thenation--2020-09-23--A Vote for Trump Is a Vote for Climate Apocalypse

It was August 2017 and Donald Trump had not yet warmed up to Kim Jong-un , North Korea ’ s portly dictator .
In fact , in typical Trumpian fashion , he was pissed at the Korean leader and , no less typically , he lashed out verbally , threatening that country with a literal hell on Earth .
As he put it , “ They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.
” And then , just to make his point more personally , he complained about Kim himself , “ He has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Only a year and a half later , our asteroidal president would , of course , say of that same man , “ We fell in love.
” Still , that threat by an American leader to—it was obvious—launch a nuclear strike for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nearly obliterated in August 1945 was memorable .
The phrase would , in fact , become the title of a 2018 bestselling book , Fire and Fury : Inside the Trump White House , by journalist Michael Wolff .
Two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phrases from this president , “ fire and fury ” has , however , been left in history ’ s dustbin , largely forgotten by the world .
“ This Is Not an Act of God ” Too bad , since it seems so much more relevant now that California , Oregon , and Washington , not to speak of a Southwest already officially in a “ megadrought , ” have experienced the sort of apocalyptic fire and fury ( and heat and smoke ) that has turned daytime skies an eerie nighttime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , claims a friend of mine living in the San Francisco Bay Area ) .
We ’ re talking about a fire and fury that ’ s forced cars to put on their headlights at noon ; destroyed towns ( leaving only armed right-wing militants behind amid the flames to await imagined Antifa looters ) ; burned millions of acres of land , putting hundreds of thousands of Americans under evacuation orders ; turned startling numbers of citizens into refugees under pandemic conditions ; and crept toward suburbs and cities , imperiling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the wake of the hottest summer on record in the Northern Hemisphere , we are , in other words , talking about the sort of apocalyptic conditions that the president undoubtedly had in mind for North Korea back in 2017 , but not even faintly for the US of A ; we ’ re talking , that is , about a burning season the likes of which no one in the West has ever seen before , a torching linked to the overheating of this planet thanks to the release of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , as Washington Governor Jay Inslee pointed out recently , we shouldn ’ t even be talking about “ wildfires ” anymore , but about “ climate fires ” whose intensity has already outpaced by years the predictions of most climate scientists .
( Or , as Inslee put it , “ This is not an act of God .
This has happened because we have changed the climate of the state of Washington in dramatic ways.
” ) Significant hunks of the American West have now been transformed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires even reaching the suburban edges of Portland , Oregon ( which , for days , had the worst air quality of any major urban area on the planet ) , and promising a future in which cities will undoubtedly be swept up in such conflagrations , too .
Admittedly , Donald Trump didn ’ t threaten to launch “ fire and fury like the world has never seen ” against Portland ( though he did send federal agents there to snatch peaceful protesters off its streets and continues to insult and threaten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If anything , as the fires scorched those states to a crisp , he did his best to avoid the subject of the burning West , as in these years more generally he ’ s largely treated climate change ( that “ hoax ” ) like… well , a pandemic that should be ignored while America stayed “ open.
” And it ’ s not a subject he ’ s been grilled on much either , not until recently when Western governors began laying into him over his stance on climate change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ far as I can tell , Bob Woodward , the Washington Post editor and court chronicler of presidents who , for months , had unparalleled access to Trump and grilled him on so many subjects , never bothered to ask him about the most important , most dystopian , most apocalyptic future Americans face .
And mainstream Democrats didn ’ t do much better on the subject while those fires were building to a crescendo until Joe Biden finally called the president a “ climate arsonist.
” He added , aptly enough , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four more years in the White House , why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze ?
” There ’ s no question that , at the beck and call of the fossil-fuel industry , Donald Trump and his demonic crew have worked without qualms or remorse to ensure that this would be a fiery and furious America .
Freeing that industry of restrictions of every sort , withdrawing from the Paris climate accord , opening up yet more areas for oil drilling , wiping out environmental safeguards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the West was burning ) appointing a climate-science denier to a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , the president and his crew proved themselves to be pyromaniacs of the first order .
Of course , the heating of this planet has been intensifying for decades now .
( Don ’ t forget , for instance , that Barack Obama presided over a US fracking boom that left people referring to us as “ Saudi America.
” ) Still , this president and his top officials have put remarkable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ releasing yet more carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere .
And here ’ s the strange thing : They made it deep into the present apocalyptic moment in the West without—Greta Thunberg and climate change protesters aside—being held faintly accountable for their urge to fuel the greatest danger humanity faces other than nuclear weapons .
In fact , as is increasingly obvious from the torching of the West , what we ’ re beginning to experience is a slow-motion version of the nuclear apocalypse that Trump once threatened to loose on North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Donald is indeed proving to be history ’ s “ fire and fury ” president .
And don ’ t for a moment think that there was no warning about the over-the-top burning now underway in this country .
After all , in 2019 , parts of Australia were singed to a crisp in a way never before seen , killing at least 25 humans and possibly more than a billion animals .
And that country , too , was headed by a climate-change denier , a man who once brought a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it around while soothingly telling other legislators , “ Don ’ t be afraid , don ’ t be scared.
” In addition , in recent years , the Arctic ( of all places ) has been smoking and burning in an unprecedented fashion , heating its permafrost and releasing staggering amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere .
Oh , and this June , the temperature in a small town in Siberia crossed the 100-degree mark for the first time .
By the way , Russia , too , is run by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate denier .
I mean , what is it about the urge of so many of us in such a crisis to support those dedicated to quite literally destroying this planet as a livable place for… well , us ?
( Hey there , Jair Bolsonaro ! )
Our Very Own Firenado An almost unimaginable near-half-century ago on a different planet , I lived in San Francisco .
I can still remember the fog rolling in daily , even during summer in one of the coolest , breeziest cities around .
Not this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , the temperature there broke 100 degrees , “ crushing ” the previous record for that day .
In Berkeley , across the Bay , where I also once lived long , long ago , it hit 110 .
As a heat wave swept the state ( and the West ) , temperatures near Los Angeles soared to a record-breaking 121 degrees ( almost challenging overheated Baghdad , Iraq , this year ) , while reaching 130 degrees in the aptly named Death Valley—and that ’ s just to start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the West from the Canadian to the Mexican borders .
As those fires filled the skies with smoke and ash , turning day into the eeriest of nights , a smoke cloud the likes of which had never before been seen appeared over the coastal West .
Meanwhile , firenadoes were spotted and the ash-filled air threatened terrible things for health .
As has been true for the last 46 years , I ’ m thousands of miles away from my old Bay Area haunts .
Still , I regularly check in with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some aged like me and locked in their homes lest the smoke and ash , the air from hell , do them in .
Meanwhile , their cars are packed to go , their evacuation checklists ready .
My heart goes out to them and , really , to all of us ( and , above all , to those to whom we oldsters will be leaving such a blazing , tumultuous world ) .
Sadly , among the endless scandals and horrors of the Trump era , the greatest one by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too long among those who officially matter on this beleaguered planet of ours .
Even in 2016 , it should have been obvious enough that a vote for Donald Trump was a vote for the apocalypse .
Give him credit , though .
He made no secret of that fact or that his presidency would be a fossil-fueled nightmare .
It was obvious even then that he , not climate change , was the “ hoax ” and that this planet would suffer in unique ways from his ( ad ) ministrations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump delivered as promised .
He ’ s been uniquely fiery and furious .
In his own fashion , he ’ s also been a man of his word .
He ’ s already brought “ fire and fury ” to this country in so many ways and , if he has anything to say about it , he ’ s just gotten started .
Don ’ t doubt for a second that , should he be losing on November 3rd ( or beyond , given the mail-in vote to come ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balk at leaving the White House .
Don ’ t doubt for a second that he ’ d be happy to torch that very building and whatever , at this point , is left of the American system with it before he saw himself “ lose.
” Since he is , in his own fashion , a parody of everything : A politician , a Republican , an autocrat , even a human being , he sums up in some extreme ( if eerily satiric ) fashion human efforts to destroy our way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , fiery and furiously fueled , he ’ s a historic cloud of smoke and ash over us all .
By his very nature , to use those 2017 nuclear words of his , he is “ threatening beyond a normal state.
” Think of him as the president from hell and here I mean a literal hell .
Four more years of him , his crew , and the fossil-fuelized criminals running the major oil , gas , and coal companies who are riding his coattails into profit heaven and planetary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both comedy and tragedy , that none of us should have to sit through .
He ’ s our very own firenado and—it ’ s not complicated—four more years of him will consign us to a hell on Earth of a sort still only faintly imaginable today .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
It was August 2017 and Donald Trump had not yet warmed up to Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s portly dictator. In fact, in typical Trumpian fashion, he was pissed at the Korean leader and, no less typically, he lashed out verbally, threatening that country with a literal hell on Earth. As he put it, “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” And then, just to make his point more personally, he complained about Kim himself, “He has been very threatening beyond a normal state.”
Only a year and a half later, our asteroidal president would, of course, say of that same man, “We fell in love.” Still, that threat by an American leader to—it was obvious—launch a nuclear strike for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nearly obliterated in August 1945 was memorable. The phrase would, in fact, become the title of a 2018 bestselling book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, by journalist Michael Wolff. Two years later, amid so many other threatening phrases from this president, “fire and fury” has, however, been left in history’s dustbin, largely forgotten by the world.
“This Is Not an Act of God”
Too bad, since it seems so much more relevant now that California, Oregon, and Washington, not to speak of a Southwest already officially in a “megadrought,” have experienced the sort of apocalyptic fire and fury (and heat and smoke) that has turned daytime skies an eerie nighttime orange (or yellow or even purple, claims a friend of mine living in the San Francisco Bay Area). We’re talking about a fire and fury that’s forced cars to put on their headlights at noon; destroyed towns (leaving only armed right-wing militants behind amid the flames to await imagined Antifa looters); burned millions of acres of land, putting hundreds of thousands of Americans under evacuation orders; turned startling numbers of citizens into refugees under pandemic conditions; and crept toward suburbs and cities, imperiling the world as we’ve known it. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
In the wake of the hottest summer on record in the Northern Hemisphere, we are, in other words, talking about the sort of apocalyptic conditions that the president undoubtedly had in mind for North Korea back in 2017, but not even faintly for the US of A; we’re talking, that is, about a burning season the likes of which no one in the West has ever seen before, a torching linked to the overheating of this planet thanks to the release of fossil-fuel-produced greenhouse gasses in ever greater quantities. In fact, as Washington Governor Jay Inslee pointed out recently, we shouldn’t even be talking about “wildfires” anymore, but about “climate fires” whose intensity has already outpaced by years the predictions of most climate scientists. (Or, as Inslee put it, “This is not an act of God. This has happened because we have changed the climate of the state of Washington in dramatic ways.”)
Significant hunks of the American West have now been transformed into the natural equivalent of furnaces, with fires even reaching the suburban edges of Portland, Oregon (which, for days, had the worst air quality of any major urban area on the planet), and promising a future in which cities will undoubtedly be swept up in such conflagrations, too. Admittedly, Donald Trump didn’t threaten to launch “fire and fury like the world has never seen” against Portland (though he did send federal agents there to snatch peaceful protesters off its streets and continues to insult and threaten that city’s mayor). If anything, as the fires scorched those states to a crisp, he did his best to avoid the subject of the burning West, as in these years more generally he’s largely treated climate change (that “hoax”) like… well, a pandemic that should be ignored while America stayed “open.”
And it’s not a subject he’s been grilled on much either, not until recently when Western governors began laying into him over his stance on climate change. To offer just one example, as far as I can tell, Bob Woodward, the Washington Post editor and court chronicler of presidents who, for months, had unparalleled access to Trump and grilled him on so many subjects, never bothered to ask him about the most important, most dystopian, most apocalyptic future Americans face. And mainstream Democrats didn’t do much better on the subject while those fires were building to a crescendo until Joe Biden finally called the president a “climate arsonist.” He added, aptly enough, “If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze?”
There’s no question that, at the beck and call of the fossil-fuel industry, Donald Trump and his demonic crew have worked without qualms or remorse to ensure that this would be a fiery and furious America. Freeing that industry of restrictions of every sort, withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, opening up yet more areas for oil drilling, wiping out environmental safeguards, and even (at the very moment when the West was burning) appointing a climate-science denier to a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the president and his crew proved themselves to be pyromaniacs of the first order. Current Issue View our current issue
Of course, the heating of this planet has been intensifying for decades now. (Don’t forget, for instance, that Barack Obama presided over a US fracking boom that left people referring to us as “Saudi America.”) Still, this president and his top officials have put remarkable energy (so to speak) into releasing yet more carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. And here’s the strange thing: They made it deep into the present apocalyptic moment in the West without—Greta Thunberg and climate change protesters aside—being held faintly accountable for their urge to fuel the greatest danger humanity faces other than nuclear weapons. In fact, as is increasingly obvious from the torching of the West, what we’re beginning to experience is a slow-motion version of the nuclear apocalypse that Trump once threatened to loose on North Korea.
In an all-too-literal fashion, The Donald is indeed proving to be history’s “fire and fury” president.
And don’t for a moment think that there was no warning about the over-the-top burning now underway in this country. After all, in 2019, parts of Australia were singed to a crisp in a way never before seen, killing at least 25 humans and possibly more than a billion animals. And that country, too, was headed by a climate-change denier, a man who once brought a piece of coal to parliament and handed it around while soothingly telling other legislators, “Don’t be afraid, don’t be scared.” In addition, in recent years, the Arctic (of all places) has been smoking and burning in an unprecedented fashion, heating its permafrost and releasing staggering amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Oh, and this June, the temperature in a small town in Siberia crossed the 100-degree mark for the first time.
By the way, Russia, too, is run by a leader who until recently was a climate denier. I mean, what is it about the urge of so many of us in such a crisis to support those dedicated to quite literally destroying this planet as a livable place for… well, us? (Hey there, Jair Bolsonaro!)
Our Very Own Firenado
An almost unimaginable near-half-century ago on a different planet, I lived in San Francisco. I can still remember the fog rolling in daily, even during summer in one of the coolest, breeziest cities around. Not this year, though. On September 6th, for instance, the temperature there broke 100 degrees, “crushing” the previous record for that day. In Berkeley, across the Bay, where I also once lived long, long ago, it hit 110. As a heat wave swept the state (and the West), temperatures near Los Angeles soared to a record-breaking 121 degrees (almost challenging overheated Baghdad, Iraq, this year), while reaching 130 degrees in the aptly named Death Valley—and that’s just to start down a list of soaring temperatures across the West from the Canadian to the Mexican borders.
As those fires filled the skies with smoke and ash, turning day into the eeriest of nights, a smoke cloud the likes of which had never before been seen appeared over the coastal West. Meanwhile, firenadoes were spotted and the ash-filled air threatened terrible things for health. As has been true for the last 46 years, I’m thousands of miles away from my old Bay Area haunts. Still, I regularly check in with friends and TomDispatch authors on that coast, some aged like me and locked in their homes lest the smoke and ash, the air from hell, do them in. Meanwhile, their cars are packed to go, their evacuation checklists ready.
My heart goes out to them and, really, to all of us (and, above all, to those to whom we oldsters will be leaving such a blazing, tumultuous world).
Sadly, among the endless scandals and horrors of the Trump era, the greatest one by far scandalized all too few for all too long among those who officially matter on this beleaguered planet of ours. Even in 2016, it should have been obvious enough that a vote for Donald Trump was a vote for the apocalypse. Give him credit, though. He made no secret of that fact or that his presidency would be a fossil-fueled nightmare. It was obvious even then that he, not climate change, was the “hoax” and that this planet would suffer in unique ways from his (ad)ministrations.
And in every way imaginable, Donald Trump delivered as promised. He’s been uniquely fiery and furious. In his own fashion, he’s also been a man of his word. He’s already brought “fire and fury” to this country in so many ways and, if he has anything to say about it, he’s just gotten started.
Don’t doubt for a second that, should he be losing on November 3rd (or beyond, given the mail-in vote to come), he’ll declare electoral fraud and balk at leaving the White House. Don’t doubt for a second that he’d be happy to torch that very building and whatever, at this point, is left of the American system with it before he saw himself “lose.”
Since he is, in his own fashion, a parody of everything: A politician, a Republican, an autocrat, even a human being, he sums up in some extreme (if eerily satiric) fashion human efforts to destroy our way of life in these years. In truth, fiery and furiously fueled, he’s a historic cloud of smoke and ash over us all.
By his very nature, to use those 2017 nuclear words of his, he is “threatening beyond a normal state.” Think of him as the president from hell and here I mean a literal hell. Four more years of him, his crew, and the fossil-fuelized criminals running the major oil, gas, and coal companies who are riding his coattails into profit heaven and planetary misery are the cast of a play, both comedy and tragedy, that none of us should have to sit through. He’s our very own firenado and—it’s not complicated—four more years of him will consign us to a hell on Earth of a sort still only faintly imaginable today.


thenation--2020-09-23--Why LeBron James Scares the Racist Right

LeBron James matters in a way that few athletes have ever mattered in the history of sports .
This is because he manages to combine the rarest of elements : He is arguably the best to ever play his sport , he gives a damn about social issues , and his media reach is unlike any athlete before him .
That last point is perhaps the most decisive in understanding the power of LeBron and why he has become a target of the white nationalist right wing .
It ’ s not only that LeBron started a public school—not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on CNN—for underprivileged kids in Akron , Ohio .
It ’ s not only that he has been consistently outspoken for a decade on questions of racist vigilantism and police violence .
It ’ s not only that he is part of a program right now called More Than A Vote that is attempting to register voters and “ combat systemic , racist voter suppression , ” something that has earned him the ire of the scummiest dregs of the right-wing sports media .
It ’ s his reach when striving to perform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , LeBron has a measure of power that previous athlete-activists could not touch .
Muhammad Ali always had to go through the filter of the sports media , and at times the right-wing Beltway media , in order to be heard .
Michael Jordan was only heard through the prism of corporate salesmanship .
We could hear what Michael was saying , but it usually involved Nike or Hanes underwear .
LeBron James has 47.4 million Twitter followers .
On Instagram , he has 72.3 million .
Those totals exceed the combined “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he doesn ’ t resort to appealing to people ’ s basest instincts in order to get there .
Trump has mocked LeBron ’ s intelligence , but no one , not even Trump ’ s powerful lizard brain , uses their messaging more effectively .
Trump insults legions of people to the point where it ’ s all become “ white noise.
” When LeBron called Trump “ u bum ” after the president disinvited the Golden State Warriors to the White House , it was a news event unto itself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Than a Love Story We ’ ve Entered the Era of ‘ Branding for Black Lives ’ With this voice that is capable of reaching more than 100 million people , LeBron has shown a remarkable discipline in trying to uplift his community and openly criticize a US police force that is off the rails .
The latest slander he has had to endure from the white nationalist right , which seethes over the fact that he has such a platform , is that his activism has encouraged violence against police officers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ same LASD that ’ s being sued by Kobe Bryant ’ s widow , Vanessa , for taking pictures of Kobe and their daughter Gianna at the site of their helicopter crash for personal use , challenged LeBron to put up a reward to capture the shooter of two police officers .
It was a cheap stunt , and the right treated it as a gotcha moment .
But LeBron did not bite , saying , “ I have zero response on the Sheriff.
” Instead , speaking to reporters this week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daring to raise your voice against police violence is somehow an encouragement of assaults aimed at police .
“ Not one time have I ever said let ’ s act violent toward cops , ” he said .
“ I just said what ’ s going on in our community is not okay .
And we fear for that , and we fear for our lives .
It ’ s something that we go through every single day as a Black man , a Black woman and a Black kid and a Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re pulled over.
” He also said : “ I ’ ve never in my 35 years ever condoned violence .
I never have .
But I also know what right is right and what wrong is wrong .
I grew up in the inner city and the Black community in what we call ‘ the hood ’ or ‘ the ghetto , ’ however you want to picture it .
I ’ ve seen a lot of accounts first-hand of Black people being racially profiled because of our color .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole life .
I ’ m not saying that all cops are bad .
“ Throughout high school and things of that nature , and I ’ m around them all the time , and they ’ re not all bad .
But when you see the videos of that ’ s going on , and you see them not only in my hometown , but all over America , you continue to see the acts of violence toward my kind , I can ’ t do nothing but speak about it and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke about a recent event in Monona , Wis. , where a Black man , Keonte Furdge , was handcuffed in his own home by police at gunpoint for the crime of sitting on his porch , to the alarm of his neighbors : LeBron will always have his detractors : people on the right who want to silence him and then those on the left who wish he would use his immense cultural capital to push even harder for systemic charge .
But that misses the broader point : LeBron is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s our job .
But he has been—and can be—one of the great amplifiers in history for what the movement is saying .
The streets want police accountability , as witnessed by the largest protests this summer in the history of the United States .
LeBron can get that message in front of the eyes of white fans and puncture the privilege that protects the majority of this country from having to reckon with racist police abuse .
That makes him powerful .
That also makes him dangerous to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis , who is pushing a bill that would criminalize protest to a degree that would lock up anyone participating , organizing , or believed to be supporting acts of protest deemed to be civil disobedience .
LeBron needs to be supported in the face of these attacks and , when necessary , defended .
That ’ s the reality of the United States : Opposing the bigotry coming from the highest levels of government is a responsibility .
It is also done at his—and our—own risk and even @ @

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
LeBron James matters in a way that few athletes have ever mattered in the history of sports. This is because he manages to combine the rarest of elements: He is arguably the best to ever play his sport, he gives a damn about social issues, and his media reach is unlike any athlete before him.
That last point is perhaps the most decisive in understanding the power of LeBron and why he has become a target of the white nationalist right wing. It’s not only that LeBron started a public school—not a charter school, as Jared Kushner lied on CNN—for underprivileged kids in Akron, Ohio. It’s not only that he has been consistently outspoken for a decade on questions of racist vigilantism and police violence. It’s not only that he is part of a program right now called More Than A Vote that is attempting to register voters and “combat systemic, racist voter suppression,” something that has earned him the ire of the scummiest dregs of the right-wing sports media. It’s his reach when striving to perform these tasks.
Because of social media, LeBron has a measure of power that previous athlete-activists could not touch. Muhammad Ali always had to go through the filter of the sports media, and at times the right-wing Beltway media, in order to be heard. Michael Jordan was only heard through the prism of corporate salesmanship. We could hear what Michael was saying, but it usually involved Nike or Hanes underwear. LeBron James has 47.4 million Twitter followers. On Instagram, he has 72.3 million. Those totals exceed the combined “following” of Donald Trump, and he doesn’t resort to appealing to people’s basest instincts in order to get there.
Trump has mocked LeBron’s intelligence, but no one, not even Trump’s powerful lizard brain, uses their messaging more effectively. Trump insults legions of people to the point where it’s all become “white noise.” When LeBron called Trump “u bum” after the president disinvited the Golden State Warriors to the White House, it was a news event unto itself. More From Dave Zirin “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash August 15, 2023 Why the Right Wanted the USWNT to Lose August 10, 2023 Carli Lloyd’s Attacks on the USWNT Are Personal—and Political August 1, 2023
With this voice that is capable of reaching more than 100 million people, LeBron has shown a remarkable discipline in trying to uplift his community and openly criticize a US police force that is off the rails. The latest slander he has had to endure from the white nationalist right, which seethes over the fact that he has such a platform, is that his activism has encouraged violence against police officers. The LA Sheriffs’ Department, the same LASD that’s being sued by Kobe Bryant’s widow, Vanessa, for taking pictures of Kobe and their daughter Gianna at the site of their helicopter crash for personal use, challenged LeBron to put up a reward to capture the shooter of two police officers. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
It was a cheap stunt, and the right treated it as a gotcha moment. But LeBron did not bite, saying, “I have zero response on the Sheriff.” Instead, speaking to reporters this week, he spoke about the outlandish allegation that daring to raise your voice against police violence is somehow an encouragement of assaults aimed at police. “Not one time have I ever said let’s act violent toward cops,” he said. “I just said what’s going on in our community is not okay. And we fear for that, and we fear for our lives. It’s something that we go through every single day as a Black man, a Black woman and a Black kid and a Black girl, we fear that moment where we’re pulled over.”
He also said:
“I’ve never in my 35 years ever condoned violence. I never have. But I also know what right is right and what wrong is wrong. I grew up in the inner city and the Black community in what we call ‘the hood’ or ‘the ghetto,’ however you want to picture it. I’ve seen a lot of accounts first-hand of Black people being racially profiled because of our color. I’ve seen it throughout my whole life. I’m not saying that all cops are bad. “Throughout high school and things of that nature, and I’m around them all the time, and they’re not all bad. But when you see the videos of that’s going on, and you see them not only in my hometown, but all over America, you continue to see the acts of violence toward my kind, I can’t do nothing but speak about it and see the common denominator.”
LeBron then spoke about a recent event in Monona, Wis., where a Black man, Keonte Furdge, was handcuffed in his own home by police at gunpoint for the crime of sitting on his porch, to the alarm of his neighbors:
“Police came in the house without a warrant, without anything and arrested the guy, a Black man, because he was sitting out on the porch. If you can’t tell me that’s not racial profiling, then what the hell are we looking at? But I don’t condone violence toward anyone, police, Black people, white people, anyone of color, anyone not of color. Because that’s not ever going to make this world or America what we want it to be.”
LeBron will always have his detractors: people on the right who want to silence him and then those on the left who wish he would use his immense cultural capital to push even harder for systemic charge. But that misses the broader point: LeBron is not going to change the world for us. That’s our job. But he has been—and can be—one of the great amplifiers in history for what the movement is saying.
The streets want police accountability, as witnessed by the largest protests this summer in the history of the United States. LeBron can get that message in front of the eyes of white fans and puncture the privilege that protects the majority of this country from having to reckon with racist police abuse. That makes him powerful. That also makes him dangerous to those with a vested interest in systemic oppression—people like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is pushing a bill that would criminalize protest to a degree that would lock up anyone participating, organizing, or believed to be supporting acts of protest deemed to be civil disobedience. LeBron needs to be supported in the face of these attacks and, when necessary, defended. That’s the reality of the United States: Opposing the bigotry coming from the highest levels of government is a responsibility. It is also done at his—and our—own risk and even peril.


thenation--2020-09-23--Trump Wants Another ‘Bush v. Gore’

Trump Wants Another ‘Bush v. Gore’

Democrats are justifiably upset about the extreme haste with which the Trump White House and its Senate allies are rushing to fill the Supreme Court vacancy opened up by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
As of this morning , Trump hasn ’ t even announced a nominee , but senators like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are assuring the public that Trump ’ s choice will be confirmed , making a hash of the constitutional role of “ advise and consent.
” It ’ s likely that the eventual nominee will take the seat before the next inauguration—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s plenty of procedural grounds for objecting to this sprint to the highest court in the land , not least that it violates the principle many Republican senators had previously affirmed that there be no confirmation in the last year of a presidential term .
But leaving aside constitutional and procedural objections , there ’ s also the sinister fact that Trump is openly talking about shaping a court in preparation for a legal fight over the November election .
Speaking to the press on Wednesday , Trump said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they ’ re sending , it ’ s a scam .
It ’ s a hoax .
Everybody knows that .
And the Democrats know it better than anybody else .
So you ’ re gon na need nine justices up there .
I think it ’ s going to be very important because what they are doing is a hoax with the ballot.
” Nor can Trump ’ s words be dismissed as empty bluster of the type he ’ s often prone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke , Vice President Mike Pence appeared on the Lou Dobbs show on Fox News and made a similar argument .
“ With all of the talk about universal unsolicited mail-in ballots where we see states across the country extending the deadline , there is a possibility that election issues may come before the Supreme Court in the days following the election , ” Pence claimed .
“ All the more reason why we should have nine justices on the Supreme Court to be able to resolve any issues that may arise then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just-published story in The Atlantic documents that Republican officials are “ discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.
” Commenting on Trump ’ s words , former Washington Post reporter Matt O ’ Brien noted on Twitter that “ Trump is like a Bond villain who can ’ t help but tell us about his plan to rig the election .
That ’ s telling his supporters to vote in person so he wins the votes…cast on Election Day itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from being counted .
Bush v Gore 2.0 is the plan.
” New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie came to the same assessment of Pence ’ s words : “ Their plan to ‘ win ’ the election is Bush v. Gore on steroids.
” With Pence making the same arguments as Trump , we can safely conclude that O ’ Brien and Bouie are right : The Republicans are attempting a reprise of Bush v. Gore , the infamous 2000 case that allowed a Republican majority on the Supreme Court to shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and anoint George W. Bush as president .
One difference is that in Bush v. Gore , the court ’ s intervention was in the Florida recount .
In the current election , the plan seems to muddy the waters while the count is happening .
Then Trump could declare a premature victory ( as Bush did on the night of the election ) , causing further confusion .
Voting is already being shaped by ongoing litigation in many states .
The problem with Pennsylvania ’ s ballots offers a foreshadowing of potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Based on previous elections , there could be 100,000 ballots tossed out .
In 2016 , Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by fewer than 45,000 votes .
A reprise of Bush v. Gore isn ’ t inevitable .
Since the 2000 debacle , Democrats have strengthened their legal game and are winning significant victories in court battles .
Further , if Biden wins a convincing victory on election night in both the popular vote and the Electoral College , it ’ ll be virtually impossible for the courts to steal the election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ robust on the national level as well as in swing states .
Democrats Can ’ t Take Any Option Off the Table Still , Democrats can ’ t put their faith in a best-case scenario and should prepare for legal shenanigans .
One key factor is being ready to challenge the legitimacy of the courts if they do intervene in a grossly partisan manner .
This is something that Al Gore singularly failed to do in the 2000 election .
He put maintaining popular faith in the legitimacy of the system above his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to , he could have mobilized popular protests to support a recount .
Instead , the only protesters were paid agents of the Republican Party , in the notorious “ Brooks Brothers riot ” that stopped the recount .
Gore made a costly mistake .
Biden can ’ t afford to repeat it .
One way to avoid Gore ’ s failure is to prepare the public to be skeptical of the court .
The current Supreme Court fight has to be waged not just in terms of abstract principles but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign should make the case , amply supported by the words of Trump and Pence , that the current Supreme Court fight is motivated by a desire to rig the election .
There are many reasons Donald Trump shouldn ’ t be allowed to choose the next Supreme Court justice .
One of the most important is that Trump can ’ t be permitted to the steal the presidency with the help of the courts .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Democrats are justifiably upset about the extreme haste with which the Trump White House and its Senate allies are rushing to fill the Supreme Court vacancy opened up by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As of this morning, Trump hasn’t even announced a nominee, but senators like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are assuring the public that Trump’s choice will be confirmed, making a hash of the constitutional role of “advise and consent.” It’s likely that the eventual nominee will take the seat before the next inauguration—and quite possibly before the presidential election.
There’s plenty of procedural grounds for objecting to this sprint to the highest court in the land, not least that it violates the principle many Republican senators had previously affirmed that there be no confirmation in the last year of a presidential term.
But leaving aside constitutional and procedural objections, there’s also the sinister fact that Trump is openly talking about shaping a court in preparation for a legal fight over the November election.
Speaking to the press on Wednesday, Trump said, “We need nine justices. You need that. With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending, it’s a scam. It’s a hoax. Everybody knows that. And the Democrats know it better than anybody else. So you’re gonna need nine justices up there. I think it’s going to be very important because what they are doing is a hoax with the ballot.” More From Jeet Heer The Indigenous Roots of Robbie Robertson’s Rock and Roll Revolution August 14, 2023 Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? August 11, 2023 When Phallocrats Go Limp August 4, 2023
Nor can Trump’s words be dismissed as empty bluster of the type he’s often prone to. On the same day Trump spoke, Vice President Mike Pence appeared on the Lou Dobbs show on Fox News and made a similar argument. “With all of the talk about universal unsolicited mail-in ballots where we see states across the country extending the deadline, there is a possibility that election issues may come before the Supreme Court in the days following the election,” Pence claimed. “All the more reason why we should have nine justices on the Supreme Court to be able to resolve any issues that may arise then or on any other matter.” A just-published story in The Atlantic documents that Republican officials are “discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.”
Commenting on Trump’s words, former Washington Post reporter Matt O’Brien noted on Twitter that “Trump is like a Bond villain who can’t help but tell us about his plan to rig the election. That’s telling his supporters to vote in person so he wins the votes…cast on Election Day itself & then suing to stop absentee ballots from being counted. Bush v Gore 2.0 is the plan.” New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie came to the same assessment of Pence’s words: “Their plan to ‘win’ the election is Bush v. Gore on steroids.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
With Pence making the same arguments as Trump, we can safely conclude that O’Brien and Bouie are right: The Republicans are attempting a reprise of Bush v. Gore, the infamous 2000 case that allowed a Republican majority on the Supreme Court to shut down a recount in a close election and anoint George W. Bush as president. Current Issue View our current issue
One difference is that in Bush v. Gore, the court’s intervention was in the Florida recount. In the current election, the plan seems to muddy the waters while the count is happening. Then Trump could declare a premature victory (as Bush did on the night of the election), causing further confusion.
Voting is already being shaped by ongoing litigation in many states. The problem with Pennsylvania’s ballots offers a foreshadowing of potential Election Day chaos. As CNN reports,
Philadelphia’s top election official is warning that thousands of mail-in ballots could be thrown out in November unless changes are made to rules around ‘secrecy envelopes’—second sleeves that help prevent poll workers from seeing how someone voted. The Pennsylvania Supreme court ruled last Friday that officials can reject so-called naked ballots that are received without the secrecy envelope. State election officials had previously provided guidance telling counties to count naked ballots.
Based on previous elections, there could be 100,000 ballots tossed out. In 2016, Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by fewer than 45,000 votes.
A reprise of Bush v. Gore isn’t inevitable. Since the 2000 debacle, Democrats have strengthened their legal game and are winning significant victories in court battles. Further, if Biden wins a convincing victory on election night in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, it’ll be virtually impossible for the courts to steal the election. Recent polls for Biden have been steadily robust on the national level as well as in swing states. Battle for the Court Democrats Can’t Take Any Option Off the Table Joan Walsh
Still, Democrats can’t put their faith in a best-case scenario and should prepare for legal shenanigans. One key factor is being ready to challenge the legitimacy of the courts if they do intervene in a grossly partisan manner. This is something that Al Gore singularly failed to do in the 2000 election. He put maintaining popular faith in the legitimacy of the system above his own personal ambition. If he had wanted to, he could have mobilized popular protests to support a recount. Instead, the only protesters were paid agents of the Republican Party, in the notorious “Brooks Brothers riot” that stopped the recount.
Gore made a costly mistake. Biden can’t afford to repeat it. One way to avoid Gore’s failure is to prepare the public to be skeptical of the court. The current Supreme Court fight has to be waged not just in terms of abstract principles but also in bluntly partisan ones. The Biden campaign should make the case, amply supported by the words of Trump and Pence, that the current Supreme Court fight is motivated by a desire to rig the election.
There are many reasons Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to choose the next Supreme Court justice. One of the most important is that Trump can’t be permitted to the steal the presidency with the help of the courts.


thenation--2020-09-23--There Is Only One Way Out of This Crisis: Expand the Court

As feared , Donald Trump should have enough votes from hypocritical Republican senators to push through his Supreme Court nominee , in violation of the rule against confirming people in a presidential election year that Mitch McConnell invented to block Merrick Garland ’ s nomination in 2016 .
We are in a crisis .
If Trump and McConnell confirm another justice before the inauguration , the court will be slanted , 6-3 in favor of justices appointed by Republican presidents .
Of those , one , Clarence Thomas , was accused of repeated sexual harassment .
Another , Neil Gorsuch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented steps to block the nominee of a Democratic president .
A third , Brett Kavanaugh , has been accused of lying to Congress ; participating in a scheme to steal preparatory e-mails from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee ; exposing himself and making unwanted sexual advances to a college classmate ; and attempting rape while he was in high school .
And now Trump and McConnell propose to add a fourth justice while an election is underway , perhaps to be confirmed by a lame-duck Senate full of people who may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In response , there seems to be a cadre of moderate Democrats , both in office and lurking around the political landscape , who are desperate to come up with any solution to this crisis other than expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court should they take power .
Expanding the number of justices ( dubbed “ court packing ” after Franklin Delano Roosevelt ’ s failed attempt to stack the court with justices amenable to New Deal policies in 1938 ) is the most direct way to address the structural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination process .
Democrats could , through legislation that passes both chambers of Congress and is signed by the president , add additional members to the court , and then fill those newly added seats .
Perhaps the Democrats could add four justices to balance out the four Republican who shouldn ’ t be there .
As I wrote back in February , I favor a plan that would add 10 justices to the bench .
But instead of organizing around a political solution to the Republican politicization of the courts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules of engagement .
Some Democrats remain hopeful that Republicans can be shamed into doing the right thing , as if the party that steps over 200,000 dead bodies to carry Trump ’ s golf bags is capable of feeling shame .
Others , including a number of serious legal scholars , have taken to offering an increasingly fanciful set of possible solutions to the likely problem of a court with six conservatives .
The idea of term limits—that is appointing Supreme Court justices for a set number of years instead of indefinitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Polls show that 77 percent of Americans favor some form of restriction on the length of service on the Supreme Court .
The problem is , term limits are also flatly unconstitutional , and while there are some very creative plans to get around the Constitution ’ s pronouncement that Supreme Court justices serve while in good behavior , none of those plans can explain why a conservative-controlled Supreme Court would agree to such limits on their own tenures .
Meanwhile , over at The Week , Ryan Cooper suggested that Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority of judicial review , set in the landmark 1801 case Marbury v. Madison .
Judicial review is what allows the Supreme Court to rule certain laws “ unconstitutional ” in the first place .
Without it , pretty much anything the legislature declares constitutional is constitutional .
Cooper suggests that presidents should merely assert that Supreme Court rulings are advisory opinions , instead of binding law .
Neat !
If you don ’ t like what the court says , you can just ignore it .
That ’ s great , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accept the possibility of Republican administrations reinstituting segregation and reauthorizing laws against “ sodomy.
” Name me an inventive , nonpartisan solution to the current dilemma faced by Democrats , and I will show you a constitutional defect the conservative Supreme Court will use against it .
The only exception is court expansion .
That ’ s why the resistance to the idea puzzles me .
It is perhaps the single constitutional remedy to a high court that no longer reflects the will of the people or represents the nation it serves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the part that establishes the Supreme Court , is incredibly short given the court ’ s importance in our constitutional system .
It asks very little of the Supreme Court , which at the founding was not thought to be a particularly important branch .
Section 1 of Article III does almost all of the work .
Read it for yourselves : From that brief blurb there are only three things worth noting : “ Judicial power ” is undefined ( which is why Chief Justice John Marshall was able to define @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices serve for life ; and the structure of the courts , including how many people are on it and the qualifications for their appointment , is left entirely up to Congress and the president .
Now , I ’ m not an originalist .
I ’ m not a part of the Federalist Society , so I do not make the intellectually dishonest claim that I have a Ouija board that allows me to know what the men who wrote these rules truly intended .
In addition , I happen to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if you proved to me exactly what this collection of slavers and colonizers was really thinking , I wouldn ’ t care .
But I can tell you that the men who wrote this document absolutely acted as though the number of Supreme Court justices was flexible and ripe for political manipulation .
The Supreme Court opened with six justices .
But after John Adams lost the presidential election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson , Adams reduced the number of justices to five during the lame-duck period before Jefferson took office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s so-called “ Midnight Judges Act ” reduced the number of seats to five “ upon the next vacancy ” on the court .
Again , limiting the tenure of Supreme Court justices has simply never been okay , but changing how many people sit on the court has always been constitutional .
Jefferson , of course , didn ’ t give a damn about Adams ’ s act .
This is an important point for current Democrats to understand .
Despite Adams ’ s efforts to control the court through lame-duck legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , and restored the number of justices to six .
In 1807 , on his way out the door , Jefferson added and filled a seventh seat on the Supreme Court .
No constitutional crisis ensued .
A seven-member court was what was in place when Andrew Jackson set his sights on it in 1837 .
Jackson added two more seats to the Supreme Court and filled them .
That dude really did not want there to be a national bank , or rights for Native Americans .
It was the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which represents a 50 percent increase from the number of justices on the court at the founding , less than 50 years earlier .
If We Don ’ t Reform the Supreme Court , Nothing Else Will Matter The DNC Refuses to Address the Elephant in the Room The number of Supreme Court justices changed again during the Civil War years : ballooning to 10 , shrinking back down to seven , and then finally landing back at nine with the Judiciary Act of 1869 .
Much has changed since then .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ women are , like , people , with a right to participate and vote on the laws under which they are governed .
I don ’ t know what the women of America thought about a nine-justice Supreme Court in 1869 , because nobody asked them .
It seems like this should be relevant to the people who think a women ’ s right to her own body is a matter of political debate but the nine-justice Supreme Court is sacrosanct .
Despite various social changes and the 13 Constitutional Amendments ratified since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governing how many justices are on the court has remained unchanged .
It was up to Congress in 1787 ; it was up to Congress in 1869 ; and it is up to Congress today .
It was up to Congress in 2016 , as well , when Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell decided for 10 months to reduce the number of justices on the Supreme Court to eight to thwart the power of a president he didn ’ t like .
McConnell is not a genius .
He ’ s not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure out that manipulating the number of justices on the Supreme Court is a way to assert a political agenda he could not achieve at the ballot box .
He ’ s not the first person to futz with the court in order to gain political leverage .
If McConnell seems historically powerful , it is because the opposition has not committed to doing whatever it takes to stop him .
Should the Democrats win control of the presidency and the Senate , changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s winning control of the Senate in 2014 and changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to eight until a Republican won the White House .
It is our constitutional system working as intended , or at least as the men who wrote the system worked it .
Everything else is radical .
Changing the appointment power , as McConnell has tried to do , so that Democratic presidents are not allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices or lower court judges is radical .
Changing the lifetime tenure of federal judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States—as Trump has done after a ruling upholding the DACA program , and as Christian conservatives have tried to do in the face of rulings confirming LGBTQ rights—is radical .
Expanding the number of people who sit on the Supreme Court is a normal American solution to a problem that has happened before in our history .
It might not be easy for Democrats to wrap their heads around that politically , but , constitutionally speaking , it ’ s the easiest option on the table .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of their quiver .
There are lots of things Democrats claim they want to do to restore our democracy after the Trump era , but none of that can happen if they don ’ t add justices to the court first .
If Democrats wait to address the Supreme Court until they fulfill other priorities , then the first thing a 6-3 Supreme Court will do is reject those priorities .
It will repeal any Democratic health care plan , or any attempt to restore a health care plan .
It will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cronies sit for depositions and face justice .
It will nullify attempts to add D.C. as a state ( and Puerto Rico if that were , somehow , what the majority of Puerto Ricans wanted ) .
It will rule the “ John Lewis Voting Rights Act ” just as unconstitutional as the Voting Rights Act that John Roberts gutted .
And since the party in power tends to lose seats in the midterm elections , any attempt to expand the court after 2022 , as the country gets used to a permanent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even harder .
Should the Democrats win , there can be no other priority for them in 2021 that takes precedence over expanding the court , because the 6-3 court has been packed specifically to thwart their agenda .
Win the Senate .
Win the White House .
Pass a bill expanding the court .
That is how democracies work .
And if Republicans win in the future and pass a different bill and add even more seats , so be it .
That is also how democracies work .
A country where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court justices—justices , moreover , who may then get to decide who wins a presidential election that was already underway when they were appointed—is not how democracies work .
That ’ s how despotism works .
That ’ s how the constitutional system fails .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
As feared, Donald Trump should have enough votes from hypocritical Republican senators to push through his Supreme Court nominee, in violation of the rule against confirming people in a presidential election year that Mitch McConnell invented to block Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016.
We are in a crisis. If Trump and McConnell confirm another justice before the inauguration, the court will be slanted, 6-3 in favor of justices appointed by Republican presidents. Of those, one, Clarence Thomas, was accused of repeated sexual harassment. Another, Neil Gorsuch, was elevated only after McConnell took unprecedented steps to block the nominee of a Democratic president. A third, Brett Kavanaugh, has been accused of lying to Congress; participating in a scheme to steal preparatory e-mails from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee; exposing himself and making unwanted sexual advances to a college classmate; and attempting rape while he was in high school. And now Trump and McConnell propose to add a fourth justice while an election is underway, perhaps to be confirmed by a lame-duck Senate full of people who may have already been voted out of office.
In response, there seems to be a cadre of moderate Democrats, both in office and lurking around the political landscape, who are desperate to come up with any solution to this crisis other than expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court should they take power.
Expanding the number of justices (dubbed “court packing” after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s failed attempt to stack the court with justices amenable to New Deal policies in 1938) is the most direct way to address the structural imbalance brought about by Republican manipulation of the nomination process. Democrats could, through legislation that passes both chambers of Congress and is signed by the president, add additional members to the court, and then fill those newly added seats. Perhaps the Democrats could add four justices to balance out the four Republican who shouldn’t be there. As I wrote back in February, I favor a plan that would add 10 justices to the bench.
But instead of organizing around a political solution to the Republican politicization of the courts, some Democrats remain stuck on the old rules of engagement. Some Democrats remain hopeful that Republicans can be shamed into doing the right thing, as if the party that steps over 200,000 dead bodies to carry Trump’s golf bags is capable of feeling shame. Others, including a number of serious legal scholars, have taken to offering an increasingly fanciful set of possible solutions to the likely problem of a court with six conservatives. The idea of term limits—that is appointing Supreme Court justices for a set number of years instead of indefinitely until they die or retire—is incredibly popular. Polls show that 77 percent of Americans favor some form of restriction on the length of service on the Supreme Court. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
The problem is, term limits are also flatly unconstitutional, and while there are some very creative plans to get around the Constitution’s pronouncement that Supreme Court justices serve while in good behavior, none of those plans can explain why a conservative-controlled Supreme Court would agree to such limits on their own tenures.
Meanwhile, over at The Week, Ryan Cooper suggested that Democrats simply ignore the Supreme Court’s authority of judicial review, set in the landmark 1801 case Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review is what allows the Supreme Court to rule certain laws “unconstitutional” in the first place. Without it, pretty much anything the legislature declares constitutional is constitutional. Cooper suggests that presidents should merely assert that Supreme Court rulings are advisory opinions, instead of binding law. Neat! If you don’t like what the court says, you can just ignore it. That’s great, so long as you’re also willing to accept the possibility of Republican administrations reinstituting segregation and reauthorizing laws against “sodomy.” Current Issue View our current issue
Name me an inventive, nonpartisan solution to the current dilemma faced by Democrats, and I will show you a constitutional defect the conservative Supreme Court will use against it. The only exception is court expansion. That’s why the resistance to the idea puzzles me. It is perhaps the single constitutional remedy to a high court that no longer reflects the will of the people or represents the nation it serves.
Article III of the US Constitution, the part that establishes the Supreme Court, is incredibly short given the court’s importance in our constitutional system. It asks very little of the Supreme Court, which at the founding was not thought to be a particularly important branch. Section 1 of Article III does almost all of the work. Read it for yourselves:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
From that brief blurb there are only three things worth noting: “Judicial power” is undefined (which is why Chief Justice John Marshall was able to define it in Marbury v. Madison); justices serve for life; and the structure of the courts, including how many people are on it and the qualifications for their appointment, is left entirely up to Congress and the president.
Now, I’m not an originalist. I’m not a part of the Federalist Society, so I do not make the intellectually dishonest claim that I have a Ouija board that allows me to know what the men who wrote these rules truly intended. In addition, I happen to be Black, which for me means that even if you proved to me exactly what this collection of slavers and colonizers was really thinking, I wouldn’t care.
But I can tell you that the men who wrote this document absolutely acted as though the number of Supreme Court justices was flexible and ripe for political manipulation. The Supreme Court opened with six justices. But after John Adams lost the presidential election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson, Adams reduced the number of justices to five during the lame-duck period before Jefferson took office. It must be noted that Adam’s so-called “Midnight Judges Act” reduced the number of seats to five “upon the next vacancy” on the court. Again, limiting the tenure of Supreme Court justices has simply never been okay, but changing how many people sit on the court has always been constitutional.
Jefferson, of course, didn’t give a damn about Adams’s act. This is an important point for current Democrats to understand. Despite Adams’s efforts to control the court through lame-duck legislation, Jefferson reversed him immediately upon assuming office, and restored the number of justices to six.
In 1807, on his way out the door, Jefferson added and filled a seventh seat on the Supreme Court. No constitutional crisis ensued.
A seven-member court was what was in place when Andrew Jackson set his sights on it in 1837. Jackson added two more seats to the Supreme Court and filled them. That dude really did not want there to be a national bank, or rights for Native Americans. It was the first time the Supreme Court reached nine justices, which represents a 50 percent increase from the number of justices on the court at the founding, less than 50 years earlier. More from Mystal If We Don’t Reform the Supreme Court, Nothing Else Will Matter Elie Mystal Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Dying Wish: DISSENT! Elie Mystal The DNC Refuses to Address the Elephant in the Room Elie Mystal
The number of Supreme Court justices changed again during the Civil War years: ballooning to 10, shrinking back down to seven, and then finally landing back at nine with the Judiciary Act of 1869.
Much has changed since then. For instance, we now recognize that women are, like, people, with a right to participate and vote on the laws under which they are governed. I don’t know what the women of America thought about a nine-justice Supreme Court in 1869, because nobody asked them. It seems like this should be relevant to the people who think a women’s right to her own body is a matter of political debate but the nine-justice Supreme Court is sacrosanct.
Despite various social changes and the 13 Constitutional Amendments ratified since 1869, the part of the constitution governing how many justices are on the court has remained unchanged. It was up to Congress in 1787; it was up to Congress in 1869; and it is up to Congress today.
It was up to Congress in 2016, as well, when Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell decided for 10 months to reduce the number of justices on the Supreme Court to eight to thwart the power of a president he didn’t like. McConnell is not a genius. He’s not the first white man in American history to figure out that manipulating the number of justices on the Supreme Court is a way to assert a political agenda he could not achieve at the ballot box. He’s not the first person to futz with the court in order to gain political leverage.
If McConnell seems historically powerful, it is because the opposition has not committed to doing whatever it takes to stop him. Should the Democrats win control of the presidency and the Senate, changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court is the proportional constitutional response to McConnell’s winning control of the Senate in 2014 and changing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to eight until a Republican won the White House. It is our constitutional system working as intended, or at least as the men who wrote the system worked it.
Everything else is radical. Changing the appointment power, as McConnell has tried to do, so that Democratic presidents are not allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices or lower court judges is radical. Changing the lifetime tenure of federal judges is radical. Ignoring the judicial power of the United States—as Trump has done after a ruling upholding the DACA program, and as Christian conservatives have tried to do in the face of rulings confirming LGBTQ rights—is radical.
Expanding the number of people who sit on the Supreme Court is a normal American solution to a problem that has happened before in our history. It might not be easy for Democrats to wrap their heads around that politically, but, constitutionally speaking, it’s the easiest option on the table.
It’s also the first arrow Democrats must pull out of their quiver. There are lots of things Democrats claim they want to do to restore our democracy after the Trump era, but none of that can happen if they don’t add justices to the court first. If Democrats wait to address the Supreme Court until they fulfill other priorities, then the first thing a 6-3 Supreme Court will do is reject those priorities. It will repeal any Democratic health care plan, or any attempt to restore a health care plan. It will rebuff attempts to make Trump or his cronies sit for depositions and face justice. It will nullify attempts to add D.C. as a state (and Puerto Rico if that were, somehow, what the majority of Puerto Ricans wanted). It will rule the “John Lewis Voting Rights Act” just as unconstitutional as the Voting Rights Act that John Roberts gutted. And since the party in power tends to lose seats in the midterm elections, any attempt to expand the court after 2022, as the country gets used to a permanent conservative majority on the court, becomes even harder.
Should the Democrats win, there can be no other priority for them in 2021 that takes precedence over expanding the court, because the 6-3 court has been packed specifically to thwart their agenda.
Win the Senate. Win the White House. Pass a bill expanding the court. That is how democracies work. And if Republicans win in the future and pass a different bill and add even more seats, so be it. That is also how democracies work.
A country where only one party gets to appoint Supreme Court justices—justices, moreover, who may then get to decide who wins a presidential election that was already underway when they were appointed—is not how democracies work. That’s how despotism works. That’s how the constitutional system fails.