that this will illustrate how Biden isn't AOC and the youth vote may be turned off by this statement, Ocasio-Cortez sees it as an important step in the right direction.
REP. OCASIO-CORTEZ: When he says we are eliminating subsidies, I think that is, frankly, an important first step. A lot of folks who like to tout themselves as free market capitalists, while still trying to make sure they get as much government subsidy, and propping up of the fossil fuel industry as possible. If you do believe in markets, solar and renewable energies are growing less and less expensive by the day in many areas. They are starting to become less expensive than fossil fuels. When you eliminate government subsidies, it becomes more difficult for fossil fuels to compete in the market. I think while the Vice President wants to make sure that he is not doing it by government mandate or regulation. I do believe we are moving towards that future. I believe that there's a way and that we should push that process along but the vice president and my disagreements are, I believe, recorded and that is quite all right.
Get out and vote.


alternet--2020-10-25--Pence refuses to cancel Senate visit as 5 around vice president test COVID-19 positive

Vice President Mike Pence is head of the White House 's coronavirus task force .
He 's also the center of a new apparent superspreader cluster : The New York Times reports that five members of Pence 's inner circle have tested positive for COVID-19 in the last few days .
This includes Pence 's chief of staff Marc Short , outside Pence adviser Marty Obst , and three unidentified Pence staffers .
Despite five of his closest contacts testing positive for COVID-19 , the Times reports that Pence has no plans to quarantine .
In fact , he 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including in-person rallies .
On Monday , he also plans to visit the Senate to preside over the confirmation vote of Trump 's newest far-right Supreme Court pick .
CNN correspondent Manu Raju reports that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell would not answer questions on whether Pence should cancel his Senate trip , but Sen. John Cornyn opined that he would `` leave it up to his good judgment . ''
While one might hope that the putative `` head '' of the nation 's COVID-19 pandemic response would show some small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' spread among his own damn staff , Pence has consistently parroted whatever dismissive talking points Donald Trump and top White House advisers have used to downplay the virus .
The White House continues to be contemptuous of mask usage , which in large part explains why the White House has now been hit with two separate COVID-19 clusters in recent weeks .
Throughout the rest of the United States , pandemic numbers are again skyrocketing as cold weather sets in , increasing the amount of time Americans spend indoors .
The White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election , however , has been a coordinated giving up .
Newest White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told host Jake Tapper `` We 're not going to control the pandemic . ''
He 's right : It 's clear at this point that the Trump White House is not only not going to control the pandemic , but is incompetent at even controlling the spread of the pandemic within their own offices .
The absolute contempt the Republican Party has shown for expert-recommended moves to contain the COVID-19 pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as much of the rest of the world successfully limits pandemic spread , remains bizarre and grotesque .
Pence is insisting on continuing his rally schedule despite the new cluster around him ; Republicans continue to belittle the use of masks for no evident reason other than partisan show in crowded , in-person rallies ; Pence 's `` task force '' is at this point a non-entity , having abandoned efforts to put forward any pandemic strategy in favor of pushes to `` reopen '' state economies despite escalating deaths .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million pandemic deaths at some point in early November .
Meanwhile , Republicans continue to act to spread the pandemic , rather than curtail it .
Yesterday two aides to Sen. Kelly Loeffler were confirmed to have tested positive ; Loeffler , too , issued a statement confirming she would be both showing up for Monday 's Senate vote and will be `` traveling the state '' afterwards , with no plans to quarantine .
The official Republican response to the COVID-19 pandemic ?
Giving up .
Giving up in all respects , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and resources of the United States government , Team Trump and its hangers-on ca n't even muster the competence to keep themselves from being channels for pandemic spread .
It 's almost , but not quite , amazing .

Vice President Mike Pence is head of the White House's coronavirus task force. He's also the center of a new apparent superspreader cluster: The New York Times reports that five members of Pence's inner circle have tested positive for COVID-19 in the last few days. This includes Pence's chief of staff Marc Short, outside Pence adviser Marty Obst, and three unidentified Pence staffers.
Despite five of his closest contacts testing positive for COVID-19, the Times reports that Pence has no plans to quarantine. In fact, he's going to continue his schedule as planned, including in-person rallies. On Monday, he also plans to visit the Senate to preside over the confirmation vote of Trump's newest far-right Supreme Court pick. CNN correspondent Manu Raju reports that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell would not answer questions on whether Pence should cancel his Senate trip, but Sen. John Cornyn opined that he would "leave it up to his good judgment."
While one might hope that the putative "head" of the nation's COVID-19 pandemic response would show some small amount of competence in curtailing the virus' spread among his own damn staff, Pence has consistently parroted whatever dismissive talking points Donald Trump and top White House advisers have used to downplay the virus. The White House continues to be contemptuous of mask usage, which in large part explains why the White House has now been hit with two separate COVID-19 clusters in recent weeks.
Throughout the rest of the United States, pandemic numbers are again skyrocketing as cold weather sets in, increasing the amount of time Americans spend indoors. The White House response in the closing days of the election, however, has been a coordinated giving up.
Newest White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told host Jake Tapper "We're not going to control the pandemic." He's right: It's clear at this point that the Trump White House is not only not going to control the pandemic, but is incompetent at even controlling the spread of the pandemic within their own offices.
The absolute contempt the Republican Party has shown for expert-recommended moves to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, as it soars towards another new peak even as much of the rest of the world successfully limits pandemic spread, remains bizarre and grotesque. Pence is insisting on continuing his rally schedule despite the new cluster around him; Republicans continue to belittle the use of masks for no evident reason other than partisan show in crowded, in-person rallies; Pence's "task force" is at this point a non-entity, having abandoned efforts to put forward any pandemic strategy in favor of pushes to "reopen" state economies despite escalating deaths.
The United States will officially surpass a quarter million pandemic deaths at some point in early November. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to act to spread the pandemic, rather than curtail it. Yesterday two aides to Sen. Kelly Loeffler were confirmed to have tested positive; Loeffler, too, issued a statement confirming she would be both showing up for Monday's Senate vote and will be "traveling the state" afterwards, with no plans to quarantine.
The official Republican response to the COVID-19 pandemic? Giving up. Giving up in all respects, apparently; given the entire collected expertise and resources of the United States government, Team Trump and its hangers-on can't even muster the competence to keep themselves from being channels for pandemic spread. It's almost, but not quite, amazing.


alternet--2020-10-25--Harris slams WH after chief of staff 'admits defeat' on COVID: 'Greatest failure of any presidential

Harris slams WH after chief of staff 'admits defeat' on COVID: 'Greatest failure of any presidential administration' in history

Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) on Sunday slammed the Trump administration for `` admitting defeat '' in the fight against COVID-19 after White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told CNN `` we are not going to control the pandemic . ''
Meadows made the remark Sunday on CNN 's State of the Union , telling host Jake Tapper that the president 's strategy is `` to control the fact that we get vaccines , therapeutics and other mitigation areas , '' even as cases skyrocket across the United States .
`` They are admitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked about Meadows ' comment .
`` This is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of America . ''
Noting that Meadows told Tapper that COVID-19 `` is a contagious virus just like the flu , '' Harris ripped the administration for once again `` suggesting to the American people that this is like the flu . ''
`` We have known from the beginning — and they knew since January — that it 's five times more deadly than the flu , '' Harris said '' We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are contracting a deadly virus , '' she continued .
`` And this administration fails to take personal responsibility or responsibility in terms of leading the nation through this dangerous and deadly mass casualty event .
And that 's why they have forfeited their right to a second term . ''
Asked about Vice President Mike Pence refusing to quarantine despite his chief of staff Mark Short testing positive for coronavirus , Harris argued her team has been a model for how to handle outbreaks during a tough campaign season .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .

Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) on Sunday slammed the Trump administration for "admitting defeat" in the fight against COVID-19 after White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told CNN "we are not going to control the pandemic."
Meadows made the remark Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, telling host Jake Tapper that the president's strategy is "to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigation areas," even as cases skyrocket across the United States.
"They are admitting defeat," Harris told reporters when asked about Meadows' comment. "This is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of America."
Noting that Meadows told Tapper that COVID-19 "is a contagious virus just like the flu," Harris ripped the administration for once again "suggesting to the American people that this is like the flu."
"We have known from the beginning — and they knew since January — that it's five times more deadly than the flu," Harris said
"We are breaking records for the number of people that are contracting a deadly virus," she continued. "And this administration fails to take personal responsibility or responsibility in terms of leading the nation through this dangerous and deadly mass casualty event. And that's why they have forfeited their right to a second term."
Asked about Vice President Mike Pence refusing to quarantine despite his chief of staff Mark Short testing positive for coronavirus, Harris argued her team has been a model for how to handle outbreaks during a tough campaign season.
"They should take our lead," she said.
Watch the video below:


alternet--2020-10-25--Fox News report crushes Hunter Biden smear after network investigation ‘found no role for Joe Biden’

A Fox News investigation `` found no role for Joe Biden '' in the business dealing of his son , Hunter , the network said on Sunday .
The admission was made by Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins .
Jenkins explained that the news organization had been provided documents by Tony Bobulinski , Hunter Biden 's former business partner .
`` You 're talking about a business venture with the Chinese energy company in 2017 at a time when Joe Biden was not vice president , '' Jenkins explained .
`` But Fox 's review of Bobulinski 's documents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no role for Joe Biden in that business venture . ''
`` There 's another former business partner who says he knows of no involvement by Joe Biden , '' Fox News host Howard Kurtz added .
`` The Wall Street Journal says it also reviewed the text messages and emails , saying , they do n't show either Hunter Biden or James Biden — the brother — discussing a role for Joe Biden . ''
Kurtz added : `` My problem with this is these emails are from 2017 .
At that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
So while it may have been unseemly — if it was true that Joe Biden was even acquiescing in a potential deal with China — he no longer has the power of the White House behind him at that time . ''
`` That 's correct , '' Jenkins agreed .
`` One thing is for sure , it 's not getting the kind of attention that Fox has given it and the New York Post and others as we get close to this election . ''
Watch the video below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'found no role for Joe Biden ' in Hunter Biden documents

A Fox News investigation "found no role for Joe Biden" in the business dealing of his son, Hunter, the network said on Sunday.
The admission was made by Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins.
Jenkins explained that the news organization had been provided documents by Tony Bobulinski, Hunter Biden's former business partner.
"You're talking about a business venture with the Chinese energy company in 2017 at a time when Joe Biden was not vice president," Jenkins explained. "But Fox's review of Bobulinski's documents, which were given to us, found no role for Joe Biden in that business venture."
"There's another former business partner who says he knows of no involvement by Joe Biden," Fox News host Howard Kurtz added. "The Wall Street Journal says it also reviewed the text messages and emails, saying, they don't show either Hunter Biden or James Biden — the brother — discussing a role for Joe Biden."
Kurtz added: "My problem with this is these emails are from 2017. At that time, Joe Biden is out of office. So while it may have been unseemly — if it was true that Joe Biden was even acquiescing in a potential deal with China — he no longer has the power of the White House behind him at that time."
"That's correct," Jenkins agreed. "One thing is for sure, it's not getting the kind of attention that Fox has given it and the New York Post and others as we get close to this election."
Watch the video below from Fox News.


alternet--2020-10-25--Trump privately admits it will be 'very tough' for Republicans to maintain Senate majority: report

President Donald Trump on Thursday admitted to donors it will be `` very tough '' for Republicans to maintain their Senate majority during a private closed-door gathering at the Nashville Marriott , the Washington Post reports .
According to an anonymous attendee who spoke with the Post , Trump claimed `` there are a couple senators '' who are struggling with races he `` ca n't really get involved in . ''
`` I think the Senate is tough actually , '' Trump said .
`` The Senate is very tough .
There are a couple senators I ca n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ca n't do it .
You lose your soul if you do .
I ca n't help some of them .
I do n't want to help some of them . ''
Despite his pessimistic outlook on the Senate , Trump also told donors he thinks Republicans `` are going to take back the House . ''
The president echoed that sentiment later Thursday evening during a debate with former Vice President Joe Biden .
`` Analysts have predicted that Democrats will not only keep the House , but have many opportunities to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Political Report predicts Democrats may expand their majority . ''
National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Jesse Hunt tried to downplay the president 's lack of support for certain senatorial candidates , arguing `` The Republican-led Senate and President Trump have had a great partnership over the last four years . ''
You can read the full report at the Washington Post .

President Donald Trump on Thursday admitted to donors it will be "very tough" for Republicans to maintain their Senate majority during a private closed-door gathering at the Nashville Marriott, the Washington Post reports.
According to an anonymous attendee who spoke with the Post, Trump claimed "there are a couple senators" who are struggling with races he "can't really get involved in."
"I think the Senate is tough actually," Trump said. "The Senate is very tough. There are a couple senators I can't really get involved in. I just can't do it. You lose your soul if you do. I can't help some of them. I don't want to help some of them."
Despite his pessimistic outlook on the Senate, Trump also told donors he thinks Republicans "are going to take back the House." The president echoed that sentiment later Thursday evening during a debate with former Vice President Joe Biden.
As USA Today notes:
"Analysts have predicted that Democrats will not only keep the House, but have many opportunities to pick up seats. The non-partisanCook Political Report predicts Democrats may expand their majority."
National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Jesse Hunt tried to downplay the president's lack of support for certain senatorial candidates, arguing "The Republican-led Senate and President Trump have had a great partnership over the last four years."
You can read the full report at the Washington Post.