alternet--2020-10-15--Amy Coney Barrett's extreme religious views should be vetted

This is reprinted from The Editorial Board .
The Senate Democrats avoided Monday the subject of religion .
During the first day of Appellate Judge Amy Coney Barrett 's confirmation hearings , they focused on health care and how Donald Trump 's third nominee might rule after the US Supreme Court hears oral arguments next month on the Affordable Care Act .
Avoiding religion was probably wise given the Republicans ' level of fake outrage over fake `` religious bigotry . ''
The rest of us , however , do n't need to play along .
Barrett 's Catholicism is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Highly influential liberal pundits , and some liberal pundits striving mightily to become influential , argue that religion should be off limits .
First , they say , because a person of sincerely held religious beliefs can adjudicate impartially .
Second , there 's enough to talk about without bringing up Barrett 's faith .
While I presume these liberals mean well ( to be clear , in presuming this , I 'm being generous ) , they 're wrong .
They assume , for one thing , that religion and politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
Sometimes they ca n't be .
For another , these liberals behave as if politics is somehow taking religion hostage .
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote last night : `` When politicians use faith as an excuse to pass and uphold laws that seize control of people 's bodies but not guarantee them healthcare , feed the poor , shelter the homeless , or welcome the stranger , you have to wonder if it 's really about faith at all . ''
No , you do n't have to wonder .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Millions in this country—white evangelical Protestants and conservative white Catholics chief among them—root their genuinely held religious beliefs in opposition to modernity , which is to say , in politics .
There is , therefore , no appreciable difference between them .
The more our society moves in the direction of greater freedom , equity and justice for all people , the more these revanchists believe their faith is under siege ; and the more they feel their faith is under siege , the more prepared they are to go to war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do n't know if Barrett intends to help reverse Roe any more than you do .
I do know—and you know—that that 's why Donald Trump picked her .
That 's why she accepted his illegitimate nomination .
Overturning Roe , or at least gutting it in order to permit the states to outlaw abortion , has been the goal for decades .
The Republicans are so close to the prize , they 're willing to sacrifice the presidency , the Senate and the court 's credibility .
The more our society moves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equity and justice for all people—the more American women enjoy a monopoly over their own bodies—the more the revanchists demand an minoritarian veto .
They are demanding , and getting , an autocratic usurpation of the majority 's will in the name of religion .
Not just any religion .
A very specific strain of authoritarian and white Christianity .
This strain believes that one person has a right to use another person , without her consent , in order to stay alive .
The person being used by another person to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the monopoly over her body , such that her body is n't private property so much as public property jointly owned by members of their shared faith .
Importantly , if the person being used by another person to stay alive refuses , she is subject to various punishments , including , if the court overturns Roe , legal ones .
There 's a reason Republicans want to make Barrett 's religion off limits .
They do n't want a majority to see outlawing abortion as the establishment of a state religion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ First Amendment if you insist that religion is off limits .
What 's more , you ca n't see the treasonous bad faith of the revanchists .
They do n't care about babies .
If they did , they 'd be up in arms over news of the president 's treatment for Covid-19 .
He was injected with an `` antibody cocktail '' tested on stem cells derived from a baby aborted nearly half a century ago .
White evangelical Protestants and white conservative Catholics usually say `` fetal tissue , '' even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grave offense to God , but not this time .
According to Business Insider , anti-abortion groups said it 's OK , because the president was n't involved in the original abortion .
That 's bullshit , but at least they 're dropping the charade .
What they want to say but fear saying—because saying it out loud for everyone to hear would be too gothic and horrifying for mainstream America—is what they really mean .
What they really mean is that it 's OK for one person to use another person 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The president , using remnants of the body of an aborted baby , did n't do anything wrong .
He was exercising the God-given right that babies ( men ) have to access another person 's body ( a woman 's ) .
This right is n't just political .
It 's political and religious .
Ignoring that means ignoring the parasitic ramifications of the anti-Roe project .
So do n't ignore religion .
It is central .
None of this makes sense when it 's not .

This is reprinted from The Editorial Board.
The Senate Democrats avoided Monday the subject of religion. During the first day of Appellate Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings, they focused on health care and how Donald Trump's third nominee might rule after the US Supreme Court hears oral arguments next month on the Affordable Care Act. Avoiding religion was probably wise given the Republicans' level of fake outrage over fake "religious bigotry." The rest of us, however, don't need to play along. Barrett's Catholicism is fair game.
Yes, I know. Highly influential liberal pundits, and some liberal pundits striving mightily to become influential, argue that religion should be off limits. First, they say, because a person of sincerely held religious beliefs can adjudicate impartially. Second, there's enough to talk about without bringing up Barrett's faith. While I presume these liberals mean well (to be clear, in presuming this, I'm being generous), they're wrong.
They assume, for one thing, that religion and politics can be disentangled. Sometimes they can be. Sometimes they can't be. For another, these liberals behave as if politics is somehow taking religion hostage. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote last night: "When politicians use faith as an excuse to pass and uphold laws that seize control of people's bodies but not guarantee them healthcare, feed the poor, shelter the homeless, or welcome the stranger, you have to wonder if it's really about faith at all."
No, you don't have to wonder. It's about their faith, full stop. Millions in this country—white evangelical Protestants and conservative white Catholics chief among them—root their genuinely held religious beliefs in opposition to modernity, which is to say, in politics. There is, therefore, no appreciable difference between them. The more our society moves in the direction of greater freedom, equity and justice for all people, the more these revanchists believe their faith is under siege; and the more they feel their faith is under siege, the more prepared they are to go to war over "religious freedom."
I don't know if Barrett intends to help reverse Roe any more than you do. I do know—and you know—that that's why Donald Trump picked her. That's why she accepted his illegitimate nomination. Overturning Roe, or at least gutting it in order to permit the states to outlaw abortion, has been the goal for decades. The Republicans are so close to the prize, they're willing to sacrifice the presidency, the Senate and the court's credibility. The more our society moves in the direction of greater freedom, equity and justice for all people—the more American women enjoy a monopoly over their own bodies—the more the revanchists demand an minoritarian veto. They are demanding, and getting, an autocratic usurpation of the majority's will in the name of religion.
Not just any religion. A very specific strain of authoritarian and white Christianity. This strain believes that one person has a right to use another person, without her consent, in order to stay alive. The person being used by another person to stay alive has a moral obligation to forfeit the monopoly over her body, such that her body isn't private property so much as public property jointly owned by members of their shared faith. Importantly, if the person being used by another person to stay alive refuses, she is subject to various punishments, including, if the court overturns Roe, legal ones. There's a reason Republicans want to make Barrett's religion off limits. They don't want a majority to see outlawing abortion as the establishment of a state religion.
You can't see violations of the First Amendment if you insist that religion is off limits. What's more, you can't see the treasonous bad faith of the revanchists. They don't care about babies. If they did, they'd be up in arms over news of the president's treatment for Covid-19. He was injected with an "antibody cocktail" tested on stem cells derived from a baby aborted nearly half a century ago. White evangelical Protestants and white conservative Catholics usually say "fetal tissue," even in life-saving drug treatments, is a grave offense to God, but not this time. According toBusiness Insider, anti-abortion groups said it's OK, because the president wasn't involved in the original abortion.
That's bullshit, but at least they're dropping the charade. What they want to say but fear saying—because saying it out loud for everyone to hear would be too gothic and horrifying for mainstream America—is what they really mean. What they really mean is that it's OK for one person to use another person's body without his or her consent. The president, using remnants of the body of an aborted baby, didn't do anything wrong. He was exercising the God-given right that babies (men) have to access another person's body (a woman's). This right isn't just political. It's political and religious. Ignoring that means ignoring the parasitic ramifications of the anti-Roe project.
So don't ignore religion. It is central. None of this makes sense when it's not.


alternet--2020-10-15--Top Republicans call to punish social media sites for limiting reach of dubious Biden exposé

Top Republicans are lashing out at Facebook and Twitter — and even calling for legal retaliation against the social media platforms — after the two companies decided to limit the spread of a dubious New York Post story about the Democratic presidential nominee , former Vice President Joe Biden .
The Post article suggested Biden and his son behaved improperly with a Ukrainian business leader , but has been criticized for lacking proof for its assertions and for relying on questionable sources .
`` Section 230 !
Time 's up , @ jack , '' the Republican House Judiciary Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jack Dorsey .
`` Section 230 '' refers to part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that protects online platforms from potential liability for content posted by their users .
`` Twitter is attempting to meddle in the election with anti-conservative bias , '' Rep. Ken Buck , a Republican from Colorado , posted on Twitter .
`` @ jack is acting like a publisher , making the case yet again to reform Section 230 . ''
Buck 's views were echoed by another Republican congressman , Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are n't biased against Conservatives .
So why are they suppressing speech to help the Democrats ?
Section 230 ! ''
President Donald Trump lashed out against Facebook and Twitter on the latter platform .
`` So terrible that Facebook and Twitter took down the story of `` Smoking Gun '' emails related to Sleepy Joe Biden and his son , Hunter , in the @ NYPost .
It is only the beginning for them .
There is nothing worse than a corrupt politician .
REPEAL SECTION 230 , '' he wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted two subsequent video clips from Fox News related to the Post story .
Trump has previously been at the forefront of conservatives threatening to revise Section 230 as a way of punishing social media platforms that they perceive as hostile to right-wing views .
His efforts have been condemned by legal experts , with Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe telling Salon by email in May that `` the threat by Donald Trump to shut down social media platforms that he finds objectionable is a dangerous overreaction by a thin-skinned president .
Any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the First Amendment . ''
His views were echoed at the time by former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade , who wrote to Salon that `` Trump is confused about whose First Amendment rights are involved .
The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging the free speech rights of private actors .
As President , a government actor , Trump can not silence a private entity like Twitter based on the content of its message because the First Amendment protects free speech rights . ''
Rick Hasen , a law professor at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view , emailing Salon at the time that `` Twitter is a private company and it is entitled to include or exclude people as it sees fit .
And if Trump tries to bring DOJ forces against social media companies ( perhaps raising antitrust concerns ) but does so for partisan reasons , then Trump would be violating the First Amendment . ''
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested a different reading of the law , writing on Tuesday that `` extending §230 immunity beyond the natural reading of the text can have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` behoove '' judges to consider narrowing the law 's scope and arguing that internet companies had benefited from `` sweeping protections '' beyond what the law intended .
Both Facebook and Twitter defended their decisions regarding the New York Post story by arguing that they were consistent with existing company policies .
`` While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post , I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook 's third-party fact checking partners .
In the meantime , we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Facebook spokesman Andy Stone tweeted on Wednesday .
`` This is part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation .
We temporarily reduce distribution pending fact-checker review . ''
Twitter outright blocked the story , with CNBC reporting that the company felt the story lacked `` authoritative reporting around the origins of the information in it . ''
The company also claimed that the story violates its Hacked Material Policy , which does not `` permit the use of our services to directly distribute content obtained through hacking that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in physical harm or danger , or contains trade secrets . ''
The story , which claimed to have unearthed `` smoking gun '' emails about the relationship between Biden , his son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy executive , has sparked questions over its veracity because it does not prove that the former vice president talked with the businessman in question and includes evidence allegedly obtained by a laptop repair store owner and presented to the lawyer of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani .
Giuliani has served as Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post is a notoriously right-wing publication and a sister company to Fox News parent Fox Corporation .
The Trump campaign and the president himself have tried on previous occasions to smear the Bidens by falsely accusing them of behaving illegally in Ukraine , a smear campaign that culminated in the president 's impeachment earlier this year .
Andrew Bates , a Biden campaign spokesperson , made a statement addressing the odd journalistic inconsistencies in the Post 's reporting : '' The conservative New York Post has a credulous account of how Rudy came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chait wrote in New York Magazine .
`` The Post claims somebody brought the computer to a repair shop in Delaware , but then never bothered to pay for the repair .
The shop owner saw that the computer had a sticker for the Beau Biden Foundation .
But instead of returning the computer to the Biden family , he made a copy of the hard drive and gave it to Rudy Giuliani 's lawyer , before turning it over to the FBI . ''
This is not the first time that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their role in controlling the flow of information — or misinformation .
Facebook has previously been criticized for not doing enough to crack down on right-wing misinformation .
Recently , perhaps in response , the company banned QAnon Facebook groups , Holocaust denial groups and anti-vaccine advertisements .
Twitter stoked Trump 's wrath in May when it fact-checked two of his tweets , prompting him to threaten that he would `` strongly regulate '' or `` close '' down social media platforms that `` totally silence conservatives voices . ''
Later that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordered the Federal Communications Commission to examine exempting social media platforms from Section 230 protections .

Top Republicans are lashing out at Facebook and Twitter — and even calling for legal retaliation against the social media platforms — after the two companies decided to limit the spread of a dubious New York Post story about the Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden.
The Post article suggested Biden and his son behaved improperly with a Ukrainian business leader, but has been criticized for lacking proof for its assertions and for relying on questionable sources.
"Section 230! Time's up, @jack," the Republican House Judiciary Committee's official account tweeted at Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. "Section 230" refers to part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that protects online platforms from potential liability for content posted by their users.
"Twitter is attempting to meddle in the election with anti-conservative bias," Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican from Colorado, posted on Twitter. "@jack is acting like a publisher, making the case yet again to reform Section 230."
Buck's views were echoed by another Republican congressman, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who tweeted that "big Tech claims they aren't biased against Conservatives. So why are they suppressing speech to help the Democrats? Section 230!"
President Donald Trump lashed out against Facebook and Twitter on the latter platform. "So terrible that Facebook and Twitter took down the story of "Smoking Gun" emails related to Sleepy Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in the @NYPost. It is only the beginning for them. There is nothing worse than a corrupt politician. REPEAL SECTION 230," he wrote. In later tweets, the president posted two subsequent video clips from Fox News related to the Post story.
Trump has previously been at the forefront of conservatives threatening to revise Section 230 as a way of punishing social media platforms that they perceive as hostile to right-wing views. His efforts have been condemned by legal experts, with Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe telling Salon by email in May that "the threat by Donald Trump to shut down social media platforms that he finds objectionable is a dangerous overreaction by a thin-skinned president. Any such move would be blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment."
His views were echoed at the time by former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, who wrote to Salon that "Trump is confused about whose First Amendment rights are involved. The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging the free speech rights of private actors. As President, a government actor, Trump cannot silence a private entity like Twitter based on the content of its message because the First Amendment protects free speech rights."
Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California–Irvine, expressed the same view, emailing Salon at the time that "Twitter is a private company and it is entitled to include or exclude people as it sees fit. And if Trump tries to bring DOJ forces against social media companies (perhaps raising antitrust concerns) but does so for partisan reasons, then Trump would be violating the First Amendment."
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested a different reading of the law, writing on Tuesday that "extending §230 immunity beyond the natural reading of the text can have serious consequences," that it would "behoove" judges to consider narrowing the law's scope and arguing that internet companies had benefited from "sweeping protections" beyond what the law intended.
Both Facebook and Twitter defended their decisions regarding the New York Post story by arguing that they were consistent with existing company policies.
"While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform," Facebook spokesman Andy Stone tweeted on Wednesday. "This is part of our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation. We temporarily reduce distribution pending fact-checker review."
Twitter outright blocked the story, with CNBC reporting that the company felt the story lacked "authoritative reporting around the origins of the information in it." The company also claimed that the story violates its Hacked Material Policy, which does not "permit the use of our services to directly distribute content obtained through hacking that contains private information, may put people in physical harm or danger, or contains trade secrets."
The story, which claimed to have unearthed "smoking gun" emails about the relationship between Biden, his son Hunter and a Ukrainian energy executive, has sparked questions over its veracity because it does not prove that the former vice president talked with the businessman in question and includes evidence allegedly obtained by a laptop repair store owner and presented to the lawyer of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani has served as Trump's "personal lawyer," and the Post is a notoriously right-wing publication and a sister company to Fox News parent Fox Corporation. The Trump campaign and the president himself have tried on previous occasions to smear the Bidens by falsely accusing them of behaving illegally in Ukraine, a smear campaign that culminated in the president's impeachment earlier this year.
Andrew Bates, a Biden campaign spokesperson, made a statement addressing the odd journalistic inconsistencies in the Post's reporting:
Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as 'not legitimate' and political by a GOP colleague have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official U.S. policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing. Trump Administration officials have attested to these facts under oath.
The New York Post never asked the Biden campaign about the critical elements of this story. They certainly never raised that Rudy Giuliani - whose discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported - claimed to have such materials. Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.
"The conservative New York Post has a credulous account of how Rudy came across these emails," commentator Jonathan Chait wrote in New York Magazine. "The Post claims somebody brought the computer to a repair shop in Delaware, but then never bothered to pay for the repair. The shop owner saw that the computer had a sticker for the Beau Biden Foundation. But instead of returning the computer to the Biden family, he made a copy of the hard drive and gave it to Rudy Giuliani's lawyer, before turning it over to the FBI."
This is not the first time that the two social media platforms have attracted controversy for their role in controlling the flow of information — or misinformation. Facebook has previously been criticized for not doing enough to crack down on right-wing misinformation. Recently, perhaps in response, the company banned QAnon Facebook groups, Holocaust denial groups and anti-vaccine advertisements.
Twitter stoked Trump's wrath in May when it fact-checked two of his tweets, prompting him to threaten that he would "strongly regulate" or "close" down social media platforms that "totally silence conservatives voices." Later that month he signed an executive order that ordered the Federal Communications Commission to examine exempting social media platforms from Section 230 protections.


alternet--2020-10-15--‘I’m not happy’: Trump won’t commit to keeping Barr as attorney general if he's reelected

Attorney General William Barr has been so aggressive in his support of President Donald Trump that many pundits have described him as Trump 's `` fixer '' — a word that was often used to describe Michael Cohen when he was still working for the Trump Organization and serving as Trump 's personal attorney .
But this week , Trump has expressed disappointment in Barr and refuses to say whether or not he will keep him as attorney general if he is reelected in November .
Trump was hoping that a U.S. Department of Justice probe of the origins of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day and become an `` October surprise '' that would hurt former Vice President Joe Biden , who has been leading in countless polls .
But because a report on that probe — which has been led by U.S. attorney John Durham — wo n't be ready before November 3 , Trump is obviously feeling that Barr has let him down .
During an interview with Greg Kelly for the right-wing Newsmax TV , Trump was asked if he plans to keep Barr as his attorney general should he win a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have no comment .
Ca n't comment on that , it 's too early .
I 'm not happy , with all of the evidence I had — I can tell you that .
I am not happy . ''
When Trump appeared on Rush Limbaugh 's radio show during a previous interview , Limbaugh noted Axios ' October 9 report that Barr had told Republicans not to expect a report from Durham before Election Day — and Trump angrily responded , `` If that 's the case , I think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And I 'll tell him to his face… .
I think it 's a disgrace .
It 's an embarrassment… .
If Bill Barr made that statement , I would be very disappointed in him . ''
Trump has been saying that Biden and former President Barack Obama should face criminal charges for `` spying '' on his 2016 presidential campaign .
During an appearance on Fox Business last week , Trump said , `` Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes — the greatest political crimes in the history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get little satisfaction unless I win .
But these people should be indicted .
This was the greatest political crime in the history of our country .
And that includes Obama , and it includes Biden . ''
The fact that Trump is now expressing disappointment with Barr is ironic in light of how vigorously the U.S. attorney general has defended him , from the Mueller Report to the Ukraine scandal to promoting Trump 's baseless , thoroughly debunked claim that mail-in voting encourages voter fraud .
If Trump is reelected in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his second term , it would not be the first time he fired an attorney general after an election .
Trump , furious with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation , fired Sessions after the 2018 midterms and still holds a grudge against Sessions two years later .

Attorney General William Barr has been so aggressive in his support of President Donald Trump that many pundits have described him as Trump's "fixer" — a word that was often used to describe Michael Cohen when he was still working for the Trump Organization and serving as Trump's personal attorney. But this week, Trump has expressed disappointment in Barr and refuses to say whether or not he will keep him as attorney general if he is reelected in November.
Trump was hoping that a U.S. Department of Justice probe of the origins of the Russia investigation would be released before Election Day and become an "October surprise" that would hurt former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been leading in countless polls. But because a report on that probe — which has been led by U.S. attorney John Durham — won't be ready before November 3, Trump is obviously feeling that Barr has let him down.
During an interview with Greg Kelly for the right-wing Newsmax TV, Trump was asked if he plans to keep Barr as his attorney general should he win a second term — and Trump responded, "I have no comment. Can't comment on that, it's too early. I'm not happy, with all of the evidence I had — I can tell you that. I am not happy."
When Trump appeared on Rush Limbaugh's radio show during a previous interview, Limbaugh noted Axios' October 9 report that Barr had told Republicans not to expect a report from Durham before Election Day — and Trump angrily responded, "If that's the case, I think it's terrible. It's very disappointing. And I'll tell him to his face…. I think it's a disgrace. It's an embarrassment…. If Bill Barr made that statement, I would be very disappointed in him."
Trump has been saying that Biden and former President Barack Obama should face criminal charges for "spying" on his 2016 presidential campaign. During an appearance on Fox Business last week, Trump said, "Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes — the greatest political crimes in the history of our country — then we're going to get little satisfaction unless I win. But these people should be indicted. This was the greatest political crime in the history of our country. And that includes Obama, and it includes Biden."
The fact that Trump is now expressing disappointment with Barr is ironic in light of how vigorously the U.S. attorney general has defended him, from the Mueller Report to the Ukraine scandal to promoting Trump's baseless, thoroughly debunked claim that mail-in voting encourages voter fraud.
If Trump is reelected in November and decides against keeping Barr during his second term, it would not be the first time he fired an attorney general after an election. Trump, furious with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation, fired Sessions after the 2018 midterms and still holds a grudge against Sessions two years later.


alternet--2020-10-15--Graham blows up Judiciary Committee rules and proceeds with Barrett’s confirmation hearing sans Demo

Graham blows up Judiciary Committee rules and proceeds with Barrett’s confirmation hearing sans Democrats

Chairman Lindsey Graham is ignoring the official rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee , proceeding to conduct business on the @ @ @ @ @ Coney Barrett 's confirmation hearing .
Long standing rules require at least two members of @ @ @ @ @ present for any committee business to take place .
Senator Dick Durbin was the only @ @ @ @ @ .
Durbin warned Graham that he was violating the rules , but Graham pressed forward @ @ @ @ @ what awaits us , '' Graham claimed , `` we 've had this problem in @ @ @ @ @ dealing with it the way we are today .
If we create this problem in @ @ @ @ @ na do what I 'm gon na do . ''
Chairman Graham then proceeded with @ @ @ @ @ called for a motion to hold a vote on Barrett 's nomination on October 22 @

Chairman Lindsey Graham is ignoring the official rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee, proceeding to conduct business on the final day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing. Long standing rules require at least two members of the minority party to be present for any committee business to take place. Senator Dick Durbin was the only Democrat on the committee present.
Durbin warned Graham that he was violating the rules, but Graham pressed forward.
Saying "I know what awaits us," Graham claimed, "we've had this problem in the past, we're dealing with it the way we are today. If we create this problem in the future you're gonna do what I'm gonna do."
Chairman Graham then proceeded with the committee's business and called for a motion to hold a vote on Barrett's nomination on October 22.


alternet--2020-10-15--International elections experts sound the alarm about Trump’s rhetoric: ‘Violence could be quite ser

International elections experts sound the alarm about Trump’s rhetoric: ‘Violence could be quite serious’

President Donald Trump 's rhetoric about Democrats stealing the 2020 presidential election is raising alarms among international elections observers who say that the president could inspire his supporters to commit acts of violence at polling places .
The New York Times reports that the International Crisis Group , a nonprofit based in Belgium that monitors political conflicts around the world , is for the first time warning about violence erupting the United States over the 2020 election .
`` We would never predict civil war , but isolated incidents of violence could be quite serious , '' said Robert Malley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Janet Napolitano , who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under former President Barack Obama , said that Trump 's reckless rhetoric about recruiting an `` army '' of poll watchers has significantly increased the risk of violence .
`` It 's so concerning the president just does n't seem to have any kind of guard rails between what he thinks at the spur of the moment and what he says or writes , '' she said .
`` We 've seen it in the rise of these right-wing militia groups and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's giving them permission to take whatever action they want up to and including kidnapping a sitting governor . ''
Michigan State Representative Sarah Anthony , a Black lawmaker who now travels with armed security guards due to threats from militia groups , told the Times that many Trump supporters are taking his rhetoric about the election being stolen from them very seriously .
`` Hopefully it will be peaceful , but groups like this are causing fear in my community , '' she said .
`` This is Trump 's army , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at our polling places . ''

President Donald Trump's rhetoric about Democrats stealing the 2020 presidential election is raising alarms among international elections observers who say that the president could inspire his supporters to commit acts of violence at polling places.
The New York Times reports that the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit based in Belgium that monitors political conflicts around the world, is for the first time warning about violence erupting the United States over the 2020 election.
"We would never predict civil war, but isolated incidents of violence could be quite serious," said Robert Malley, who is the group's president.
Janet Napolitano, who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under former President Barack Obama, said that Trump's reckless rhetoric about recruiting an "army" of poll watchers has significantly increased the risk of violence.
"It's so concerning the president just doesn't seem to have any kind of guard rails between what he thinks at the spur of the moment and what he says or writes," she said. "We've seen it in the rise of these right-wing militia groups and it's almost as if implicitly he's giving them permission to take whatever action they want up to and including kidnapping a sitting governor."
Michigan State Representative Sarah Anthony, a Black lawmaker who now travels with armed security guards due to threats from militia groups, told the Times that many Trump supporters are taking his rhetoric about the election being stolen from them very seriously.
"Hopefully it will be peaceful, but groups like this are causing fear in my community," she said. "This is Trump's army, the same ones who will show up at our polling places."


alternet--2020-10-16--Trump falls for satirical website's fake news story about Twitter helping Biden

President Donald Trump on Friday got fooled into believing a headline from a satirical website was an actual news story @ @ @ @ @ posted a link to the conservative parody news website Babylon Bee , which earlier this @ @ @ @ @ with the headline , `` Twitter Shuts Down Entire Network To Slow Spread Of Negative @ @ @ @ @ Wow , this has never been done in history , '' the president wrote .
@ @ @ @ @ bad interview last night .
Why is Twitter doing this .
Bringing more attention to @ @ @ @ @ '' In reality , of course , Twitter could n't have shut down its entire @ @ @ @ @ not be able to take to Twitter to complain about it .

President Donald Trump on Friday got fooled into believing a headline from a satirical website was an actual news story.
Specifically, the president posted a link to the conservative parody news website Babylon Bee, which earlier this week published a satirical story with the headline, "Twitter Shuts Down Entire Network To Slow Spread Of Negative Biden News."
"Wow, this has never been done in history," the president wrote. "This includes his really bad interview last night. Why is Twitter doing this. Bringing more attention to Sleepy Joe & Big T."
In reality, of course, Twitter couldn't have shut down its entire network because otherwise Trump would not be able to take to Twitter to complain about it.


alternet--2020-10-16--NBC's Savannah Guthrie praised for explosive Trump town hall for two big reasons

NBC 's Savannah Guthrie is being praised for her performance during President Donald Trump 's Town Hall for two doing two interesting things many journalist have not done while interviewing the president .
Following the president 's town hall , viewers took to Twitter to share their opinions .
Many Twitter users commended Guthrie for not moving on to her next question without pushing for an answer .
She also pushed back multiple times with further inquires when Trump attempted to dodge offering a direct answer to her questions , making an effort to hold the president accountable .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his actions , spew one of his baseless statistics , or allude to conspiracy theories to support his claims , Guthrie was not having it .
`` What @ SavannahGuthrie did last night was a public service , '' said Gregg Gonsalves , a research and epidemiology for infectious disease expert at Yale University .
`` Every reporter , print , TV or radio should learn from what she did .
She refused to submit to being `` spun , '' pushed through evasions , lies .
It was terrific . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bases American voters are concerned about .
Her other questions ultimately shed light on many of the inconsistencies that have come from the White House .
When the president refused to give a direct answer regarding his last negative COVID test , Guthrie 's assertiveness ultimately revealed that Trump either : did not test regularly , violated the Honor Code of the National Speech and Debate Association , knew he was COVID-positive before the information was made public , or all of the above .
Despite the true answer to that question , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users were pleased with that .

NBC's Savannah Guthrie is being praised for her performance during President Donald Trump's Town Hall for two doing two interesting things many journalist have not done while interviewing the president.
Following the president's town hall, viewers took to Twitter to share their opinions. Many Twitter users commended Guthrie for not moving on to her next question without pushing for an answer. She also pushed back multiple times with further inquires when Trump attempted to dodge offering a direct answer to her questions, making an effort to hold the president accountable.
Even when the president aimed to downplay some of his actions, spew one of his baseless statistics, or allude to conspiracy theories to support his claims, Guthrie was not having it.
"What @SavannahGuthrie did last night was a public service," said Gregg Gonsalves, a research and epidemiology for infectious disease expert at Yale University. "Every reporter, print, TV or radio should learn from what she did. She refused to submit to being "spun," pushed through evasions, lies. It was terrific."
Guthrie's performance covered many of the bases American voters are concerned about. Her other questions ultimately shed light on many of the inconsistencies that have come from the White House. When the president refused to give a direct answer regarding his last negative COVID test, Guthrie's assertiveness ultimately revealed that Trump either: did not test regularly, violated the Honor Code of the National Speech and Debate Association, knew he was COVID-positive before the information was made public, or all of the above.
Despite the true answer to that question, Trump's actions were revealing and Twitter users were pleased with that.


alternet--2020-10-16--Rachel Maddow explains why Trump’s NBC town hall backfired

Maddow noted the event , `` was a strange replacement for what was otherwise supposed to be the second presidential debate of this general election season .
Again , the reason we got here is because President Trump dropped out of the second debate . ''
The host noted the health revelations inadvertently made by Trump , his refusal to say if he had been test for COVID-19 as he promised to do before the first debate , Trump 's views on herd immunity and his admission that he probably owes overseas sources money .
`` I know why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second debate with Joe Biden .
I do n't now necessarily know why he wanted to do this , '' Maddow noted .
`` The news that I just gave you , in terms of the admissions the president made there , all those things alone are not directions in which the president wants to be steering the national political discussion , you know , two-and-a-half weeks from the election , '' Maddow explained .
`` But that 's what he did . ''
`` It did just feel like he got run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this .
But not enough to stop him from telling a very long string of very potent lies , particularly on the issue of covid , '' she noted .

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow on Thursday recapped President Donald Trump's NBC News town hall meeting with host Savannah Guthrie.
Maddow noted the event, "was a strange replacement for what was otherwise supposed to be the second presidential debate of this general election season. Again, the reason we got here is because President Trump dropped out of the second debate."
The host noted the health revelations inadvertently made by Trump, his refusal to say if he had been test for COVID-19 as he promised to do before the first debate, Trump's views on herd immunity and his admission that he probably owes overseas sources money.
"I know why the president didn't want to do a second debate with Joe Biden. I don't now necessarily know why he wanted to do this," Maddow noted.
"The news that I just gave you, in terms of the admissions the president made there, all those things alone are not directions in which the president wants to be steering the national political discussion, you know, two-and-a-half weeks from the election," Maddow explained. "But that's what he did."
"It did just feel like he got run down, run over by most of this. But not enough to stop him from telling a very long string of very potent lies, particularly on the issue of covid," she noted.
Watch:


alternet--2020-10-16--Russia used Trump's personal lawyer to feed misinformation to the president -- and the White House k

Russia used Trump's personal lawyer to feed misinformation to the president -- and the White House knew

The White House was warned that Russian intelligence was seeking to exploit his personal attorney according to a bombshell new report in The Washington Post .
`` U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that President Trump 's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence , '' the newspaper reported , citing `` four former officials familiar with the matter . ''
`` The warnings were based on multiple sources , including intercepted communications , that showed Giuliani was interacting with people tied to Russian intelligence during a December 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathering information that he thought would expose corrupt acts by former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter , '' The Post reported .
`` The intelligence raised concerns that Giuliani was being used to feed Russian misinformation to the president , the former officials said , speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information and conversations . ''
One former official described the message of the warnings as “ Do what you want to do , but your friend Rudy has been worked by Russian assets in Ukraine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ replied , `` That 's Rudy . ''
`` Officials ' warnings about Giuliani underscore the concern in the U.S. intelligence community that Russia not only is seeking to reprise the disinformation campaign it waged in 2016 , but also may now be aided , unwittingly or otherwise , by individuals close to the president .
Those warnings have gained fresh urgency in recent days .
The information that Giuliani sought in Ukraine is similar to what is contained in emails and other correspondence published this week by the New York Post , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laptop of Hunter Biden and were provided by Giuliani and Stephen K. Bannon , Trump 's former top political adviser at the White House , '' The Post reported .

The White House was warned that Russian intelligence was seeking to exploit his personal attorney according to a bombshell new report in The Washington Post.
"U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that President Trump's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence," the newspaper reported, citing "four former officials familiar with the matter."
"The warnings were based on multiple sources, including intercepted communications, that showed Giuliani was interacting with people tied to Russian intelligence during a December 2019 trip to Ukraine, where he was gathering information that he thought would expose corrupt acts by former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter," The Post reported. "The intelligence raised concerns that Giuliani was being used to feed Russian misinformation to the president, the former officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information and conversations."
One former official described the message of the warnings as “Do what you want to do, but your friend Rudy has been worked by Russian assets in Ukraine."
Trump reportedly shrugged his shoulders and replied, "That's Rudy."
"Officials' warnings about Giuliani underscore the concern in the U.S. intelligence community that Russia not only is seeking to reprise the disinformation campaign it waged in 2016, but also may now be aided, unwittingly or otherwise, by individuals close to the president. Those warnings have gained fresh urgency in recent days. The information that Giuliani sought in Ukraine is similar to what is contained in emails and other correspondence published this week by the New York Post, which the paper said came from the laptop of Hunter Biden and were provided by Giuliani and Stephen K. Bannon, Trump's former top political adviser at the White House," The Post reported.


alternet--2020-10-16--Trump refuses to answer key question about suspicious finances after Savannah Guthrie grilling

NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie challenged Donald Trump on his finances during a town hall meeting that was held after @ @ @ @ @ in the second debate .
`` The New York Times has obtained , it says @ @ @ @ @ returns among other things .
It says you 've had debts of approximately $ 421 @ @ @ @ @ guaranteed and that will come due in the next four years , '' Guthrie noted @ @ @ @ @ on behalf of voters , who do you owe $ 421 million to ? ''
@ @ @ @ @ illegal , number one .
Also , the numbers are all wrong with the numbers @ @ @ @ @ Trump replied , with his statements contradicting each other .
`` I 'm very under @ @ @ @ @ run , i 'm very under levered , '' Trump said as he repeatedly forgot @ @ @ @ @ '' Guthrie noted Trump could clear things up by releasing his tax returns , but @ @ @ @ @ not do so while being audited .

NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie challenged Donald Trump on his finances during a town hall meeting that was held after the president refused to participate in the second debate.
"The New York Times has obtained, it says, years of your tax returns among other things. It says you've had debts of approximately $421 million that you have personally guaranteed and that will come due in the next four years," Guthrie noted. "The question is on behalf of voters, who do you owe $421 million to?"
"What they did is illegal, number one. Also, the numbers are all wrong with the numbers that were released," Trump replied, with his statements contradicting each other.
"I'm very under -- when i decided to run, i'm very under levered," Trump said as he repeatedly forgot the word "leveraged."
Guthrie noted Trump could clear things up by releasing his tax returns, but Trump falsely claimed he could not do so while being audited.
Watch:


alternet--2020-10-16--Progressive critics warn against applauding social media ban of 'garbage' NY Post story about Hunter

Progressive critics warn against applauding social media ban of 'garbage' NY Post story about Hunter Biden

Press freedom advocates and progressive journalists continued to sound the alarm Thursday following moves by both Twitter and Facebook to ban or restrict sharing of controversial New York Post reporting published earlier this week that claimed to uncover new details about the past work of Hunter Biden , son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , based on emails and documents supposedly found by a computer repairman on an abandoned laptop and then given to Rudy Giuliani , President Donald Trump 's personal attorney .
Ryan Grim , Washington bureau chief for The Intercept , was among those critics Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself have little or no merit , the decision by Twitter to block users ' ability to share the Post 's article—and to shut down the right-wing newspaper 's main Twitter account—was a counterproductive and troubling move with long-term implications that should not be overlooked .
`` This whole thing is an absolute gift to the right wing .
It was a garbage story that was n't going anyway , just showed Hunter doing the corruption we know about , '' Grim argued in a tweet .
`` Now the right will use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Right on cue late Thurdsay morning , Republican Sens .
Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas were among those charging that Twitter and Facebook , by their actions against the Post 's story , were guilty of rigging the election in favor of the Democrats .
Grim 's colleague at The Intercept , co-founder Glenn Greenwald , also let loose with his criticisms in a series of tweets Wednesday and again Thursday morning .
For his part , in addition to other implications , Greenwald warned that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unauthorized materials '' would be in future jeopardy if such a policy by powerful media platforms was to remain unchallenged .
As one user said in response to Grim 's tweet , the policy is not likely to maintain its aim only at reported pieces by right-wing outfits like the NY Post .
`` Today it was New York Post , '' the user said , `` tomorrow it 'll be Jacobin . ''
Greenwald also condemned self-identified liberals who were applauding Twitter 's moves seemingly based on the sole fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that published a story potentially damaging to Democrats .
Such applause , he warned , misses the bigger implications of powerful tech corporations in the era of social media having such outsized impact on the public 's ability to access information .
`` Amazing how liberals are now full-on free market libertarians—let large corporations do whatever they want !
—and have no understanding of or interest in monopoly power , '' Greenwald said .
While Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday came forth to say that the company 's handling of the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he articulated was not the blocking of content itself but that the `` communications around our actions ... was not great . ''
Weighing in on the debate Thursday morning , Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-Calif. ) , who serves the district representing Silicon Valley , said he believed critics like Grim and Greenwald are making valid points but added that he still has questions about where the line should be drawn by platforms like Twitter or Facebook on so-called illegally obtained materials .
In direct response to Khanna 's posted concerns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one can imagine a case where Facebook or Twitter validly block content—publication of the address or nude photos of a private citizen taken without consent—does n't justify the broad rule Twitter invoked or repression of this story about the Bidens . ''
Meanwhile , Trevor Timm , executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation , argued that the problem with Twitter 's actions has nothing to do with how the company has communicated its reasoning .
Similar to Greenwald , Timm warned such a policy—taken to its logical conclusion—would have woeful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts like the Panama Papers project in 2016 which used internal documents—leaked or hacked or otherwise obtained—that exposed a global network of offshore banking operations and money laundering .
`` No one really knows for sure , but there was a lot of speculation that the Panama Papers were hacked and then given to journalists , '' tweeted Timm .
`` Should Twitter wipe out all those old links too ? ''
Timm lamented that Twitter 's decision will only serve to increase interest in the story—a dynamic that could be considered a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content of the reporting is , in fact , dubious .
`` Now everyone will be talking about the NY Post story for a week instead of a day , '' Timm tweeted Wednesday night .

Press freedom advocates and progressive journalists continued to sound the alarm Thursday following moves by both Twitter and Facebook to ban or restrict sharing of controversial New York Post reporting published earlier this week that claimed to uncover new details about the past work of Hunter Biden, son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, based on emails and documents supposedly found by a computer repairman on an abandoned laptop and then given to Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney.
As the Guardianreports:
In an unprecedented step against a major news publication, Twitter blocked users from posting links to the Post story or photos from the unconfirmed report. Users attempting to share the story were shown a notice saying: "We can't complete this request because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful." Users clicking or retweeting a link already posted to Twitter are shown a warning the "link may be unsafe."
Ryan Grim, Washington bureau chief for The Intercept, was among those critics Wednesday who said that while the reporting may itself have little or no merit, the decision by Twitter to block users' ability to share the Post's article—and to shut down the right-wing newspaper's main Twitter account—was a counterproductive and troubling move with long-term implications that should not be overlooked.
"This whole thing is an absolute gift to the right wing. It was a garbage story that wasn't going anyway, just showed Hunter doing the corruption we know about," Grim argued in a tweet. "Now the right will use this censorship to further delegitimize the election."
Right on cue late Thurdsay morning, Republican Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas were among those charging that Twitter and Facebook, by their actions against the Post's story, were guilty of rigging the election in favor of the Democrats.
Grim's colleague at The Intercept, co-founder Glenn Greenwald, also let loose with his criticisms in a series of tweets Wednesday and again Thursday morning. For his part, in addition to other implications, Greenwald warned that all kinds of crucial reporting based on "unauthorized materials" would be in future jeopardy if such a policy by powerful media platforms was to remain unchallenged.
As one user said in response to Grim's tweet, the policy is not likely to maintain its aim only at reported pieces by right-wing outfits like the NY Post. "Today it was New York Post," the user said, "tomorrow it'll be Jacobin."
Greenwald also condemned self-identified liberals who were applauding Twitter's moves seemingly based on the sole fact that the actions were taken against a right-wing paper that published a story potentially damaging to Democrats. Such applause, he warned, misses the bigger implications of powerful tech corporations in the era of social media having such outsized impact on the public's ability to access information.
"Amazing how liberals are now full-on free market libertarians—let large corporations do whatever they want!—and have no understanding of or interest in monopoly power," Greenwald said.
While Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday came forth to say that the company's handling of the story was "unacceptable," the fault he articulated was not the blocking of content itself but that the "communications around our actions... was not great."
Weighing in on the debate Thursday morning, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who serves the district representing Silicon Valley, said he believed critics like Grim and Greenwald are making valid points but added that he still has questions about where the line should be drawn by platforms like Twitter or Facebook on so-called illegally obtained materials.
In direct response to Khanna's posted concerns and questions, Greenwald wrote: "That one can imagine a case where Facebook or Twitter validly block content—publication of the address or nude photos of a private citizen taken without consent—doesn't justify the broad rule Twitter invoked or repression of this story about the Bidens."
Meanwhile, Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, argued that the problem with Twitter's actions has nothing to do with how the company has communicated its reasoning. Similar to Greenwald, Timm warned such a policy—taken to its logical conclusion—would have woeful impacts on free speech and investigative journalism efforts like the Panama Papers project in 2016 which used internal documents—leaked or hacked or otherwise obtained—that exposed a global network of offshore banking operations and money laundering.
"No one really knows for sure, but there was a lot of speculation that the Panama Papers were hacked and then given to journalists," tweeted Timm. "Should Twitter wipe out all those old links too?"
Timm lamented that Twitter's decision will only serve to increase interest in the story—a dynamic that could be considered a backfire, especially if the nature or content of the reporting is, in fact, dubious.
"Now everyone will be talking about the NY Post story for a week instead of a day," Timm tweeted Wednesday night.


alternet--2020-10-16--Dianne Feinstein sparks calls for her removal after botching Amy Coney Barrett hearings

Angered by her soft approach during this week 's confirmation hearings for President Donald Trump 's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett—on top of her failure to embrace progressive reforms to the nation 's highest court—the head of a progressive judicial watchdog group on Thursday called for Sen. Dianne Feinstein 's removal as the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee .
`` It 's time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee , '' said Brian Fallon , executive director of Demand Justice , in a statement .
`` If she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intervene . ''
During Tuesday 's hearing for Barrett 's confirmation , Fallon was among the many vocal critics of Feinstein 's performance .
In his statement on Thursday , Fallon argued that Feinstein `` has undercut Democrats ' position at every step of this process , from undermining calls for filibuster and Court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court . ''
With Republicans set to ram through a vote on Barrett next week—scheduling a committee vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate on Friday—Democrats have proved unable , or in the minds of some unwilling , to do anything to stop it .
As Elie Mystal wrote for The Nation on Thursday , the only solution to the Barrett `` debacle '' is expanding the court once Democrats win back the Senate .
`` The argument for court expansion is often presented as retribution for Republicans messing with the court , first by blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland , now by rushing the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's successor , '' noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher purpose for court expansion , one that goes beyond avenging Ginsburg and Garland .
Expanding the court now—through raw political power , if necessary—is the best way to reform and depoliticize the court for future generations .
Expanding the court is the way to save it .
It 's a lot like breaking a bone to reset the leg . ''
While progressive voices , and many Democratic lawmakers , have been increasingly strident in their call for increasing the number of the justices on the Supreme Court , Feinstein has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Asked last month by a New York Times reporter if she would support an expansion , Feinstein responded : `` Ask me when we win the majority . ''
But offering his assessment , Slate 's Mark Joseph Stern tweeted Thursday that expanding the Supreme Court is the only viable option for Democrats if they want to actually win the kind of future they say they believe in : For Fallon , Feinstein 's failures—from putting decorum before principles during this week 's hearings to dismissing a new generation of Democratic activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunrise Movement climate campaigners in her offices last year—can no longer be tolerated .
`` If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward , '' Fallon said , `` they can not be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican theft of a Supreme Court seat with kid gloves . ''

Angered by her soft approach during this week's confirmation hearings for President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett—on top of her failure to embrace progressive reforms to the nation's highest court—the head of a progressive judicial watchdog group on Thursday called for Sen. Dianne Feinstein's removal as the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"It's time for Sen. Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee," said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, in a statement. "If she won't, her colleagues need to intervene."
During Tuesday's hearing for Barrett's confirmation, Fallon was among the many vocal critics of Feinstein's performance.
In his statement on Thursday, Fallon argued that Feinstein "has undercut Democrats' position at every step of this process, from undermining calls for filibuster and Court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court."
With Republicans set to ram through a vote on Barrett next week—scheduling a committee vote for Thursday and a floor vote in the Senate on Friday—Democrats have proved unable, or in the minds of some unwilling, to do anything to stop it.
As Elie Mystal wrote for The Nation on Thursday, the only solution to the Barrett "debacle" is expanding the court once Democrats win back the Senate.
"The argument for court expansion is often presented as retribution for Republicans messing with the court, first by blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland, now by rushing the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's successor," noted Mystal. "But there is a higher purpose for court expansion, one that goes beyond avenging Ginsburg and Garland. Expanding the court now—through raw political power, if necessary—is the best way to reform and depoliticize the court for future generations. Expanding the court is the way to save it. It's a lot like breaking a bone to reset the leg."
While progressive voices, and many Democratic lawmakers, have been increasingly strident in their call for increasing the number of the justices on the Supreme Court, Feinstein has not made her position on the subject known. Asked last month by a New York Times reporter if she would support an expansion, Feinstein responded: "Ask me when we win the majority."
But offering his assessment, Slate's Mark Joseph Stern tweeted Thursday that expanding the Supreme Court is the only viable option for Democrats if they want to actually win the kind of future they say they believe in:
For Fallon, Feinstein's failures—from putting decorum before principles during this week's hearings to dismissing a new generation of Democratic activists clamoring for change like she did with Sunrise Movement climate campaigners in her offices last year—can no longer be tolerated.
"If Senate Democrats are going to get their act together on the courts going forward," Fallon said, "they cannot be led by someone who treats Sunrise activists with contempt and the Republican theft of a Supreme Court seat with kid gloves."


alternet--2020-10-16--Biden warns that Amy Coney Barrett is a threat to LGBTQ rights

Former Vice President Joe Biden is warning LGBTQ Americans `` there 's reason to be concerned '' about Judge Amy @ @ @ @ @ installation onto the U.S. Supreme Court .
He added that he too is worried .
@ @ @ @ @ with Barrett on the Supreme Court LGBTQ rights and access to healthcare are in danger @ @ @ @ @ professor for two decades Biden added he felt Barrett did not explain her judicial philosophy @ @ @ @

Former Vice President Joe Biden is warning LGBTQ Americans "there's reason to be concerned" about Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her likely installation onto the U.S. Supreme Court. He added that he too is worried.
Biden went on to say with Barrett on the Supreme Court LGBTQ rights and access to healthcare are in danger.
A former constitutional law professor for two decades Biden added he felt Barrett did not explain her judicial philosophy regarding enumerated rights.
Watch:


alternet--2020-10-16--Trump's NBC town hall immediately goes off the rails as he berates the host

President Donald Trump is down sharply in the polls against former Vice President Joe Biden , so he desperately needs to do something to change the course of the race .
But right at the start of his NBC News town hall on Thursday , Trump went on a tear of aggressive argument and disinformation with host Savannah Guthrie .
Once again , Guthrie asked Trump to denounce white supremacy .
This question was a major pitfall for him in the first presidential debate .
This time , he was at least able to get out the words `` I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior told a different story .
He clearly wanted to move beyond the topic quickly , attacking Antifa and Guthrie herself for asking the question .
The fact that he was so offended to even be asked the question was revealing in itself .
He spoke extremely fast and frequently raised his voice to Guthrie , clearly trying to bully her .
Much of what he said was nonsensical , false , or intentional disinformation .
But while he would denounce white supremacy — however reluctantly — Trump refused to denounce QAnon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that alleges a massive Satanic pedophilia cult run by Democrats .
Trump , in this delusion , is fighting the cult .
Trump has been asked about it before , and offered some vague support to the group , but he pretended to Guthrie that he did n't know enough about it to denounce it .
Not only did he not denounce the adherents of QAnon , he offered them some support , saying : `` I do know they are very much against pedophilia .
They fight it very hard . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By pushing wild conspiracy theories about pedophiles , these groups actually can make it harder for law enforcement and others to effectively tackle the problem .
Adherents of the theory have been implicated in multiple criminal cases themselves .
Later , Guthrie asked the president about his choice to retweet bogus stories alleging that members of the Navy 's SEAL Team Six had been murdered and that the killing of Osama bin Laden under President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden was a hoax .
It was a truly baffling thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it went largely ignored prior to the town hall because the media is used to this behavior .
And when Trump was pressed on his retweets , he made no defense for spreading disinformation from his extremely large online platform .
He said readers can `` decide for themselves '' — which is n't the attitude he takes when his opponents are spreading what he calls `` fake news . ''
The conversation soon shifted to discussion of the election , and Trump immediately started spreading more disinformation , as Business Insider reporter @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump is down sharply in the polls against former Vice President Joe Biden, so he desperately needs to do something to change the course of the race.
But right at the start of his NBC News town hall on Thursday, Trump went on a tear of aggressive argument and disinformation with host Savannah Guthrie.
Once again, Guthrie asked Trump to denounce white supremacy. This question was a major pitfall for him in the first presidential debate. This time, he was at least able to get out the words "I denounce white supremacy." But his behavior told a different story. He clearly wanted to move beyond the topic quickly, attacking Antifa and Guthrie herself for asking the question. The fact that he was so offended to even be asked the question was revealing in itself.
He spoke extremely fast and frequently raised his voice to Guthrie, clearly trying to bully her. Much of what he said was nonsensical, false, or intentional disinformation.
But while he would denounce white supremacy — however reluctantly — Trump refused to denounce QAnon, the disturbing right-wing and anit-Semitic conspiracy fiction that alleges a massive Satanic pedophilia cult run by Democrats. Trump, in this delusion, is fighting the cult. Trump has been asked about it before, and offered some vague support to the group, but he pretended to Guthrie that he didn't know enough about it to denounce it.
Not only did he not denounce the adherents of QAnon, he offered them some support, saying: "I do know they are very much against pedophilia. They fight it very hard." This is, in fact, false. By pushing wild conspiracy theories about pedophiles, these groups actually can make it harder for law enforcement and others to effectively tackle the problem. Adherents of the theory have been implicated in multiple criminal cases themselves.
Later, Guthrie asked the president about his choice to retweet bogus stories alleging that members of the Navy's SEAL Team Six had been murdered and that the killing of Osama bin Laden under President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden was a hoax. It was a truly baffling thing for the president to share, though it went largely ignored prior to the town hall because the media is used to this behavior.
And when Trump was pressed on his retweets, he made no defense for spreading disinformation from his extremely large online platform. He said readers can "decide for themselves" — which isn't the attitude he takes when his opponents are spreading what he calls "fake news."
The conversation soon shifted to discussion of the election, and Trump immediately started spreading more disinformation, as Business Insider reporter Grace Panetta noted:


alternet--2020-10-16--Watchdog group accuses Amy Coney Barrett of 'unconscionable cruelty' in teen rape case

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has been accused of `` unconscionable cruelty '' by a watchdog group over her role in an appellate court decision overturning a district court which found a Wisconsin county liable for millions in damages to a woman who alleged she had been repeatedly raped by a jail guard .
`` After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard , Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard 's official duties .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cruelty that has no place on the high court , '' Kyle Herrig , president of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US , told Salon .
`` The only thing more concerning than the rush to confirm by Senate Republicans is what we are learning about Amy Coney Barrett 's extremist record .
It is hardly surprising that she has dodged question after question during her testimony . ''
Barrett was one of the three judges on a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel which reversed a $ 6.7 million verdict against Milwaukee County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with repeatedly raping a pregnant 19-year-old inmate .
Former corrections officer Xavier Thicken was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault in 2013 after the woman alleged that he had raped her during and after her pregnancy at a jail run by the controversial former Sheriff David Clarke .
Those charges were dropped when he agreed to plead guilty to felony misconduct in public office in 2014 .
The woman later filed a lawsuit against Milwaukee County .
In her testimony , she alleged that Thicklen had raped her in different parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months pregnant and demanded that she perform oral sex on him after giving birth .
A jury awarded the woman $ 6.7 million in 2017 , which was upheld by District Judge J.P. Stadmueller before the Seventh Circuit Court overturned the ruling in September 2018 .
Barrett joined Judges Daniel Manion and Robert Gettleman in reversing the district court ruling against the county , though it upheld the judgement against Thicklen .
Mannion wrote in the unanimous opinion that the county was not responsible for the guard 's conduct .
`` Conduct is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different in kind from that authorized , far beyond the authorized time or space , or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer , '' he said .
`` Even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to ( the woman ) and the verdict , we hold no reasonable jury could find the sexual assaults were in the scope of his ( Thicklen 's ) employment , '' the opinion stated .
`` The evidence negates the verdict . ''
Manion noted that the training materials stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inmates .
`` The undisputed facts and reasonable inferences point ineluctably to the conclusions that Thicklen 's abhorrent acts were in no way actuated by a purpose to serve county , '' he wrote .
`` He raped ( the inmate ) for purely personal reasons , the rapes did not benefit county but harmed it , he knew the rapes did not serve county , and the rapes were outside the scope . ''
With the ruling , the judge acknowledged that the woman `` loses perhaps her best chance to collect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs . ''
In a similar case this year , however , Barrett joined a majority of the full Seventh Circuit Court to find that Wisconsin 's Polk County was liable in a case where a jail guard sexually assaulted five women hundreds of times .
The case was filed after former prison guard Daryl Christensen was convicted of sexually assaulting the women hundreds of times over three years in 2016 .
Two of the victims , identified as J.K.J .
and M.J.J.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal court , according to Courthouse News .
A complaint filed by one of the women alleged that the Polk County Sheriff 's Department was liable , because it failed to protect her from Christensen and chose not to accept state-provided training materials on prison rape .
The lawsuit largely echoed the allegations in the criminal complaint , accusing Christensen of leading women inmates to areas of the jail where there were no security cameras before digitally penetrating them and forcing them to perform oral sex on him .
Christensen was sentenced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jury awarded the women $ 11.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages , according to Courthouse News .
Polk County was ordered to pay $ 4 million of the award , which the outlet noted was `` the only part of the award the women will ever possibly receive . ''
A split three-judge Seventh Circuit Court panel overturned the ruling against the county last year , with the majority arguing that it should not be held liable for actions taken by a `` rogue guard '' in violation of the jail 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rehear the case in December , and it voted 7-4 to hold the county responsible in May .
Barrett joined the majority .
`` The jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensen 's horrific acts but rather the county 's own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted — a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J .
and M.J.J.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority opinion .
Scudder added that `` the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates ' health and safety were in danger , J.K.J .
and M.J.J .
's assaults would have stopped sooner , or never happened at all . ''
Barrett penned an influential decision last year which made it easier for college students accused of sexual assault to sue their universities over the handling of investigations .
She wrote the decision for a Seventh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have discriminated against a male student accused of sexual assault when it suspended him for one year , costing him a spot in the Navy ROTC program .
`` It is plausible that [ university officials ] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man , '' Barrett wrote in the decision .
Barrett said the discrimination claim was plausible , in part because the Obama administration had pressured schools to prioritize sexual assault investigations and later opened two investigations into Purdue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that it took the letter and its enforcement very seriously , '' Barrett wrote .
`` The pressure on the university to demonstrate compliance was far from abstract . ''
Emily Martin , the vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women 's Law Center , expressed concerns that Barrett 's description of the Education Department 's efforts to go after campus sexual assault was evidence of discrimination against men .
Martin told The Washington Post that late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a champion of women 's rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone like that with a judge who is eager to use the language of sex discrimination in order to defend the status quo and to use the statutes that were created to forward gender equality as swords against that very purpose . ''
Beth Barnhill , the executive director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault , penned an op-ed this week warning that Barrett `` holds extreme positions on areas of the law on which victims of sexual assault depend . ''
`` Survivors want and deserve a Supreme Court that works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous ruling from Barrett made it easier for students who are held accountable for sexual assault to sue their schools for sex discrimination , '' Barnhill wrote .
`` She suggested that a school 's commitment to taking sexual misconduct seriously is evidence of sex discrimination against the people who caused harm .
This is deeply problematic and troubling for survivors . ''

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has been accused of "unconscionable cruelty" by a watchdog group over her role in an appellate court decision overturning a district court which found a Wisconsin county liable for millions in damages to a woman who alleged she had been repeatedly raped by a jail guard.
"After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties. Her judgment demonstrates a level of unconscionable cruelty that has no place on the high court," Kyle Herrig, president of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, told Salon. "The only thing more concerning than the rush to confirm by Senate Republicans is what we are learning about Amy Coney Barrett's extremist record. It is hardly surprising that she has dodged question after question during her testimony."
Barrett was one of the three judges on a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel which reversed a $6.7 million verdict against Milwaukee County in 2018 after a corrections officer was charged with repeatedly raping a pregnant 19-year-old inmate.
Former corrections officer Xavier Thicken was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault in 2013 after the woman alleged that he had raped her during and after her pregnancy at a jail run by the controversial former Sheriff David Clarke. Those charges were dropped when he agreed to plead guilty to felony misconduct in public office in 2014.
The woman later filed a lawsuit against Milwaukee County. In her testimony, she alleged that Thicklen had raped her in different parts of the jail when she was eight months pregnant and demanded that she perform oral sex on him after giving birth.
A jury awarded the woman $6.7 million in 2017, which was upheld by District Judge J.P. Stadmueller before the Seventh Circuit Court overturned the ruling in September 2018.
Barrett joined Judges Daniel Manion and Robert Gettleman in reversing the district court ruling against the county, though it upheld the judgement against Thicklen. Mannion wrote in the unanimous opinion that the county was not responsible for the guard's conduct.
"Conduct is not in the scope if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer," he said.
"Even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to (the woman) and the verdict, we hold no reasonable jury could find the sexual assaults were in the scope of his (Thicklen's) employment," the opinion stated. "The evidence negates the verdict."
Manion noted that the training materials stated guards were prohibited from having sex with inmates.
"The undisputed facts and reasonable inferences point ineluctably to the conclusions that Thicklen's abhorrent acts were in no way actuated by a purpose to serve county," he wrote. "He raped (the inmate) for purely personal reasons, the rapes did not benefit county but harmed it, he knew the rapes did not serve county, and the rapes were outside the scope."
With the ruling, the judge acknowledged that the woman "loses perhaps her best chance to collect the judgment. But (the law) does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs."
In a similar case this year, however, Barrett joined a majority of the full Seventh Circuit Court to find that Wisconsin's Polk County was liable in a case where a jail guard sexually assaulted five women hundreds of times.
The case was filed after former prison guard Daryl Christensen was convicted of sexually assaulting the women hundreds of times over three years in 2016. Two of the victims, identified as J.K.J. and M.J.J., sued Christensen and Polk County in federal court, according to Courthouse News.
A complaint filed by one of the women alleged that the Polk County Sheriff's Department was liable, because it failed to protect her from Christensen and chose not to accept state-provided training materials on prison rape.
The lawsuit largely echoed the allegations in the criminal complaint, accusing Christensen of leading women inmates to areas of the jail where there were no security cameras before digitally penetrating them and forcing them to perform oral sex on him.
Christensen was sentenced to 30 years in prison, and a jury awarded the women $11.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, according to Courthouse News. Polk County was ordered to pay $4 million of the award, which the outlet noted was "the only part of the award the women will ever possibly receive."
A split three-judge Seventh Circuit Court panel overturned the ruling against the county last year, with the majority arguing that it should not be held liable for actions taken by a "rogue guard" in violation of the jail's policy.
The full court voted to rehear the case in December, and it voted 7-4 to hold the county responsible in May. Barrett joined the majority.
"The jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensen's horrific acts but rather the county's own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted — a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J. and M.J.J.," Judge Michael Scudder wrote in the majority opinion.
Scudder added that "the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates' health and safety were in danger, J.K.J. and M.J.J.'s assaults would have stopped sooner, or never happened at all."
Barrett penned an influential decision last year which made it easier for college students accused of sexual assault to sue their universities over the handling of investigations.
She wrote the decision for a Seventh Circuit panel which ruled that Purdue University might have discriminated against a male student accused of sexual assault when it suspended him for one year, costing him a spot in the Navy ROTC program.
"It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man," Barrett wrote in the decision.
Barrett said the discrimination claim was plausible, in part because the Obama administration had pressured schools to prioritize sexual assault investigations and later opened two investigations into Purdue.
"The Department of Education made clear that it took the letter and its enforcement very seriously," Barrett wrote. "The pressure on the university to demonstrate compliance was far from abstract."
Emily Martin, the vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women's Law Center, expressed concerns that Barrett's description of the Education Department's efforts to go after campus sexual assault was evidence of discrimination against men.
Martin told The Washington Post that late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a champion of women's rights and lamented the prospect of "replacing someone like that with a judge who is eager to use the language of sex discrimination in order to defend the status quo and to use the statutes that were created to forward gender equality as swords against that very purpose."
Beth Barnhill, the executive director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, penned an op-ed this week warning that Barrett "holds extreme positions on areas of the law on which victims of sexual assault depend."
"Survivors want and deserve a Supreme Court that works for all of us, yet a previous ruling from Barrett made it easier for students who are held accountable for sexual assault to sue their schools for sex discrimination," Barnhill wrote. "She suggested that a school's commitment to taking sexual misconduct seriously is evidence of sex discrimination against the people who caused harm. This is deeply problematic and troubling for survivors."