truthout--2020-10-12--Noam Chomsky: Trump Is Willing to Dismantle Democracy to Hold On to Power

While it ’ s still too early to predict the likely outcome of the November 2020 presidential election , Donald Trump continues to fall behind in national polls while pulling dirty electoral tricks in the hope of defeating Democratic challenger Joe Biden .
Much of Trump ’ s hope for victory rests with his “ law and order ” campaign , which promotes lies about mail-in-voting fraud in order to preemptively discredit the election results if they are in Biden ’ s favor .
In this exclusive interview for Truthout , Noam Chomsky discusses the national and international significance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ peaceful transition to power ” and his reliance on conspiracy theories .
C.J .
Polychroniou : Noam , with slightly more than two weeks away from the most important national elections in recent U.S. history , Trump ’ s campaign continues to harp on the message of “ law and order ” — a political tactic that authoritarian leaders have always relied on in order to control people and to strengthen their grip on a country — but refuses to accept a “ peaceful transition to power ” if he loses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters ?
Noam Chomsky : The “ law and order ” appeal is normal , virtually reflexive .
Trump ’ s threat to refuse to accept the result of the election is not .
It is something new in stable parliamentary democracies .
The fact that this contingency is even being discussed reveals how effective the Trump wrecking ball has been in undermining formal democracy .
We may recall that Richard Nixon , not exactly revered for his integrity , had some reason to suppose that victory in the 1960 election had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He did not challenge the results , placing the welfare of the country above personal ambition .
Al Gore did the same in 2020 .
The idea of Trump placing anything above his personal ambition — even caring about the welfare of the country — is too ludicrous to discuss .
James Madison once said that liberty is not protected by “ parchment barriers ” — words on paper .
Rather , constitutional orders presuppose good faith and some commitment , however limited , to the common good .
When that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different sociopolitical world .
Trump ’ s threats are taken quite seriously , not only in extensive commentary in mainstream media and journals , but even within the military — which might be compelled to intervene , as in the tinpot dictatorships that are Trump ’ s model .
A striking example is an open letter to the country ’ s highest ranking military officer , Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley , from two highly regarded retired military commanders , Lt. Colonels John Nagl and Paul Yingling .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States is actively subverting our electoral system , threatening to remain in office in defiance of our Constitution .
In a few months ’ time , you may have to choose between defying a lawless president or betraying your Constitutional oath ” to defend the Constitution against all enemies , “ foreign and domestic.
” The enemy today is domestic : a “ lawless president , ” Nagl and Yingling continue , who “ is assembling a private army capable of thwarting not only the will of the electorate but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When these forces collide on January 20 , 2021 , the U.S. military will be the only institution capable of upholding our Constitutional order.
” With Senate Republicans “ reduced to supplicant status , ” having abandoned any lingering shreds of integrity , General Milley should be prepared to send a brigade of the 82nd Airborne to disperse Trump ’ s “ little green men , ” Nagl and Yingling advise .
“ Should you remain silent , you will be complicit in a coup d ’ état.
” Hard to believe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are voiced by sober and respected voices , and echoed throughout the mainstream , is reason enough to be deeply concerned about the prospects for U.S. society .
I rarely quote New York Times senior correspondent Thomas Friedman , but when he asks whether this might be our last democratic election , he is not joining us “ wild men in the wings ” — to quote McGeorge Bundy ’ s term for those who don ’ t automatically conform to approved doctrine .
Meanwhile , we should not overlook how leading elements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” are showing their mettle in their usual terrain of deployment : the cruel Arizona desert to which the U.S. , since Clinton , has driven miserable people fleeing from our destruction of their countries so that we may evade our responsibility — both legal and moral — to offer them an opportunity for asylum .
When Trump decided to terrorize Portland , Oregon , he didn ’ t send the military , probably expecting that it would refuse to follow his orders , as had just happened in Washington , D.C .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them the tactical unit BORTAC of the Border Patrol , which is given virtually free rein with the “ damned of the earth ” as its targets .
Immediately on returning from carrying out Trump ’ s orders in Portland , BORTAC returned to its regular pastimes , smashing up a flimsy medical aid center in the desert where volunteers seek to provide some medical aid , even water , to desperate people who managed somehow to survive .
Not content with this achievement , BORTAC soon returned to the task .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s private army might want to learn more about them .
Here ’ s an excerpt from an authoritative report from the scene offered by the humanitarian organization No More Deaths : Those are the professional elements of Trump ’ s private army , buttressed by the armed militias that are upholding the doctrines of white supremacy that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security regard as the major domestic threat in the U.S. , sharply increasing during the Trump years from 20 percent of terrorism-related crimes in 2016 to close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the forces that may be upholding “ law and order ” if in fact the top military command decides to be “ complicit in a coup d ’ état.
” It seems unimaginable , but , regrettably , not inconceivable .
Meanwhile Trump and his Republican cohorts are working overtime to implement their strategy of undermining the election or discrediting it if it comes out the wrong way , setting the stage for a possible coup .
In preparation , an “ Army for Trump ” is being mobilized to descend on polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was once the Justice Department is easing election fraud inquiry constraints in case that path becomes necessary .
In general , no stone is left unturned in Trump ’ s campaign to dismantle democratic forms and hold on to power .
Perhaps there is some slight comfort in the fact that we are not alone .
Other major democracies are also decaying , also falling into the hands of leaders with traits of fascism , if not the ideologies ( many , including leading scholars of fascism , regard this characterization of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world ’ s largest democracy , India , is now run by a Trump-style wrecker , Narendra Modi , who is destroying Indian secular democracy and turning India into a cruel ethnocracy , while also crushing Kashmir .
The world ’ s oldest democracy , Britain , has not approached Trump ’ s demolition job , but Prime Minister Boris Johnson is trying to join the club .
His dismissal of Parliament so that he could ram through his version of Brexit , quickly overturned by the Supreme Court , caused outrage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was undermining the presumption of good faith on which the British constitutional order has rested for centuries .
He has since moved on to violating international law — admittedly , but only “ a little bit ” — by reversing a crucial provision of the agreement he had just reached with the EU , which is now suing Britain for this breach .
We may add the second largest democracy in the western hemisphere , run by a Trump clone who tries in every way to imitate his model , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daring to look the corruption and alleged criminality that surrounds him and his family .
[ Jair ] Bolsonaro was blocked by the Supreme Court .
The U.S. has gone farther down the road toward autocracy .
When inspectors general tasked with overseeing executive malfeasance followed the same course , the would-be dictator in the White House simply fired them .
He did so without a peep from the Republican Senate that had instituted this effort to protect the public , by now “ reduced to supplicant status.
” Perhaps it is mere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correlation between the dedication of leaders to demolish the democratic order and their expediting the slaughter of their own populations by COVID-19 .
The current ranking of cases and deaths , reported by the authoritative South China Morning Post ( Hong Kong ) , are , from the top : They are followed far behind by a stellar democracy , Russia : 1,253,603 cases , 21,939 deaths .
Others are left in their wake .
This is of course not the full picture .
It ’ s important to factor in death rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture , and the correlation , are hard to overlook .
What is happening in the U.S. , India and Brazil also can not fail to evoke memories of the early 1930s — for me , bitter personal memories .
One common feature is the fanatic adoration of the Maximal Leader by his loyal followers .
There is one curious difference .
Mussolini and Hitler were providing their worshippers with something : social reforms , a place in the sun .
Trump is stabbing them in the back with virtually every legislative and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. in the international arena .
The same is true of his companions in arm in India and Brazil .
Trump ’ s commitment to cause maximal suffering to the American population is stunning to behold .
It goes well beyond his truly colossal crimes : racing towards the abyss of environmental catastrophe and sharply increasing the threat of nuclear war .
In far lesser ways , once again no stone is left unturned in ways to cause severe harm to the public .
Let ’ s just keep to the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces .
There is an international consortium , Covax , working to facilitate the search for vaccines by cooperative efforts and to give at least some consideration to the distributional problems , ensuring that potential vaccines and other treatments will be available to those who need them rather than monopolized by the rich .
Trump ’ s contribution ?
The usual one : to withdraw from the effort by over 170 countries .
The wrecker-in-chief always has a pretext : In this case , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) is involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scapegoat as he flails around to deflect attention from his slaughter of tens of thousands of Americans .
Aside from the characteristic cruelty in pursuit of self-interest , withdrawal means that Americans will be deprived if vaccines are developed elsewhere — perhaps in China , which according to some reports may be in the lead .
As in 2003 , after the SARS epidemic , scientists are now warning that another coronavirus pandemic is likely , probably more severe than this one .
We ’ ve discussed before how Trump dismantled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current pandemic , leaving the U.S. singularly unprepared .
He is now resolutely pursuing the same course , not just by withdrawing from Covax .
The countries of the world are now participating in a UN Biodiversity Summit “ to try and slow humanity ’ s rapid destruction of nature.
” The UN official leading the convention , Elizabeth Maruma Mrema , emphasizes that averting another pandemic is one crucial target .
If we want to avoid another COVID , she warns , “ we have to take action… .
We either conserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or it will make us suffer as we do now.
” Trump is again helping out in the usual way : by refusing to take part .
The media are also helping in this case .
The cited two minutes on NPR may have exhausted the coverage , a cursory search suggests .
Meanwhile “ humanity ’ s destruction of nature ” proceeds apace .
A major study of the destruction of biodiversity by the Royal Botanical Gardens , Kew found that “ Two-fifths of the world ’ s plants are at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the potential treasure chest of wild species ’ that offers potential fuels , foods and medicines to humanity , says conservation scientist Colin Clubbe.
” This study received 3 minutes on BBC .
We have to keep to priorities , after all .
Trump ’ s approach to international conventions and initiatives is simple : If I didn ’ t create it , demolish it , claiming it ’ s the worst deal in history .
If I created it , it ’ s “ the deal of the century , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his media echo chamber , and congressional supplicants , he can get away with it .
Pity the country , and the world .
True , Trump ’ s methods are achieving something .
Waving the big stick does sometimes bring results .
When the U.S. approached the UN Security Council to demand that it renew harsh sanctions against Iran , it refused with almost total unanimity , including even Britain .
No matter .
Secretary of State Pompeo , in good Mussolini-Hitler fashion , returned to the Security Council to inform them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The United States took this decisive action , ” Pompeo instructed his Security Council servants , “ because , in addition to Iran ’ s failure to perform its JCPOA commitments , the Security Council failed to extend the UN arms embargo on Iran.
” Such disobedience of course can not be tolerated by the Dear Leader of the world .
More broadly , the Trump administration is steadily firming up the reactionary international headed by Washington , the one geo-strategic initiative that can be detected in the administrative chaos .
Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bolsonaro .
In the Middle East , they are joined by Egypt ’ s General al-Sisi , Trump ’ s “ favorite dictator , ” who has driven Egypt to new depths of despair .
And of course the Gulf dictatorships , headed by the estimable Mohammed bin Salman , responsible for Khashoggi ’ s brutal murder as one of his lesser crimes .
Another welcome member is Israel , now scarcely concealing its drift to the far right .
The recent formalization of tacit relations between Israel and the Gulf dictatorships @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are also members beyond , like Viktor Orbán ’ s Hungarian illiberal democracy , and waiting in the wings , such attractive figures as Italy ’ s Mario Salvini , celebrating the drowning of thousands of the damned in the Mediterranean , not without Italy ’ s contributions to Europe ’ s genocidal record .
On the bright side , Trump ’ s reactionary international is now countered by the new Progressive International , which grew from the Sanders movement in the U.S. and a European counterpart , DiEM25 , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is of value in the European Union while overcoming its severe flaws .
It has also drawn in a wide range of representatives from the Global South .
Its first international conference just took place in Iceland , where the prime minister is a member .
Though it of course lacks the resources of violence and wealth of the reactionary international , it has promise to become a people ’ s representative in the global class war that is underway to determine the contours of the post-pandemic world .
Typical of authoritarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use and promotion of conspiracy theories , apparently fully aware of the fact that conspiracy theories intensify political polarization .
Why do conspiracy theories thrive in politics , and what do they mean for political reality at the end of the second decade of the 21st century in the United States ?
One reason why conspiracy theories flourish is that people want explanations , sometimes out of intellectual curiosity , sometimes for more personal and often wrenching reasons .
That ’ s particularly true when things fall apart .
That ’ s happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster of the past 40 years .
Its essence was announced with much clarity by Thatcher and Reagan , and their economic guru Milton Friedman , right at the start : There is no society ; individuals have to face the ravages of the market alone , with no defense , surely not labor unions , which have to be destroyed .
Governments are the problem , flawed by the fact that they are partially responsive to the public .
Decisions therefore have to be transferred to private hands , in effect , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dedicated solely to self-enrichment — not a principle of economics , but an ethical judgment .
There are further nuances , but this is the essence .
Putting these principles together , it is not hard to draw some conclusions about likely consequences .
The Rand Corporation has just released a study on the scale of the ( hardly unexpected ) effects .
They estimate the sum “ transferred ” from the middle and working classes to the very rich since Reagan-Thatcher-Friedman to be $ 47 trillion .
“ Robbery ” might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very rich to be the top 10 percent .
That ’ s misleading .
It is overwhelmingly a tiny fraction of these .
The top 0.1 percent have seen their share of the nation ’ s wealth double since Reagan , to 20 percent .
This is only part of the grim story , amplified by Clinton ’ s radically anti-labor globalization program , post-Thatcher austerity , Obama ’ s bailout of the perpetrators of the housing crash and rejection of legislation to help the victims as well , and much else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great surprise that the epidemic of “ deaths of despair ” that has plagued the U.S. , primarily among white men of working age , is now beginning to haunt Britain .
Nor that much of the world is consumed by rage , resentment , contempt for institutions .
This offers fertile territory to demagogues and con men — sometimes , like Trump , highly skilled — who can parade as the saviors of the public while slavishly serving their oppressors .
With ample help from the information system , they can divert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discontent to the standard scapegoats , exploiting deep-seated prejudices and fears .
No need to review how it is done .
In such a climate , conspiracy theories can flourish .
There are other factors to consider .
The real world is complex .
Pick any event you like and even the most solid accounts will have plenty of loose ends , odd coincidences , unexplained features .
That ’ s why scientists do experiments , abstracting radically from the observed phenomena .
Again , that encourages conspiracy theories .
Furthermore , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Adam Smith was consciously exaggerating when he declared that “ People of the same trade seldom meet together , even for merriment and diversion , but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public , or in some contrivance to raise prices.
” But he wasn ’ t concocting a fantasy .
It happens all the time .
Some of these escapades are well documented .
In many other cases there are grounds for suspicion .
To take just one current example , the staid and respectable German national broadcaster Deutsche @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientist Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute on some curious doings involving Trump , Deutsche Bank and the U.S. Supreme Court .
To quote the opening words : Another part of the puzzle , as Ornstein elaborates , is the premature retirement of Justice Kennedy , the swing vote on the Court , permitting Trump to nominate the young far right Brett Kavanaugh , Justin Kennedy ’ s protégé , to replace him .
“ The optics look terrible , ” Ornstein concludes , calling for investigation by the State of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are now in the pockets of Trump ’ s legal representatives , formerly known as the Justice Department .
It ’ s not a conspiracy theory , but can easily be recrafted as one .
In brief , in a fetid swamp , conspiracy theories flourish , and some might turn out to have considerable bearing on the world that has been created by systems of state and private power .

While it’s still too early to predict the likely outcome of the November 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump continues to fall behind in national polls while pulling dirty electoral tricks in the hope of defeating Democratic challenger Joe Biden. Much of Trump’s hope for victory rests with his “law and order” campaign, which promotes lies about mail-in-voting fraud in order to preemptively discredit the election results if they are in Biden’s favor. In this exclusive interview for Truthout, Noam Chomsky discusses the national and international significance of Trump’s refusal to commit to a “peaceful transition to power” and his reliance on conspiracy theories.
C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, with slightly more than two weeks away from the most important national elections in recent U.S. history, Trump’s campaign continues to harp on the message of “law and order” — a political tactic that authoritarian leaders have always relied on in order to control people and to strengthen their grip on a country — but refuses to accept a “peaceful transition to power” if he loses to Biden. Your thoughts on these matters?
Noam Chomsky: The “law and order” appeal is normal, virtually reflexive. Trump’s threat to refuse to accept the result of the election is not. It is something new in stable parliamentary democracies.
The fact that this contingency is even being discussed reveals how effective the Trump wrecking ball has been in undermining formal democracy. We may recall that Richard Nixon, not exactly revered for his integrity, had some reason to suppose that victory in the 1960 election had been stolen from him by Democratic Party machinations. He did not challenge the results, placing the welfare of the country above personal ambition. Al Gore did the same in 2000. The idea of Trump placing anything above his personal ambition — even caring about the welfare of the country — is too ludicrous to discuss.
James Madison once said that liberty is not protected by “parchment barriers” — words on paper. Rather, constitutional orders presuppose good faith and some commitment, however limited, to the common good. When that is gone, we’ve moved to a different sociopolitical world.
Trump’s threats are taken quite seriously, not only in extensive commentary in mainstream media and journals, but even within the military — which might be compelled to intervene, as in the tinpot dictatorships that are Trump’s model. A striking example is an open letter to the country’s highest ranking military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley, from two highly regarded retired military commanders, Lt. Colonels John Nagl and Paul Yingling. They warn Milley: “The president of the United States is actively subverting our electoral system, threatening to remain in office in defiance of our Constitution. In a few months’ time, you may have to choose between defying a lawless president or betraying your Constitutional oath” to defend the Constitution against all enemies, “foreign and domestic.”
The enemy today is domestic: a “lawless president,” Nagl and Yingling continue, who “is assembling a private army capable of thwarting not only the will of the electorate but also the capacities of ordinary law enforcement. When these forces collide on January 20, 2021, the U.S. military will be the only institution capable of upholding our Constitutional order.”
With Senate Republicans “reduced to supplicant status,” having abandoned any lingering shreds of integrity, General Milley should be prepared to send a brigade of the 82nd Airborne to disperse Trump’s “little green men,” Nagl and Yingling advise. “Should you remain silent, you will be complicit in a coup d’état.”
Trump’s threats are taken quite seriously, not only in extensive commentary in mainstream media and journals, but even within the military.
Hard to believe, but the very fact that such thoughts are voiced by sober and respected voices, and echoed throughout the mainstream, is reason enough to be deeply concerned about the prospects for U.S. society. I rarely quote New York Times senior correspondent Thomas Friedman, but when he asks whether this might be our last democratic election, he is not joining us “wild men in the wings” — to quote McGeorge Bundy’s term for those who don’t automatically conform to approved doctrine.
Meanwhile, we should not overlook how leading elements of Trump’s “private army” are showing their mettle in their usual terrain of deployment: the cruel Arizona desert to which the U.S., since Clinton, has driven miserable people fleeing from our destruction of their countries so that we may evade our responsibility — both legal and moral — to offer them an opportunity for asylum.
When Trump decided to terrorize Portland, Oregon, he didn’t send the military, probably expecting that it would refuse to follow his orders, as had just happened in Washington, D.C. He sent paramilitaries, the most fierce of them the tactical unit BORTAC of the Border Patrol, which is given virtually free rein with the “damned of the earth” as its targets.
Immediately on returning from carrying out Trump’s orders in Portland, BORTAC returned to its regular pastimes, smashing up a flimsy medical aid center in the desert where volunteers seek to provide some medical aid, even water, to desperate people who managed somehow to survive.
Not content with this achievement, BORTAC soon returned to the task. Perhaps those who may be facing Trump’s private army might want to learn more about them. Here’s an excerpt from an authoritative report from the scene offered by the humanitarian organization No More Deaths:
After sunset yesterday, October 5th, U.S. Border Patrol entered No More Deaths’ humanitarian aid station, Byrd Camp, with a federal warrant, for a second nighttime raid in two months. Volunteers were held for 3 hours while 12 people who were receiving medical care, food, water, and shelter from the 100+ degree heat were apprehended. In a massive show of armed force, Border Patrol, along with the Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC), descended on the camp with an armored tank, ATVs, a helicopter, and many marked and unmarked vehicles. Agents, armed with assault rifles, chased and terrorized those who were receiving care, all while the helicopter hovered low above them kicking up dust and debris, making it nearly impossible to see. Border Patrol smashed windows, broke doors, and destroyed essential camp infrastructure as well as supplies. This was after heavily surveilling the camp and patrolling its perimeter, creating an antagonistic and distressing environment for those receiving care, since late Saturday night on the 3rd. Since the previous raid on July 31st, Border Patrol has refused on multiple occasions to meet with volunteers to discuss previous shared agreements that upheld the right to provide humanitarian aid. The Tucson sector chief sent No More Deaths representatives a formal letter asserting this refusal.
Those are the professional elements of Trump’s private army, buttressed by the armed militias that are upholding the doctrines of white supremacy that the FBI and Department of Homeland Security regard as the major domestic threat in the U.S., sharply increasing during the Trump years from 20 percent of terrorism-related crimes in 2016 to close to 100 percent by 2019.
Those are the forces that may be upholding “law and order” if in fact the top military command decides to be “complicit in a coup d’état.” It seems unimaginable, but, regrettably, not inconceivable.
No stone is left unturned in Trump’s campaign to dismantle democratic forms and hold on to power.
Meanwhile Trump and his Republican cohorts are working overtime to implement their strategy of undermining the election or discrediting it if it comes out the wrong way, setting the stage for a possible coup.
In preparation, an “Army for Trump” is being mobilized to descend on polls to intimidate the wrong voters. What was once the Justice Department is easing election fraud inquiry constraints in case that path becomes necessary.
In general, no stone is left unturned in Trump’s campaign to dismantle democratic forms and hold on to power.
Perhaps there is some slight comfort in the fact that we are not alone. Other major democracies are also decaying, also falling into the hands of leaders with traits of fascism, if not the ideologies (many, including leading scholars of fascism, regard this characterization of Trump as much too charitable).
The world’s largest democracy, India, is now run by a Trump-style wrecker, Narendra Modi, who is destroying Indian secular democracy and turning India into a cruel ethnocracy, while also crushing Kashmir.
The world’s oldest democracy, Britain, has not approached Trump’s demolition job, but Prime Minister Boris Johnson is trying to join the club. His dismissal of Parliament so that he could ram through his version of Brexit, quickly overturned by the Supreme Court, caused outrage in British legal circles, with charges that he was undermining the presumption of good faith on which the British constitutional order has rested for centuries. He has since moved on to violating international law — admittedly, but only “a little bit” — by reversing a crucial provision of the agreement he had just reached with the EU, which is now suing Britain for this breach.
We may add the second largest democracy in the western hemisphere, run by a Trump clone who tries in every way to imitate his model, for example, by trying to fire investigators for daring to look the corruption and alleged criminality that surrounds him and his family. [Jair] Bolsonaro was blocked by the Supreme Court. The U.S. has gone farther down the road toward autocracy. When inspectors general tasked with overseeing executive malfeasance followed the same course, the would-be dictator in the White House simply fired them. He did so without a peep from the Republican Senate that had instituted this effort to protect the public, by now “reduced to supplicant status.”
Perhaps it is mere coincidence, but there is a remarkable correlation between the dedication of leaders to demolish the democratic order and their expediting the slaughter of their own populations by COVID-19. The current ranking of cases and deaths, reported by the authoritative South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), are, from the top:
United States: 7,551,428 cases, 211,844 deaths
India: 6,835,655 cases, 105,526 deaths
Brazil: 5,000,694 cases, 148,228 deaths
They are followed far behind by a stellar democracy, Russia: 1,253,603 cases, 21,939 deaths. Others are left in their wake.
We are not alone. Other major democracies are also decaying, also falling into the hands of leaders with traits of fascism.
This is of course not the full picture. It’s important to factor in death rates and other variables. But the general picture, and the correlation, are hard to overlook.
What is happening in the U.S., India and Brazil also cannot fail to evoke memories of the early 1930s — for me, bitter personal memories. One common feature is the fanatic adoration of the Maximal Leader by his loyal followers. There is one curious difference. Mussolini and Hitler were providing their worshippers with something: social reforms, a place in the sun. Trump is stabbing them in the back with virtually every legislative and executive action, and seriously harming the U.S. in the international arena. The same is true of his companions in arm in India and Brazil.
Trump’s commitment to cause maximal suffering to the American population is stunning to behold. It goes well beyond his truly colossal crimes: racing towards the abyss of environmental catastrophe and sharply increasing the threat of nuclear war. In far lesser ways, once again no stone is left unturned in ways to cause severe harm to the public.
Let’s just keep to the pandemic, the least of the grave crises humanity faces. There is an international consortium, Covax, working to facilitate the search for vaccines by cooperative efforts and to give at least some consideration to the distributional problems, ensuring that potential vaccines and other treatments will be available to those who need them rather than monopolized by the rich.
Trump’s contribution? The usual one: to withdraw from the effort by over 170 countries.
The wrecker-in-chief always has a pretext: In this case, the World Health Organization (WHO) is involved, and the WHO serves Trump as a scapegoat as he flails around to deflect attention from his slaughter of tens of thousands of Americans.
Aside from the characteristic cruelty in pursuit of self-interest, withdrawal means that Americans will be deprived if vaccines are developed elsewhere — perhaps in China, which according to some reports may be in the lead.
As in 2003, after the SARS epidemic, scientists are now warning that another coronavirus pandemic is likely, probably more severe than this one. We’ve discussed before how Trump dismantled the protections that were in place against the current pandemic, leaving the U.S. singularly unprepared. He is now resolutely pursuing the same course, not just by withdrawing from Covax.
The countries of the world are now participating in a UN Biodiversity Summit “to try and slow humanity’s rapid destruction of nature.” The UN official leading the convention, Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, emphasizes that averting another pandemic is one crucial target. If we want to avoid another COVID, she warns, “we have to take action…. We either conserve and protect that nature, biodiversity, or it will make us suffer as we do now.”
Trump is again helping out in the usual way: by refusing to take part.
Trump’s approach to international conventions and initiatives is simple: If I didn’t create it, demolish it, claiming it’s the worst deal in history.
The media are also helping in this case. The cited two minutes on NPR may have exhausted the coverage, a cursory search suggests.
Meanwhile “humanity’s destruction of nature” proceeds apace. A major study of the destruction of biodiversity by the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew found that “Two-fifths of the world’s plants are at risk of extinction…. We are `ignoring the potential treasure chest of wild species’ that offers potential fuels, foods and medicines to humanity, says conservation scientist Colin Clubbe.”
This study received 3 minutes on BBC. We have to keep to priorities, after all.
Trump’s approach to international conventions and initiatives is simple: If I didn’t create it, demolish it, claiming it’s the worst deal in history. If I created it, it’s “the deal of the century,” the greatest achievement in memory. And with his media echo chamber, and congressional supplicants, he can get away with it. Pity the country, and the world.
True, Trump’s methods are achieving something. Waving the big stick does sometimes bring results. When the U.S. approached the UN Security Council to demand that it renew harsh sanctions against Iran, it refused with almost total unanimity, including even Britain. No matter. Secretary of State Pompeo, in good Mussolini-Hitler fashion, returned to the Security Council to inform them that the UN sanctions are renewed.
“The United States took this decisive action,” Pompeo instructed his Security Council servants, “because, in addition to Iran’s failure to perform its JCPOA commitments, the Security Council failed to extend the UN arms embargo on Iran.” Such disobedience of course cannot be tolerated by the Dear Leader of the world.
More broadly, the Trump administration is steadily firming up the reactionary international headed by Washington, the one geo-strategic initiative that can be detected in the administrative chaos. Prime members are Trump’s companions Modi and Bolsonaro. In the Middle East, they are joined by Egypt’s General al-Sisi, Trump’s “favorite dictator,” who has driven Egypt to new depths of despair. And of course the Gulf dictatorships, headed by the estimable Mohammed bin Salman, responsible for Khashoggi’s brutal murder as one of his lesser crimes. Another welcome member is Israel, now scarcely concealing its drift to the far right. The recent formalization of tacit relations between Israel and the Gulf dictatorships finds its natural place in this system. There are also members beyond, like Viktor Orbán’s Hungarian illiberal democracy, and waiting in the wings, such attractive figures as Italy’s Mario Salvini, celebrating the drowning of thousands of the damned in the Mediterranean, not without Italy’s contributions to Europe’s genocidal record.
On the bright side, Trump’s reactionary international is now countered by the new Progressive International, which grew from the Sanders movement in the U.S. and a European counterpart, DiEM25, a transnational movement seeking to preserve and strengthen what is of value in the European Union while overcoming its severe flaws. It has also drawn in a wide range of representatives from the Global South. Its first international conference just took place in Iceland, where the prime minister is a member. Though it of course lacks the resources of violence and wealth of the reactionary international, it has promise to become a people’s representative in the global class war that is underway to determine the contours of the post-pandemic world.
Typical of authoritarian leaders, Trump relies heavily on the use and promotion of conspiracy theories, apparently fully aware of the fact that conspiracy theories intensify political polarization. Why do conspiracy theories thrive in politics, and what do they mean for political reality at the end of the second decade of the 21st century in the United States?
One reason why conspiracy theories flourish is that people want explanations, sometimes out of intellectual curiosity, sometimes for more personal and often wrenching reasons. That’s particularly true when things fall apart. That’s happened in many ways.
Consider the neoliberal disaster of the past 40 years. Its essence was announced with much clarity by Thatcher and Reagan, and their economic guru Milton Friedman, right at the start: There is no society; individuals have to face the ravages of the market alone, with no defense, surely not labor unions, which have to be destroyed. Governments are the problem, flawed by the fact that they are partially responsive to the public. Decisions therefore have to be transferred to private hands, in effect, the corporate sector. Corporations must be dedicated solely to self-enrichment — not a principle of economics, but an ethical judgment.
There are further nuances, but this is the essence. Putting these principles together, it is not hard to draw some conclusions about likely consequences.
The Rand Corporation has just released a study on the scale of the (hardly unexpected) effects. They estimate the sum “transferred” from the middle and working classes to the very rich since Reagan-Thatcher-Friedman to be $47 trillion. “Robbery” might be a more accurate term.
Rand takes the very rich to be the top 10 percent. That’s misleading. It is overwhelmingly a tiny fraction of these. The top 0.1 percent have seen their share of the nation’s wealth double since Reagan, to 20 percent.
This is only part of the grim story, amplified by Clinton’s radically anti-labor globalization program, post-Thatcher austerity, Obama’s bailout of the perpetrators of the housing crash and rejection of legislation to help the victims as well, and much else.
It should not come as a great surprise that the epidemic of “deaths of despair” that has plagued the U.S., primarily among white men of working age, is now beginning to haunt Britain. Nor that much of the world is consumed by rage, resentment, contempt for institutions. This offers fertile territory to demagogues and con men — sometimes, like Trump, highly skilled — who can parade as the saviors of the public while slavishly serving their oppressors. With ample help from the information system, they can divert attention away from the sources of popular discontent to the standard scapegoats, exploiting deep-seated prejudices and fears. No need to review how it is done.
In such a climate, conspiracy theories can flourish.
One reason why conspiracy theories flourish is that people want explanations…. That’s particularly true when things fall apart.
There are other factors to consider. The real world is complex. Pick any event you like and even the most solid accounts will have plenty of loose ends, odd coincidences, unexplained features. That’s why scientists do experiments, abstracting radically from the observed phenomena. Again, that encourages conspiracy theories.
Furthermore, some of the theories might have some validity. Adam Smith was consciously exaggerating when he declared that “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” But he wasn’t concocting a fantasy. It happens all the time. Some of these escapades are well documented. In many other cases there are grounds for suspicion.
To take just one current example, the staid and respectable German national broadcaster Deutsche Welle recently interviewed the prominent U.S. political scientist Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute on some curious doings involving Trump, Deutsche Bank and the U.S. Supreme Court.
To quote the opening words:
The explosive New York Times report on the tax situation of U.S. President Trump is raising some uncomfortable questions for Germany’s largest lender, Deutsche Bank, namely: why did Deutsche Bank loan Mr. Trump 2 Billion dollars at the same time other banks, including all U.S. banks, were not willing to do so? And while Deutsche Bank may be handling the loans, we cannot say tonight who or what is behind that money. In other words, we don’t know who owns the debt of U.S. President Donald Trump. And adding to the puzzle is the role played by the son of a former Supreme Court Justice. Justin Kennedy, son of former Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a division head and contact for Trump at Deutsche Bank. Kennedy was close to the then future president while continuing to lend him money.
Another part of the puzzle, as Ornstein elaborates, is the premature retirement of Justice Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, permitting Trump to nominate the young far right Brett Kavanaugh, Justin Kennedy’s protégé, to replace him.
“The optics look terrible,” Ornstein concludes, calling for investigation by the State of New York, not the Federal Prosecutors, who are now in the pockets of Trump’s legal representatives, formerly known as the Justice Department.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, but can easily be recrafted as one.
In brief, in a fetid swamp, conspiracy theories flourish, and some might turn out to have considerable bearing on the world that has been created by systems of state and private power.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett Refuses to Answer If Trump Can Delay the Election or Not

During confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday , Judge Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to sit on the Supreme Court , refused to answer a question regarding the president ’ s ability to unilaterally delay federal elections set to commence next month .
When asked by the committee ’ s ranking chair , Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-California ) , whether “ the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances , ” Barrett objected to the line of questioning , suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments presented before her as a justice on the supreme court before being able to decide .
“ If that question ever came before me , I ’ d need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process , ” Barrett said .
“ So , you know , if I give off the cuff answers , then I would be basically a legal pundit , and I don ’ t think we want judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.
” For someone who is vying to become an interpreter of the Constitution on the nation ’ s highest court , Barrett ’ s answer may be troubling to a number of legal scholars , as the ability to change federal election dates rests solely with Congress , and not the executive branch .
“ The times , places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives , shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof ; but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law make or alter such regulations , except as to the places of choosing Senators , ” Article I , Section 4 of the Constitution reads .
In 1845 , the second clause of that paragraph from the Constitution was invoked , and Congress set the date for federal elections to be the first Tuesday after the first Monday in the month of November .
It has remained that way ever since .
The issue over whether a president can delay the election or not came about earlier this year when Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting , suggested he might move the date of the election in November in order to address his concerns .
“ With Universal Mail-In Voting ( not Absentee Voting , which is good ) , 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history , ” Trump wrote in a tweet in July .
“ It will be a great embarrassment to the USA .
Delay the Election until people can properly , securely and safely vote ?
?
?
” Trump ’ s views on mail-in voting have been thoroughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and election experts largely agree that the practice is not rife with fraud , as Trump has suggested .
Delaying the election was just one of many topics that Barrett refused to take a stance on , even though the established law is very clear on the matter .
Earlier in the day , the Supreme Court nominee also refused to answer questions on the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade .
Pressed also to give her views on whether intimidation at the polls would be legal or not , Barrett again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter .
“ I can ’ t characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation , and I can ’ t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts , ” Barrett said , when asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minnesota ) whether she ’ d uphold laws against voter intimidation .
“ I can only decide cases as they come to me , litigated by parties on the full record after fully engaging precedent , talking to colleagues , writing an opinion.
” Klobuchar responded to Barrett ’ s refusal by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the books for decades .
”

Barrett calls herself an originalist but the Constitution is very clear — only Congress can change the election date.
During confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to sit on the Supreme Court, refused to answer a question regarding the president’s ability to unilaterally delay federal elections set to commence next month.
When asked by the committee’s ranking chair, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), whether “the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay an election under any circumstances,” Barrett objected to the line of questioning, suggesting that she would have to see the arguments presented before her as a justice on the supreme court before being able to decide.
“If that question ever came before me, I’d need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process,” Barrett said. “So, you know, if I give off the cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit, and I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.”
For someone who is vying to become an interpreter of the Constitution on the nation’s highest court, Barrett’s answer may be troubling to a number of legal scholars, as the ability to change federal election dates rests solely with Congress, and not the executive branch.
“The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators,” Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads.
In 1845, the second clause of that paragraph from the Constitution was invoked, and Congress set the date for federal elections to be the first Tuesday after the first Monday in the month of November. It has remained that way ever since.
The issue over whether a president can delay the election or not came about earlier this year when Trump, citing inaccurate and groundless views about mail-in voting, suggested he might move the date of the election in November in order to address his concerns.
“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history,” Trump wrote in a tweet in July. “It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”
Trump’s views on mail-in voting have been thoroughly debunked on a number of occasions, and election experts largely agree that the practice is not rife with fraud, as Trump has suggested.
Delaying the election was just one of many topics that Barrett refused to take a stance on, even though the established law is very clear on the matter. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court nominee also refused to answer questions on the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade. Pressed also to give her views on whether intimidation at the polls would be legal or not, Barrett again refused to express an opinion on the matter.
“I can’t characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation, and I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts,” Barrett said, when asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) whether she’d uphold laws against voter intimidation. “I can only decide cases as they come to me, litigated by parties on the full record after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion.”
Klobuchar responded to Barrett’s refusal by noting that such laws have “been on the books for decades.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-13--Barrett Decried Roe’s “Barbaric Legacy,” But Now Says She Doesn’t Have an Agenda

Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to the Supreme Court to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , refused on Tuesday to give a straightforward answer on the question of whether she believes a landmark abortion case should remain intact or not .
During her nomination hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee , Barrett was questioned by ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-California ) on whether she agreed with her late mentor , Justice Antonin Scalia , that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided .
That case , which the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services across the entirety of the country and forbade any state government from limiting the medical procedure outright .
Barrett would not give her opinions on the matter , explaining that she did not want to express a viewpoint that she would be beholden to if her nomination is approved .
“ If I express a view on a precedent one way or another … it signals to litigants that I may tilt one way or another on a pending case , ” she said .
“ I can ’ t pre-commit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going in with some agenda .
I don ’ t have any agenda.
” Feinstein continued to try and get Barrett to give a response that could demonstrate some semblance of her views on Roe v. Wade but eventually had to concede that Barrett wouldn ’ t be forthright with her .
“ It ’ s distressing not to get a straight answer , ” Feinstein said .
Barrett ’ s refusal on Monday to express her opinion on the case is a stark departure from what Ginsburg , whom Barrett is hoping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation hearings in 1993 .
Ginsburg was also asked what her views on Roe v. Wade were by senators on the Judiciary Committee , describing the case ’ s protection of abortion rights as necessary to promote equality in American society .
“ It is essential to a woman ’ s equality with man that she be the decision maker , that her choice be controlling , ” Ginsburg said at the time .
“ If you impose restraints , you are disadvantaging her because of her sex .
The state controlling a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and full equality.
” Barrett ’ s views on abortion are indeed a hot topic during her nomination hearings , as it ’ s no secret that she personally harbors anti-choice viewpoints .
The judge , who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit , has said she would not let her own beliefs dictate her views on the subject .
But there are several reasons why many are skeptical of her assurances .
In addition to being mentored by the notoriously anti-choice Scalia , Barrett has publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she wants to see the precedent set in Roe v. Wade to be overturned .
In 2006 , for instance , she was among a number of signers of a newspaper ad that stated they “ oppose [ d ] abortion on demand and defend [ ed ] the right to life from fertilization to natural death.
” The ad further stipulated that the signers considered Roe v. Wade to have created a “ barbaric legacy.
” Barrett did not disclose to senators , prior to her confirmation hearings , her involvement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also written papers , as an academic prior to being appointed to the Seventh Circuit , on the idea of “ super precedents ” — cases decided by the Supreme Court over its history that have become so ingrained in society that they should not be overturned .
Roe v. Wade was not among the cases Barrett listed as meeting this criterion .
Beyond the viewpoints Barrett herself has expressed in the past , her very nomination by Trump seems to be an indicator that she is likely to side against the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue came before the high court .
For one , Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-Missouri ) , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has gone on record saying , “ I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided.
” And in 2016 , as a candidate for president , Trump promised voters that he would only appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade .
Despite Trump ’ s promises , a recent ABC News/Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by and large are supportive of keeping Roe v. Wade intact .
Just 24 percent of respondents said they were hopeful the Supreme Court would overturn Roe in the future , while 62 percent said they wanted the landmark decision to remain the law of the land .

Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, refused on Tuesday to give a straightforward answer on the question of whether she believes a landmark abortion case should remain intact or not.
During her nomination hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barrett was questioned by ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on whether she agreed with her late mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. That case, which the Supreme Court ruled on in 1973, legalized abortion services across the entirety of the country and forbade any state government from limiting the medical procedure outright.
Barrett would not give her opinions on the matter, explaining that she did not want to express a viewpoint that she would be beholden to if her nomination is approved.
“If I express a view on a precedent one way or another … it signals to litigants that I may tilt one way or another on a pending case,” she said. “I can’t pre-commit and say, yes, I’m going in with some agenda. I don’t have any agenda.”
Feinstein continued to try and get Barrett to give a response that could demonstrate some semblance of her views on Roe v. Wade but eventually had to concede that Barrett wouldn’t be forthright with her.
“It’s distressing not to get a straight answer,” Feinstein said.
Barrett’s refusal on Monday to express her opinion on the case is a stark departure from what Ginsburg, whom Barrett is hoping to replace, stated at her own confirmation hearings in 1993. Ginsburg was also asked what her views on Roe v. Wade were by senators on the Judiciary Committee, describing the case’s protection of abortion rights as necessary to promote equality in American society.
“It is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision maker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg said at the time. “If you impose restraints, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex. The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality.”
Barrett’s views on abortion are indeed a hot topic during her nomination hearings, as it’s no secret that she personally harbors anti-choice viewpoints. The judge, who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has said she would not let her own beliefs dictate her views on the subject.
But there are several reasons why many are skeptical of her assurances. In addition to being mentored by the notoriously anti-choice Scalia, Barrett has publicly signaled on a number of occasions that she wants to see the precedent set in Roe v. Wade to be overturned. In 2006, for instance, she was among a number of signers of a newspaper ad that stated they “oppose[d] abortion on demand and defend[ed] the right to life from fertilization to natural death.” The ad further stipulated that the signers considered Roe v. Wade to have created a “barbaric legacy.”
Barrett did not disclose to senators, prior to her confirmation hearings, her involvement in that ad campaign.
The judge has also written papers, as an academic prior to being appointed to the Seventh Circuit, on the idea of “super precedents” — cases decided by the Supreme Court over its history that have become so ingrained in society that they should not be overturned. Roe v. Wade was not among the cases Barrett listed as meeting this criterion.
Beyond the viewpoints Barrett herself has expressed in the past, her very nomination by Trump seems to be an indicator that she is likely to side against the right to abortion if a case involving that issue came before the high court. For one, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has gone on record saying, “I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided.” And in 2016, as a candidate for president, Trump promised voters that he would only appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Despite Trump’s promises, a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll published on Monday shows that Americans by and large are supportive of keeping Roe v. Wade intact. Just 24 percent of respondents said they were hopeful the Supreme Court would overturn Roe in the future, while 62 percent said they wanted the landmark decision to remain the law of the land.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-13--Barrett Could Well Be the Decider in a 2020 Replay of “Bush v. Gore”

If Americans want transparency — as they should — they ’ ve got it .
Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s record of attacks on civil rights , workers ’ rights , anti-discrimination measures and consumer protections is crystal clear .
Though she ’ s just 48 years old , she has a phenomenally large legal footprint .
And , as Democratic senators repeatedly pointed out Monday , on day one of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings , her record does not bode well for the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) and many of the rights won over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the confirmation hearings , Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-South Carolina ) started off with a strikingly honest statement : “ I think I know how the vote ’ s going to come out… .
This is probably not about persuading each other… All Republicans will vote yes , and all Democrats will vote no.
” The next five hours were a dazzling display of the senators ’ alternate realities .
The Democrats critiqued the Republicans ’ rush to approve Barrett before the election , chiding them for ignoring the COVID-19 catastrophe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , health care facilities and individuals need the Senate to send funds as they struggle to survive the economic fallout and physical assault on their lives .
Mainly , however , they focused on Barrett ’ s record , which , they argued , matters massively .
Indeed , her vote may be the one that determines the outcome of the case the Supreme Court will hear November 10 ( California v. Texas ) which Republicans , with the president ’ s boost , have brought to repeal the ACA .
The truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump picked Barrett because he believes she will overturn the ACA .
As Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-California ) noted , “ The president has promised to appoint justices who will vote to dismantle that law.
” Speaking directly to Barrett , Feinstein said , “ You ’ ve been critical of Chief Justice Roberts for his decision , which upheld the ACA.
” She and the other Democrats repeatedly described the benefits Americans stand to lose if the ACA is repealed .
For their part , the Republicans masterfully avoided all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the charge that they were operating with a double standard , given their insistence in 2016 that picking a justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia had to wait until after the presidential elections — to let Americans decide with their votes .
Nor did they respond to the charge that the hearings were a charade , since they ’ d already decided to approve her .
Instead , they praised Barrett ’ s intellect , her competence , her faith , her family and her high approval ratings from her law students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were ignoring her record — although discussing her record is precisely what the Democrats were doing .
While the press has often focused on Barrett ’ s religious beliefs and her family ’ s membership in People of Praise ( a small , conservative Catholic group that some call a cult ) , it ’ s her decisions and dissents , along with her articles and speeches that leave little doubt about Barrett ’ s future judgments .
Barrett has firm opinions about access to health care , worker and consumer protections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal reforms — positions that are 180 degrees away from the legal giant she seeks to replace ( whom all the Republican senators took pains to praise ) .
Barrett is even to the right of judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W .
Bush , whose judicial decisions she has criticized .
And while she hasn ’ t ruled on same-sex marriage or sexual identity , her thoughts on these subjects have surfaced in other venues .
It ’ s not surprising that Barrett said Scalia ’ s “ judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination .
She clerked for Scalia and refers to him repeatedly : In one talk at Jacksonville University in 2016 , she mentioned his name at least 20 times .
So what will this mean ?
Let us count the ways in which Judge Barrett is primed to serve the agenda of Trump and the Republicans who parrot his positions .
As Sen. Kamala Harris insisted , “ President Trump is attempting to roll back American ’ s rights for decades to come .
Every American must understand that with this nomination , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our voting rights are at stake , workers ’ rights are at stake , consumer rights are at stake , the right to safe and legal abortion is at stake and holding corporations accountable is at stake , and there ’ s so much more.
” As he promised in June 2015 , candidate Donald Trump said , “ If I win the presidency , my judicial appointments will do the right thing , unlike Bush ’ s appointee John Roberts did , on Obamacare.
” Eliminating the Affordable Care Act , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big win for the USA.
” Leaving no doubt about her thoughts on this matter , in a 2017 book review in a Notre Dame Law School journal , Barrett wrote that Chief Justice Roberts ’ decision in NFIB v. Sebelius was wrong because he pushed the ACA “ beyond its plausible meaning , to save it.
” With Barrett on the Supreme Court , even if Roberts sticks to his earlier position , it ’ s safe to say that with the new 5 to 4 lineup ( Barrett , Thomas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Affordable Care Act and the millions it has covered are in deep trouble .
According to the Alliance for Justice ( AFJ ) , a progressive judicial advocacy group founded in 1979 with over 120 organizations , “ conservative activists have vocally promoted Barrett as a candidate who would be a certain vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
” Its 2020 report quotes from an Americans United for Life report , which claimed “ we are confident that Judge Barrett , if appointed to the Supreme Court , would prove she a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to every human person in America , including human lives in the womb.
” The group is an anti-abortion public interest law firm that also opposes euthanasia , assisted suicide , embryonic stem cell research and certain contraceptive methods .
Then there ’ s contraception .
The AFJ says that when Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame , she signed onto a 2013 letter written by the Becket Fund ( which the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a “ hate group ” ) , which called the Obama administration “ morally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with religious beliefs who wanted to exclude health insurance coverage for “ abortion-inducing drugs , sterilization , and contraceptives , ” the administration said they wouldn ’ t have to pay for these services or inform their employees that they were entitled to them .
Miffed by this modification , the letter complained this tactic simply shifted the onus onto the insurance companies , which would be required to inform employees that they are “ entitled to the embryo-destroying pill ” which would also be included in their health plans .
In her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the issue about LGBTQ rights is “ who decides ” — whether it will be the courts or state legislatures .
And , she suggests , it is the latter that should decide on marriage equality .
Since Republicans control 29 states ( where they have both the governor and legislative majority ) , the AFJ says this gives “ the states a license to sanction discrimination.
” In the same talk , she also said that the issue of allowing transgender women to use bathrooms designated for females “ strains the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law demands protections.
” From 2015 to 2017 , Barrett served on the board of directors of the Trinity School ( a small private Catholic school in South Bend , Indiana ) .
According to a Politico article , the school described homosexual acts as “ at odds with Scripture ” and said marriage is between “ one man and one woman ” — years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage a national right.In October 2017 , Lambda Legal ( a civil rights organization that represents the LGBT community ) , opposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals , because she signed onto a letter to the Synod Fathers “ from Catholic Women.
” It said “ we give witness that the Church ’ s teachings…on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman….provide a sure guide to the Christian life.
” In the case where a 58-year-old man applied for a job but was turned down in favor of a 29-year-old employee with less experience , Judge Barrett , with two other Trump-appointed judges , said the Age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why ?
The Act would only apply if the man was already an employee , competing for a job against a younger employee .
It did not apply , she said , to someone applying for a job for the first time .
A dissenting judge called this “ baffling , ” since the Act ’ s main goal wasto prevent age discrimination in hiring .
The AARP weighed in , saying the decision “ takes us back to 1967 ” when age limits were common .
In another case , Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivery company who asked for overtime wages did not have the right to them since he didn ’ t drive his vehicle across state lines .
Thus , he was not protected by the Federal Arbitration Act and would have to ply his case through an arbitration process ( which notoriously favors firms over workers ) .
The driver ’ s lawyer chided the Court : “ Certainly when Congress enacted the Act , it never foresaw it would be used to stop drivers from challenging their employer ’ s systematic violation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that while on the Seventh Circuit Court , Barrett has “ consistently ruled in favor of wealthy and powerful businesses over the rights of American consumers.
” It cites a Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) law that had long been used to protect consumers who had been duped by fraudulent ads ( which claim that people can get their money back ) .
Moreover , it points out that “ nine different courts of appeals , including the Seventh Circuit , had agreed that the law empowers the FTC to force schemers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But a Seventh Circuit panel of judges overruled lower court decisions and said the FTC did not have this power .
Judge Barrett agreed with the panel .
Three other Seventh Circuit judges dissented .
Chief Judge Diane Wood said “ no court has ever tied the hands of a government agency in the way that the majority has done here.
” Wood argued that the decision tossed out the status quo of 30 years and granted “ a needless measure of impunity to brazen scammers , as in this case.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ without the ability to pursue restitution , the law would be reduced to a stop sign and would effectively reward fraudsters for their illegal conduct.
” In another case that involved the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , Judge Barrett said a woman could not dispute her debt with a collection agency because she had not put her claim against the company in writing .
Thus , she could not be protected against “ abusive debt collection practices.
” In one case appealed to the Seventh Circuit , a majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deny immigrants the right to become residents if they had received public assistance or food stamps for a total of 12 months over a previous 36-month period— even though the benefits were approved by law .
Judge Barrett dissented , siding with the Trump administration .
In a different immigration case , Barrett said the Trump administration was right when it denied a woman a visa because the consular officer claimed she tried to smuggle in two children who were not her own .
However , the woman — who was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the children were , in fact , hers .
The AFJ report noted that other judges on the Seventh Circuit Court “ condemned Barrett ’ s ruling.
” A Reagan-appointed judge , Kenneth Ripple , noted that , “ the consular officer may have operated on a “ stereotypical assumption ” when concluding the woman was smuggling children.
” Even worse , he said , “ We have the responsibility to ensure that such decisions , when born of laziness , prejudice or bureaucratic inertia , do not stand.
” Judge Wood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying her opinion was a “ dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility ” and immigration officials could thus deny visas on the basis of their biases .
Interestingly , this judge ’ s assessment contradicted the Republican senators who claimed at the Monday hearings that Barrett had earned the respect of the entire judicial community .
In yet another case before the Seventh Circuit Court , Judge Barrett dissented from the majority ruling , which said people with felony convictions could not buy guns .
The case involved a man who ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of $ 400,000 — and later wanted to purchase a gun .
The AFJ report said that the majority included two Reagan appointees , who said that , “ Barrett ’ s position was in conflict with every appeals court that addressed the issue.
” In criminal cases , the AFJ says Barrett has ruled against both Fifth Amendment due process rights and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel .
Also , she has attacked Miranda rights ’ laws ( which protect people from coercive police tactics that cause suspects to incriminate themselves ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other cases , she has upheld police and prison guards ’ use of force .
Finally , the AFJ says she has tried to weaken criminal legal reforms that aim to reduce mandatory prison sentences .
To say Barrett ’ s judicial decisions do not bode well for tens of millions of Americans is a dramatic understatement .
For the next few days , the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee will try to expose her biases .
But in the end , the vote will rest on the Republicans ’ majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ( and much of the country ’ s ) worst nightmare will be if Trump loses and contests the election , Barrett could well be the decider in a replay of Bush v. Gore — which would almost certainly mean four more years of Donald Trump .

If Americans want transparency — as they should — they’ve got it. Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s record of attacks on civil rights, workers’ rights, anti-discrimination measures and consumer protections is crystal clear. Though she’s just 48 years old, she has a phenomenally large legal footprint. And, as Democratic senators repeatedly pointed out Monday, on day one of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings, her record does not bode well for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and many of the rights won over the past half-century.
At the commencement of the confirmation hearings, Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) started off with a strikingly honest statement: “I think I know how the vote’s going to come out…. This is probably not about persuading each other… All Republicans will vote yes, and all Democrats will vote no.”
The next five hours were a dazzling display of the senators’ alternate realities. The Democrats critiqued the Republicans’ rush to approve Barrett before the election, chiding them for ignoring the COVID-19 catastrophe — for which state and local governments, health care facilities and individuals need the Senate to send funds as they struggle to survive the economic fallout and physical assault on their lives.
Mainly, however, they focused on Barrett’s record, which, they argued, matters massively. Indeed, her vote may be the one that determines the outcome of the case the Supreme Court will hear November 10 (California v. Texas) which Republicans, with the president’s boost, have brought to repeal the ACA.
The truth, the Democrats insisted, is that President Trump picked Barrett because he believes she will overturn the ACA. As Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) noted, “The president has promised to appoint justices who will vote to dismantle that law.”
Speaking directly to Barrett, Feinstein said, “You’ve been critical of Chief Justice Roberts for his decision, which upheld the ACA.” She and the other Democrats repeatedly described the benefits Americans stand to lose if the ACA is repealed.
For their part, the Republicans masterfully avoided all substantive issues. They did not respond to the charge that they were operating with a double standard, given their insistence in 2016 that picking a justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia had to wait until after the presidential elections — to let Americans decide with their votes. Nor did they respond to the charge that the hearings were a charade, since they’d already decided to approve her.
Instead, they praised Barrett’s intellect, her competence, her faith, her family and her high approval ratings from her law students. Oddly, they insisted the Democrats were ignoring her record — although discussing her record is precisely what the Democrats were doing.
While the press has often focused on Barrett’s religious beliefs and her family’s membership in People of Praise (a small, conservative Catholic group that some call a cult), it’s her decisions and dissents, along with her articles and speeches that leave little doubt about Barrett’s future judgments.
Barrett has firm opinions about access to health care, worker and consumer protections, immigrant rights, gun laws and criminal legal reforms — positions that are 180 degrees away from the legal giant she seeks to replace (whom all the Republican senators took pains to praise). Barrett is even to the right of judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, whose judicial decisions she has criticized. And while she hasn’t ruled on same-sex marriage or sexual identity, her thoughts on these subjects have surfaced in other venues.
Barrett is even to the right of judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, whose judicial decisions she has criticized .
It’s not surprising that Barrett said Scalia’s “judicial philosophy is mine” when accepting her nomination. She clerked for Scalia and refers to him repeatedly: In one talk at Jacksonville University in 2016, she mentioned his name at least 20 times.
So what will this mean? Let us count the ways in which Judge Barrett is primed to serve the agenda of Trump and the Republicans who parrot his positions. As Sen. Kamala Harris insisted, “President Trump is attempting to roll back American’s rights for decades to come. Every American must understand that with this nomination, equal justice under law is at stake. Our voting rights are at stake, workers’ rights are at stake, consumer rights are at stake, the right to safe and legal abortion is at stake and holding corporations accountable is at stake, and there’s so much more.”
Affordable Care Act
As he promised in June 2015, candidate Donald Trump said, “If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush’s appointee John Roberts did, on Obamacare.” Eliminating the Affordable Care Act, Trump said, will be “a big win for the USA.”
Leaving no doubt about her thoughts on this matter, in a 2017 book review in a Notre Dame Law School journal, Barrett wrote that Chief Justice Roberts’ decision in NFIB v. Sebelius was wrong because he pushed the ACA “beyond its plausible meaning, to save it.” With Barrett on the Supreme Court, even if Roberts sticks to his earlier position, it’s safe to say that with the new 5 to 4 lineup (Barrett, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh), the Affordable Care Act and the millions it has covered are in deep trouble.
Abortion Rights and Contraception
According to the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), a progressive judicial advocacy group founded in 1979 with over 120 organizations, “conservative activists have vocally promoted Barrett as a candidate who would be a certain vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.” Its 2020 report quotes from an Americans United for Life report, which claimed “we are confident that Judge Barrett, if appointed to the Supreme Court, would prove she a trusted caretaker of the Constitutional protections extended to every human person in America, including human lives in the womb.” The group is an anti-abortion public interest law firm that also opposes euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research and certain contraceptive methods.
Then there’s contraception. The AFJ says that when Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame, she signed onto a 2013 letter written by the Becket Fund (which the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a “hate group”), which called the Obama administration “morally obtuse.” Why? To accommodate employers with religious beliefs who wanted to exclude health insurance coverage for “abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraceptives,” the administration said they wouldn’t have to pay for these services or inform their employees that they were entitled to them. Miffed by this modification, the letter complained this tactic simply shifted the onus onto the insurance companies, which would be required to inform employees that they are “entitled to the embryo-destroying pill” which would also be included in their health plans.
LGBTQ Protections
In her 2016 Jacksonville University talk, Barrett stressed that the issue about LGBTQ rights is “who decides” — whether it will be the courts or state legislatures. And, she suggests, it is the latter that should decide on marriage equality. Since Republicans control 29 states (where they have both the governor and legislative majority), the AFJ says this gives “the states a license to sanction discrimination.” In the same talk, she also said that the issue of allowing transgender women to use bathrooms designated for females “strains the text of the statute to say federal law demands protections.”
From 2015 to 2017, Barrett served on the board of directors of the Trinity School (a small private Catholic school in South Bend, Indiana). According to a Politico article, the school described homosexual acts as “at odds with Scripture” and said marriage is between “one man and one woman” — years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage a national right.In October 2017, Lambda Legal (a civil rights organization that represents the LGBT community), opposed Trump’s nomination of Barrett to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, because she signed onto a letter to the Synod Fathers “from Catholic Women.”It said “we give witness that the Church’s teachings…on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman….provide a sure guide to the Christian life.”
It’s not surprising that Barrett said Scalia’s “judicial philosophy is mine” when accepting her nomination. She clerked for Scalia and refers to him repeatedly.
Age Discrimination
In the case where a 58-year-old man applied for a job but was turned down in favor of a 29-year-old employee with less experience, Judge Barrett, with two other Trump-appointed judges, said the Age Discrimination Employment Act did not protect him. Why? The Act would only apply if the man was already an employee, competing for a job against a younger employee. It did not apply, she said, to someone applying for a job for the first time. A dissenting judge called this “baffling,” since the Act’s main goal wasto prevent age discrimination in hiring. The AARP weighed in, saying the decision “takes us back to 1967” when age limits were common.
Workers’ Rights
In another case, Judge Barrett said a driver for a national delivery company who asked for overtime wages did not have the right to them since he didn’t drive his vehicle across state lines. Thus, he was not protected by the Federal Arbitration Act and would have to ply his case through an arbitration process (which notoriously favors firms over workers). The driver’s lawyer chided the Court: “Certainly when Congress enacted the Act, it never foresaw it would be used to stop drivers from challenging their employer’s systematic violation of wage laws.”
Consumer Protection
The AFJ report says that while on the Seventh Circuit Court, Barrett has “consistently ruled in favor of wealthy and powerful businesses over the rights of American consumers.”
It cites a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) law that had long been used to protect consumers who had been duped by fraudulent ads (which claim that people can get their money back). Moreover, it points out that “nine different courts of appeals, including the Seventh Circuit, had agreed that the law empowers the FTC to force schemers to pay back the money they swindle.” But a Seventh Circuit panel of judges overruled lower court decisions and said the FTC did not have this power. Judge Barrett agreed with the panel.
Three other Seventh Circuit judges dissented. Chief Judge Diane Wood said “no court has ever tied the hands of a government agency in the way that the majority has done here.” Wood argued that the decision tossed out the status quo of 30 years and granted “a needless measure of impunity to brazen scammers, as in this case.”
For its part, the FTC insisted that “without the ability to pursue restitution, the law would be reduced to a stop sign and would effectively reward fraudsters for their illegal conduct.”
In another case that involved the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Judge Barrett said a woman could not dispute her debt with a collection agency because she had not put her claim against the company in writing. Thus, she could not be protected against “abusive debt collection practices.”
Immigration
In one case appealed to the Seventh Circuit, a majority of the judges ruled against a Trump attempt to deny immigrants the right to become residents if they had received public assistance or food stamps for a total of 12 months over a previous 36-month period— even though the benefits were approved by law. Judge Barrett dissented, siding with the Trump administration.
In a different immigration case, Barrett said the Trump administration was right when it denied a woman a visa because the consular officer claimed she tried to smuggle in two children who were not her own. However, the woman — who was the wife of an American citizen — proved that the children were, in fact, hers.
If Trump loses and contests the election, Barrett could well be the decider in a replay of Bush v. Gore — which would almost certainly mean four more years of Donald Trump.
The AFJ report noted that other judges on the Seventh Circuit Court “condemned Barrett’s ruling.” A Reagan-appointed judge, Kenneth Ripple, noted that, “the consular officer may have operated on a “stereotypical assumption” when concluding the woman was smuggling children.” Even worse, he said, “We have the responsibility to ensure that such decisions, when born of laziness, prejudice or bureaucratic inertia, do not stand.” Judge Wood again disagreed with Barrett’s ruling, saying her opinion was a “dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility” and immigration officials could thus deny visas on the basis of their biases. Interestingly, this judge’s assessment contradicted the Republican senators who claimed at the Monday hearings that Barrett had earned the respect of the entire judicial community.
Gun Control
In yet another case before the Seventh Circuit Court, Judge Barrett dissented from the majority ruling, which said people with felony convictions could not buy guns. The case involved a man who’d committed mail fraud, cheating Medicare out of $400,000 — and later wanted to purchase a gun. The AFJ report said that the majority included two Reagan appointees, who said that, “Barrett’s position was in conflict with every appeals court that addressed the issue.”
In criminal cases, the AFJ says Barrett has ruled against both Fifth Amendment due process rights and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel. Also, she has attacked Miranda rights’ laws (which protect people from coercive police tactics that cause suspects to incriminate themselves), violating the Fifth Amendment. And in other cases, she has upheld police and prison guards’ use of force. Finally, the AFJ says she has tried to weaken criminal legal reforms that aim to reduce mandatory prison sentences.
To say Barrett’s judicial decisions do not bode well for tens of millions of Americans is a dramatic understatement. For the next few days, the Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee will try to expose her biases. But in the end, the vote will rest on the Republicans’ majority. In that case, the senators’ (and much of the country’s) worst nightmare will be if Trump loses and contests the election, Barrett could well be the decider in a replay of Bush v. Gore — which would almost certainly mean four more years of Donald Trump.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.