truthout--2020-09-21--Trump, Barr Declare War on First Amendment With “Anarchist Jurisdictions” Label

The Department of Justice ( DOJ ) deemed three U.S. cities “ anarchist jurisdictions ” on Monday , in line with a memo issued by President Trump earlier this month that sought to put financial penalties on places where significant uprisings were happening in response to extrajudicial killings of Black Americans across the country .
New York City , Portland , and Seattle all received the formal designations from the DOJ , the department announced , for having allegedly “ permitted violence and destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump on September 2 , those cities could be restricted from receiving federal grants and other funding after being designated “ anarchist jurisdictions.
” “ We can not allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance , ” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement .
“ It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.
” In response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill de Blasio insisted the moniker was an inappropriate one to dish out , citing his own personal experiences on Monday morning walking in the city he is in charge of governing .
“ I was out in Elmhurst Queens this morning , I saw peace , tranquility , I saw people going about their business , people excited that it ’ s the first day of school — I saw anything but anarchy , ” de Blasio said .
“ This is just another one of President Trump ’ s games .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of New York City and his effort to withhold our funding is unconstitutional.
” The authority to issue out the designation of “ anarchist jurisdiction ” to U.S. cities is questionable , from a legal perspective .
While the September 2 memo from Trump outlines specific instances by which a city may be named an “ anarchist jurisdiction , ” it also allows for Barr to justify issuing the term based on “ any other related factors the Attorney General deems appropriate.
” Trump ’ s authorizing the attorney general to assign such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single legal citation justifying his ability to do so .
There is also a strong possibility that the cities named on Monday will challenge their newfound designations in the courts , especially if they result in loss of funding from the federal government .
One of the main criticisms regarding this memo authorizing defunding of jurisdictions is that it is not a power the president has at his disposal , unless Congress has specifically granted it .
Sasha Samberg-Champion , a former DOJ Civil Rights Division attorney , decried the memo when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have repeatedly reminded the Trump Administration , the Spending Clause power is in Article I .
It belongs to _Congress._ And Congress has not seen fit to condition federal money on any of this , ” Samberg-Champion tweeted at the time .
It ’ s likely that attempts to label cities “ anarchist jurisdictions ” serves a dual purpose for this administration .
Aside from seeking to punish the cities Trump disagrees with , especially in regards to protests supporting the movement for Black lives , the memo issued out earlier this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a means to rile up the president ’ s base of support just six weeks out from Election Day .

“This is just another one of President Trump’s games,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said in response.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) deemed three U.S. cities “anarchist jurisdictions” on Monday, in line with a memo issued by President Trump earlier this month that sought to put financial penalties on places where significant uprisings were happening in response to extrajudicial killings of Black Americans across the country.
New York City, Portland, and Seattle all received the formal designations from the DOJ, the department announced, for having allegedly “permitted violence and destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities.”
As laid out in a memo by Trump on September 2, those cities could be restricted from receiving federal grants and other funding after being designated “anarchist jurisdictions.”
“We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. “It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens.”
In response to the designation, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio insisted the moniker was an inappropriate one to dish out, citing his own personal experiences on Monday morning walking in the city he is in charge of governing.
“I was out in Elmhurst Queens this morning, I saw peace, tranquility, I saw people going about their business, people excited that it’s the first day of school — I saw anything but anarchy,” de Blasio said. “This is just another one of President Trump’s games. It’s insulting to the people of New York City and his effort to withhold our funding is unconstitutional.”
The authority to issue out the designation of “anarchist jurisdiction” to U.S. cities is questionable, from a legal perspective. While the September 2 memo from Trump outlines specific instances by which a city may be named an “anarchist jurisdiction,” it also allows for Barr to justify issuing the term based on “any other related factors the Attorney General deems appropriate.”
Trump’s authorizing the attorney general to assign such designations, however, did not include a single legal citation justifying his ability to do so. There is also a strong possibility that the cities named on Monday will challenge their newfound designations in the courts, especially if they result in loss of funding from the federal government.
One of the main criticisms regarding this memo authorizing defunding of jurisdictions is that it is not a power the president has at his disposal, unless Congress has specifically granted it.
Sasha Samberg-Champion, a former DOJ Civil Rights Division attorney, decried the memo when it was released.
“As courts have repeatedly reminded the Trump Administration, the Spending Clause power is in Article I. It belongs to _Congress._ And Congress has not seen fit to condition federal money on any of this,” Samberg-Champion tweeted at the time.
It’s likely that attempts to label cities “anarchist jurisdictions” serves a dual purpose for this administration. Aside from seeking to punish the cities Trump disagrees with, especially in regards to protests supporting the movement for Black lives, the memo issued out earlier this month and the designations made on Monday may be a means to rile up the president’s base of support just six weeks out from Election Day.
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--2020-09-21--The Supreme Court Is Misaligned With the Will of This Country. Will We Resist?

We look at the life and legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , as well as the future of the Supreme Court , in a wide-ranging interview with Dahlia Lithwick , senior editor at Slate , where she is the senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter .
Ginsburg died September 18 at the age of 87 after serving 27 years as a Supreme Court justice , where she became the most prominent member of the court ’ s liberal wing .
Her death just 46 days before the November election sets up a major political battle over her replacement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vowing to nominate and confirm a right-wing judge to fill her seat by Friday or Saturday .
In 2016 , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland , President Obama ’ s pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia , who died 269 days before the election .
“ Hypocrisy doesn ’ t begin to touch on that , ” says Lithwick .
“ The court is profoundly misaligned both with popular opinion polling and with the will of this country.
” This is a rush transcript .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ form .
AMY GOODMAN : We spend the hour looking at the life and legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , as well as the future of the Supreme Court .
Ginsburg died on Friday at the age of 87 after serving 27 years as a Supreme Court justice , becoming the most prominent member of the court ’ s liberal wing .
Ginsburg first gained fame in the 1970s , when she co-founded the Women ’ s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union , where she argued six gender discrimination cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She once famously quoted the abolitionist Sarah Grimké during one of her oral arguments .
AMY GOODMAN : Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a federal appellate judge in 1980 , then , in 1993 , was sworn in as just the second female Supreme Court justice .
During her Senate confirmation hearing , she openly defended the right to have an abortion .
As a Supreme Court justice , she was a strong supporter of reproductive rights , women ’ s rights , expanding LGBTQ rights and preserving President Obama ’ s Affordable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most memorable opinions were dissents .
In 2013 , she dissented when the court struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act .
She wrote , quote , “ Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet , ” unquote .
While Ginsburg was known to be a leader on the court ’ s liberal wing , she sometimes sided with her conservative colleagues .
She joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pipeline being built under the Appalachian Trail .
She also approved the Trump administration ’ s policy of expediting deportation of people seeking asylum .
Ginsburg ’ s death has set off a battle in Washington .
She died on September 18 , just 46 days before the November election .
In 2016 , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland , President Obama ’ s pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia , who died nearly nine months before the election .
At the time , McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.
” But now McConnell has vowed to hold a vote on Trump ’ s pick to replace Ginsburg , setting off a battle in the Senate , where the Republicans maintain a 53-to-47 advantage .
The Democrats need 51 votes to block a potential nominee .
Two Republican senators , Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins , have already said they oppose voting on Ginsburg ’ s replacement before the election .
President Trump is expected to nominate a replacement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Top contenders include federal judges Barbara Lagoa and Amy Coney Barrett .
If the Senate confirms Trump ’ s nominee , it will give conservatives a 6-to-3 advantage on the court .
It would also mean the majority of the justices on the court were selected by presidents that did not win the popular vote .
Days before she died , Justice Ginsburg [ dictated ] a final statement to her granddaughter .
It read , quote , “ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over the weekend , vigils were held outside the Supreme Court and across the country to remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Later in the program , we ’ ll be joined by a man Ginsburg once called her favorite plaintiff , and we ’ ll be joined by Julie Cohen , co-director of the Oscar-nominated documentary RBG .
But we begin today ’ s show with Dahlia Lithwick .
She ’ s senior legal correspondent at Slate.com , her latest piece headlined “ What Ruth Bader Ginsburg Would Want America to Do Now.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democracy Now !
Thanks so much for joining us .
I know this is a deeply painful day to you both personally and politically .
Talk about how you came to know Justice Ginsburg , what she meant to you , and then what you think about what ’ s happening today .
DAHLIA LITHWICK : Thanks , Amy .
And thanks for having me .
I got to know her , actually , latish in my career .
I had been covering the court for some time , and Justice Ginsburg gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Jess Bravin , and he asked her who she read .
And she named a couple people , and then she said , “ Oh , I read that girl at Slate , Dahlia Lithwick.
” And then she called me “ spicy.
” And I think she liked the fact that I was irreverent .
And shortly after that , I got to interview her for the first time when Glamour named her their woman of the year , and she gave me an amazing interview .
And then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit down with her actually in late January , right before the court shut down for COVID .
I got to spend an hour with her just talking about her experience being one of nine women who started at Harvard Law school in a class of 500 men .
And so , I ’ ve just been incredibly blessed in my connections to her .
And , you know , as to what she meant to me , I mean , I started law school just as she was being elevated to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , with great confidence , that had I not seen Sandra Day O ’ Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court , I would not , probably , have felt that there was a place for me at law school .
I know thousands and thousands of women feel the same .
And then , simply as a marker of what a woman can do , who at every turn is faced with closed doors , lost opportunities , unbelievable discrimination , and how at every turn she took that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into another success .
I just think the arc of her life , Amy , has been to fight for the women who came after and to bear the responsibility of the women who came before who couldn ’ t finish the fight .
AMY GOODMAN : So , talk about what you feel are her most important contributions .
DAHLIA LITHWICK : Well , I think you ’ ve identified — I think she sort of has three acts in America .
The first is her unbelievable litigation career .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACLU , she almost single-handedly became the architect of a series of what looked to be small , incremental cases that fought consistently to do away with gender discrimination as built in the law .
And , of course , the genius of those cases — I know you ’ re going to talk about this later — is that she would bring them on behalf of men , not women , but men who were subject to discriminatory laws because the law assumed that men went out to work and women stayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , slowly , the same way Thurgood Marshall built in the world of race equality , one case after another after another that dismantled that patriarchal view of the world .
And so , there ’ s that piece of it , which is the legal career that ends up really enforcing the idea of equality under the Constitution .
Then there ’ s her time on the court and the enormous series of cases she both authored and later dissented in , where she put that into effect , most famously when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to accept women cadets , writing that it is discriminatory to assume that women cadets can ’ t go to that school — changed the landscape forever .
And then , I think , this third act , which we really only saw in the last decade , where she became this tiny , five-foot , less-than-a-hundred-pound rockstar , when she became “ Notorious RBG , ” and everyone had a tote bag , and everybody had the earrings , and everybody knew her dissents by heart .
She became larger than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice on the court .
And I think she just became a symbol , particularly in the last four years , for women who felt powerless and hopeless , that you don ’ t get to feel powerless and hopeless .
You just keep fighting .
AMY GOODMAN : And how she became “ The Notorious RBG ” ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : It came from , you know , toward the end of her career .
She was writing — I think you noted this , Amy — many more dissents than she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissent in the Shelby County case , the one that gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act , that line about doing away with preclearance is like chucking your umbrella because it worked , that got set to music .
And a whole bunch of young women really , I think , constructed this idea that she was in fact not all that different from a rapper , and that she was this icon and that her words needed to be disseminated beyond the four corners of opinions out into the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lobby dissent then was also set to music .
Time and time and time again , things that she did that might have been ignored by mass culture got pushed out under the guise of this is this tiny little woman with the tilted crown .
She is changing the world , not within the auspices of the court — she ’ s writing dissent — but the words that she is giving , particularly to young people and particularly to young women , the language of dissent , the language of using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
It just became a phenomenon , the likes of which I ’ ve never seen on the court .
AMY GOODMAN : But , Dahlia Lithwick , she certainly wasn ’ t the most progressive member — probably Sonia Sotomayor is .
And in the last years , she sided with the conservative majority when it came to building a natural gas pipeline , when it came to approving the Trump administration ’ s policy of expediting deportation of people seeking asylum , even , well , ultimately apologized for calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a knee “ dumb.
” DAHLIA LITHWICK : I think that the ways that we misapprehend Ruth Bader Ginsburg are really at the core of what you just said , which is I really truly believe that she was the most small-C conservative radical on the court , and that if you thought she was out on the hustings burning her bra , breaking things down , taking things apart , then you kind of missed the real story , because she was fundamentally a creature of the 1950s and ’ 60s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ’ 70s radical , certainly not a pink pussy hat radical .
She was someone who , when she was on the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals , the lower federal court , aligned her votes with Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia , more than anyone else .
She was fundamentally a moderate centrist , often conservative , jurist .
She was very , very , very much given a knock for not hiring nearly enough minority clerks .
All of that is part of the picture .
AMY GOODMAN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court justice .
DAHLIA LITHWICK : And I think we have to be very , very honest about the fact that she was both the architect of the gender equality world we live in now and also that she was very , very effective in part because she was a get-along person .
She was very much conciliatory , always cared about decorum , meeting people where they were .
She was both those things , Amy , and I think , in some ways , we have to respect both parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to turn to Donald Trump now at the North Carolina rally he held on Saturday , where he said he plans to nominate a woman to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , and seemed to imply he had until Inauguration Day 2021 .
AMY GOODMAN : So , you can hear the people chanting “ Fill her seat !
Fill her seat !
” Trump now nominating a third justice to a lifetime apartment on the Supreme Court .
If you could talk about what he said he ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates are to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s place ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : I think the single most important thing to do is not waste a lot of our brain cells trying to reconcile the message that he and Mitch McConnell are putting out now with the message that Mitch McConnell put out in 2016 , where , with nine months left to go , they said , “ It ’ s too — way , way , way too late for a president to nominate someone .
We ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think we can agree hypocrisy doesn ’ t begin to touch on that .
And so , then the question is : Can he rush someone through ?
I should just note for your audience that the polling I saw , effective yesterday , said 63 % of the country , including 50 % of Republicans , don ’ t think somebody should be jammed onto the court just in order to fill the seat .
But I guess he ’ s going to press through .
The folks who are on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nominate a woman , so it ’ s largely women .
Probably the front-runner is Amy Coney Barrett .
He said , when he had her on the shortlist for what ultimately became the Kavanaugh seat , that he was saving her for when he could fill the Ginsburg seat .
So I think she ’ s probably the top contender , and she ’ s also been fully vetted .
She ’ s only 48 years old .
She sits on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals .
And I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s looking at are people in their late forties , early fifties , with very , very , very compressed judicial records .
She ’ s only been on the bench for a couple of years .
But I think it ’ s fair to say that on case after case after case , including abortion , including age discrimination , asylum seekers and guns , she has been on the hard , hard-right side of the fence , often in fact getting disdainful statements from Reagan and Bush appointees about how radical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about her is she very , very much has written about how religion informs her judicial thinking .
And when that was raised at her lower court hearings , it was seen as a huge , huge affront .
So , she brings to the table the ability to be deeply religious , and it ’ s impolitic , apparently , to question her about it .
Barbara Lagoa is now on the shortlist .
She ’ s only 52 .
She ’ s on the 11th Circuit .
She ’ s one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of those taxes and fees that felons need to pay prior to voting is not a poll tax and that that can be enforced , which would disenfranchise thousands and thousands of formerly reenfranchised felons in Florida .
Joan Larsen is probably the third person on the shortlist .
Only — AMY GOODMAN : And just to say , on the issue of Lagoa , she is Cuban American .
She is from the swing state of Florida .
A Latinx swing state person on the Supreme Court would serve President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Would serve him well in Florida .
And also she ’ s a DeSantis acolyte , so I think that that shores up Florida .
Joan Larsen is the last person , 51 years old , on the 6th Circuit .
But I think he ’ s — Trump is still looking at several other very , very young women .
We will know , I guess , as soon as tomorrow who he settles on .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to , finally , turn to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leader Chuck Schumer went to Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s high school , which is also Schumer ’ s high school , James Madison in Brooklyn , and urged supporters to call on Senate Republicans not to vote on any Supreme Court nominee .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
It ’ s pretty rare to see her and Chuck Schumer together .
They were by themselves in front of James Madison High School .
But , Dahlia Lithwick , what are those things you think could be done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a third Trump appointment to the Supreme Court ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : I think they have to make noise , and I think that ’ s what she was saying .
I think you led with this .
It ’ s so important .
It can not be the case that Dems have won the popular vote in seven out of the eight elections from 1992 ’ til now , and yet the GOP has appointed 14 out of 18 , now seek 15 out of 19 , Supreme Court seats .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because minority-majority presidents and a minority-majority Senate keep ratifying it .
And I think what she ’ s saying is , we have to stop behaving as though the court belongs to the Republicans .
They campaign on it .
They vote on it .
It ’ s a single-minded issue for them .
And Democrats have tended , in the last few election cycles , to not step up , to act as though maybe we just rent seats there occasionally .
The court is so profoundly misaligned both with popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country .
And I think the idea that you just accede to that because it ’ s not an issue for Democrats is what is really , really going to have to change .
And so I think she ’ s right .
It means calling your senators .
It means writing the op-eds , writing the letters and really , really signaling to the Senate that votes will move , votes will be lost , seats will be lost , if what is done in the next couple of weeks is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : And the possibility of a Biden administration increasing the number of justices on the court ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : Well , you heard AOC say it .
I think that none of the structural court reforms that are being floated , whether it ’ s term limits , whether it ’ s adding seats to the lower courts and the Supreme Court , whether it ’ s jurisdiction stripping — there are a lot of really , really thoughtful ideas circulating about how we do structural court reform to kind of reverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hold in this country .
And I think what she ’ s saying is , we can ’ t be afraid to say there will be consequences if the court is treated as though it ’ s Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump ’ s plaything .
AMY GOODMAN : Dahlia Lithwick , thanks so much for being with us .
And condolences to you , because this is a personal loss , as well , for you , interviewing her just before the COVID lockdown .
Dahlia Lithwick , senior editor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court reporter .
Her latest piece , we ’ ll link to , “ What Ruth Bader Ginsburg Would Want America to Do Now.
” When we come back , we turn to one of the directors of the Oscar-nominated documentary RBG , Julie Cohen .
Stay with us .
AMY GOODMAN : “ We Shall Be Known , ” being sung at a Saturday vigil outside the Supreme Court for Ruth Bader Ginsburg .

We look at the life and legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as the future of the Supreme Court, in a wide-ranging interview with Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor at Slate, where she is the senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter. Ginsburg died September 18 at the age of 87 after serving 27 years as a Supreme Court justice, where she became the most prominent member of the court’s liberal wing. Her death just 46 days before the November election sets up a major political battle over her replacement, with President Trump and many Senate Republicans vowing to nominate and confirm a right-wing judge to fill her seat by Friday or Saturday. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died 269 days before the election. “Hypocrisy doesn’t begin to touch on that,” says Lithwick. “The court is profoundly misaligned both with popular opinion polling and with the will of this country.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We spend the hour looking at the life and legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as the future of the Supreme Court. Ginsburg died on Friday at the age of 87 after serving 27 years as a Supreme Court justice, becoming the most prominent member of the court’s liberal wing.
Ginsburg first gained fame in the 1970s, when she co-founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, where she argued six gender discrimination cases before the Supreme Court, winning five. She once famously quoted the abolitionist Sarah Grimké during one of her oral arguments.
RUTH BADER GINSBURG: In asking the court to declare sex a suspect criterion, we urge a position forcibly stated in 1837 by Sarah Grimké, noted abolitionist and advocate of equal rights for men and women. She said, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” Related Story News | Politics & Elections Trump Spreads Misinformation With Claim That Dems Wrote Ginsburg’s Dying Wish Trump plans to name a nominee to the Supreme Court as soon as this coming Friday, 39 days out from the election. Truthout
AMY GOODMAN: Ruth Bader Ginsburg became a federal appellate judge in 1980, then, in 1993, was sworn in as just the second female Supreme Court justice. During her Senate confirmation hearing, she openly defended the right to have an abortion.
JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: This is something central to a woman’s life, to her dignity. It’s a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she’s being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.
AMY GOODMAN: The Senate confirmed Ginsburg 96 to 3.
As a Supreme Court justice, she was a strong supporter of reproductive rights, women’s rights, expanding LGBTQ rights and preserving President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
Some of Ginsburg’s most memorable opinions were dissents. In 2013, she dissented when the court struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act. She wrote, quote, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” unquote.
While Ginsburg was known to be a leader on the court’s liberal wing, she sometimes sided with her conservative colleagues. She joined the conservative majority approving a natural gas pipeline being built under the Appalachian Trail. She also approved the Trump administration’s policy of expediting deportation of people seeking asylum.
Ginsburg’s death has set off a battle in Washington. She died on September 18, just 46 days before the November election. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died nearly nine months before the election. At the time, McConnell said, quote, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.” But now McConnell has vowed to hold a vote on Trump’s pick to replace Ginsburg, setting off a battle in the Senate, where the Republicans maintain a 53-to-47 advantage. The Democrats need 51 votes to block a potential nominee. Two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, have already said they oppose voting on Ginsburg’s replacement before the election.
President Trump is expected to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg as soon as Tuesday. Top contenders include federal judges Barbara Lagoa and Amy Coney Barrett. If the Senate confirms Trump’s nominee, it will give conservatives a 6-to-3 advantage on the court. It would also mean the majority of the justices on the court were selected by presidents that did not win the popular vote.
Days before she died, Justice Ginsburg [dictated] a final statement to her granddaughter. It read, quote, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” unquote.
Over the weekend, vigils were held outside the Supreme Court and across the country to remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Later in the program, we’ll be joined by a man Ginsburg once called her favorite plaintiff, and we’ll be joined by Julie Cohen, co-director of the Oscar-nominated documentary RBG. But we begin today’s show with Dahlia Lithwick. She’s senior legal correspondent at Slate.com, her latest piece headlined “What Ruth Bader Ginsburg Would Want America to Do Now.”
Well, Dahlia, welcome to Democracy Now! Thanks so much for joining us. I know this is a deeply painful day to you both personally and politically. Talk about how you came to know Justice Ginsburg, what she meant to you, and then what you think about what’s happening today.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Thanks, Amy. And thanks for having me.
I got to know her, actually, latish in my career. I had been covering the court for some time, and Justice Ginsburg gave an interview to The Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin, and he asked her who she read. And she named a couple people, and then she said, “Oh, I read that girl at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick.” And then she called me “spicy.” And I think she liked the fact that I was irreverent. And shortly after that, I got to interview her for the first time when Glamour named her their woman of the year, and she gave me an amazing interview. And then, just most recently, I got to sit down with her actually in late January, right before the court shut down for COVID. I got to spend an hour with her just talking about her experience being one of nine women who started at Harvard Law school in a class of 500 men. And so, I’ve just been incredibly blessed in my connections to her.
And, you know, as to what she meant to me, I mean, I started law school just as she was being elevated to the bench. And I think I can say, with great confidence, that had I not seen Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, I would not, probably, have felt that there was a place for me at law school. I know thousands and thousands of women feel the same. And then, simply as a marker of what a woman can do, who at every turn is faced with closed doors, lost opportunities, unbelievable discrimination, and how at every turn she took that, turned it around and turned it into another success. I just think the arc of her life, Amy, has been to fight for the women who came after and to bear the responsibility of the women who came before who couldn’t finish the fight.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about what you feel are her most important contributions.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Well, I think you’ve identified — I think she sort of has three acts in America. The first is her unbelievable litigation career. At the Women’s Rights Project at the ACLU, she almost single-handedly became the architect of a series of what looked to be small, incremental cases that fought consistently to do away with gender discrimination as built in the law. And, of course, the genius of those cases — I know you’re going to talk about this later — is that she would bring them on behalf of men, not women, but men who were subject to discriminatory laws because the law assumed that men went out to work and women stayed home as caregivers. And she built, slowly, the same way Thurgood Marshall built in the world of race equality, one case after another after another that dismantled that patriarchal view of the world. And so, there’s that piece of it, which is the legal career that ends up really enforcing the idea of equality under the Constitution.
Then there’s her time on the court and the enormous series of cases she both authored and later dissented in, where she put that into effect, most famously when the Virginia Military Institute — she forced them to accept women cadets, writing that it is discriminatory to assume that women cadets can’t go to that school — changed the landscape forever.
And then, I think, this third act, which we really only saw in the last decade, where she became this tiny, five-foot, less-than-a-hundred-pound rockstar, when she became “Notorious RBG,” and everyone had a tote bag, and everybody had the earrings, and everybody knew her dissents by heart. She became larger than life, certainly larger than one associate justice on the court. And I think she just became a symbol, particularly in the last four years, for women who felt powerless and hopeless, that you don’t get to feel powerless and hopeless. You just keep fighting.
AMY GOODMAN: And how she became “The Notorious RBG”?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: It came from, you know, toward the end of her career. She was writing — I think you noted this, Amy — many more dissents than she was writing majority opinions. And her dissent in the Shelby County case, the one that gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act, that line about doing away with preclearance is like chucking your umbrella because it worked, that got set to music. And a whole bunch of young women really, I think, constructed this idea that she was in fact not all that different from a rapper, and that she was this icon and that her words needed to be disseminated beyond the four corners of opinions out into the world. At that point, her Hobby Lobby dissent then was also set to music.
Time and time and time again, things that she did that might have been ignored by mass culture got pushed out under the guise of this is this tiny little woman with the tilted crown. She is changing the world, not within the auspices of the court — she’s writing dissent — but the words that she is giving, particularly to young people and particularly to young women, the language of dissent, the language of using the law and your words to effect change. It just became a phenomenon, the likes of which I’ve never seen on the court.
AMY GOODMAN: But, Dahlia Lithwick, she certainly wasn’t the most progressive member — probably Sonia Sotomayor is. And in the last years, she sided with the conservative majority when it came to building a natural gas pipeline, when it came to approving the Trump administration’s policy of expediting deportation of people seeking asylum, even, well, ultimately apologized for calling Colin Kaepernick’s move to take a knee “dumb.”
DAHLIA LITHWICK: I think that the ways that we misapprehend Ruth Bader Ginsburg are really at the core of what you just said, which is I really truly believe that she was the most small-C conservative radical on the court, and that if you thought she was out on the hustings burning her bra, breaking things down, taking things apart, then you kind of missed the real story, because she was fundamentally a creature of the 1950s and ’60s. She was very, very much not a ’70s radical, certainly not a pink pussy hat radical.
She was someone who, when she was on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the lower federal court, aligned her votes with Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, more than anyone else. She was fundamentally a moderate centrist, often conservative, jurist. She was very, very, very much given a knock for not hiring nearly enough minority clerks. All of that is part of the picture.
AMY GOODMAN: Had one African American clerk as a Supreme Court justice.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: And I think we have to be very, very honest about the fact that she was both the architect of the gender equality world we live in now and also that she was very, very effective in part because she was a get-along person. She was very much conciliatory, always cared about decorum, meeting people where they were. She was both those things, Amy, and I think, in some ways, we have to respect both parts of it.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Donald Trump now at the North Carolina rally he held on Saturday, where he said he plans to nominate a woman to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and seemed to imply he had until Inauguration Day 2021.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Both the White House and the Senate majority have a moral duty to fulfill the promises they made to the voters. And that is exactly what we’re going to do. We said that if, for any reason, we have a vacancy on the United States Supreme Court, we will fill that vacancy. We’re not going to say — and, by the way, we have plenty of time. There’s a lot of time. You know, you’re talking about — you’re talking about January 20th, right? TRUMP SUPPORTERS: Fill her seat! Fill her seat! Fill her seat! Fill her seat!
AMY GOODMAN: So, you can hear the people chanting “Fill her seat! Fill her seat!” Trump now nominating a third justice to a lifetime apartment on the Supreme Court. If you could talk about what he said he’s going to do, who some of the top candidates are to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s place?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: I think the single most important thing to do is not waste a lot of our brain cells trying to reconcile the message that he and Mitch McConnell are putting out now with the message that Mitch McConnell put out in 2016, where, with nine months left to go, they said, “It’s too — way, way, way too late for a president to nominate someone. We’re going to let the voters decide.” I think we can agree hypocrisy doesn’t begin to touch on that.
And so, then the question is: Can he rush someone through? I should just note for your audience that the polling I saw, effective yesterday, said 63% of the country, including 50% of Republicans, don’t think somebody should be jammed onto the court just in order to fill the seat. But I guess he’s going to press through.
The folks who are on the shortlist, he has said he wants to nominate a woman, so it’s largely women. Probably the front-runner is Amy Coney Barrett. He said, when he had her on the shortlist for what ultimately became the Kavanaugh seat, that he was saving her for when he could fill the Ginsburg seat. So I think she’s probably the top contender, and she’s also been fully vetted. She’s only 48 years old. She sits on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. And I think all of the nominees that he’s looking at are people in their late forties, early fifties, with very, very, very compressed judicial records. She’s only been on the bench for a couple of years. But I think it’s fair to say that on case after case after case, including abortion, including age discrimination, asylum seekers and guns, she has been on the hard, hard-right side of the fence, often in fact getting disdainful statements from Reagan and Bush appointees about how radical her worldview is. The other thing about her is she very, very much has written about how religion informs her judicial thinking. And when that was raised at her lower court hearings, it was seen as a huge, huge affront. So, she brings to the table the ability to be deeply religious, and it’s impolitic, apparently, to question her about it.
Barbara Lagoa is now on the shortlist. She’s only 52. She’s on the 11th Circuit. She’s one of the judges who just ruled that all of those taxes and fees that felons need to pay prior to voting is not a poll tax and that that can be enforced, which would disenfranchise thousands and thousands of formerly reenfranchised felons in Florida.
Joan Larsen is probably the third person on the shortlist. Only —
AMY GOODMAN: And just to say, on the issue of Lagoa, she is Cuban American. She is from the swing state of Florida. A Latinx swing state person on the Supreme Court would serve President Trump, in his eyes.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Would serve him well in Florida. And also she’s a DeSantis acolyte, so I think that that shores up Florida.
Joan Larsen is the last person, 51 years old, on the 6th Circuit. But I think he’s — Trump is still looking at several other very, very young women. We will know, I guess, as soon as tomorrow who he settles on.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to, finally, turn to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. On Sunday, she and the Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer went to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s high school, which is also Schumer’s high school, James Madison in Brooklyn, and urged supporters to call on Senate Republicans not to vote on any Supreme Court nominee.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO–CORTEZ: We must use every tool at our disposal, from everyday people, especially in swing states. We need everyday people to call on senators, to call on folks on the bubble, to call Republican senators, to make sure that they hold us vacancy open. And we must also commit to using every procedural tool available to us to ensure that we buy ourselves the time necessary.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It’s pretty rare to see her and Chuck Schumer together. They were by themselves in front of James Madison High School. But, Dahlia Lithwick, what are those things you think could be done right now for people deeply concerned about a third Trump appointment to the Supreme Court?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: I think they have to make noise, and I think that’s what she was saying. I think you led with this. It’s so important. It cannot be the case that Dems have won the popular vote in seven out of the eight elections from 1992 ’til now, and yet the GOP has appointed 14 out of 18, now seek 15 out of 19, Supreme Court seats. It is a majority — a minority-majority court, because minority-majority presidents and a minority-majority Senate keep ratifying it.
And I think what she’s saying is, we have to stop behaving as though the court belongs to the Republicans. They campaign on it. They vote on it. It’s a single-minded issue for them. And Democrats have tended, in the last few election cycles, to not step up, to act as though maybe we just rent seats there occasionally. The court is so profoundly misaligned both with popular opinion polling and with the will of this country. And I think the idea that you just accede to that because it’s not an issue for Democrats is what is really, really going to have to change.
And so I think she’s right. It means calling your senators. It means writing the op-eds, writing the letters and really, really signaling to the Senate that votes will move, votes will be lost, seats will be lost, if what is done in the next couple of weeks is allowed to go through.
AMY GOODMAN: And the possibility of a Biden administration increasing the number of justices on the court?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Well, you heard AOC say it. I think that none of the structural court reforms that are being floated, whether it’s term limits, whether it’s adding seats to the lower courts and the Supreme Court, whether it’s jurisdiction stripping — there are a lot of really, really thoughtful ideas circulating about how we do structural court reform to kind of reverse the minority-majority rule that has absolutely taken a hold in this country. And I think what she’s saying is, we can’t be afraid to say there will be consequences if the court is treated as though it’s Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump’s plaything.
AMY GOODMAN: Dahlia Lithwick, thanks so much for being with us. And condolences to you, because this is a personal loss, as well, for you, interviewing her just before the COVID lockdown. Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor at Slate.com, senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter. Her latest piece, we’ll link to, “What Ruth Bader Ginsburg Would Want America to Do Now.”
When we come back, we turn to one of the directors of the Oscar-nominated documentary RBG, Julie Cohen. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “We Shall Be Known,” being sung at a Saturday vigil outside the Supreme Court for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


truthout--2020-09-21--Youth Must Focus This Election on Climate Change — and Push Dems to Confront It

Like many others in my generation , I grew up reading young adult dystopian novels .
As I immersed myself in fantasy worlds ruled by fascist leaders , grappling with decrepit ecosystems , and in the throes of a growing revolution , I envisioned myself being one of the youth , fighting for their future on the line .
Now , we are at the turning point in our own story .
This election , we have the opportunity to lead our country in the right direction when it comes to the climate crisis .
Many of us who turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first ballots in one of the most significant elections in United States history .
Back in the winter of 2019 , I decided to apply my love for intersectional politics and activism toward running a grassroots campaign to become a Bernie Sanders national delegate for my home state of Minnesota .
My platform pushed for progressive policies that benefit marginalized communities and highlighted what is at stake for my generation — especially when it comes to the already-unfolding environmental emergency .
Running for delegate was an incredibly daunting experience .
Not only did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience , but I also had to juggle my academics and school commitments .
I ran for this position not expecting to get it , but knowing there was simply too much at stake in this election and that I had to try .
Regardless of whether I would be perceived as too young to understand , too assertive for a woman , or too shocking as an Asian in politics , I knew I had to run because there were countless others just like me , fighting just to get a seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be someone that managed to snag a chair .
Unfortunately , what I discovered once I sat down was that , like much of the environmental movement , the coalition of national delegates to the August Democratic National Convention did not have nearly enough diversity in race , age , and socioeconomic status .
If we truly want to stop climate change and create a society that works for all of us , we must do it intersectionally .
We must fight tooth and nail to create a new world that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for our planet , and politicians that lead with their values instead of their greed .
Fast forward to the present .
The election is right around the corner and somehow the world only seems to be getting more and more chaotic .
Socioeconomic fissures have cracked open and revealed the deep and ugly roots of systemic racism in this “ land of the free.
” There are protesters in every state outraged and fed up with the killings of innocent Black lives .
There is a saying that tragedy comes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the reckoning with systemic racial injustice were not enough , we are also in the midst of a pandemic .
COVID-19 has frequently been called the “ great equalizer ” because anyone can be infected by it , but that is an incredibly one-dimensional way of viewing it .
More than anything , COVID-19 is the great “ unequalizer ” with the way it has affected predominantly low-income and/or BIPOC communities ; it feeds off the same inequities that we have seen time and again .
Even though COVID-19 dominates the daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tunnel vision on our short-term woes while ignoring the growing challenges of the future .
We have already seen that climate change disproportionately affects marginalized communities and that our current system is both inadequate and inequitable in addressing it .
Our current administration has dismantled dozens of major climate and environmental policies .
These environmental rollbacks can dramatically raise greenhouse gas emissions and cause thousands of deaths from poor air quality each year .
Oftentimes when people talk about climate change , they foreshadow the danger of what is to come .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing the consequences of the climate crisis .
In 2020 we broke records .
Not in the Olympics — which had to be delayed because of the pandemic — but in blazing-hot temperatures , which have been accompanied by destructive hurricanes and raging wildfires .
Chaos is the new normal and there is no guarantee that the next day will be the same as the last .
This is the reality that my generation — the most diverse , progressive , and inclusive in U.S. history — has grown up with .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen the power of youth advocacy firsthand .
Our generation needs to vote for every level of government , from city council to the presidency , and to hold politicians accountable for their past actions ( or lack thereof ) .
We need to push our institutions to divest from the fossil fuel companies responsible for the climate crisis .
We also need to remind ourselves that “ social movements have always changed the world — not one person , not one organization , and certainly not one politician , ” as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now that I ’ ve introduced the problem ( man-made climate crisis ) and the rebel forces ( zoomers ) for our own real-life dystopia , let ’ s talk about how we can have this storyline progress in our favor .
On the federal level , we need the Green New Deal : a 10-year plan that will transform every facet of standard U.S. society to 100 % clean and renewable energy by 2030 , create jobs that actually pay a livable wage , and facilitate an equitable transition for workers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a single law , but a set of economic policies to provide better job opportunities , cleaner air and water , less climate pollution , and more resilient communities .
The Green New Deal is bold , big , and exactly what we need to start moving on the right path forward .
We also need to push for Green New Deal policies on a state level as well .
In 2017 , for example , California enacted a Buy Clean Law .
The result is that when California spends taxpayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must give priority to companies that limit climate waste throughout their supply chains for industrial products like steel , flat glass , and mineral wool .
The law puts pressure on companies to establish climate-friendly manufacturing .
Despite the hyperpartisanship at state and federal levels , local efforts to fight climate change have been highly successful and are particularly important in the 2020 election .
The climate crisis is multifaceted and must be addressed with a multilevel strategy .
Local government is a great place to start .
Places like Austin have committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — leading the way for other cities to follow suit .
There is so much pressure surrounding this election , whether it ’ s the uncertainty around the U.S .
Postal Service ’ s ability to guarantee ballots cast by mail will arrive in time to be processed , or the safety concerns about voting at polling places during a pandemic .
Even with the odds against us , we must strategize , organize , and prevail for the sake of our climate and the future of life on this planet .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bolder stances on climate , encouraging our peers to request and cast mail-in ballots as early as possible , and ensuring that we actively reach out to and provide historically marginalized communities with resources on how to vote this fall .
With these steps , we can begin to rewrite our storyline .
Together , we can transform a burnt , drained , and inequitable world into a green , replenished , and just one for generations to come .

Part of the Series Covering Climate Now
This story originally appeared in Teen Vogue and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
Like many others in my generation, I grew up reading young adult dystopian novels. As I immersed myself in fantasy worlds ruled by fascist leaders, grappling with decrepit ecosystems, and in the throes of a growing revolution, I envisioned myself being one of the youth, fighting for their future on the line.
Now, we are at the turning point in our own story. This election, we have the opportunity to lead our country in the right direction when it comes to the climate crisis. Many of us who turn 18 this year will be casting our first ballots in one of the most significant elections in United States history.
Back in the winter of 2019, I decided to apply my love for intersectional politics and activism toward running a grassroots campaign to become a Bernie Sanders national delegate for my home state of Minnesota. My platform pushed for progressive policies that benefit marginalized communities and highlighted what is at stake for my generation — especially when it comes to the already-unfolding environmental emergency.
Running for delegate was an incredibly daunting experience. Not only did I lack the connections and the campaign experience, but I also had to juggle my academics and school commitments. I ran for this position not expecting to get it, but knowing there was simply too much at stake in this election and that I had to try. Regardless of whether I would be perceived as too young to understand, too assertive for a woman, or too shocking as an Asian in politics, I knew I had to run because there were countless others just like me, fighting just to get a seat at the table. I was fortunate to be someone that managed to snag a chair.
Unfortunately, what I discovered once I sat down was that, like much of the environmental movement, the coalition of national delegates to the August Democratic National Convention did not have nearly enough diversity in race, age, and socioeconomic status. If we truly want to stop climate change and create a society that works for all of us, we must do it intersectionally. We must fight tooth and nail to create a new world that is more equitable, with jobs that are good for our planet, and politicians that lead with their values instead of their greed.
Fast forward to the present. The election is right around the corner and somehow the world only seems to be getting more and more chaotic. Socioeconomic fissures have cracked open and revealed the deep and ugly roots of systemic racism in this “land of the free.” There are protesters in every state outraged and fed up with the killings of innocent Black lives.
There is a saying that tragedy comes in threes. As if the climate crisis and the reckoning with systemic racial injustice were not enough, we are also in the midst of a pandemic. COVID-19 has frequently been called the “great equalizer” because anyone can be infected by it, but that is an incredibly one-dimensional way of viewing it. More than anything, COVID-19 is the great “unequalizer” with the way it has affected predominantly low-income and/or BIPOC communities; it feeds off the same inequities that we have seen time and again.
Even though COVID-19 dominates the daily news cycle, we cannot have tunnel vision on our short-term woes while ignoring the growing challenges of the future. We have already seen that climate change disproportionately affects marginalized communities and that our current system is both inadequate and inequitable in addressing it. Our current administration has dismantled dozens of major climate and environmental policies. These environmental rollbacks can dramatically raise greenhouse gas emissions and cause thousands of deaths from poor air quality each year.
Oftentimes when people talk about climate change, they foreshadow the danger of what is to come. But the reality is, we are already facing the consequences of the climate crisis. In 2020 we broke records. Not in the Olympics — which had to be delayed because of the pandemic — but in blazing-hot temperatures, which have been accompanied by destructive hurricanes and raging wildfires. Chaos is the new normal and there is no guarantee that the next day will be the same as the last. This is the reality that my generation — the most diverse, progressive, and inclusive in U.S. history — has grown up with. We have been raised by social movements and seen the power of youth advocacy firsthand. Our generation needs to vote for every level of government, from city council to the presidency, and to hold politicians accountable for their past actions (or lack thereof). We need to push our institutions to divest from the fossil fuel companies responsible for the climate crisis. We also need to remind ourselves that “social movements have always changed the world — not one person, not one organization, and certainly not one politician,” as the Sunrise Movement so wonderfully puts it. Now that I’ve introduced the problem (man-made climate crisis) and the rebel forces (zoomers) for our own real-life dystopia, let’s talk about how we can have this storyline progress in our favor. On the federal level, we need the Green New Deal: a 10-year plan that will transform every facet of standard U.S. society to 100% clean and renewable energy by 2030, create jobs that actually pay a livable wage, and facilitate an equitable transition for workers and frontline communities. A Green New Deal is not a single law, but a set of economic policies to provide better job opportunities, cleaner air and water, less climate pollution, and more resilient communities. The Green New Deal is bold, big, and exactly what we need to start moving on the right path forward. We also need to push for Green New Deal policies on a state level as well. In 2017, for example, California enacted a Buy Clean Law. The result is that when California spends taxpayer money on infrastructure projects, the state must give priority to companies that limit climate waste throughout their supply chains for industrial products like steel, flat glass, and mineral wool. The law puts pressure on companies to establish climate-friendly manufacturing. Despite the hyperpartisanship at state and federal levels, local efforts to fight climate change have been highly successful and are particularly important in the 2020 election. The climate crisis is multifaceted and must be addressed with a multilevel strategy. Local government is a great place to start. Places like Austin have committed to net-zero city-wide greenhouse gases by 2050 — leading the way for other cities to follow suit. There is so much pressure surrounding this election, whether it’s the uncertainty around the U.S. Postal Service’s ability to guarantee ballots cast by mail will arrive in time to be processed, or the safety concerns about voting at polling places during a pandemic. Even with the odds against us, we must strategize, organize, and prevail for the sake of our climate and the future of life on this planet. We do this by pressuring candidates to commit to bolder stances on climate, encouraging our peers to request and cast mail-in ballots as early as possible, and ensuring that we actively reach out to and provide historically marginalized communities with resources on how to vote this fall. With these steps, we can begin to rewrite our storyline. Together, we can transform a burnt, drained, and inequitable world into a green, replenished, and just one for generations to come.
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.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-21--Trump Praises “Good Genes” of Minnesotans, Highlighting His Eugenics Fixation

Over the past five years or so , I ’ ve had no problem using the “ F ” word ( fascism ) to describe what ’ s been happening under President Trump and the Republican Party .
I wrote about it here in Salon all the way back in 2015 , noting that I wasn ’ t the only one .
In fact , it was his fellow Republicans who were the first to use the term to describe him .
All you have to do is go back and read that full-page newspaper ad Trump took out in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Death Penalty , Bring Back Our Police , ” to understand his fundamental authoritarian nature .
Even though we knew from the beginning that we were dealing with an essentially authoritarian leader , our awareness of it has sometimes been subsumed amid the sheer chaos of daily news over the past five years .
But if you look at the various issues Trump is most obsessed with , whether it was the lurid obsession with terrorist violence and refugees during the 2016 campaign or his preoccupation with immigrants , the pardoning of war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the endless threats to jail his political opponents and muzzle the press , the valorizing of the Confederacy and the openly racist “ law and order ” campaign of this year , it ’ s pretty clear what gets him excited — along with his devoted following .
But wait , you say : Donald Trump only cares about himself !
He ’ s not interested in anything as abstract as “ issues.
” But these are not mutually exclusive things .
You see , Donald Trump genuinely believes he is scientifically superior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they must be kept in check , with whatever level of violence may be necessary .
He doesn ’ t talk about this a whole lot , but it definitely comes up from time to time .
Just this past weekend in Minnesota , in the midst of one of his most rambling , racist rallies in a long while , Trump said this , startling quite a few people who perhaps weren ’ t aware of his deep and abiding belief in eugenics : The last time he brought this up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford plant to praise the organization for some PPE initiative : Trump may not even know that such language evokes Nazi Germany ’ s eugenics program and Adolf Hitler ’ s theory of the “ master race , ” especially when discussing the notorious anti-Semite Henry Ford .
But it ’ s clear enough that regardless of the historical context , Trump is on Ford ’ s wavelength when it comes to eugenics .
He ’ s talked about “ bloodlines ” line before , weirdly telling a group of British businessmen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got such good bloodlines in this room.You ’ ve all got such amazing DNA . '
” He obviously didn ’ t know anything about their “ bloodlines , ” but made the assumption they must be amazing because they were a bunch of rich , successful white , men .
According to Trump biographer Michael D ’ Antonio , he does believe in a “ racehorse theory of human development.
” It ’ s all about the breeding .
“ I ’ m a big believer in natural ability , ” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership traits , which he said came from a natural sense of how human relations work .
“ If Obama had that psychology , Putin wouldn ’ t be eating his lunch .
He doesn ’ t have that psychology and he never will because it ’ s not in his DNA.
” Later in this discussion , Trump said : “ I believe in being prepared and all that stuff .
But in many respects , the most important thing is an innate ability.
” Perhaps Trump ’ s conviction that DNA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains why he proudly claims that he ’ s “ basically the same ” today as when he was a boy .
“ When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now , I ’ m basically the same , ” he said .
“ The temperament is not that different.
” The racehorse theory of human development explains Trump ’ s belief in his suitability for political leadership , despite the fact that he has never held office .
He ’ s absolutely convinced that America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his God-given management skills , bankruptcies notwithstanding .
You are either born with superior qualities — the right DNA — or you are not .
And people get what they deserve .
In his case , that includes the White House .
According to D ’ Antonio , Donald Trump Jr. also told him that he believes in the racehorse theory as well , and that he too is “ in the high percentile on the bell curve , ” although his father scores even higher .
In Trump ’ s case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genes ” means that he is not required to study or consult experts or really ever bother to learn anything .
He explained this to the Washington Post back in 2016 : This was most recently demonstrated in his bizarre comments at the CDC last March : You ’ ll note that he mentions once again that his uncle , John Trump — an electrical engineer and inventor — taught at MIT , which he believes confers on him the same level of intelligence because of their shared genes .
For Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about an accomplished relative .
It is central to his understanding of the world and his ability to navigate it .
He simply does whatever he feels like in the moment , secure in the knowledge that it must be right because his instincts are superior to any book learning due to his great “ bloodlines ” : It ’ s easy to laugh at Trump ’ s foolishness or assume that he ’ s just blathering on as usual .
But consider his obvious willingness to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his own purposes .
As he has put it , “ We ’ ll let it wash over the country ” and achieve “ herd mentality.
” Or what about the horrific conditions at the border over the past three years , most recently the accusations that doctors are performing hysterectomies and other sterilization procedures on immigrant women against their will .
Think about what former Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor reported : “ This was the president of the United States who looked at me and told me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let in to the U.S. , he didn ’ t want us to accept people who had quote , ‘ missing toes or funny foreheads.
’ This is how the president talks about human beings.
” Trump ’ s absurd talk about his “ good German genes ” doesn ’ t sound so funny when you consider his policies .
Somewhere along the line , all these words of his and all the actions of his administration come together in a pattern in which his belief in eugenics fits right in with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ F ” word .

Over the past five years or so, I’ve had no problem using the “F” word (fascism) to describe what’s been happening under President Trump and the Republican Party. I wrote about it here in Salon all the way back in 2015, noting that I wasn’t the only one. In fact, it was his fellow Republicans who were the first to use the term to describe him. All you have to do is go back and read that full-page newspaper ad Trump took out in 1989, headlined “Bring Back the Death Penalty, Bring Back Our Police,” to understand his fundamental authoritarian nature.
Even though we knew from the beginning that we were dealing with an essentially authoritarian leader, our awareness of it has sometimes been subsumed amid the sheer chaos of daily news over the past five years. But if you look at the various issues Trump is most obsessed with, whether it was the lurid obsession with terrorist violence and refugees during the 2016 campaign or his preoccupation with immigrants, the pardoning of war criminals, his flirtations with dictators, the endless threats to jail his political opponents and muzzle the press, the valorizing of the Confederacy and the openly racist “law and order” campaign of this year, it’s pretty clear what gets him excited — along with his devoted following.
But wait, you say: Donald Trump only cares about himself! He’s not interested in anything as abstract as “issues.” But these are not mutually exclusive things. You see, Donald Trump genuinely believes he is scientifically superior to all those “others” and that they must be kept in check, with whatever level of violence may be necessary.
He doesn’t talk about this a whole lot, but it definitely comes up from time to time. Just this past weekend in Minnesota, in the midst of one of his most rambling, racist rallies in a long while, Trump said this, startling quite a few people who perhaps weren’t aware of his deep and abiding belief in eugenics:
The last time he brought this up was in May when he visited a Ford plant to praise the organization for some PPE initiative:
He’s a big believer in “blood and soil.” https://t.co/gYQUwJy56H — digby (@digby56) May 21, 2020
Trump may not even know that such language evokes Nazi Germany’s eugenics program and Adolf Hitler’s theory of the “master race,” especially when discussing the notorious anti-Semite Henry Ford. But it’s clear enough that regardless of the historical context, Trump is on Ford’s wavelength when it comes to eugenics.
He’s talked about “bloodlines” line before, weirdly telling a group of British businessmen in 2018 that “you’ve all got such good bloodlines in this room.You’ve all got such amazing DNA.'” He obviously didn’t know anything about their “bloodlines,” but made the assumption they must be amazing because they were a bunch of rich, successful white, men.
According to Trump biographer Michael D’Antonio, he does believe in a “racehorse theory of human development.” It’s all about the breeding.
“I’m a big believer in natural ability,” Trump told me during a discussion about his leadership traits, which he said came from a natural sense of how human relations work. “If Obama had that psychology, Putin wouldn’t be eating his lunch. He doesn’t have that psychology and he never will because it’s not in his DNA.” Later in this discussion, Trump said: “I believe in being prepared and all that stuff. But in many respects, the most important thing is an innate ability.”
Perhaps Trump’s conviction that DNA — not life experience — is everything explains why he proudly claims that he’s “basically the same” today as when he was a boy. “When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same,” he said. “The temperament is not that different.”
The racehorse theory of human development explains Trump’s belief in his suitability for political leadership, despite the fact that he has never held office. He’s absolutely convinced that America’s problems will be solved by his God-given management skills, bankruptcies notwithstanding. You are either born with superior qualities — the right DNA — or you are not. And people get what they deserve. In his case, that includes the White House.
According to D’Antonio, Donald Trump Jr. also told him that he believes in the racehorse theory as well, and that he too is “in the high percentile on the bell curve,” although his father scores even higher.
In Trump’s case, the belief that he has “great genes” means that he is not required to study or consult experts or really ever bother to learn anything. He explained this to the Washington Post back in 2016:
He said in a series of interviews that he does not need to read extensively because he reaches the right decisions “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already] had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability.” He believes that when he makes decisions, people see that he instinctively knows the right thing to do: “A lot of people said, ‘Man, he was more accurate than guys who have studied it all the time.’ ”
This was most recently demonstrated in his bizarre comments at the CDC last March:
You’ll note that he mentions once again that his uncle, John Trump — an electrical engineer and inventor — taught at MIT, which he believes confers on him the same level of intelligence because of their shared genes.
For Trump, this isn’t just idle talk about an accomplished relative. It is central to his understanding of the world and his ability to navigate it. He simply does whatever he feels like in the moment, secure in the knowledge that it must be right because his instincts are superior to any book learning due to his great “bloodlines”:
It’s easy to laugh at Trump’s foolishness or assume that he’s just blathering on as usual. But consider his obvious willingness to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans to the deadly pandemic for his own purposes. As he has put it, “We’ll let it wash over the country” and achieve “herd mentality.” Or what about the horrific conditions at the border over the past three years, most recently the accusations that doctors are performing hysterectomies and other sterilization procedures on immigrant women against their will. Think about what former Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor reported: “This was the president of the United States who looked at me and told me, when we’re deciding who to let in to the U.S., he didn’t want us to accept people who had quote, ‘missing toes or funny foreheads.’ This is how the president talks about human beings.”
Trump’s absurd talk about his “good German genes” doesn’t sound so funny when you consider his policies. Somewhere along the line, all these words of his and all the actions of his administration come together in a pattern in which his belief in eugenics fits right in with a program that looks an awful lot like that “F” word.
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.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-21--AOC Urges Democrats to Prevent Trump From Filling Ginsburg Vacancy

With President Donald Trump expected to nominate a successor to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday evening urged Democrats in Congress to utilize “ every procedural tool available to buy the country time ” and ensure the vacancy is filled by the winner of the November presidential election .
“ It ’ s extraordinarily important that we understand the stakes of this vacancy , ” said the New York Democrat during a press conference alongside Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) , who is facing pressure from outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to stop his Republican counterpart , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) , from rushing ahead with a confirmation vote on Trump ’ s nominee .
“ Our reproductive rights are on the line .
Our labor rights are on the line .
Our right to healthcare is on the line .
Labor and union protections are on the line .
Our climate is on the line , ” Ocasio-Cortez continued .
“ With an early appointment , all of our rights — the rights that so many people died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , healthcare rights , all of those rights… are at risk with this appointment .
So we need to make sure that we mobilize on an unprecedented scale to ensure that this vacancy is reserved for the next president.
” In a statement issued just hours after the Supreme Court announced Ginsburg ’ s death Friday night , McConnell vowed that “ President Trump ’ s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate ” — but did not offer a specific timeline .
Using the high court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base , Trump told supporters during a campaign event in North Carolina Saturday that “ we ’ re going to fill the seat.
” The minority party in the Senate has a number of tools at its disposal to gum up the works in an effort to block or delay Trump ’ s Supreme Court pick — who , if confirmed , would drag the high court even further to the right , imperiling existing protections and threatening the prospects of future progressive change .
As David Sirota , former speechwriter for Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his Too Much Information newsletter , “ The Senate runs on the unanimous consent system — which basically means that to do its most basic business , all senators must consent.
” “ In this situation , Senate Democrats have the power to use that system to grind everything to a halt , ” wrote Sirota .
“ They can refuse to grant unanimous consent for the smallest things .
They can force the reading of entire bills aloud .
They can hold up the federal budget that the government needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to push back any confirmation hearings on a potential nominee .
And they can try to do these things at least until after the next president is installed.
” If the Republican-controlled Senate — which can only afford four GOP defections if the Democratic caucus unites in opposition — succeeds in confirming Trump ’ s nominee either before the November election or in a lame-duck session , several Democrats have suggested that the next Senate could move to add justices to the Supreme Court .
“ Mitch McConnell set the precedent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
said Saturday .
“ No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year .
If he violates it , when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court .
”

With President Donald Trump expected to nominate a successor to the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday evening urged Democrats in Congress to utilize “every procedural tool available to buy the country time” and ensure the vacancy is filled by the winner of the November presidential election.
“It’s extraordinarily important that we understand the stakes of this vacancy,” said the New York Democrat during a press conference alongside Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is facing pressure from outside advocacy groups to do everything in his power to stop his Republican counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), from rushing ahead with a confirmation vote on Trump’s nominee.
“Our reproductive rights are on the line. Our labor rights are on the line. Our right to healthcare is on the line. Labor and union protections are on the line. Our climate is on the line,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “With an early appointment, all of our rights — the rights that so many people died for, voting rights, reproductive rights, healthcare rights, all of those rights… are at risk with this appointment. So we need to make sure that we mobilize on an unprecedented scale to ensure that this vacancy is reserved for the next president.”
Watch:
In a statement issued just hours after the Supreme Court announced Ginsburg’s death Friday night, McConnell vowed that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate” — but did not offer a specific timeline. Using the high court vacancy as a rallying cry to his base, Trump told supporters during a campaign event in North Carolina Saturday that “we’re going to fill the seat.”
The minority party in the Senate has a number of tools at its disposal to gum up the works in an effort to block or delay Trump’s Supreme Court pick — who, if confirmed, would drag the high court even further to the right, imperiling existing protections and threatening the prospects of future progressive change.
As David Sirota, former speechwriter for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), explained in his Too Much Information newsletter, “The Senate runs on the unanimous consent system — which basically means that to do its most basic business, all senators must consent.”
“In this situation, Senate Democrats have the power to use that system to grind everything to a halt,” wrote Sirota. “They can refuse to grant unanimous consent for the smallest things. They can force the reading of entire bills aloud. They can hold up the federal budget that the government needs to run. They can use these tactics to try to push back any confirmation hearings on a potential nominee. And they can try to do these things at least until after the next president is installed.”
If the Republican-controlled Senate — which can only afford four GOP defections if the Democratic caucus unites in opposition — succeeds in confirming Trump’s nominee either before the November election or in a lame-duck session, several Democrats have suggested that the next Senate could move to add justices to the Supreme Court.
“Mitch McConnell set the precedent,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said Saturday. “No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”
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.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-21--Trump Spreads Misinformation With Claim That Dems Wrote Ginsburg’s Dying Wish

President Trump made false assertions on Monday regarding the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s dying wish , insinuating that her request to have her successor named after the election was crafted by leading Democrats in Congress .
The president did not provide any evidence to back up his claim .
Trump made the statement during an interview on Fox News ’ “ Fox & Friends ” program while discussing Ginsburg ’ s passing over the weekend .
When one of the hosts mentioned the late justice ’ s wish , Trump appeared to be flummoxed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer or Rep. Adam Schiff fabricated Ginsburg ’ s words .
“ I don ’ t know that she said that , or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi ?
I would be more inclined to the second , okay ?
” Trump said .
“ I mean , maybe she did and maybe she didn ’ t , ” the president added .
The “ Fox & Friends ” hosts did not challenge Trump to provide any support for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the high court whose judicial opinions and scathing dissents inspired countless individuals , dictated her final wish to her granddaughter , Clara Spera , just a few days before her dying from metastatic cancer of the pancreas .
“ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed , ” Ginsburg said .
Within hours of her passing , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Kentucky ) announced that he would immediately push for a vote and confirmation on a Trump nominee to succeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced his intention the morning after her death to nominate her replacement , setting up a timeline to announce a nominee by next weekend .
This timeline would allow for just 39 days until Election Day for the Senate to confirm his choice .
Since 1975 , the average timespan for confirmation to the high court has been around 70 days The plan by Senate Republicans and Trump to rush a successor to Ginsburg has been widely recognized as hypocritical , as Senate Republicans in 2016 had blocked President Barack Obama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia , claiming it was inappropriate to nominate a successor eight months out from that year ’ s presidential race .
Trump was lambasted on social media for his cold and baseless comments on Ginsburg ’ s final wish .
“ I ’ m sure it won ’ t upset Ginsburg ’ s grieving family at all that her dying wish as dictated to her granddaughter is now being called a Democratic hoax by the president of the United States , ” CNN anchor Jake Tapper said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of Integrity First for America , said it was shameful that Trump made such a claim .
“ First McConnell is talking about the Senate vote within an hour of her death .
Now Trump is smearing her family ’ s statement upon her death as a hoax , ” Spitalnick tweeted .
“ There is no bottom.
” Former Clinton White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart derided the Fox News network for failing to hold Trump accountable during the interview .
“ Trump claimed on your air this morning that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adam Schiff , ” Lockhart said , directing his comments toward the Fox News hosts .
“ And your journalists just sat there and never said a word.
” “ The President called RBG ’ s granddaughter a liar on national television , ” Lockhart added in a second tweet .
“ Does anyone really want four more years of this ?
” Benjamin Wittes , a senior fellow at The Brookings Institute , shined a light on Trump ’ s callousness .
“ The chance that Clara Spera would make up her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same as the chance that our president would refrain from causing pain to the family with a display of mendacity at this particular moment , ” Wittes wrote .

Trump plans to name a nominee to the Supreme Court as soon as this coming Friday, 39 days out from the election.
President Trump made false assertions on Monday regarding the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish, insinuating that her request to have her successor named after the election was crafted by leading Democrats in Congress.
The president did not provide any evidence to back up his claim.
Trump made the statement during an interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” program while discussing Ginsburg’s passing over the weekend. When one of the hosts mentioned the late justice’s wish, Trump appeared to be flummoxed by it, falsely alleging that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer or Rep. Adam Schiff fabricated Ginsburg’s words.
“I don’t know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi? I would be more inclined to the second, okay?” Trump said.
“I mean, maybe she did and maybe she didn’t,” the president added.
The “Fox & Friends” hosts did not challenge Trump to provide any support for his claims.
Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart on the high court whose judicial opinions and scathing dissents inspired countless individuals, dictated her final wish to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, just a few days before her dying from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.
“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” Ginsburg said.
Within hours of her passing, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) announced that he would immediately push for a vote and confirmation on a Trump nominee to succeed Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Trump announced his intention the morning after her death to nominate her replacement, setting up a timeline to announce a nominee by next weekend.
This timeline would allow for just 39 days until Election Day for the Senate to confirm his choice. Since 1975, the average timespan for confirmation to the high court has been around 70 days
The plan by Senate Republicans and Trump to rush a successor to Ginsburg has been widely recognized as hypocritical, as Senate Republicans in 2016 had blocked President Barack Obama’s nominee, federal Judge Merrick Garland, to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia, claiming it was inappropriate to nominate a successor eight months out from that year’s presidential race.
Trump was lambasted on social media for his cold and baseless comments on Ginsburg’s final wish.
“I’m sure it won’t upset Ginsburg’s grieving family at all that her dying wish as dictated to her granddaughter is now being called a Democratic hoax by the president of the United States,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper said on Twitter.
Amy Spitalnick, executive director of Integrity First for America, said it was shameful that Trump made such a claim.
“First McConnell is talking about the Senate vote within an hour of her death. Now Trump is smearing her family’s statement upon her death as a hoax,” Spitalnick tweeted. “There is no bottom.”
Former Clinton White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart derided the Fox News network for failing to hold Trump accountable during the interview. “Trump claimed on your air this morning that it was a Democratic hoax dreamed up by Adam Schiff,” Lockhart said, directing his comments toward the Fox News hosts. “And your journalists just sat there and never said a word.”
“The President called RBG’s granddaughter a liar on national television,” Lockhart added in a second tweet. “Does anyone really want four more years of this?”
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institute, shined a light on Trump’s callousness.
“The chance that Clara Spera would make up her grandmother’s dying wish is roughly the same as the chance that our president would refrain from causing pain to the family with a display of mendacity at this particular moment,” Wittes wrote.
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.