truthout--2020-10-13--Protests at Amy Coney Barrett Hearing Rail Against GOP Power Grab

Hundreds protested outside the Senate Monday against the confirmation hearing for President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee , Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
At least 21 were arrested after staging a sit-in to oppose the Senate pushing through Barrett ’ s nomination in the middle of the presidential election .
Senate Democrats warn the federal judge ’ s record suggests she would overturn the Affordable Care Act and threaten reproductive rights if she takes the seat left vacant by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
“ Trump and the Republicans are trying to execute a power grab , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Center for Popular Democracy , who joins us from the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of another day of protests .
Amid the coronavirus pandemic , she says lawmakers should instead focus on doing “ everything they can to provide urgent relief to millions of people.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re beginning today ’ s show in Washington , D.C. , in front of the Supreme Court , where hundreds protested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing for President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee , Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
At least 21 people were arrested after staging a sit-in to oppose the Senate pushing through Barrett ’ s nomination in the middle of the presidential election .
Some held signs reading “ No COVID test , no hearing , ” as they faced off with pro-Amy Coney Barrett protesters who had also gathered outside the Senate .
Chants of “ Let the people decide ” rang out from the Senate steps .
Meanwhile , inside the hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee made their opening statements , Democrats argued Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination poses a threat to the Affordable Care Act , which will be considered by the Supreme Court on November 10th .
In a united front , many Democrats spoke alongside large posters showing the faces of people who rely on the Affordable Care Act for coverage , arguing Barrett ’ s confirmation could mean the end of healthcare for millions during the pandemic .
Barrett ’ s four-day hearing is taking place in person , even after the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than two weeks ago , was labeled a coronavirus superspreader event .
Republican Senator Mike Lee , who recently tested positive for COVID-19 after attending the White House celebration , spoke at the hearing without wearing a mask .
And the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham , who refused to take a test right before this hearing , presided .
For more , we go to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington , D.C. , where we ’ re joined by Ana María Archila .
She is co-executive director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She joined Monday ’ s protest and will be protesting again today .
Welcome back to Democracy Now !
, Ana María .
One of the times we had you on was when you weighed in heavily in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings , as you stuck your foot in that door of the elevator that Senator , at the time , Flake was traveling in , to demand that a man who was accused of sexual assault would not move forward until that was investigated .
But you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why ?
ANA MARÍA ARCHILA : Thank you so much for having me , Amy .
Good morning .
Well , we are here again because Trump and the Republicans are trying to execute a power grab .
They are rushing to confirm a Supreme Court justice now even though people are voting right now .
Over 10 million people have already voted , and millions more are voting every single day .
And even though we are less than a month away from the end of election season , Trump is trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And he has told us why .
He has said that he wants a majority in the Supreme Court when he challenges the ballots , when he challenges the results of the elections .
And he ’ s trying to also finish — complete the promise that he made to his donors and his base at the beginning of his administration .
He said he wanted to end the ACA , Obamacare .
And guess what .
Having a majority , a conservative majority , on the Supreme Court will allow him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court is scheduled to do hearings or to hear oral arguments on the ACA on November 10th .
So , this is an incredible power grab that has terrible consequences for people across this country , especially people who rely on the ACA and who need access to healthcare in the middle of a pandemic .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , Ana María , what about , though , the argument of the Republicans that , one , that the president is in office until the end of the year , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nomination to Supreme Court ?
It ’ s true it is , as you say , a naked power grab .
But what do you say to their argument and also to the issue that , so far at least , both Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have dodged in the debate questions ?
Do you believe , if this moves forward , that the Democrats should , if they seize control of both the White House and the Congress , expand or democratize the Supreme Court by adding more seats ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans are not concerned at all with their hypocrisy , because in 2016 they themselves staged a very fierce opposition to Obama ’ s effort to fill an empty Supreme Court seat and prevented him from doing so and said that they weren ’ t going to allow that confirmation because it was election year , even though it was many , many months before Election Day .
And , in fact , Amy Coney Barrett has some clips where she appears and she ’ s herself presenting that argument to the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredible hypocrisy , but that is not surprising .
They have enabled a president who lies to people every day , who lied to people about the dangers of the COVID virus , who lies about his own healthcare , who lies about what he does every single day .
So the Republicans don ’ t have a strong loyalty to truth .
And they also don ’ t have a strong loyalty to people .
What they should be doing right now is doing everything they can to make sure that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get relief .
They should do everything they can to make sure that cities and state budgets don ’ t collapse .
They should do everything they can to provide urgent relief for millions of people in the middle of this global pandemic and economic catastrophe .
They ’ re not doing that .
What they are doing every single day is nominating judges and confirming conservative judges .
And they have taken over the courts , up and down the federal bench , in an effort that has been incredibly steady and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like , the courts are an essential part of our democracy .
They need to be places where people can bring their quarrels and they can be resolved in favor of people .
With courts — the kind of takeover of the courts that the Republicans have maneuvered and achieved over the last four years is incredibly dangerous for the rights of women to control what we do with our bodies and to decide our destiny .
It ’ s dangerous for workers .
It ’ s dangerous for people who want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so , we think that it is actually absolutely necessary for Democrats to be thinking about how to rebalance the courts , how to democratize the courts and how to make them a place where people can bring their demands and where they can find justice , which right now with a conservative majority up and down the federal bench will be extremely hard .
AMY GOODMAN : The Affordable Care Act is up for oral arguments at the Supreme Court on November 10th .
If the schedule for this vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be — the Senate Judiciary is on September 22nd , and then , on September 29th , the full Senate , supposedly with people pulled back .
It looks like it could move forward at that point , barring any surprises .
I think we ’ ve actually just lost Ana María Archila , so we ’ re going to put that question to our next guest when we come back from break .
Ana María Archila is co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy .
She ’ s standing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Also , there have been protests in front of the Senate .
We ’ ll be back with Lisa Graves in a moment .

Image Credit: Twitter: @CPDAction
Hundreds protested outside the Senate Monday against the confirmation hearing for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. At least 21 were arrested after staging a sit-in to oppose the Senate pushing through Barrett’s nomination in the middle of the presidential election. Senate Democrats warn the federal judge’s record suggests she would overturn the Affordable Care Act and threaten reproductive rights if she takes the seat left vacant by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Trump and the Republicans are trying to execute a power grab,” says Ana María Archila, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy, who joins us from the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of another day of protests. Amid the coronavirus pandemic, she says lawmakers should instead focus on doing “everything they can to provide urgent relief to millions of people.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re beginning today’s show in Washington, D.C., in front of the Supreme Court, where hundreds protested outside the Senate Monday against the confirmation hearing for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. At least 21 people were arrested after staging a sit-in to oppose the Senate pushing through Barrett’s nomination in the middle of the presidential election. Some held signs reading “No COVID test, no hearing,” as they faced off with pro-Amy Coney Barrett protesters who had also gathered outside the Senate. Chants of “Let the people decide” rang out from the Senate steps.
PROTESTERS: Let the people decide! Let the people decide! Let the people decide! Let the people decide!
AMY GOODMAN: “Let the people decide!” they chanted.
Meanwhile, inside the hearing, as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee made their opening statements, Democrats argued Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination poses a threat to the Affordable Care Act, which will be considered by the Supreme Court on November 10th. In a united front, many Democrats spoke alongside large posters showing the faces of people who rely on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, arguing Barrett’s confirmation could mean the end of healthcare for millions during the pandemic.
Barrett’s four-day hearing is taking place in person, even after the White House ceremony where her nomination, announced less than two weeks ago, was labeled a coronavirus superspreader event. Republican Senator Mike Lee, who recently tested positive for COVID-19 after attending the White House celebration, spoke at the hearing without wearing a mask. And the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, who refused to take a test right before this hearing, presided.
For more, we go to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by Ana María Archila. She is co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy. She joined Monday’s protest and will be protesting again today.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Ana María. One of the times we had you on was when you weighed in heavily in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings, as you stuck your foot in that door of the elevator that Senator, at the time, Flake was traveling in, to demand that a man who was accused of sexual assault would not move forward until that was investigated. But you’re out there again. Can you explain why?
ANA MARÍA ARCHILA: Thank you so much for having me, Amy. Good morning.
Well, we are here again because Trump and the Republicans are trying to execute a power grab. They are rushing to confirm a Supreme Court justice now even though people are voting right now. Over 10 million people have already voted, and millions more are voting every single day. And even though we are less than a month away from the end of election season, Trump is trying to install a Supreme Court justice.
And he has told us why. He has said that he wants a majority in the Supreme Court when he challenges the ballots, when he challenges the results of the elections. And he’s trying to also finish — complete the promise that he made to his donors and his base at the beginning of his administration. He said he wanted to end the ACA, Obamacare. And guess what. Having a majority, a conservative majority, on the Supreme Court will allow him to do that. In fact, the Supreme Court is scheduled to do hearings or to hear oral arguments on the ACA on November 10th.
So, this is an incredible power grab that has terrible consequences for people across this country, especially people who rely on the ACA and who need access to healthcare in the middle of a pandemic.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Ana María, what about, though, the argument of the Republicans that, one, that the president is in office until the end of the year, and the Senate can still legally act on a nomination to Supreme Court? It’s true it is, as you say, a naked power grab. But what do you say to their argument and also to the issue that, so far at least, both Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have dodged in the debate questions? Do you believe, if this moves forward, that the Democrats should, if they seize control of both the White House and the Congress, expand or democratize the Supreme Court by adding more seats?
ANA MARÍA ARCHILA: Well, the Republicans are not concerned at all with their hypocrisy, because in 2016 they themselves staged a very fierce opposition to Obama’s effort to fill an empty Supreme Court seat and prevented him from doing so and said that they weren’t going to allow that confirmation because it was election year, even though it was many, many months before Election Day. And, in fact, Amy Coney Barrett has some clips where she appears and she’s herself presenting that argument to the American people.
So, they act with incredible hypocrisy, but that is not surprising. They have enabled a president who lies to people every day, who lied to people about the dangers of the COVID virus, who lies about his own healthcare, who lies about what he does every single day. So the Republicans don’t have a strong loyalty to truth. And they also don’t have a strong loyalty to people.
What they should be doing right now is doing everything they can to make sure that the millions of unemployed people across the country get relief. They should do everything they can to make sure that cities and state budgets don’t collapse. They should do everything they can to provide urgent relief for millions of people in the middle of this global pandemic and economic catastrophe. They’re not doing that.
What they are doing every single day is nominating judges and confirming conservative judges. And they have taken over the courts, up and down the federal bench, in an effort that has been incredibly steady and incredibly aggressive. And, of course, like, the courts are an essential part of our democracy. They need to be places where people can bring their quarrels and they can be resolved in favor of people. With courts — the kind of takeover of the courts that the Republicans have maneuvered and achieved over the last four years is incredibly dangerous for the rights of women to control what we do with our bodies and to decide our destiny. It’s dangerous for workers. It’s dangerous for people who want government to be a source of support.
And so, we think that it is actually absolutely necessary for Democrats to be thinking about how to rebalance the courts, how to democratize the courts and how to make them a place where people can bring their demands and where they can find justice, which right now with a conservative majority up and down the federal bench will be extremely hard.
AMY GOODMAN: The Affordable Care Act is up for oral arguments at the Supreme Court on November 10th. If the schedule for this vote goes forward, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be — the Senate Judiciary is on September 22nd, and then, on September 29th, the full Senate, supposedly with people pulled back. It looks like it could move forward at that point, barring any surprises.
I think we’ve actually just lost Ana María Archila, so we’re going to put that question to our next guest when we come back from break. Ana María Archila is co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy. She’s standing on the steps of the Supreme Court. Also, there have been protests in front of the Senate. We’ll be back with Lisa Graves in a moment.
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--2020-10-13--Mitch McConnell Laughs When Confronted on COVID Inaction

In a televised debate with his Democratic opponent Amy McGrath late Monday , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laughed when confronted over his persistent refusal to pass additional coronavirus relief as pandemic-induced mass layoffs continue , hunger grows , and millions face the possibility of imminent eviction .
“ The House passed a bill in May , ” said McGrath , referring to the $ 3.4 trillion HEROES Act that the Kentucky Republican has dismissed and blocked from receiving a vote in the Senate .
“ The Senate went on vacation.
” “ You just don ’ t do that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ You negotiate .
Senator , it is a national crisis .
You knew that the coronavirus wasn ’ t going to end at the end of July .
We knew this.
” “ He ’ s so proud of how little he ’ s done to help the American people , ” Zach Ford of advocacy group Alliance for Justice tweeted in response to McConnell ’ s debate performance .
“ That laugh should give you nightmares.
” Monday evening was not the first time McConnell has laughed off questions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and resulting economic collapse , which has thrown tens of millions of Americans out of work and sparked a nationwide hunger crisis .
In July , just a week before the $ 600-per-week federal unemployment insurance boost lapsed , McConnell let out a “ big laugh ” when a reporter asked whether Congress would be able to pass a relief bill before the expiration of the crucial lifeline .
“ Thirty million workers won ’ t be able to pay rent on August 1st and McConnell is laughing , ” Ashley Schapitl , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-Ore. ) , said at the time .

It’s not the first time McConnell has laughed off questions about his failure to confront the coronavirus pandemic.
In a televised debate with his Democratic opponent Amy McGrath late Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laughed when confronted over his persistent refusal to pass additional coronavirus relief as pandemic-induced mass layoffs continue, hunger grows, and millions face the possibility of imminent eviction.
“The House passed a bill in May,” said McGrath, referring to the $3.4 trillion HEROES Act that the Kentucky Republican has dismissed and blocked from receiving a vote in the Senate. “The Senate went on vacation.”
“You just don’t do that,” McGrath continued as McConnell laughed. “You negotiate. Senator, it is a national crisis. You knew that the coronavirus wasn’t going to end at the end of July. We knew this.”
Watch:
FIVE times, @senatemajldr LAUGHED OFF questions regarding COVID during tonight’s #KYSen Debate. It’s obvious that Mitch McConnell isn’t taking this election, COVID, or KY voters seriously. pic.twitter.com/pnaTR78yWi — Kelsie Taggart (@kelsientaggart) October 13, 2020
“He’s so proud of how little he’s done to help the American people,” Zach Ford of advocacy group Alliance for Justice tweeted in response to McConnell’s debate performance. “That laugh should give you nightmares.”
Monday evening was not the first time McConnell has laughed off questions about his failure to confront the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic collapse, which has thrown tens of millions of Americans out of work and sparked a nationwide hunger crisis.
In July, just a week before the $600-per-week federal unemployment insurance boost lapsed, McConnell let out a “big laugh” when a reporter asked whether Congress would be able to pass a relief bill before the expiration of the crucial lifeline.
“Thirty million workers won’t be able to pay rent on August 1st and McConnell is laughing,” Ashley Schapitl, a spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), said at the time.
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--2020-10-14--Trump Has Cut the Census Short. As a Census Worker, I Can See Who Will Suffer.

The Supreme Court effectively approved the Trump administration ’ s request to cut the 2020 census short in a ruling issued Tuesday in response to an emergency request made last week by the Justice Department .
Hours later , the U.S. Census Bureau announced that all operations , including door-to-door interviews , would cease on October 15 — 16 days earlier than previously scheduled .
The Justice Department ’ s emergency request to the Supreme Court was the latest act in a long campaign by the Trump administration to hinder census operations and deny marginalized communities the resources and political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Census data is used to allocate roughly $ 1.5 trillion in federal income tax to local services , such as education , health care and infrastructure and to determine local and state voting districts for the coming decade .
One of the Trump administration ’ s first assaults on the census was its 2019 attempt to add a citizenship question to the census questionnaire , which , while unsuccessful , engendered mistrust of the census among undocumented immigrants .
Then , on July 29 , 2020 , under orders from the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full month from the three months scheduled for the door-to-door follow-up .
Testifying before Congress that same day , Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham ( a Trump appointee ) dodged questions about how the agency was planning to complete three months of work in two months ’ time .
There is little mystery behind the administration ’ s motivations .
The results of the decennial census , one of the U.S. ’ s oldest and most painstakingly thorough institutions , determine the number of representatives in the House and electors in the Electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this census happens to fall on an election year , Trump will only be able to oversee congressional reapportionment — and attempt to unconstitutionally exclude undocumented immigrants — if the pandemic-delayed Census Bureau finishes processing the collected data on schedule .
Having worked as an enumerator for the Census Bureau in both 2010 and 2020 , I understand just how difficult it is to make sure everyone is fairly counted — especially during a pandemic .
I am painfully aware of how much will be lost by the Supreme Court ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the counting process .
At 2:43 am on October 14 , after two months of going door-to-door as a census enumerator , I received a message on my official U.S. Census smartphone : “ As of 11:00 pm local time on October 15 , data collection for the [ Nonresponse Followup ] operation will be complete .
Please work diligently and continue to enumerate as many people as possible.
” The message triggered a memory from the later stages of census enumeration in 2010 — stages that are getting woefully cut short due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling .
On a sunny afternoon in June 2010 , I sit on a stoop in Bushwick , an east Brooklyn neighborhood with a large immigrant population , watching the front door of the apartment building across the street .
My shoulder bag is spun around to hide the giant U.S. Census Bureau logo on one side .
I ’ ve been here for half an hour .
A man in coveralls walks toward the door .
We are in “ Phase 2 ” of the decennial census ’ s “ Nonresponse Followup.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ past two months visiting every address that did not mail in a census questionnaire , have been let go , leaving behind what I adamantly call an “ elite squad ” — high-performing employees tasked with revisiting addresses where others failed to obtain information .
Unlike Phase 1 , when a brisk pace was expected , we are free to take the time necessary to get a response .
The front door is locked and though I see silhouettes in the windows , no one is answering their doorbells .
But if someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I can legally hold the door and let myself into the foyer .
Inside , I can speak to the residents through their doors and patiently assure them that anything they tell me is confidential .
And while they may not give me all of their personal information , I will be able to ensure that they are counted .
I just need to get in the front door .
The man in coveralls turns toward the building and immediately , I am in motion , striding across the street , my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Census Under COVID Even before this week ’ s Supreme Court ruling , the 2020 census was already beset by unusual challenges amid the COVID pandemic .
In August 2020 , I reported to a one-story tutoring center in Brooklyn ’ s Chinatown for census training .
After being selected for the job in February , I had heard nothing for months until receiving a call asking me to come in for training the following morning .
With my industry ( live comedy ) wiped out by the pandemic , my stimulus check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance having expired , I agreed .
I was ushered into a small classroom with no windows .
I took a seat in the back corner , as far from others as possible , and looked up at the single ventilation duct in the room .
A small strip of ribbon dangled from the grate , barely moving .
Our supervisor began to read the training materials , as if hearing the words for the first time .
After a moment , he lowered his mask below his mouth , explaining that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and continued to read .
The trainee in front of me , a woman in her late thirties , interrupted and asked him to put the mask back on .
“ I couldn ’ t believe it , ” she told me later , “ I just couldn ’ t. ” In the latter half of the training , over the sound of papers rustling and official U.S. Census bags being unzipped , our supervisor read a passage about COVID safety .
In his monotone , it almost slid by , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Enumerators are to wear a mask at all times in the field .
The mask is to cover the nose … ” he said , his mask hovering just beneath nose-level .
“ Please keep six feet from respondents when conducting interviews.
” This was the extent of our COVID safety training .
The Census Bureau does not require COVID testing , but I thought it responsible to know whether I was about to be a federally appointed Typhoid Mary .
At the government-run testing center , I was handed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information of anyone I had recently been exposed to .
A nurse assured me that the new COVID test was less invasive .
As he inserted the swab a mere inch into my nostril , I considered the form in my hand : The Census Bureau ’ s confidentiality agreement strictly prohibits the sharing of “ Personally Identifiable Information , ” with a penalty of five years in prison or a $ 250,000 fine .
If I were to test positive , contact tracing would be impossible .
On August 8 , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions that Census Bureau Director Dillingham had avoided .
The Bureau emailed its employees with what felt like a sweepstakes : Enumerators could win up to $ 800 in bonus pay for working more hours and visiting more housing units per week .
Soon after , the Bureau began offering overtime pay , then increased our minimum weekly hours .
My supervisor began to send more encouraging texts , urging us to “ kick ass ” — clearly Dillingham had gotten to him too .
Still waiting on the results of my COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy was guaranteed to maximize the number of people enumerators would come in contact with in between tests , if they were getting tested at all .
Fear , Disarray and the Pandemic Complicated “ Phase 1 ” in the 2020 Census In 2020 , Phase 1 was more complicated than it was a decade earlier .
Many respondents said they already filled out their questionnaire or could not remember .
In the Hasidic neighborhood of Borough Park , respondents were typically reluctant but many agreed to talk when I explained the benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populated by Mexican and Chinese immigrants , responses were far lower .
Often , there was a language barrier and respondents closed the door before I could suggest an interpreter .
Others , though I could hear them inside , did not answer at all .
On my own block , neighbors whom I regularly pass on the street quietly peered at me through the blinds , disappearing when I noticed .
It ’ s hard to blame them — Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted raids in the area just last year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed hilarious in 2010 but now felt like a waste of precious time .
On one afternoon , unsure how to file a particular case , I followed protocol and called my supervisor , then his supervisor , then my local census office , then the central hotline — the last resort of the census enumerator .
No one answered .
Even the hotline went to voicemail , which was full .
I spent the last four hours of my shift wondering if I had hallucinated this government job .
On another day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phone with my supervisor , describing — and devising strategies to get inside of — an apartment building that turned out to be where my supervisor lives .
He had been home the entire time .
By the time I received a call with the results of my COVID test from NYC Health and Hospitals — 12 days after the test was performed — I had lost count of the people I had come into contact with .
The demands of the job made it impossible to tally all of the children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past me in narrow hallways , and bodega patrons who yelled orders to the cashier as I interviewed them about the apartments above .
The total was easily in the hundreds .
Very few of them wore masks .
The health worker on the phone told me , “ Your test came back inconclusive.
” He asked if I ’ d been tested again .
I had .
Fed up , I had gone back to the same testing site the day before .
Again , a nurse had told me the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time , he had pushed the swabs deeper into my nostrils .
“ Could that have been the problem ?
” I asked the man on the phone .
“ Was the nurse improperly trained in the new test ?
” “ I don ’ t know , ” he said , and hung up .
Two days later , my supervisor texted to inform me that I was his “ top guy ” and would be staying on the team for Phase 2 .
We would have only two weeks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City .
It had now been two weeks since my initial COVID test — still no certainty .
A Chaotic “ Phase 2 ” of the 2020 Census Gets Cut Short Phase 2 of the Nonresponse Followup is crucial to equal representation in the U.S. for communities least likely to respond to government surveys — including undocumented immigrants , Indigenous peoples and self-isolating religious communities — who are already victim to systemic power disparities and will only be further marginalized by underrepresentation .
The phase also comprises thorough quality control , ensuring the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ten years ago , I had some satisfying Phase 2 successes .
I flash back to one evening in July 2020 : I ’ m sitting at a bar in Greenpoint , Brooklyn , my trench coat folded over my leg .
I think I look like Humphrey Bogart but I probably look like a senior at an all-boys prep school .
The bartender eyes me skeptically when I ask about the people who live upstairs .
But I am polite , I tip well , and I do not leave .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ And though he does not give me everyone ’ s full information , I am able to get a headcount for the building , which is acceptable in Phase 2 .
In 2020 , Phase 2 was tumultuous at best .
We learned from the news that our jobs had been extended to October 5 , then October 31 .
Daily conference calls emphasized the importance of working diligently , but we found ourselves inexplicably assigned fewer cases and fewer hours .
Two days after destructive and fiery protests over government regulations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ blitz ” Borough Park , flooding the area with enumerators from across the city .
Not a single person was willing to talk to me that day .
When I received the message on October 14 that the census would cease operations within two days , I felt guilty .
I could have scheduled more hours , could have worked overtime .
There are still addresses that we haven ’ t counted .
The Census Bureau ’ s official communiques declare that “ well over 99.9 % of housing units have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans is still roughly 328,000 people .
Among the people who aren ’ t being counted are those afraid to be torn away from their families , those who have isolated due to a compromised immune system , those whose communities have reason to be suspicious of government officials .
They stand to lose more power to the very forces that kept them from responding .
I opened the “ Work Availability ” page on my census phone and put myself in the schedule for the final two days of the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Those who don’t get counted stand to lose even more power to the very forces that are keeping them from responding.
The Supreme Court effectively approved the Trump administration’s request to cut the 2020 census short in a ruling issued Tuesday in response to an emergency request made last week by the Justice Department. Hours later, the U.S. Census Bureau announced that all operations, including door-to-door interviews, would cease on October 15 — 16 days earlier than previously scheduled.
The Justice Department’s emergency request to the Supreme Court was the latest act in a long campaign by the Trump administration to hinder census operations and deny marginalized communities the resources and political power that accurate census data can provide. Census data is used to allocate roughly $1.5 trillion in federal income tax to local services, such as education, health care and infrastructure and to determine local and state voting districts for the coming decade.
One of the Trump administration’s first assaults on the census was its 2019 attempt to add a citizenship question to the census questionnaire, which, while unsuccessful, engendered mistrust of the census among undocumented immigrants. Then, on July 29, 2020, under orders from the White House, the Census Bureau cut a full month from the three months scheduled for the door-to-door follow-up. Testifying before Congress that same day, Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham (a Trump appointee) dodged questions about how the agency was planning to complete three months of work in two months’ time.
There is little mystery behind the administration’s motivations. The results of the decennial census, one of the U.S.’s oldest and most painstakingly thorough institutions, determine the number of representatives in the House and electors in the Electoral College apportioned to each state. As this census happens to fall on an election year, Trump will only be able to oversee congressional reapportionment — and attempt to unconstitutionally exclude undocumented immigrants — if the pandemic-delayed Census Bureau finishes processing the collected data on schedule.
Lost Opportunities for Adequate Counting and Fair Reapportionment
Having worked as an enumerator for the Census Bureau in both 2010 and 2020, I understand just how difficult it is to make sure everyone is fairly counted — especially during a pandemic. I am painfully aware of how much will be lost by the Supreme Court’s decision to let the Trump administration cut short the counting process.
At 2:43 am on October 14, after two months of going door-to-door as a census enumerator, I received a message on my official U.S. Census smartphone: “As of 11:00 pm local time on October 15, data collection for the [Nonresponse Followup] operation will be complete. Please work diligently and continue to enumerate as many people as possible.”
The message triggered a memory from the later stages of census enumeration in 2010 — stages that are getting woefully cut short due to this week’s Supreme Court ruling.
On a sunny afternoon in June 2010, I sit on a stoop in Bushwick, an east Brooklyn neighborhood with a large immigrant population, watching the front door of the apartment building across the street. My shoulder bag is spun around to hide the giant U.S. Census Bureau logo on one side. I’ve been here for half an hour. A man in coveralls walks toward the door.
We are in “Phase 2” of the decennial census’s “Nonresponse Followup.” Most enumerators, who spent the past two months visiting every address that did not mail in a census questionnaire, have been let go, leaving behind what I adamantly call an “elite squad” — high-performing employees tasked with revisiting addresses where others failed to obtain information. Unlike Phase 1, when a brisk pace was expected, we are free to take the time necessary to get a response.
The front door is locked and though I see silhouettes in the windows, no one is answering their doorbells. But if someone walks in or out of the building, I can legally hold the door and let myself into the foyer. Inside, I can speak to the residents through their doors and patiently assure them that anything they tell me is confidential. And while they may not give me all of their personal information, I will be able to ensure that they are counted. I just need to get in the front door.
The man in coveralls turns toward the building and immediately, I am in motion, striding across the street, my arm already extending.
Working for the Census Under COVID
Even before this week’s Supreme Court ruling, the 2020 census was already beset by unusual challenges amid the COVID pandemic.
Among the people who aren’t being counted are those afraid to be torn away from their families, those who have isolated due to a compromised immune system, those whose communities have reason to be suspicious of government officials.
In August 2020, I reported to a one-story tutoring center in Brooklyn’s Chinatown for census training. After being selected for the job in February, I had heard nothing for months until receiving a call asking me to come in for training the following morning. With my industry (live comedy) wiped out by the pandemic, my stimulus check long spent, and with pandemic unemployment insurance having expired, I agreed.
I was ushered into a small classroom with no windows. I took a seat in the back corner, as far from others as possible, and looked up at the single ventilation duct in the room. A small strip of ribbon dangled from the grate, barely moving. Our supervisor began to read the training materials, as if hearing the words for the first time. After a moment, he lowered his mask below his mouth, explaining that it was hard to speak with it on, and continued to read. The trainee in front of me, a woman in her late thirties, interrupted and asked him to put the mask back on.
“I couldn’t believe it,” she told me later, “I just couldn’t.”
In the latter half of the training, over the sound of papers rustling and official U.S. Census bags being unzipped, our supervisor read a passage about COVID safety. In his monotone, it almost slid by, so I asked him to read it again.
“Enumerators are to wear a mask at all times in the field. The mask is to cover the nose …” he said, his mask hovering just beneath nose-level. “Please keep six feet from respondents when conducting interviews.”
This was the extent of our COVID safety training.
The Census Bureau does not require COVID testing, but I thought it responsible to know whether I was about to be a federally appointed Typhoid Mary. At the government-run testing center, I was handed a form on which to write the contact information of anyone I had recently been exposed to. A nurse assured me that the new COVID test was less invasive. As he inserted the swab a mere inch into my nostril, I considered the form in my hand: The Census Bureau’s confidentiality agreement strictly prohibits the sharing of “Personally Identifiable Information,” with a penalty of five years in prison or a $250,000 fine. If I were to test positive, contact tracing would be impossible.
On August 8, I received an answer to one of the questions that Census Bureau Director Dillingham had avoided. The Bureau emailed its employees with what felt like a sweepstakes: Enumerators could win up to $800 in bonus pay for working more hours and visiting more housing units per week. Soon after, the Bureau began offering overtime pay, then increased our minimum weekly hours. My supervisor began to send more encouraging texts, urging us to “kick ass” — clearly Dillingham had gotten to him too. Still waiting on the results of my COVID test, I thought about how this strategy was guaranteed to maximize the number of people enumerators would come in contact with in between tests, if they were getting tested at all.
Fear, Disarray and the Pandemic Complicated “Phase 1” in the 2020 Census
In 2020, Phase 1 was more complicated than it was a decade earlier. Many respondents said they already filled out their questionnaire or could not remember. In the Hasidic neighborhood of Borough Park, respondents were typically reluctant but many agreed to talk when I explained the benefits of the census. In adjacent neighborhoods populated by Mexican and Chinese immigrants, responses were far lower. Often, there was a language barrier and respondents closed the door before I could suggest an interpreter. Others, though I could hear them inside, did not answer at all. On my own block, neighbors whom I regularly pass on the street quietly peered at me through the blinds, disappearing when I noticed. It’s hard to blame them — Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted raids in the area just last year.
Then there was the disorganized bureaucracy that seemed hilarious in 2010 but now felt like a waste of precious time. On one afternoon, unsure how to file a particular case, I followed protocol and called my supervisor, then his supervisor, then my local census office, then the central hotline — the last resort of the census enumerator. No one answered. Even the hotline went to voicemail, which was full. I spent the last four hours of my shift wondering if I had hallucinated this government job.
On another day, I spent half an hour on the phone with my supervisor, describing — and devising strategies to get inside of — an apartment building that turned out to be where my supervisor lives. He had been home the entire time.
By the time I received a call with the results of my COVID test from NYC Health and Hospitals — 12 days after the test was performed — I had lost count of the people I had come into contact with. The demands of the job made it impossible to tally all of the children spilling out of houses, neighbors squeezing past me in narrow hallways, and bodega patrons who yelled orders to the cashier as I interviewed them about the apartments above. The total was easily in the hundreds. Very few of them wore masks.
The health worker on the phone told me, “Your test came back inconclusive.” He asked if I’d been tested again. I had. Fed up, I had gone back to the same testing site the day before. Again, a nurse had told me the new test was “less invasive.” Only this time, he had pushed the swabs deeper into my nostrils.
“Could that have been the problem?” I asked the man on the phone. “Was the nurse improperly trained in the new test?”
“I don’t know,” he said, and hung up.
Two days later, my supervisor texted to inform me that I was his “top guy” and would be staying on the team for Phase 2. We would have only two weeks to visit every missing address in New York City. It had now been two weeks since my initial COVID test — still no certainty.
A Chaotic “Phase 2” of the 2020 Census Gets Cut Short
Phase 2 of the Nonresponse Followup is crucial to equal representation in the U.S. for communities least likely to respond to government surveys — including undocumented immigrants, Indigenous peoples and self-isolating religious communities — who are already victim to systemic power disparities and will only be further marginalized by underrepresentation. The phase also comprises thorough quality control, ensuring the accuracy of collected data through in-person re-interviews.
Ten years ago, I had some satisfying Phase 2 successes. I flash back to one evening in July 2010:
I’m sitting at a bar in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, my trench coat folded over my leg. I think I look like Humphrey Bogart but I probably look like a senior at an all-boys prep school. The bartender eyes me skeptically when I ask about the people who live upstairs. But I am polite, I tip well, and I do not leave. With time, he loosens up. And though he does not give me everyone’s full information, I am able to get a headcount for the building, which is acceptable in Phase 2.
In 2020, Phase 2 was tumultuous at best. We learned from the news that our jobs had been extended to October 5, then October 31. Daily conference calls emphasized the importance of working diligently, but we found ourselves inexplicably assigned fewer cases and fewer hours. Two days after destructive and fiery protests over government regulations in the neighborhood, the Bureau decided to “blitz” Borough Park, flooding the area with enumerators from across the city. Not a single person was willing to talk to me that day.
When I received the message on October 14 that the census would cease operations within two days, I felt guilty. I could have scheduled more hours, could have worked overtime. There are still addresses that we haven’t counted. The Census Bureau’s official communiques declare that “well over 99.9% of housing units have been accounted for,” but 0.01 percent of Americans is still roughly 328,000 people. Among the people who aren’t being counted are those afraid to be torn away from their families, those who have isolated due to a compromised immune system, those whose communities have reason to be suspicious of government officials. They stand to lose more power to the very forces that kept them from responding.
I opened the “Work Availability” page on my census phone and put myself in the schedule for the final two days of the 2020 census, available to work overtime.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-14--White House Uses Petition With Fake Doctors, Prank Names to Push Herd Immunity

White House officials are backing a petition purportedly signed by thousands of doctors that embraces the idea of “ herd immunity ” for dealing with coronavirus — yet some have called into question the validity of the document being cited , as many of the names appearing on it look to be based on jokes .
The petition cited by officials , according to The New York Times , is called The Great Barrington Declaration .
The group of individuals who have signed onto it say that the best way to handle COVID-19 is not through social distancing or other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young people contract the virus supposedly in order to reach a herd immunity threshold number while protecting older and more vulnerable populations .
The petition allegedly has around 9,000 signatures of doctors from around the world .
However , closer inspection of the document has revealed that many of the names are likely fakes .
Dozens of names , as reporting from Sky News has uncovered , appear to be common prank jokes — including names like Dr. I.P .
Freely , Dr .
Person Fakename and Dr. Johnny Bananas .
Some signatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the knowledge of the signers .
For instance , one of the names included is that of Harold Shipman , a doctor who was arrested in the late 1990s for killing 200 of his patients .
The legitimacy of the petition itself is questionable , as it doesn ’ t appear that any authentication was needed with regards to the signer ’ s credentials .
A person could sign on to the petition , then merely check a box saying they were a doctor , in order to be included .
Beyond the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be full of fraudulent names , there is the worrisome situation of the White House once again pushing herd immunity as a means of addressing COVID-19 .
Health experts the world over have cautioned against doing so , with many noting that the practice is tantamount to the discredited practice of eugenics .
Herd immunity works by having such a high proportion of individuals contract a virus or disease that the contagion can not effectively spread because most of the population has developed antibodies .
Vaccines work in similar ways , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House is going in a different direction , with the idea being that a threshold of safety can be reached in a natural way without the help of a vaccine .
The primary authors of the petition now being cited by the White House , Sunetra Gupta and Gabriela Gomes , believe herd immunity can be achieved with just a 10 to 20 percent infection rate .
However , most epidemiologists disagree with this idea , as many vaccinations alone require over 90 percent of the population to have antibodies in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for measles , for example , is thought to be 94 percent .
Most experts also believe that the percentage of the U.S. population that ’ s been exposed to coronavirus is closer to the 10 percent range .
“ More than 90 percent of the population remains susceptible ” to COVID-19 , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) director Robert Redfield said last month .
Additionally , it ’ s not yet known that exposure to coronavirus creates a permanent immunity .
Indeed , reinfection appears to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case in the U.S. of a person getting coronavirus twice was discovered recently .
In short , herd immunity is a strategy that should probably be avoided when trying to combat coronavirus , in most experts ’ minds , as it could lead to hundreds of thousands of additional deaths if it is widely embraced .
Yet it ’ s a strategy that the White House seems to have adopted as its primary method of dealing with the pandemic .
As of Wednesday afternoon , more than 8.1 million cases of coronavirus have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 221,000 deaths resulting from the pandemic so far .

White House officials are backing a petition purportedly signed by thousands of doctors that embraces the idea of “herd immunity” for dealing with coronavirus — yet some have called into question the validity of the document being cited, as many of the names appearing on it look to be based on jokes.
The petition cited by officials, according to The New York Times, is called The Great Barrington Declaration. The group of individuals who have signed onto it say that the best way to handle COVID-19 is not through social distancing or other restrictive measures, but by letting healthy young people contract the virus supposedly in order to reach a herd immunity threshold number while protecting older and more vulnerable populations.
The petition allegedly has around 9,000 signatures of doctors from around the world. However, closer inspection of the document has revealed that many of the names are likely fakes.
Dozens of names, as reporting from Sky News has uncovered, appear to be common prank jokes — including names like Dr. I.P. Freely, Dr. Person Fakename and Dr. Johnny Bananas. Some signatures may even have been added on without the knowledge of the signers. For instance, one of the names included is that of Harold Shipman, a doctor who was arrested in the late 1990s for killing 200 of his patients.
The legitimacy of the petition itself is questionable, as it doesn’t appear that any authentication was needed with regards to the signer’s credentials. A person could sign on to the petition, then merely check a box saying they were a doctor, in order to be included.
Beyond the embarrassing discovery that the petition looks to be full of fraudulent names, there is the worrisome situation of the White House once again pushing herd immunity as a means of addressing COVID-19. Health experts the world over have cautioned against doing so, with many noting that the practice is tantamount to the discredited practice of eugenics.
Herd immunity works by having such a high proportion of individuals contract a virus or disease that the contagion cannot effectively spread because most of the population has developed antibodies. Vaccines work in similar ways, but the type of herd immunity being pushed by the White House is going in a different direction, with the idea being that a threshold of safety can be reached in a natural way without the help of a vaccine.
The primary authors of the petition now being cited by the White House, Sunetra Gupta and Gabriela Gomes, believe herd immunity can be achieved with just a 10 to 20 percent infection rate. However, most epidemiologists disagree with this idea, as many vaccinations alone require over 90 percent of the population to have antibodies in order to be effective. The threshold for measles, for example, is thought to be 94 percent.
Most experts also believe that the percentage of the U.S. population that’s been exposed to coronavirus is closer to the 10 percent range. “More than 90 percent of the population remains susceptible” to COVID-19, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield said last month.
Additionally, it’s not yet known that exposure to coronavirus creates a permanent immunity. Indeed, reinfection appears to be a real possibility, as the first confirmed case in the U.S. of a person getting coronavirus twice was discovered recently.
In short, herd immunity is a strategy that should probably be avoided when trying to combat coronavirus, in most experts’ minds, as it could lead to hundreds of thousands of additional deaths if it is widely embraced. Yet it’s a strategy that the White House seems to have adopted as its primary method of dealing with the pandemic.
As of Wednesday afternoon, more than 8.1 million cases of coronavirus have been identified in the U.S., with more than 221,000 deaths resulting from the pandemic so far.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-14--COVID Has Led People to Save More. Now Economists Are Upset.

I spent the first 35 years of my working life in a big northeastern city .
I was a weekend spendthrift like many a callow youth , but even that could never quite explain how I was always struggling to stay solvent from paycheck to paycheck , even in those spans when I made ( relatively ) good money .
The thing is , most everyone I knew was trapped on some version of the same hamster wheel .
All of them worked their hands raw , all of them had enough money to pay for housing and food , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to assemble a savings account that held more than a few hundred bucks .
This is hardly rare ; according to Motley Fool reporter Maurie Backman , “ 69 percent of Americans have less than $ 1,000 in savings… .
Worse yet , 45 percent of Americans say they have $ 0 in savings .
That ’ s right — not so much as a dollar socked away in a bank account.
” Economists in the journalism business ground a good deal of enamel off their teeth over this , because people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a financial emergency , and a nation buried in personal and government debt risks going into a death spiral of negative feedback that can , among other things , lead to Germany in 1939 .
Now , suddenly , all of that is quite out the window .
“ The pandemic has upended consumer habits , with fewer people eating out and traveling and others building a financial cushion , ” reported Shirley Leung and Larry Edelman in an October 10 Boston Globe article .
“ Economists have long worried about Americans carrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sudden embrace of savings comes at a time when the economy needs consumers to spend more .
A prolonged period of parsimony is hampering the recovery and threatening industries that had thrived on our free-spending ways.
” Yes , yes , it ’ s COVID ’ s fault .
If only this pesky pandemic hadn ’ t come along and exposed the unsustainable mirage of eternal consumption and growth on a planet with finite and dwindling resources , everything would be just ducky .
All of you who felt bad about yourselves for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ re doing it right !
For now .
And that ’ s the rub .
Thanks to decades of insistent work led by Black scholars and activists and recently mainstreamed in new ways through The 1619 Project at The New York Times , a broader understanding has come into being of the umbilical connection between the chattel slavery which birthed this nation , and the economic system which sits astride it today .
They are blood relatives , linked by the DNA of agony and plunder .
Yet while the claws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cotton fields of the South and the cotton mills of the North , it was not first fashioned there .
Capitalism , stripped to the raw nerve , is the sacking of Troy , the taking from the weak by the strong .
It has been a ruthless presence since humans first fashioned weapons and organized into groups .
The ideology was , and remains , simplicity itself : When you win , no matter how you win , you get to take .
Adam Smith gave it a name and some fluffy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it all , but in the end , capitalism is plunder .
COVID-19 is like water , in that it flows into the low places and finds every crack , every seam , every pinhole to pour through .
The pandemic has been busy exposing the cracks in our overall health care industry , specifically regarding our perilous employment-based health insurance racket , our education system , and on ; COVID did not damage these things , so much as it washed off the paint and exposed all the deep red rust .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ account during a pandemic is suddenly “ bad for the economy ” proves once again that there is no actual system at work here : Capitalism is nothing more than a meticulously constructed rationalization for greed on a planetary scale , and that rationalization will move to wherever the money is at any given moment .
There are no rules beyond “ Go for the loot , ” and if that makes savings accounts the new enemy , so be it .
It is preposterous that they ’ ve gotten away with this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have , and we are all knee-deep in the ashes of aftermath , moving toward a grueling winter .

COVID has led more people who can save to do so, hurting the economy and exposing the absurdity of capitalism.
I spent the first 35 years of my working life in a big northeastern city. I was a weekend spendthrift like many a callow youth, but even that could never quite explain how I was always struggling to stay solvent from paycheck to paycheck, even in those spans when I made (relatively) good money.
The thing is, most everyone I knew was trapped on some version of the same hamster wheel. All of them worked their hands raw, all of them had enough money to pay for housing and food, but almost nobody I knew was able to assemble a savings account that held more than a few hundred bucks.
This is hardly rare; according to Motley Fool reporter Maurie Backman, “69 percent of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings…. Worse yet, 45 percent of Americans say they have $0 in savings. That’s right — not so much as a dollar socked away in a bank account.”
Economists in the journalism business ground a good deal of enamel off their teeth over this, because people with no savings inevitably go into debt after a financial emergency, and a nation buried in personal and government debt risks going into a death spiral of negative feedback that can, among other things, lead to Germany in 1939.
Now, suddenly, all of that is quite out the window.
“The pandemic has upended consumer habits, with fewer people eating out and traveling and others building a financial cushion,” reported Shirley Leung and Larry Edelman in an October 10 Boston Globe article. “Economists have long worried about Americans carrying too much debt, but ironically the sudden embrace of savings comes at a time when the economy needs consumers to spend more. A prolonged period of parsimony is hampering the recovery and threatening industries that had thrived on our free-spending ways.”
Yes, yes, it’s COVID’s fault. If only this pesky pandemic hadn’t come along and exposed the unsustainable mirage of eternal consumption and growth on a planet with finite and dwindling resources, everything would be just ducky. All of you who felt bad about yourselves for having no savings can buck up. You’re doing it right! For now.
And that’s the rub. Thanks to decades of insistent work led by Black scholars and activists and recently mainstreamed in new ways through The 1619 Project at The New York Times, a broader understanding has come into being of the umbilical connection between the chattel slavery which birthed this nation, and the economic system which sits astride it today. They are blood relatives, linked by the DNA of agony and plunder.
The fact that having a savings account during a pandemic is suddenly “bad for the economy” proves once again that capitalism is nothing more than a meticulously constructed rationalization for greed.
Yet while the claws of base capitalism were honed in the cotton fields of the South and the cotton mills of the North, it was not first fashioned there. Capitalism, stripped to the raw nerve, is the sacking of Troy, the taking from the weak by the strong. It has been a ruthless presence since humans first fashioned weapons and organized into groups. The ideology was, and remains, simplicity itself: When you win, no matter how you win, you get to take.
Adam Smith gave it a name and some fluffy words to obscure the fathomless brutality of it all, but in the end, capitalism is plunder.
COVID-19 is like water, in that it flows into the low places and finds every crack, every seam, every pinhole to pour through. The pandemic has been busy exposing the cracks in our overall health care industry, specifically regarding our perilous employment-based health insurance racket, our education system, and on; COVID did not damage these things, so much as it washed off the paint and exposed all the deep red rust.
The fact that having a flush savings account during a pandemic is suddenly “bad for the economy” proves once again that there is no actual system at work here: Capitalism is nothing more than a meticulously constructed rationalization for greed on a planetary scale, and that rationalization will move to wherever the money is at any given moment.
There are no rules beyond “Go for the loot,” and if that makes savings accounts the new enemy, so be it. It is preposterous that they’ve gotten away with this shell game for so long, but they have, and we are all knee-deep in the ashes of aftermath, moving toward a grueling winter.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-14--Does Trump Have Power to Pardon Himself? His Supreme Court Nominee Won’t Say.

During her confirmation hearings on Wednesday , President Donald Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee , Judge Amy Coney Barrett , refused to give her opinion on an important question that ’ s come up over the past four years : whether sitting presidents have the power to pardon themselves .
The question is particularly important for Barrett to answer , as Trump has asserted in the past that he does have the right to pardon himself if he wants to do so .
Trump has also used his presidential authority to grant a number of questionable pardons , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during his presidential tenure .
In an exchange between herself and Sen. Patrick Leahy ( D-Vermont ) , Barrett agreed with the senator ’ s assertions that “ no one is above the law , ” including the president .
But as to whether that meant the president could not use the power of pardon to avoid personal criminal prosecution while in office , Barrett would not elaborate .
“ Does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime ?
I mean , we heard this question after President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Leahy asked , referencing the Watergate scandal of the 1970s .
( Nixon was not formally impeached , although hearings on the subject had begun before his resignation in 1974 . )
Barrett refused to provide an opinion on the matter .
“ So far as I know , that question has never been litigated , ” the Supreme Court nominee said .
“ That question has never arisen .
That question may or may not arise , but it ’ s one that calls for legal analysis of what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so because it would be opining on an open question when I haven ’ t gone through the judicial process to decide it , it ’ s not one on which I can offer a view.
” Barrett has shied away from a number of subjects during her nomination hearings this week , including refusing to articulate her views on Roe v. Wade .
She has also not answered questions on whether a president can delay an election or not , and whether voter intimidation at the polls is legal — two issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Constitution allows only Congress to change election dates , and statutes against voter intimidation have been on the books for decades .
On the matter of whether presidents can pardon themselves or not , the issue is less resolved .
However , with few exceptions , most legal scholars believe that a president can not do so , as a pardon requires two separate entities — a person in need of a pardon , and another person to do the pardoning .
Indeed , a memo from the Office of Legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pardon himself .
The abuse of the pardon power by a president is also considered by many to be an impeachable offense .
A president can use a pardon with very little restraint , but if they do so in order to cover up or conceal a crime , for example , Congress can view their use of the power as obstruction of justice .
Using a pardon to excuse alleged crimes a president may have committed could similarly be viewed by Congress as an action worth impeaching over .

Most experts say a president can’t self-pardon, but Trump has previously asserted he has the power to do so.
During her confirmation hearings on Wednesday, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, refused to give her opinion on an important question that’s come up over the past four years: whether sitting presidents have the power to pardon themselves.
The question is particularly important for Barrett to answer, as Trump has asserted in the past that he does have the right to pardon himself if he wants to do so. Trump has also used his presidential authority to grant a number of questionable pardons, especially to his friends and political allies, during his presidential tenure.
In an exchange between herself and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Barrett agreed with the senator’s assertions that “no one is above the law,” including the president. But as to whether that meant the president could not use the power of pardon to avoid personal criminal prosecution while in office, Barrett would not elaborate.
“Does a president have an absolute right to pardon himself for a crime? I mean, we heard this question after President [Richard] Nixon’s impeachment,” Leahy asked, referencing the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. (Nixon was not formally impeached, although hearings on the subject had begun before his resignation in 1974.)
Barrett refused to provide an opinion on the matter.
“So far as I know, that question has never been litigated,” the Supreme Court nominee said. “That question has never arisen. That question may or may not arise, but it’s one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is, so because it would be opining on an open question when I haven’t gone through the judicial process to decide it, it’s not one on which I can offer a view.”
Barrett has shied away from a number of subjects during her nomination hearings this week, including refusing to articulate her views on Roe v. Wade. She has also not answered questions on whether a president can delay an election or not, and whether voter intimidation at the polls is legal — two issues that seem to have clear-cut answers, as the Constitution allows only Congress to change election dates, and statutes against voter intimidation have been on the books for decades.
On the matter of whether presidents can pardon themselves or not, the issue is less resolved. However, with few exceptions, most legal scholars believe that a president cannot do so, as a pardon requires two separate entities — a person in need of a pardon, and another person to do the pardoning.
Indeed, a memo from the Office of Legal Counsel to Nixon said he could not pardon himself.
The abuse of the pardon power by a president is also considered by many to be an impeachable offense. A president can use a pardon with very little restraint, but if they do so in order to cover up or conceal a crime, for example, Congress can view their use of the power as obstruction of justice. Using a pardon to excuse alleged crimes a president may have committed could similarly be viewed by Congress as an action worth impeaching over.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-14--SCOTUS Must Be Weakened to Safeguard Democracy, Says Legal Scholar

As Republicans race to confirm President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett prior to Election Day and cement a conservative majority on the top court for a generation or more , calls are growing for Joe Biden to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court if elected president .
But Yale legal scholar Samuel Moyn argues that beyond “ packing the court ” and other measures commonly proposed to rebalance the Supreme Court ’ s ideological makeup , the institution as a whole must be weakened in order to safeguard democracy .
“ This country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejection of democracy , and the Supreme Court has long been a part of that picture , ” says Moyn .
“ Now that the right is on the brink of establishing control , it ’ s a dangerous institution.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González , as we continue to look at the Republican race to confirm President Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior to Election Day .
If confirmed to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat , Barrett 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 .
We ’ re joined now by legal scholar Samuel Moyn , who has a new piece in The New Republic headlined “ Making the Supreme Court Safe for Democracy : Beyond packing schemes , we need to diminish the high court ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law School , a professor of history at Yale University , as well .
Well , if you can talk about the history of the Supreme Court — you talk about it as a reactionary one in U.S. history — and what needs to be done , Professor Moyn ?
SAMUEL MOYN : It ’ s nice to be with you .
You know , this country was founded on majority — on minority rule and the rejection of democracy , and the Supreme Court has long been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that the right is on the brink of establishing control , it ’ s a dangerous institution .
And that ’ s long been the case .
We ’ re seeing the charade , the familiar drill in Washington .
The reason it ’ s happening is because immense power to control the future of the country has been placed in the hands of nine elected justices in the first place .
And so , no wonder there ’ s Armageddon every time someone dies or retires .
Maybe that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , Professor , I wanted to ask you — in terms of this history , there is a series of court decisions that involved basically sanctioning conquest and the imperial — the grabbing of imperial territories , whether it ’ s the Insular Cases in the early 1900s or the — under the Justice John Marshall court , a series of decisions , the Marshall Trilogy , on the relationship of Native Americans to the federal government , as wards , essentially , of the federal government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever really discussed in these hearings in terms — this is settled , supposedly , decisions that are clearly unjust but have never really been raised to new Supreme Court nominees .
Could you expound a little bit more about this historic reactionary nature of the court ?
SAMUEL MOYN : So , really , from the beginning of the republic , the court has been on board with the expulsion or extermination of Native peoples , as you pointed out , with American Empire at the end of the 19th and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even after the abolition of slavery — which , of course , the Supreme Court also supported before the Civil War — was the court ’ s complicity with the rule of the wealthy , especially in the first Gilded Age during that same later 19th and early 20th century .
And Franklin Roosevelt had to face down the court , confront it , precisely for the reason that it was an institution of minority rule .
Thomas Jefferson actually warned at the very beginning of our republic that his enemies were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a stronghold from which they could rule , no matter what the people wanted .
And now in our second Gilded Age , we ’ ve been seeing that same phenomenon for a decade .
Even before the current confirmation battle , even before Mitch McConnell ’ s hijinks , even when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a justice , the court was the most business-friendly court in a century .
And so , we have to understand that , as you point out , long-term role of this court in our history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essence , what you ’ re saying is that period , let ’ s say , of the Warren Court was really an anomaly in terms of at least liberalism on social and racial issues , but that the court essentially has been the trump card of the corporate elite of America in terms of maintaining its power .
SAMUEL MOYN : That ’ s largely right .
Earl Warren ’ s court was anomalous and brief , and , sadly , it didn ’ t get a lot done , especially after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should also remember that some of the basic work that cases like Brown v. Board did was sort of undoing the Supreme Court ’ s collusion with the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the unholy deal to let the South return to apartheid .
And so , it did do some valuable work .
It ’ s not clear we should be depending on a high court to do our democratic work for us .
And so , the basic rights we care about , we ultimately need to depend on convincing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And for that , only a mass movement suffices , not getting our friends in high places .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And when the Republicans talk now , they ’ ve already created the narrative that if Democrats come to power in the White House and the Senate , they will seek to pack the court , when , in reality , I guess what you ’ re saying is that the court is already packed .
The question is — and under Mitch McConnell , it ’ s become even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can it be unpacked or democratized ?
And I ’ m wondering if you could talk about what you would see as the most achievable — not necessarily the reforms that you would prefer the most , but which would be the ones most achievable — given that Democrats themselves , if they do come to power , will be fighting among themselves about the best type of reform .
SAMUEL MOYN : So , progressives have a menu of options , and they can order lots of things off the menu to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden wins and the Senate changes hands .
Court packing isn ’ t out of the question .
It depends on , you know , what ’ s done .
If you put two new liberal justices up there , though , you ’ re just restoring the status quo ante-Neil Gorsuch , which was already intolerable .
So , our proposal is that you think about ways of limiting the court ’ s power to interfere with Democratic legislation , as is happening with the Affordable Care Act once again .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can mess , over a decade , in cooperation with the dark money-funded conservative litigants , with some of our most progressive laws .
So , if an H.R .
1 is passed , if a Green New Deal statute is passed , we can do things like insulate those laws from scrutiny by the federal judiciary .
You know , if we dream big , we can do things like insist that judges can only invalidate federal legislation by supermajorities , so that it ’ s not up to five conservatives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions support at very high levels of popularity .
So , what if we required a 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 or unanimous decision from the Supreme Court , which would make sure it ’ s only finding values in the Constitution that everyone agrees about ?
AMY GOODMAN : Samuel Moyn , if you could talk about the solution that Harvard Law School professor James Bradley Thayer offered to the problems posed by the Supreme Court , how he attempted to make judicial powers safe for democratic self-rule ?
SAMUEL MOYN : So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reconstruction , when the Supreme Court gutted the attempt after the Civil War to help African Americans , not just release them from chattel slavery but give them equal citizenship .
And he saw the court , in a case called the Civil Rights Cases , destroy some of Congress ’ s attempts to create freedom and equality in this country .
And when he saw that , he said that the justices should not be allowed to invalidate legislation unless it ’ s really clear that it violates the Constitution .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in particular , he said that there has to be a clear error .
It ’ s not that the judges get to second-guess the Legislature , because the Legislature also has a view about what the Constitution allows and what ’ s compatible with it .
Rather , it ’ s that judges should only invalidate laws when they ’ re just crazy .
Now , for a while , once FDR faced down the court in 1937 , the Supreme Court adopted Thayer ’ s rule and engaged in self-restraint .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , actually in part because of liberal justices , but also , in more recent times , conservative justices .
So , I think we need to retrieve Thayer ’ s idea that the court has to be made safe for democracy , but not just rely on self-restraint , the judges ’ promises never to interfere again .
And so , if we do have to confront the court once again , we should be inspired by the old example that Thayer provides , but make sure and learn from his mistakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that it ’ s not up to judges to engage in self-restraint .
We should restrain the judges so that they can ’ t act .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And one of the things that you ’ ve noted is , obviously , as people live longer today than they did back in the 19th or early 20th century , and the justices that get on the court stay longer — what about this issue of limiting the terms of Supreme Court justices ?
SAMUEL MOYN : Term limitation is a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of basic reform that a lot of people agree about .
Ro Khanna introduced a bill .
The trouble with most of the forms of term limitation that we ’ ve seen are that they ’ re prospective , so the current justices will be grandfathered or , in Barrett ’ s case , grandmothered in .
And I just don ’ t think we can wait that long .
The country is on fire .
And the best hope for progressive change is from the Congress , not from the judiciary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , just limiting terms is an obvious fix , but it ’ s not enough of a fix , not least because , in the end , the problem is not who is serving on the court or how long they get to stay ; it ’ s the power they have .
And we need to curtail it .
AMY GOODMAN : We want to thank you so much , Samuel Moyn , professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law School and professor of history at Yale University .
We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republic , “ Making the Supreme Court Safe for Democracy.
” And that does it for our show .
Juan , I wanted to wish you a very happy early birthday .
I don ’ t know if we can use — AMY GOODMAN : — “ happy ” in these dire times , but have a good one — AMY GOODMAN : — and a safe one .
Oh , and , of course , wear a mask .
Stay safe .
Save lives .
That does it for our show .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey , Nermeen Shaikh , María Taracena , Carla Wills , Tami Woronoff , Charina Nadura , Sam Alcoff , Tey-Marie Astudillo , John Hamilton , Robby Karran , Hany Massoud , Adriano Contreras .
Special thanks to our general manager Julie Crosby , Becca Staley , Miriam Barnard , Denis Moynihan , Paul Powell .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
Thanks for joining us .

As Republicans race to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett prior to Election Day and cement a conservative majority on the top court for a generation or more, calls are growing for Joe Biden to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court if elected president. But Yale legal scholar Samuel Moyn argues that beyond “packing the court” and other measures commonly proposed to rebalance the Supreme Court’s ideological makeup, the institution as a whole must be weakened in order to safeguard democracy. “This country was founded on minority rule and the rejection of democracy, and the Supreme Court has long been a part of that picture,” says Moyn. “Now that the right is on the brink of establishing control, it’s a dangerous institution.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we continue to look at the Republican race to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett prior to Election Day. If confirmed to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, Barrett 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.
We’re joined now by legal scholar Samuel Moyn, who has a new piece in The New Republic headlined “Making the Supreme Court Safe for Democracy: Beyond packing schemes, we need to diminish the high court’s power.” He’s a professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law School, a professor of history at Yale University, as well.
Well, if you can talk about the history of the Supreme Court — you talk about it as a reactionary one in U.S. history — and what needs to be done, Professor Moyn?
SAMUEL MOYN: It’s nice to be with you.
You know, this country was founded on majority — on minority rule and the rejection of democracy, and the Supreme Court has long been a part of that picture. And now that the right is on the brink of establishing control, it’s a dangerous institution. And that’s long been the case. We’re seeing the charade, the familiar drill in Washington. The reason it’s happening is because immense power to control the future of the country has been placed in the hands of nine elected justices in the first place. And so, no wonder there’s Armageddon every time someone dies or retires. Maybe that’s what we ought to think about changing.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Professor, I wanted to ask you — in terms of this history, there is a series of court decisions that involved basically sanctioning conquest and the imperial — the grabbing of imperial territories, whether it’s the Insular Cases in the early 1900s or the — under the Justice John Marshall court, a series of decisions, the Marshall Trilogy, on the relationship of Native Americans to the federal government, as wards, essentially, of the federal government. None of this, however, is ever really discussed in these hearings in terms — this is settled, supposedly, decisions that are clearly unjust but have never really been raised to new Supreme Court nominees. Could you expound a little bit more about this historic reactionary nature of the court?
SAMUEL MOYN: So, really, from the beginning of the republic, the court has been on board with the expulsion or extermination of Native peoples, as you pointed out, with American Empire at the end of the 19th and the early 20th century. The striking legacy, even after the abolition of slavery — which, of course, the Supreme Court also supported before the Civil War — was the court’s complicity with the rule of the wealthy, especially in the first Gilded Age during that same later 19th and early 20th century. And Franklin Roosevelt had to face down the court, confront it, precisely for the reason that it was an institution of minority rule. Thomas Jefferson actually warned at the very beginning of our republic that his enemies were fleeing into the judiciary and treating it as a stronghold from which they could rule, no matter what the people wanted.
And now in our second Gilded Age, we’ve been seeing that same phenomenon for a decade. Even before the current confirmation battle, even before Mitch McConnell’s hijinks, even when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a justice, the court was the most business-friendly court in a century. And so, we have to understand that, as you point out, long-term role of this court in our history.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, in essence, what you’re saying is that period, let’s say, of the Warren Court was really an anomaly in terms of at least liberalism on social and racial issues, but that the court essentially has been the trump card of the corporate elite of America in terms of maintaining its power.
SAMUEL MOYN: That’s largely right. Earl Warren’s court was anomalous and brief, and, sadly, it didn’t get a lot done, especially after decades of pushback and reaction. We should also remember that some of the basic work that cases like Brown v. Board did was sort of undoing the Supreme Court’s collusion with the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the unholy deal to let the South return to apartheid. And so, it did do some valuable work.
It’s not clear we should be depending on a high court to do our democratic work for us. And so, the basic rights we care about, we ultimately need to depend on convincing fellow citizens and entrenching our progressive ideals. And for that, only a mass movement suffices, not getting our friends in high places.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when the Republicans talk now, they’ve already created the narrative that if Democrats come to power in the White House and the Senate, they will seek to pack the court, when, in reality, I guess what you’re saying is that the court is already packed. The question is — and under Mitch McConnell, it’s become even more packed. The question is: How can it be unpacked or democratized? And I’m wondering if you could talk about what you would see as the most achievable — not necessarily the reforms that you would prefer the most, but which would be the ones most achievable — given that Democrats themselves, if they do come to power, will be fighting among themselves about the best type of reform.
SAMUEL MOYN: So, progressives have a menu of options, and they can order lots of things off the menu to press the Democrats, especially if Joe Biden wins and the Senate changes hands. Court packing isn’t out of the question. It depends on, you know, what’s done. If you put two new liberal justices up there, though, you’re just restoring the status quo ante-Neil Gorsuch, which was already intolerable.
So, our proposal is that you think about ways of limiting the court’s power to interfere with Democratic legislation, as is happening with the Affordable Care Act once again. We shouldn’t allow an institution that can mess, over a decade, in cooperation with the dark money-funded conservative litigants, with some of our most progressive laws. So, if an H.R. 1 is passed, if a Green New Deal statute is passed, we can do things like insulate those laws from scrutiny by the federal judiciary. You know, if we dream big, we can do things like insist that judges can only invalidate federal legislation by supermajorities, so that it’s not up to five conservatives, now six, to invalidate laws that millions support at very high levels of popularity. So, what if we required a 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 or unanimous decision from the Supreme Court, which would make sure it’s only finding values in the Constitution that everyone agrees about?
AMY GOODMAN: Samuel Moyn, if you could talk about the solution that Harvard Law School professor James Bradley Thayer offered to the problems posed by the Supreme Court, how he attempted to make judicial powers safe for democratic self-rule?
SAMUEL MOYN: So, Thayer was responding to the end of Reconstruction, when the Supreme Court gutted the attempt after the Civil War to help African Americans, not just release them from chattel slavery but give them equal citizenship. And he saw the court, in a case called the Civil Rights Cases, destroy some of Congress’s attempts to create freedom and equality in this country. And when he saw that, he said that the justices should not be allowed to invalidate legislation unless it’s really clear that it violates the Constitution. And so he called for self-restraint. And in particular, he said that there has to be a clear error. It’s not that the judges get to second-guess the Legislature, because the Legislature also has a view about what the Constitution allows and what’s compatible with it. Rather, it’s that judges should only invalidate laws when they’re just crazy.
Now, for a while, once FDR faced down the court in 1937, the Supreme Court adopted Thayer’s rule and engaged in self-restraint. But that’s eroded over time, actually in part because of liberal justices, but also, in more recent times, conservative justices. So, I think we need to retrieve Thayer’s idea that the court has to be made safe for democracy, but not just rely on self-restraint, the judges’ promises never to interfere again. And so, if we do have to confront the court once again, we should be inspired by the old example that Thayer provides, but make sure and learn from his mistakes. We have to change the institution so that it’s not up to judges to engage in self-restraint. We should restrain the judges so that they can’t act.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And one of the things that you’ve noted is, obviously, as people live longer today than they did back in the 19th or early 20th century, and the justices that get on the court stay longer — what about this issue of limiting the terms of Supreme Court justices?
SAMUEL MOYN: Term limitation is a great idea. It’s a kind of basic reform that a lot of people agree about. Ro Khanna introduced a bill. The trouble with most of the forms of term limitation that we’ve seen are that they’re prospective, so the current justices will be grandfathered or, in Barrett’s case, grandmothered in. And I just don’t think we can wait that long. The country is on fire. And the best hope for progressive change is from the Congress, not from the judiciary, which will not save us.
And so, just limiting terms is an obvious fix, but it’s not enough of a fix, not least because, in the end, the problem is not who is serving on the court or how long they get to stay; it’s the power they have. And we need to curtail it.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you so much, Samuel Moyn, professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law School and professor of history at Yale University. We’ll link to your piece in The New Republic, “Making the Supreme Court Safe for Democracy.”
And that does it for our show. Juan, I wanted to wish you a very happy early birthday. I don’t know if we can use —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: — “happy” in these dire times, but have a good one —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: — and a safe one. Oh, and, of course, wear a mask. Stay safe. Save lives.
That does it for our show. Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Carla Wills, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud, Adriano Contreras. Special thanks to our general manager Julie Crosby, Becca Staley, Miriam Barnard, Denis Moynihan, Paul Powell. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Thanks for joining us.
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.