thenation--2020-09-19--Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Dying Wish: DISSENT!

She should have died hereafter .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away tonight at the age of 87 .
I would like to mourn her .
But even Ginsburg herself realized there would be no time for that .
On her deathbed , she dictated a message that was recorded by her granddaughter : “ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.
” Even near her end , Justice Ginsburg was citing precedent .
Here , she was specifically invoking the precedent set by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Supreme Court vacated after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia ( who died in February of 2016 ) until after the election that November and the inauguration of a new president in 2017 .
McConnell has already indicated that he doesn ’ t care about that precedent .
Within hours of Ginsburg ’ s death , he told The Washington Post that Trump ’ s nominee to replace Ginsburg will receive a full vote on the Senate floor .
McConnell will use all his considerable power to confirm a new Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the election , if he thinks he can get away with it , or during the lame duck session after the election , should Republicans lose either the Senate or the White House .
Ginsburg herself surely knew this .
Her deathbed dictation should not be read as the fleeting hope bubbles of a dying old lady , but as an exhortation to fight from the fiercest defender of women ’ s rights of her generation .
This was her dying dissent : a message not about what Trump and McConnell should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
We must not let her be “ replaced ” until a new president is installed .
The Police Are Lying in LA and the Media Is Falling for It—Again For Trump , Defaming His Rape Accuser Is Part of His Job The prospects for near-term success are grim .
McConnell has already removed the filibuster rule for Supreme Court appointments , which means he needs only 50 votes to confirm a new justice ( since the vice president breaks any ties ) , and he has 53 Republicans .
Democrats would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to agree to wait until after the election to move on a nominee .
Even if political pressure can be brought against Republicans in close Senate races to reject McConnell ’ s hypocrisy , Democrats would have to keep those Republicans on board , against McConnell , through the transition to the next presidential term .
It ’ s entirely possible that some of those vulnerable Republicans will lose their election campaigns anyway , and thus have no real reason to stick with Democrats before the inauguration , instead of voting with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ careers in Republican politics .
There are rumors flying tonight that some Republican senators might be amenable to delaying the nomination until 2021 .
But McConnell hasn ’ t put the screws to them yet .
Remember , initially it seemed very unlikely that McConnell would be able to indefinitely hold open the Scalia seat , but he did .
It ’ s not hard to see how McConnell will control his caucus .
Remember , while some Republicans will occasionally furrow their brows in performative outrage at the latest Trump tweets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor of the hardcore conservative legal policies Ginsburg spent her life opposing .
Republican senators might not like Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus , but they love taking health care away from millions of people ; they love the deregulation that leads to environmental destruction ; and they consider it a moral imperative to reduce a pregnant woman to the legal status of a medical incubator with a mouth hole they can ignore .
When faced with a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year , President Barack Obama nominated Merrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoped would be acceptable to moderate Republicans .
Obama either didn ’ t anticipate McConnell ’ s unprecedented maneuver to block his nominee or thought that Garland ’ s moderate stances would cause other Republicans to resist McConnell ’ s gambit to block him .
We can expect Trump to go in the completely opposite direction .
Instead of nominating a moderate Republican jurist , we can expect him to drag out a fire-breathing archconservative who has already taken fringe stances on abortion rights and the right to bear shoulder-launched grenades .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prefer the ruling that ends the right to an abortion to come from a woman , and so I believe religious conservative Amy Coney Barrett or absolute wing nut Neomi Rao to be the most likely Trump nominees .
Both are extremists who would be put forward not to get moderate buy in , but simply to excite the base and “ spike the football ” on Ginsburg ’ s legal legacy .
And they ’ re both young .
Barrett is 48 years old , Rao 47 .
Another potential nominee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post ’ s Robert Costa , is Allison Jones Rushing , who is only 38 .
The nominee McConnell tries to push through over the next few months will likely wield power in this country for the next 30 to 40 years .
It would now seem like the list of potential Supreme Court nominees Trump produced last week was released with some kind of inside information about Ginsburg ’ s failing health .
I hope Biden is ready to meet Trump ’ s nominee with his own suggestion .
People should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put up , and compare her to whoever Trump thinks is fit to sit in Ginsburg ’ s chair .
That ’ s a fight I very much think Democrats would win .
If the Democrats are unable to block Trump ’ s nominee , there is but one choice should Joe Biden win the White House and the Democrats take back a majority in the Senate : pack the Supreme Court .
As I ’ ve written before , the number of Supreme Court justices is set by legislation , not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one Supreme Court appointment because a Republican justice died under a Democratic president but rush through a second nominee because a Democratic justice died under a Republican president , then McConnell has proven that the composition of the Supreme Court is a function of raw political power .
Should Democrats ever hold that power again , they must act .
The addition of two justices is simply a proportional response necessary to right the wrongs committed by McConnell .
The addition of 10 justices , as I have advocated , puts the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This must be our fight now .
We must do everything we can to stop McConnell from filling Ginsburg ’ s seat and , however that turns out , we must retake political power and reform a Supreme Court that has been irrevocably broken by McConnell ’ s ongoing hypocrisy .
That fight seems daunting , but it is no more difficult than the battles Ginsburg herself fought and won over the course of her storied career .
When Ginsburg started , the court did not include women in the due process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ginsburg changed that .
When she started , laws that discriminated against women were not subjected to a heightened level of judicial review .
Ginsburg changed that .
As a lawyer , Ginsburg took cases representing men to win gains for women ’ s rights , and as a justice she refused to act like her gender was irrelevant when understanding the issues that came across her desk .
Every day of her career was an uphill battle , and she won many of them .
Ruth Bader Ginsburg : ‘ My Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Be Replaced Until a New President Is Installed ’ Ginsburg must not be “ replaced ” by a conservative whose only goal is to roll back the advancements she achieved .
McConnell might fill her temporarily vacated seat , but her legacy must be defended with the elevation of additional justices committed to continuing her work .
I ’ ve found , over the course of my life , that most people don ’ t appreciate the value of a dissent .
They say that the justice who writes a dissent has lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice ’ s arguments have no binding legal effect .
Why , they ask , do these justices write , often so passionately , about a decision that already went against them ?
Nobody has ever explained the value of a dissent better than Ginsburg herself .
She said : “ Dissents speak to a future age .
It ’ s not simply to say , ‘ My colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way.
’ But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the dissenter ’ s hope : that they are writing not for today , but for tomorrow.
” We will fight as hard as we can today .
We must dissent with all our might , And , if we ’ re lucky , our “ future age ” can and must start on January 20 , 2021 .
That age must include additional warriors , ready to storm the Supreme Court and cleanse it of its McConnell-induced illegitimacy .

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?
She should have died hereafter.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away tonight at the age of 87. I would like to mourn her. But even Ginsburg herself realized there would be no time for that. On her deathbed, she dictated a message that was recorded by her granddaughter: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” Even near her end, Justice Ginsburg was citing precedent. Here, she was specifically invoking the precedent set by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell when he decided to hold open a seat on the Supreme Court vacated after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia (who died in February of 2016) until after the election that November and the inauguration of a new president in 2017.
McConnell has already indicated that he doesn’t care about that precedent. Within hours of Ginsburg’s death, he told The Washington Post that Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg will receive a full vote on the Senate floor. McConnell will use all his considerable power to confirm a new Supreme Court justice in record time: either before the election, if he thinks he can get away with it, or during the lame duck session after the election, should Republicans lose either the Senate or the White House.
Ginsburg herself surely knew this. Her deathbed dictation should not be read as the fleeting hope bubbles of a dying old lady, but as an exhortation to fight from the fiercest defender of women’s rights of her generation. This was her dying dissent: a message not about what Trump and McConnell should do, but about what we must do. We must not let her be “replaced” until a new president is installed. More From Elie Mystal How Black People Won the Battle of Montgomery August 10, 2023 For Trump, the Stakes of the 2024 Election Just Became: Win—or Go to Jail August 2, 2023 Merrick Garland Is Letting Texas Get Away With Sadism July 27, 2023
The prospects for near-term success are grim. McConnell has already removed the filibuster rule for Supreme Court appointments, which means he needs only 50 votes to confirm a new justice (since the vice president breaks any ties), and he has 53 Republicans. Democrats would have to convince four of those Republicans to agree to wait until after the election to move on a nominee. Even if political pressure can be brought against Republicans in close Senate races to reject McConnell’s hypocrisy, Democrats would have to keep those Republicans on board, against McConnell, through the transition to the next presidential term. It’s entirely possible that some of those vulnerable Republicans will lose their election campaigns anyway, and thus have no real reason to stick with Democrats before the inauguration, instead of voting with their party as they transition to their post-electoral careers in Republican politics. 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
There are rumors flying tonight that some Republican senators might be amenable to delaying the nomination until 2021. But McConnell hasn’t put the screws to them yet. Remember, initially it seemed very unlikely that McConnell would be able to indefinitely hold open the Scalia seat, but he did.
It’s not hard to see how McConnell will control his caucus. Remember, while some Republicans will occasionally furrow their brows in performative outrage at the latest Trump tweets, almost all of these people are in favor of the hardcore conservative legal policies Ginsburg spent her life opposing. Republican senators might not like Trump’s handling of the coronavirus, but they love taking health care away from millions of people; they love the deregulation that leads to environmental destruction; and they consider it a moral imperative to reduce a pregnant woman to the legal status of a medical incubator with a mouth hole they can ignore. Current Issue View our current issue
When faced with a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a moderate white man he hoped would be acceptable to moderate Republicans. Obama either didn’t anticipate McConnell’s unprecedented maneuver to block his nominee or thought that Garland’s moderate stances would cause other Republicans to resist McConnell’s gambit to block him.
We can expect Trump to go in the completely opposite direction. Instead of nominating a moderate Republican jurist, we can expect him to drag out a fire-breathing archconservative who has already taken fringe stances on abortion rights and the right to bear shoulder-launched grenades. I have long believed that the Republicans would prefer the ruling that ends the right to an abortion to come from a woman, and so I believe religious conservative Amy Coney Barrett or absolute wing nut Neomi Rao to be the most likely Trump nominees. Both are extremists who would be put forward not to get moderate buy in, but simply to excite the base and “spike the football” on Ginsburg’s legal legacy.
And they’re both young. Barrett is 48 years old, Rao 47. Another potential nominee, according to sources speaking to The Washington Post’s Robert Costa, is Allison Jones Rushing, who is only 38. The nominee McConnell tries to push through over the next few months will likely wield power in this country for the next 30 to 40 years.
It would now seem like the list of potential Supreme Court nominees Trump produced last week was released with some kind of inside information about Ginsburg’s failing health. I hope Biden is ready to meet Trump’s nominee with his own suggestion. People should be able to see the choice Biden would put up, and compare her to whoever Trump thinks is fit to sit in Ginsburg’s chair. That’s a fight I very much think Democrats would win.
If the Democrats are unable to block Trump’s nominee, there is but one choice should Joe Biden win the White House and the Democrats take back a majority in the Senate: pack the Supreme Court. As I’ve written before, the number of Supreme Court justices is set by legislation, not the Constitution. If McConnell can successfully block one Supreme Court appointment because a Republican justice died under a Democratic president but rush through a second nominee because a Democratic justice died under a Republican president, then McConnell has proven that the composition of the Supreme Court is a function of raw political power.
Should Democrats ever hold that power again, they must act. The addition of two justices is simply a proportional response necessary to right the wrongs committed by McConnell. The addition of 10 justices, as I have advocated, puts the Supreme Court on a path toward long-term reform.
This must be our fight now. We must do everything we can to stop McConnell from filling Ginsburg’s seat and, however that turns out, we must retake political power and reform a Supreme Court that has been irrevocably broken by McConnell’s ongoing hypocrisy.
That fight seems daunting, but it is no more difficult than the battles Ginsburg herself fought and won over the course of her storied career. When Ginsburg started, the court did not include women in the due process protections given by the 14th Amendment. Ginsburg changed that. When she started, laws that discriminated against women were not subjected to a heightened level of judicial review. Ginsburg changed that. As a lawyer, Ginsburg took cases representing men to win gains for women’s rights, and as a justice she refused to act like her gender was irrelevant when understanding the issues that came across her desk. Every day of her career was an uphill battle, and she won many of them. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ‘My Most Fervent Wish Is That I Will Not Be Replaced Until a New President Is Installed’ John Nichols
Ginsburg must not be “replaced” by a conservative whose only goal is to roll back the advancements she achieved. McConnell might fill her temporarily vacated seat, but her legacy must be defended with the elevation of additional justices committed to continuing her work.
I’ve found, over the course of my life, that most people don’t appreciate the value of a dissent. They say that the justice who writes a dissent has lost the battle. They lament that the justice’s arguments have no binding legal effect. Why, they ask, do these justices write, often so passionately, about a decision that already went against them?
Nobody has ever explained the value of a dissent better than Ginsburg herself. She said: “Dissents speak to a future age. It’s not simply to say, ‘My colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way.’ But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view. So that’s the dissenter’s hope: that they are writing not for today, but for tomorrow.”
We will fight as hard as we can today. We must dissent with all our might, And, if we’re lucky, our “future age” can and must start on January 20, 2021. That age must include additional warriors, ready to storm the Supreme Court and cleanse it of its McConnell-induced illegitimacy.


thenation--2020-09-19--Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ‘My Most Fervent Wish Is That I Will Not Be Replaced Until a New President Is I

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ‘My Most Fervent Wish Is That I Will Not Be Replaced Until a New President Is Installed’

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg swore an oath to defend the Constitution when she joined the United States Supreme Court in August of 1993 .
With true faith and allegiance to that oath , she made it clear in the last years of her remarkable tenure that she did not want Donald Trump to choose her successor .
Before the president was elected , Justice Ginsburg said , “ I can ’ t imagine what this place would be—I can ’ t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president .
For the country , it could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could be—I don ’ t even want to contemplate that.
” The senior liberal on a delicately balanced high court—where she had served as a courageous and consistent champion of women ’ s rights , civil rights , and voting rights—spoke those words in July of 2016 .
For four long years , Justice Ginsburg kept the faith—battling cancer and advancing years .
Just days before her death Friday , at age 87 , the justice dictated a statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera that read : “ My most fervent wish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until a new president is installed.
” That was not her wish alone .
Tens of millions shared it .
Now , however , the dread prospect is upon us .
Susan Collins Is Donald Trump ’ s Essential Ally in the Senate Trump ’ s Strategy to Upend the Election Is Being Implemented in Plain Sight Democrats Have Ignored Cities Like Kenosha for Too Long Thousands gathered outside the Supreme Court building Friday night to mourn .
They recognized immediately that we must honor Justice Ginsburg ’ s service—not merely because , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evening , “ our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature , ” but because of this remarkable woman ’ s epic role in advancing the cause of gender equity .
“ Justice Ginsburg was a trailblazer , the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court , the first Jewish woman , and a voice for all Americans , not just the wealthy and powerful , ” said Alliance for Justice president Nan Aron .
“ Justice Ginsburg blazed trails on her way to greatness , authoring and joining opinions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , reproductive freedoms , and so many other protections so many hold dear.
” “ She was a giant , and we shall not see her likes again , ” said American Constitution Society President Russ Feingold , a former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee , who observed that “ by means of her towering intellect and unflinching courage , she blazed a path toward a better life for American women , and all Americans.
” This is a time to grieve , and to reflect .
Yet Justice Ginsburg has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days before Donald Trump will face his day of reckoning with the voters .
It does not disrespect the justice ’ s memory to speak in this moment of honoring the Notorious RBG ’ s most fervent wish .
But keeping faith will not be easy .
This president is determined to nominate someone to replace Justice Ginsburg .
“ He really has an ego , ” she said of Trump back in 2016 , and it is unimaginable that this man ’ s ego would allow him to respect the wishes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court is now vacant .
Most likely , Trump will move quickly .
Most likely , he will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett , whom the president placed on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit .
But this is not Trump ’ s choice alone .
Trump ’ s nominee must be approved by the full Senate .
It is true that the Senate is controlled 53-47 by the president ’ s party .
It is also true that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell ’ s great ambition is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wing and pro-corporate judicial activism .
He will not blink now .
Of course , McConnell blocked President Obama ’ s 2016 nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to serve on the Supreme Court because he claimed the work of filling conservative Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s vacant seat on the bench should not be done in an election year .
Now , McConnell peddles a tortured claim that 2020 is a different election year .
It is not .
However , McConnell is a willing hypocrite .
On Friday night , he declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
” That is his goal .
Yet McConnell faces structural and political hurdles .
What happens in the Senate will not be his choice alone .
As PBS NewsHour correspondent Lisa Desjardins has reminded us , “ the fastest Supreme Court confirmation in the past 30 years took 42 days .
That was for Justice Ginsburg , in 1993 .
The average confirmation , since 1975 , takes 67 days.
” It will be virtually impossible for a nomination to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee , and then debated and voted upon by the full Senate in the six weeks before November 3 .
And it may not be possible after that .
Why ?
If four Republicans refuse to go along with him , McConnell won ’ t be able to place another Trump nominee on the high court .
Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine had already signaled before Justice Ginsburg ’ s death that they were not inclined to join McConnell in a rush to judgement .
Perhaps Utah Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as retiring Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee might join the resistance .
What could cause Republican senators to say “ no ” to McConnell ?
The death of Justice Ginsburg has changed everything about the 2020 election .
This election will see a debate about the judiciary like none the United States has ever experienced .
The signal that is sent by the electorate will matter more than it ever has .
If the president is reelected , and if Republicans maintain control of the Senate , Trump and McConnell will seize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doubt about that that .
If Joe Biden is elected president , and if Democrats take control of the Senate , however , Trump and McConnell will be delegitimized .
And it might just be possible to convince a few Republicans to respect Justice Ginsburg ’ s fervent wish .

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?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg swore an oath to defend the Constitution when she joined the United States Supreme Court in August of 1993. With true faith and allegiance to that oath, she made it clear in the last years of her remarkable tenure that she did not want Donald Trump to choose her successor. Before the president was elected, Justice Ginsburg said, “I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
The senior liberal on a delicately balanced high court—where she had served as a courageous and consistent champion of women’s rights, civil rights, and voting rights—spoke those words in July of 2016.
For four long years, Justice Ginsburg kept the faith—battling cancer and advancing years. Just days before her death Friday, at age 87, the justice dictated a statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera that read: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
That was not her wish alone. Tens of millions shared it. Now, however, the dread prospect is upon us. More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
Thousands gathered outside the Supreme Court building on Rosh Hashanah to mourn. They recognized immediately that we must honor Justice Ginsburg’s service—not merely because, as Chief Justice John Roberts said Friday evening, “our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature,” but because of this remarkable woman’s epic role in advancing the cause of gender equity. “Justice Ginsburg was a trailblazer, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, the first Jewish woman, and a voice for all Americans, not just the wealthy and powerful,” said Alliance for Justice president Nan Aron. “Justice Ginsburg blazed trails on her way to greatness, authoring and joining opinions that advanced women’s equality, LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedoms, and so many other protections so many hold dear.”
“She was a giant, and we shall not see her likes again,” said American Constitution Society President Russ Feingold, a former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who observed that “by means of her towering intellect and unflinching courage, she blazed a path toward a better life for American women, and all Americans.”
This is a time to grieve, and to reflect.
Yet Justice Ginsburg has died in a presidential election year—just 46 days before Donald Trump will face his day of reckoning with the voters. 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 does not disrespect the justice’s memory to speak in this moment of honoring the Notorious RBG’s most fervent wish.
But keeping that faith will not be easy.
This president is determined to nominate someone to replace Justice Ginsburg. “He really has an ego,” she said of Trump back in 2016, and it is unimaginable that this man’s ego would allow him to respect the wishes of the woman whose seat on the high court is now vacant. Most likely, Trump will move quickly. Most likely, he will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom the president placed on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Dying Wish: DISSENT! Elie Mystal
But this is not Trump’s choice alone.
Trump’s nominee must be approved by the full Senate.
It is true that the Senate is controlled 53-47 by the president’s party. It is also true that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell’s great ambition is to transform the courts into vehicles for socially right-wing and pro-corporate judicial activism. He will not blink now.
Of course, McConnell blocked President Obama’s 2016 nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to serve on the Supreme Court because he claimed the work of filling conservative Justice Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat on the bench should not be done in an election year. Now, McConnell peddles a tortured claim that 2020 is a different election year. It is not. However, McConnell is a willing hypocrite. On Friday night, he declared, “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
That is his goal. Yet McConnell faces structural and political hurdles. What happens in the Senate will not be his choice alone. As PBS NewsHour correspondent Lisa Desjardins has reminded us, “the fastest Supreme Court confirmation in the past 30 years took 42 days. That was for Justice Ginsburg, in 1993. The average confirmation, since 1975, takes 67 days.” If Senate Democrats are united and strategic in their application of Senate rules—including demands for unanimous consent—it will be virtually impossible for a nomination to be vetted, considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and debated and voted upon by the full Senate in the six weeks before November 3. And it may not be possible after that. Current Issue View our current issue
Why? If four Republicans refuse to go along with him, McConnell won’t be able to place another Trump nominee on the high court. Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine had already signaled before Justice Ginsburg’s death that they were not inclined to join McConnell in a rush to judgement. Perhaps Utah Republican Mitt Romney and another GOP senator such as retiring Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee might join the resistance.
What could cause Republican senators to say “no” to McConnell?
An election.
The death of Justice Ginsburg has changed everything about the 2020 election. This election will see a debate about the judiciary like none the United States has ever experienced. The signal that is sent by the electorate will matter more than it ever has.
A new Senate might, after January 3, take up the transformational work of abolishing the filibuster and expanding the high court to address the abuses of the McConnell interregnum. But the vital work comes immediately—in the weeks before and after November 3.
If the president is reelected, and if Republicans maintain control of the Senate, Trump and McConnell will seize the opportunity to transform the court. Have no doubt about that that.
If Joe Biden is elected president, and if Democrats take control of the Senate, however, Trump and McConnell will be delegitimized. And it might just be possible to convince a few Republicans to respect Justice Ginsburg’s fervent wish.


thenation--2020-09-21--Federal Agencies Tapped Protesters’ Phones in Portland

This summer , Portland looked like a war zone .
Phalanxes of shadowy law enforcement personnel fired crowd-control munitions , as plumes of teargas billowed into the sky .
Federal agents without clearly visible identification rounded up protesters and loaded them into unmarked cars , on American streets .
When videos began to spread online , it was hard to tell what was going on , or how widely .
The public backlash was ferocious , spurring Congress to demand that the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) disclose information about the operation .
But the DHS never came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent of its intelligence operations in Portland , which consisted of clandestine activities including interceptions of protesters ’ phone calls conducted by a task force that included federal agencies besides the DHS , according to two former intelligence officers familiar with the matter .
“ Unidentified stormtroopers .
Unmarked cars .
Kidnapping protesters and causing severe injuries in response to graffiti .
These are not the actions of a democratic republic .
[ Department of Homeland Security ’ s ] actions in Portland undermine its mission , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Washington Post reported that the DHS ’ s intelligence division , the Office of Intelligence and Analysis ( I & A ) had generated intelligence reports on several prominent journalists covering the Portland protests .
Members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees promptly demanded to know what kinds of intelligence they had collected on both journalists and protesters .
A letter from the Senate contained the suggestive admonition that the division “ is obligated by statute to keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of its operations.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing , DHS has failed to respond to Congress ’ s questions .
“ Notwithstanding the selective and incomplete document production thus far , the Committee has reason to believe that DHS and I & A are withholding responsive records related to I & A ’ s activities in Portland and in support of DHS ’ response to nationwide protests , ” House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff wrote in a letter to the DHS ’ s intelligence branch .
How the DHS Can Still Arrest Journalists in Portland This is not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the public furor .
Shortly after Congress ’ s initial requests , DHS shocked the national security world by removing its high-ranking undersecretary of intelligence , Brian Murphy .
Murphy had served as chief of I & A , the wing of the DHS that is a member of the rarefied Intelligence Community and is authorized to handle highly classified information about security threats to the domestic United States .
Though Murphy ’ s removal appeared to mollify Congress , the public narrative that he had been removed for the intelligence reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubious .
“ He did not get reassigned over some unclassified program , ” a former senior DHS I & A intelligence officer who has served under Murphy told The Nation .
“ That is a convenient story , but that isn ’ t what ’ s going on.
” Unlike more sensitive , classified intelligence , the journalist reports were based entirely on publicly available information .
And while privacy rules generally prevent “ US persons ” from being the subject of intelligence assessments , it is still not uncommon .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , ” the former intelligence officer explained .
The early narrative became all the more dubious when Murphy filed a whistleblower complaint with Congress alleging retaliation by the department .
According to the complaint , the reason Murphy had been reassigned was not what happened in Portland but a series of earlier whistleblower complaints he had filed alleging that he had been pressured to manipulate intelligence .
This is alleged to have included DHS leadership ’ s asking Murphy to manufacture intelligence about terrorists entering the United States through the southern border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats from white supremacists and from Russia .
( The Nation has reported on the difficulties described by DHS officials in monitoring white supremacists . )
“ A guy like Brian Murphy , you ’ re not going to ruin his career and drag him through the mud over some bullshit , ” the former intelligence officer said .
According to him , multiple federal agencies , from the DHS to the FBI , asked if any intelligence officials would volunteer to be deployed ; but when DHS I & A sought volunteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call , it was not met with enthusiasm .
“ They asked for volunteers and nobody wanted to go , ” the former intelligence officer said .
“ The fact that they asked for volunteers shows that it was outside the scope of their duties… .
you only do that if you don ’ t have the ability to order someone to go , probably because it ’ s illegal.
” A current FBI official described a similar call for volunteers to respond to civil unrest this summer , agreeing that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time I ’ ve seen volunteer requests for…another field office , ” the source said .
A current DHS official described a colleague with expertise in electronic surveillance who was being deployed to Portland .
But for what purpose ?
“ Extracting information from protester ’ s phones , ” the DHS official said .
While in Portland , an interagency task force involving DHS and the Justice Department used a sophisticated cell phone cloning attack—the details of which remain classified—to intercept protesters ’ phone communications , according to two former intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone cloning involves stealing a phone ’ s unique identifiers and copying them to another device in order to intercept the communications received by the original device .
The former intelligence officials described it as part of a “ Low Level Voice Intercept ” operation , declining to go into further detail—one of them citing the sensitive nature of the surveillance tool and the other an ongoing leak investigation within I & A .
“ You ’ re getting an inside view into your targets , who they are , who they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former intelligence officer said , explaining that many within the DHS believe that antifa is an organized group—as opposed to the largely spontaneous , decentralized ideological tendency that most experts , including Trump ’ s own FBI director , believe it is .
DHS intelligence has even found some limited evidence , which he considered thin , of foreign sponsorship .
Attorney General William Barr , however , recently claimed that antifa is receiving foreign sponsorship—a necessary criterion to formally designating it a terror organization , which President Trump vowed to do in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on DHS intelligence ’ s attempts to tie antifa to Kurdish militant groups in Syria . )
“ Signals intelligence collection would not be useful for preventing opportunistic looting or violent confrontations .
It presumes the existence of coordinated , purposeful , and unlawful activity that is conducted through electronic means , ” said Steven Aftergood , who heads the Federation of American Scientists ’ Project on Government Secrecy .
“ The general concern is that DHS treated mass public protests—not just violent individuals—as suspicious and targets of investigation , or worse.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals had specifically been targeted in Portland , both former intelligence officers agreed that it had violated protocol .
“ They were abusing people ’ s rights , ” one said .
In addition to signals intelligence collection , the Portland operation involved clandestine aspects , according to the former intelligence officer .
This appears consistent with a tip received this summer .
Several members of the US Marshals Service ( USMS ) —part of the Justice Department—sent to Portland claimed to be affiliated with a private firm called “ Strategic Oil , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Nation .
While they did not identify themselves as law enforcement , the travel records contain information indicating that they were marshals , including that they were given a special discount for federal government employees .
Clandestine methods tend to be used only for the most sensitive operations , more commonly overseas than domestically .
( The Justice Department did not respond to multiple requests for comment . )
Travel records did not reflect that the DHS was using any sort of cover story in Portland .
One of the biggest misconceptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DHS took the lead , the former intelligence officer said , explaining that the Justice Department played a major role .
While he didn ’ t dispute that Murphy oversaw the DHS I & A ’ s segment of the task force , he said the Justice Department—especially the USMS but also the FBI—played a far more significant role .
“ It was clear that he [ Murphy ] was directed from higher up , ” he said .
A current DHS official described how a colleague who was being deployed to Portland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agency ( DEA ) , part of the Justice Department , for the purposes of accessing protesters ’ phones .
“ He said he needed some sort of ‘ special key ’ in order to … .
He said that DEA has that capability and vaguely alluded to possibly borrowing or using one from another agency once he got to Portland.
” In June , Buzzfeed News reported that the DEA had been authorized to conduct covert surveillance of protesters involved in demonstrations against the police killing of George Floyd .
Then in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had conducted aerial surveillance over the Portland protests .
The former intelligence officers agreed that the Low Level Voice Intercept operation had been conducted on the ground , was far more invasive than aerial surveillance , and involved equipment that I & A did not have access to .
“ [ There were ] at least two federal agencies and there was some spooky shit going on , ” one former intelligence officer said of the Portland operation .
Attorney General Barr has repeatedly echoed President Trump ’ s rhetoric on antifa .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plane full of violent protesters had been traversing the country , Barr claimed that the Justice Department had received similar reports of violent protesters traveling from all over the country to sow mayhem .
Last week , Barr urged federal prosecutors to consider charging violent protesters with sedition , a rarely used charge for people conspiring to overthrow the government .
This week , Barr designated New York , Portland , and Seattle as “ anarchist ” jurisdictions—a term often used interchangeably with antifa .
“ When the president makes the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know that you have tacit approval , ” the former intelligence officer said .
“ You just need a wink from your supervisor .
”

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?
This summer, Portland looked like a war zone. Phalanxes of shadowy law enforcement personnel fired crowd-control munitions, as plumes of teargas billowed into the sky. Federal agents without clearly visible identification rounded up protesters and loaded them into unmarked cars, on American streets. When videos began to spread online, it was hard to tell what was going on, or how widely.
The public backlash was ferocious, spurring Congress to demand that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disclose information about the operation. But the DHS never came clean to the public about the full extent of its intelligence operations in Portland, which consisted of clandestine activities including interceptions of protesters’ phone calls conducted by a task force that included federal agencies besides the DHS, according to two former intelligence officers familiar with the matter.
“Unidentified stormtroopers. Unmarked cars. Kidnapping protesters and causing severe injuries in response to graffiti. These are not the actions of a democratic republic. [Department of Homeland Security’s] actions in Portland undermine its mission,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tweeted in mid-July. Later that month, The Washington Post reported that the DHS’s intelligence division, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) had generated intelligence reports on several prominent journalists covering the Portland protests. Members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees promptly demanded to know what kinds of intelligence they had collected on both journalists and protesters. A letter from the Senate contained the suggestive admonition that the division “is obligated by statute to keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of its operations.”
Yet, at the time of this writing, DHS has failed to respond to Congress’s questions. “Notwithstanding the selective and incomplete document production thus far, the Committee has reason to believe that DHS and I&A are withholding responsive records related to I&A’s activities in Portland and in support of DHS’ response to nationwide protests,” House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff wrote in a letter to the DHS’s intelligence branch. A storm in portland How the DHS Can Still Arrest Journalists in Portland Ken Klippenstein
This is not to say that the DHS did not respond to the public furor. Shortly after Congress’s initial requests, DHS shocked the national security world by removing its high-ranking undersecretary of intelligence, Brian Murphy. Murphy had served as chief of I&A, the wing of the DHS that is a member of the rarefied Intelligence Community and is authorized to handle highly classified information about security threats to the domestic United States. Though Murphy’s removal appeared to mollify Congress, the public narrative that he had been removed for the intelligence reports on journalists struck some intelligence officials as dubious. 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
“He did not get reassigned over some unclassified program,” a former senior DHS I&A intelligence officer who has served under Murphy told The Nation. “That is a convenient story, but that isn’t what’s going on.”
Unlike more sensitive, classified intelligence, the journalist reports were based entirely on publicly available information. And while privacy rules generally prevent “US persons” from being the subject of intelligence assessments, it is still not uncommon. “That kind of shit happens all the time,” the former intelligence officer explained. Current Issue View our current issue
The early narrative became all the more dubious when Murphy filed a whistleblower complaint with Congress alleging retaliation by the department. According to the complaint, the reason Murphy had been reassigned was not what happened in Portland but a series of earlier whistleblower complaints he had filed alleging that he had been pressured to manipulate intelligence. This is alleged to have included DHS leadership’s asking Murphy to manufacture intelligence about terrorists entering the United States through the southern border and to block intelligence assessments focusing on threats from white supremacists and from Russia. (The Nation has reported on the difficulties described by DHS officials in monitoring white supremacists.)
“A guy like Brian Murphy, you’re not going to ruin his career and drag him through the mud over some bullshit,” the former intelligence officer said. According to him, multiple federal agencies, from the DHS to the FBI, asked if any intelligence officials would volunteer to be deployed; but when DHS I&A sought volunteers to deploy to Portland during an all-hands call, it was not met with enthusiasm.
“They asked for volunteers and nobody wanted to go,” the former intelligence officer said. “The fact that they asked for volunteers shows that it was outside the scope of their duties…. you only do that if you don’t have the ability to order someone to go, probably because it’s illegal.”
A current FBI official described a similar call for volunteers to respond to civil unrest this summer, agreeing that it was extremely unusual. “This is the first time I’ve seen volunteer requests for…another field office,” the source said.
A current DHS official described a colleague with expertise in electronic surveillance who was being deployed to Portland. But for what purpose? “Extracting information from protester’s phones,” the DHS official said. While in Portland, an interagency task force involving DHS and the Justice Department used a sophisticated cell phone cloning attack—the details of which remain classified—to intercept protesters’ phone communications, according to two former intelligence officers familiar with the matter.
Cell phone cloning involves stealing a phone’s unique identifiers and copying them to another device in order to intercept the communications received by the original device. The former intelligence officials described it as part of a “Low Level Voice Intercept” operation, declining to go into further detail—one of them citing the sensitive nature of the surveillance tool and the other an ongoing leak investigation within I&A.
“You’re getting an inside view into your targets, who they are, who they’re talking to—the hierarchy,” the former intelligence officer said, explaining that many within the DHS believe that antifa is an organized group—as opposed to the largely spontaneous, decentralized ideological tendency that most experts, including Trump’s own FBI director, believe it is. DHS intelligence has even found some limited evidence, which he considered thin, of foreign sponsorship. Attorney General William Barr, however, recently claimed that antifa is receiving foreign sponsorship—a necessary criterion to formally designating it a terror organization, which President Trump vowed to do in July. (The Nation recently reported on DHS intelligence’s attempts to tie antifa to Kurdish militant groups in Syria.)
“Signals intelligence collection would not be useful for preventing opportunistic looting or violent confrontations. It presumes the existence of coordinated, purposeful, and unlawful activity that is conducted through electronic means,” said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. “The general concern is that DHS treated mass public protests—not just violent individuals—as suspicious and targets of investigation, or worse.”
While it wasn’t clear which individuals had specifically been targeted in Portland, both former intelligence officers agreed that it had violated protocol. “They were abusing people’s rights,” one said.
In addition to signals intelligence collection, the Portland operation involved clandestine aspects, according to the former intelligence officer. This appears consistent with a tip received this summer. Several members of the US Marshals Service (USMS)—part of the Justice Department—sent to Portland claimed to be affiliated with a private firm called “Strategic Oil,” according to travel records obtained by The Nation. While they did not identify themselves as law enforcement, the travel records contain information indicating that they were marshals, including that they were given a special discount for federal government employees. Clandestine methods tend to be used only for the most sensitive operations, more commonly overseas than domestically. (The Justice Department did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)
Travel records did not reflect that the DHS was using any sort of cover story in Portland. One of the biggest misconceptions about the Portland operation was that the DHS took the lead, the former intelligence officer said, explaining that the Justice Department played a major role. While he didn’t dispute that Murphy oversaw the DHS I&A’s segment of the task force, he said the Justice Department—especially the USMS but also the FBI—played a far more significant role. “It was clear that he [Murphy] was directed from higher up,” he said.
A current DHS official described how a colleague who was being deployed to Portland had alluded to using the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), part of the Justice Department, for the purposes of accessing protesters’ phones. “He said he needed some sort of ‘special key’ in order to …. He said that DEA has that capability and vaguely alluded to possibly borrowing or using one from another agency once he got to Portland.”
In June, Buzzfeed News reported that the DEA had been authorized to conduct covert surveillance of protesters involved in demonstrations against the police killing of George Floyd. Then in August, the USMS confirmed that it had conducted aerial surveillance over the Portland protests. The former intelligence officers agreed that the Low Level Voice Intercept operation had been conducted on the ground, was far more invasive than aerial surveillance, and involved equipment that I&A did not have access to.
“[There were] at least two federal agencies and there was some spooky shit going on,” one former intelligence officer said of the Portland operation.
Attorney General Barr has repeatedly echoed President Trump’s rhetoric on antifa. After President Trump alleged without evidence that a plane full of violent protesters had been traversing the country, Barr claimed that the Justice Department had received similar reports of violent protesters traveling from all over the country to sow mayhem. Last week, Barr urged federal prosecutors to consider charging violent protesters with sedition, a rarely used charge for people conspiring to overthrow the government. This week, Barr designated New York, Portland, and Seattle as “anarchist” jurisdictions—a term often used interchangeably with antifa.
“When the president makes the kind of statements he does on the news, you know that you have tacit approval,” the former intelligence officer said. “You just need a wink from your supervisor.”


thenation--2020-09-21--My Life in the Media Machine

My Life in the Media Machine

Every day as a child I would spread out the Sunpaper and read the comics , plus some news and sports , with never a glance at the stock tables or the department-store ads—a fully satisfied customer , in a constellation of other satisfied customers , with all of our separate or overlapping satisfactions .
There was something for everyone , which meant some things were not for everyone , which made the whole thing in its own way a reflection of the world , which also had many interesting parts and many utterly boring parts , depending on who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : for me , and interesting .
Inflation : not for me , not interesting .
Naked person apprehended on airplane : not for me , but interesting , For a long time , the slow death of this arrangement could look like even more abundance .
The Baltimore News American , the paper my Great-Aunt Melba got at her house , shut down , but the Sunpapers picked up its columnists and its comics , printing them alongside the ones who were already there .
Then the Evening Sun , the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down too , and its columnists and comics were folded into the Sun in the morning .
It was a truly incredible array of comics for a while .
But then they started shrinking in size and dwindling in number , as the paper itself got cut smaller and published thinner , and now my middle-aged eyes can ’ t really read the panels when I see them in the wilted little paper at my mom ’ s house .
Even though I depended on reading the Sun , I did not particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grew up , any more than talking on the telephone made me want to work for C & P .
There were so many other places a person could write , it turned out .
I spent a summer at The Aegis , one of my two weekly local papers , which the Sunpapers had recently bought , the Sunpapers themselves having been recently bought by the Los Angeles Times .
The year after that , they stopped paying for summer cub reporters , switching over to free college interns ; I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism job had been restructured out of existence .
But there was so much out there , still .
I went to City Paper in Baltimore , the free alternative weekly , assembled in a semi-palatial rowhouse office , as fact-checker and then the lowest-ranking editor , but also a movie reviewer , sports writer , restaurant-review editor—if anyone ever said “ No ” to anything , it didn ’ t register .
My office was in a converted bathroom , and my next office was in a bigger bathroom .
Then I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boston Phoenix needed the cheapest feature writer it could get .
The Phoenix came in sections , a fat and prosperous little bundle of newsprint , with an edition that people even paid to purchase .
The economics of the alt-weekly business were not far out of view—subscribers or no , we ran “ massage ” ads , as City Paper had , and seedy-looking people would haunt the lobby with cash in a paper sack—but it connected readers with advertisers , and the money kept coming in , even if very little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desk .
A person could get hired away , in those days .
City Paper wanted a sports columnist , and then it needed more writing and editing done , and I moved back to Maryland and into an even larger bathroom .
Then Washington City Paper was looking for a No .
2 editor , and after two years of that , though I had never thought about aiming at life in New York , I got a cryptic phone call from Peter Kaplan , of The New York Observer , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a corner of who-knows-what , an upstairs parlor ?
—in a grimy but fully palatial brick townhouse mansion .
The reader who follows the history of independent journalism should by now have caught on to a certain running subtext here .
All the while , as it seemed I was swinging from limb to limb through a flourishing jungle of journalistic opportunity , a desert had been advancing behind me .
The soil around the roots became dry dust and sand ; the trees cracked and toppled .
The townhouse mansion was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so was The Observer , to a striving young businessman named Jared Kushner , who would eventually reduce that paper , a proud salmon-colored broadsheet decorated with Kaplan ’ s ornately stacked print headlines , to a sort of online wight , unrecognizable to its faithful subscribers .
Washington City Paper hangs on , after a couple of near-death experiences .
The Boston Phoenix is dead ; Baltimore ’ s City Paper was bought by the Sunpapers ( which were owned by the Chicago Tribune by then ) and killed too .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a story about business history—about consolidation , and technological disruption , and what we called the devaluation of writing ; really it was the devaluation of ads .
It was always ads ; at the giveaway papers we knew that the respectable press was respectably delivered to subscribers for less than it cost , in order to guarantee advertisers a reliable audience .
And now the advertisers had options so cheap , they no longer cared about the audience , or if they did , they could pay fractions of pennies for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still wanted to read the writing , but the circulatory system of money that had made the writing possible was punctured and bleeding out , and draining into Silicon Valley .
I went to China to write a book , and while I was there I hung out and watched the last Beijing bureau chief of the Sunpapers clean out the bureau ’ s bookshelves and pack them up .
Local newspapers were not in the business of bringing their readers the world anymore , and before long they would barely even be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , there was a future .
Back in America , I got asked to write for Deadspin , a sports blog run by the disreputable Gawker Media .
My recruitment involved a $ 200 tab for liquor and oysters ; the day I arrived they brought me a box with a brand-new Macintosh in it .
I ’ d been in the business for nearly two decades and no one had ever set me up with a new computer before .
There were big screens at the front of the room listing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count of how many people were reading them .
You could publish a story and watch the numbers grow as it moved up the chart , gathering readers—and downstairs , people were selling ads to those readers , and money was coming in .
Lots of it !
And some of those stories could change the world , a little or a lot , if not always as intended or predicted .
Outside forces were chewing away at these new paradigms , too .
Facebook and Google were interposing themselves , with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , as their numbers were lies—masses of viewers .
The numbers said people wanted video , and we started making video , and so did everyone else .
It was a stupid , colossal waste , but it was all OK. And then something else entirely happened .
It still seems impossible , but it did occur : Technology billionaire Peter Thiel decided to destroy my company , through a secret conspiracy , because we had been rude to him and his peers .
By then I had gone from Deadspin to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editing corps , and we watched in puzzlement as the nuisance lawsuits kept on coming , all out of proportion even to our seedy reputation , until one of them stuck and a jury decided to give us the death penalty : a financial award that was impossible , even for a very successful business with tens of millions of readers and a thriving ad department , to pay .
After all those years , there was something bracing about being annihilated by a rich person on purpose , rather than as collateral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or whim .
At least Peter Thiel , in his own stupid and malicious way , cared very deeply about what we wrote ; his colleagues on the Facebook board had simply squeezed publications to death for the sake of fueling Facebook ’ s own growth .
All the while I had also been writing for free , scores of thousands of words , for The Awl , a small site dedicated to giving readers and writers the chance to see and do things they couldn ’ t elsewhere .
But that freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the ad money was gone , and so was The Awl .
Either way , the conclusion was the same : As far as the daily or weekly exchange of information between writer and reader was concerned , the business part of my job was an illusion .
The product , which had seemed like the whole attraction , was useless , or actively undesirable , to the people and corporations who had been entrusted for so long with distributing it .
We were on our own .
What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see where we can get with it .
The New York Times is now getting the majority of its revenue from subscribers , not ads ; my full-time , digital-native employer , Slate , has set up a paywall to bring in paying members ; dozens of podcasts and newsletters have prospered by selling themselves directly to their audiences .
It may still be possible for the media to bring us the world , but the industry shaped by the 21st century technology behemoths is an obstacle to it , not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down to their last , most direct proposition : If you want this to exist , give us the money to pay for it .

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?
Every day as a child I would spread out the Sunpaper and read the comics, plus some news and sports, with never a glance at the stock tables or the department-store ads—a fully satisfied customer, in a constellation of other satisfied customers, with all of our separate or overlapping satisfactions. There was something for everyone, which meant some things were not for everyone, which made the whole thing in its own way a reflection of the world, which also had many interesting parts and many utterly boring parts, depending on who you were at the time. Broom-Hilda: for me, and interesting. Inflation: not for me, not interesting. Naked person apprehended on airplane: not for me, but interesting,
For a long time, the slow death of this arrangement could look like even more abundance. The Baltimore News American, the paper my Great-Aunt Melba got at her house, shut down, but the Sunpapers picked up its columnists and its comics, printing them alongside the ones who were already there. Then the Evening Sun, the one we’d been getting, shut down too, and its columnists and comics were folded into the Sun in the morning. It was a truly incredible array of comics for a while. But then they started shrinking in size and dwindling in number, as the paper itself got cut smaller and published thinner, and now my middle-aged eyes can’t really read the panels when I see them in the wilted little paper at my mom’s house.
Even though I depended on reading the Sun, I did not particularly want to write for it as I grew up, any more than talking on the telephone made me want to work for C&P. There were so many other places a person could write, it turned out. I spent a summer at The Aegis, one of my two weekly local papers, which the Sunpapers had recently bought, the Sunpapers themselves having been recently bought by the Los Angeles Times. The year after that, they stopped paying for summer cub reporters, switching over to free college interns; I was 19 years old and my first paid journalism job had been restructured out of existence.
But there was so much out there, still. I went to City Paper in Baltimore, the free alternative weekly, assembled in a semi-palatial rowhouse office, as fact-checker and then the lowest-ranking editor, but also a movie reviewer, sports writer, restaurant-review editor—if anyone ever said “No” to anything, it didn’t register. My office was in a converted bathroom, and my next office was in a bigger bathroom. today's paper Want to Fight Covid-19? Save Local Journalism. John Nichols
Then I needed to be in Boston and the Boston Phoenix needed the cheapest feature writer it could get. The Phoenix came in sections, a fat and prosperous little bundle of newsprint, with an edition that people even paid to purchase. The economics of the alt-weekly business were not far out of view—subscribers or no, we ran “massage” ads, as City Paper had, and seedy-looking people would haunt the lobby with cash in a paper sack—but it connected readers with advertisers, and the money kept coming in, even if very little of it sifted down to the features desk.
A person could get hired away, in those days. City Paper wanted a sports columnist, and then it needed more writing and editing done, and I moved back to Maryland and into an even larger bathroom. Then Washington City Paper was looking for a No. 2 editor, and after two years of that, though I had never thought about aiming at life in New York, I got a cryptic phone call from Peter Kaplan, of The New York Observer, and suddenly I was at a rickety desk in a corner of who-knows-what, an upstairs parlor?—in a grimy but fully palatial brick townhouse mansion. 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life 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 A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
The reader who follows the history of independent journalism should by now have caught on to a certain running subtext here. All the while, as it seemed I was swinging from limb to limb through a flourishing jungle of journalistic opportunity, a desert had been advancing behind me. The soil around the roots became dry dust and sand; the trees cracked and toppled. The townhouse mansion was sold, and a few years later so was The Observer, to a striving young businessman named Jared Kushner, who would eventually reduce that paper, a proud salmon-colored broadsheet decorated with Kaplan’s ornately stacked print headlines, to a sort of online wight, unrecognizable to its faithful subscribers. Washington City Paper hangs on, after a couple of near-death experiences. The Boston Phoenix is dead; Baltimore’s City Paper was bought by the Sunpapers (which were owned by the Chicago Tribune by then) and killed too. Current Issue View our current issue
All this was beginning to add up to a story about business history—about consolidation, and technological disruption, and what we called the devaluation of writing; really it was the devaluation of ads. It was always ads; at the giveaway papers we knew that the respectable press was respectably delivered to subscribers for less than it cost, in order to guarantee advertisers a reliable audience. And now the advertisers had options so cheap, they no longer cared about the audience, or if they did, they could pay fractions of pennies for an algorithmically generated audience of millions. People still wanted to read the writing, but the circulatory system of money that had made the writing possible was punctured and bleeding out, and draining into Silicon Valley.
I went to China to write a book, and while I was there I hung out and watched the last Beijing bureau chief of the Sunpapers clean out the bureau’s bookshelves and pack them up. Local newspapers were not in the business of bringing their readers the world anymore, and before long they would barely even be bringing their readers the local news.
Still, there was a future. Back in America, I got asked to write for Deadspin, a sports blog run by the disreputable Gawker Media. My recruitment involved a $200 tab for liquor and oysters; the day I arrived they brought me a box with a brand-new Macintosh in it. I’d been in the business for nearly two decades and no one had ever set me up with a new computer before. There were big screens at the front of the room listing the top-performing stories, with a live count of how many people were reading them. You could publish a story and watch the numbers grow as it moved up the chart, gathering readers—and downstairs, people were selling ads to those readers, and money was coming in. Lots of it! And some of those stories could change the world, a little or a lot, if not always as intended or predicted.
Outside forces were chewing away at these new paradigms, too. Facebook and Google were interposing themselves, with their own incredible—literally, in Facebook’s case, as their numbers were lies—masses of viewers. The numbers said people wanted video, and we started making video, and so did everyone else. It was a stupid, colossal waste, but it was all OK.
And then something else entirely happened. It still seems impossible, but it did occur: Technology billionaire Peter Thiel decided to destroy my company, through a secret conspiracy, because we had been rude to him and his peers. By then I had gone from Deadspin to Gawker to the company’s central editing corps, and we watched in puzzlement as the nuisance lawsuits kept on coming, all out of proportion even to our seedy reputation, until one of them stuck and a jury decided to give us the death penalty: a financial award that was impossible, even for a very successful business with tens of millions of readers and a thriving ad department, to pay.
After all those years, there was something bracing about being annihilated by a rich person on purpose, rather than as collateral damage to someone’s business plan or whim. At least Peter Thiel, in his own stupid and malicious way, cared very deeply about what we wrote; his colleagues on the Facebook board had simply squeezed publications to death for the sake of fueling Facebook’s own growth. All the while I had also been writing for free, scores of thousands of words, for The Awl, a small site dedicated to giving readers and writers the chance to see and do things they couldn’t elsewhere. But that freedom and generosity still had ads behind it, and the ad money was gone, and so was The Awl.
Either way, the conclusion was the same: As far as the daily or weekly exchange of information between writer and reader was concerned, the business part of my job was an illusion. The product, which had seemed like the whole attraction, was useless, or actively undesirable, to the people and corporations who had been entrusted for so long with distributing it. We were on our own.
What’s left? Admit it, and try to see where we can get with it. The New York Times is now getting the majority of its revenue from subscribers, not ads; my full-time, digital-native employer, Slate, has set up a paywall to bring in paying members; dozens of podcasts and newsletters have prospered by selling themselves directly to their audiences. It may still be possible for the media to bring us the world, but the industry shaped by the 21st century technology behemoths is an obstacle to it, not a vessel for it. Independent publications are down to their last, most direct proposition: If you want this to exist, give us the money to pay for it.


thenation--2020-09-21--Taking a Knee in Alabama

Taking a Knee in Alabama

Taylor Morgan is a senior soccer player for the University of Alabama .
She made the journey to Tuscaloosa after starring at Westfield High School in Westfield , N.J .
In addition to playing Division I soccer , she is the vice chair of the SEC Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and a member of the SEC Fall Academic Honor Roll .
Like other student-athletes in the Southeastern Conference , Taylor is playing this fall in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic .
There have been 2,300 cases at the University of Alabama since classes began on August 19 ( although , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downward over the last two weeks ) .
It is undoubtedly a stressful time for everyone on campus , but in spite of that , Morgan , along with four of her teammates , chose to take a knee during the anthem in protest of police violence and racial inequity before their opening game against Tennessee .
A handful of Tennessee players did the same .
In addition , before the game , both teams stood while holding red show racism the red card signs .
At a time when an authoritarian president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general declares cities “ anarchist jurisdictions , ” any instance of dissent should be embraced .
Taking a knee in Alabama , the site of Trump ’ s infamous “ sons of bitches ” speech about kneeling NFL players , made the students ’ act especially brave .
Sure enough , Morgan and her teammates angered all the right people .
She took to Instagram to issue a response to the backlash .
She wrote , My choice to kneel before today ’ s game was one of the easiest decisions that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By kneeling , it was in no way meant as a disrespect to the flag nor the military ; which both my father and brother are a part of .
In fact , I did this for them .
I did this for the millions of African Americans like them that are being oppressed By taking a knee alongside the number of athletes that have done this across the country , I am committing to help with us being the change for the future generations of this team , this athletic program and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform that I ’ ve worked hard to earn in a way that will be seen and heard .
I am black , but I am mixed .
I recognize my privilege and will use it to support to those who lack it .
In the end , my actions are not meant to disrespect the flag , but instead are actions that are fighting for what is right , and that is and always will be that black lives do matter .
This fight against systemic racism is far from over , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is coming , and I will be a part of making sure it does .
That last line , “ This fight against systemic racism is far from over , but I can assure you that change is coming , and I will be a part of making sure it does , ” rings with a defiance that hopefully will be remembered long after Morgan ’ s collegiate soccer career ends .
Maya Moore and Jonathan Irons : More Than a Love Story We ’ ve Entered the Era of ‘ Branding for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just How Racist College Sports Have Become Morgan received immediate support from her young coach Wes Hart .
Only in his second season leading the team , Hart refused calls to condemn his players .
“ Our message to the team was , ‘ You are adults , and if you have a personal opinion , we support your right to express it , ’ ” Hart said .
“ I didn ’ t try to make too much out of it , and my approach will be to continue to go forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other.
” Taylor Morgan also received support from the first soccer player , first white person , and first woman to kneel after Colin Kaepernick , soccer icon Megan Rapinoe .
The always outspoken Rapinoe tweeted , “ We are with you [ Taylor Morgan ] keep walking in that strength , and doing the right thing .
# BlackLivesMatter.
” No one should have been too surprised to see Morgan and her teammates take this step .
On September 1 , when Alabama ’ s storied football team marched for racial justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
The movement of athletes using their platform to raise the issue of racial justice , even in the most difficult of environments , isn ’ t going anywhere .

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?
Taylor Morgan is a senior soccer player for the University of Alabama. She made the journey to Tuscaloosa after starring at Westfield High School in Westfield, N.J. In addition to playing Division I soccer, she is the vice chair of the SEC Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and a member of the SEC Fall Academic Honor Roll.
Like other student-athletes in the Southeastern Conference, Taylor is playing this fall in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. There have been 2,300 cases at the University of Alabama since classes began on August 19 (although, fortunately, the numbers have been trending downward over the last two weeks). It is undoubtedly a stressful time for everyone on campus, but in spite of that, Morgan, along with four of her teammates, chose to take a knee during the anthem in protest of police violence and racial inequity before their opening game against Tennessee. A handful of Tennessee players did the same. In addition, before the game, both teams stood while holding red show racism the red card signs.
At a time when an authoritarian president rages about patriotic education and an attorney general declares cities “anarchist jurisdictions,” any instance of dissent should be embraced. Taking a knee in Alabama, the site of Trump’s infamous “sons of bitches” speech about kneeling NFL players, made the students’ act especially brave. Sure enough, Morgan and her teammates angered all the right people. She took to Instagram to issue a response to the backlash. She wrote,
My choice to kneel before today’s game was one of the easiest decisions that I’ve ever had to make. By kneeling, it was in no way meant as a disrespect to the flag nor the military; which both my father and brother are a part of. In fact, I did this for them. I did this for the millions of African Americans like them that are being oppressed By taking a knee alongside the number of athletes that have done this across the country, I am committing to help with us being the change for the future generations of this team, this athletic program and this country. I will use my platform that I’ve worked hard to earn in a way that will be seen and heard. I am black, but I am mixed. I recognize my privilege and will use it to support to those who lack it. In the end, my actions are not meant to disrespect the flag, but instead are actions that are fighting for what is right, and that is and always will be that black lives do matter. This fight against systemic racism is far from over, but I can assure you that change is coming, and I will be a part of making sure it does.
That last line, “This fight against systemic racism is far from over, but I can assure you that change is coming, and I will be a part of making sure it does,” rings with a defiance that hopefully will be remembered long after Morgan’s collegiate soccer career ends. 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
Morgan received immediate support from her young coach Wes Hart. Only in his second season leading the team, Hart refused calls to condemn his players. “Our message to the team was, ‘You are adults, and if you have a personal opinion, we support your right to express it,’” Hart said. “I didn’t try to make too much out of it, and my approach will be to continue to go forward with mutual respect and love for each other.”
Taylor Morgan also received support from the first soccer player, first white person, and first woman to kneel after Colin Kaepernick, soccer icon Megan Rapinoe. The always outspoken Rapinoe tweeted, “We are with you [Taylor Morgan] keep walking in that strength, and doing the right thing. #BlackLivesMatter.”
No one should have been too surprised to see Morgan and her teammates take this step. On September 1, when Alabama’s storied football team marched for racial justice on campus, the soccer team marched as well. The movement of athletes using their platform to raise the issue of racial justice, even in the most difficult of environments, isn’t going anywhere.