hotair--2020-09-25--Abbott: The eyes of Texas will be upon rioters in new get-tough legislation

Governor Abbott held a news conference in Dallas on Thursday to announce new legislative proposals to address the riots that break out during protests in Texas .
He isn ’ t on the ballot but he spoke during a campaign event joined by police union officials , other Texas leaders , and Republican politicians .
They hope to take Texas House seats from Dallas County Democrats in November .
Dallas has seen continuous protests throughout the Summer of Love so it was appropriate that the governor spoke from there .
Abbott has been pursuing a law and order message , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest poll from the New York Times/Siena College is to be believed .
The poll shows that law and order is more important than the pandemic for Texans .
The catch is that when asked , Texans say that racism in the criminal justice system is a bigger issue than riots in cities across America .
Governor Abbott proposed several aggressive new legislative proposals to raise penalties and create new crimes that would require jail time for offenses committed as protests turn into riots .
He said , “ Today , we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more to protect our law enforcement officers as well as do more to keep our community safe.
” The legislation would have to be passed by lawmakers in 2021 and it was not immediately clear that such measures would have the support needed to become law .
Abbott ’ s proposals would create felony-level offenses with mandatory jail time for causing injury or destroying property during what is deemed to be a “ riot.
” Blocking hospital entrances and using lasers to target police would also be felony offenses that would require a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an officer with something like a water bottle would lead to a mandatory minimum of six months in jail .
Currently , the crime of “ participating in a riot ” is a misdemeanor offense in Texas with a maximum of six months in jail , and is labeled as a gathering of seven or more people that in part , creates a danger to a person or property .
Many protesters in Texas have been arrested on suspicion of such offenses since protests erupted in May after Floyd ’ s death .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like assault on a police officer , including an 18-year-old who faces up to 20 years in prison for allegedly throwing a water bottle at an officer .
This all sounds reasonable , especially after the scenes of nightly violence and destruction that flood our television screens every morning .
After four months , cities are still on fire and people and property are being harmed in the mix .
How long is rioting to be considered expected behavior ?
Perhaps some jail time will get the attention of rioters who are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are unwilling to take a stand against them .
Texas cities other than Dallas have experienced protests that turn bad since the death of George Floyd .
Dallas , though , seems to have consistent protests , more so than the other big cities .
Houston , for example , has seen some protests , mostly immediately following Floyd ’ s death , but not to the extent that Dallas has .
Once the defund the police madness came to Texas , specifically in Austin , Governor Abbott began to move to curb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police department ’ s budget and cutting the number of police officers .
He suggested he would place the Austin Police Department under state control .
He also has previously announced he will see to it that cities that defund police will find property taxes frozen .
Enablers of rioters are not happy about Abbott ’ s latest announcement .
Organizers wonder how police will determine what is a riot and what is not .
Here ’ s a hint – when fires are set and glass windows are shattered , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement , it ’ s a riot .
Protesters who are innocently exercising their First Amendment rights are not tossing Molotov cocktails into a police line .
This isn ’ t hard .
Police know a riot when they see one .
Abbott ’ s new proposals already had fierce opposition from organizers .
David Villalobos , with the Texas Organizing Project in Dallas , said he is concerned about how police are able to determine when something is a riot and who they will target , and how it will affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust the police .
“ We wouldn ’ t want [ police ] to have this wide discretion to deem which protesters are taking part in disorderly conduct or unlawful protests , ” he said Thursday .
“ This seems like a step that would really try to stifle the voice of the people , the people ’ s right to march and peacefully assemble.
” In Austin , where City Council members last month cut the police budget amid an outcry to defund policing and reinvest in other social programs to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moore said it seemed “ democracy is hanging on by a thread.
” “ I don ’ t think the governor is moving in the right direction if he ’ s trying to penalize people for protesting or speaking out against the things people have grievances about , ” he said .
“ It ’ s not going to stop people from protesting , but I do think we have a more emboldened police department and police forces.
” Texas Democrats say that Abbott is trying to deflect attention away from the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are seeing the polls that show Trump is up now over Biden more than he has been in recent weeks .
Trump ’ s message of law and order resonates with Texas Republicans and Independents .
The New York Times/Siena College poll of likely Texas voters shows a split between Republican and Democrats over whether the pandemic is the top concern or if it is law and order .
Also , there is a divide between urban and more rural Texans .
The split is also present over the Black Lives Matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white and rural voters .
The race between Trump and Biden in Texas will be closer than previous elections if the polling proves true , but Trump will win Texas .
Texas is turning purple and Republicans are going to have to get used to working harder to win .
Hopefully , Trump can carry down-ballot candidates to victory and Republicans hold the Texas State House and Senate .

Governor Abbott held a news conference in Dallas on Thursday to announce new legislative proposals to address the riots that break out during protests in Texas. He isn’t on the ballot but he spoke during a campaign event joined by police union officials, other Texas leaders, and Republican politicians. They hope to take Texas House seats from Dallas County Democrats in November.
Dallas has seen continuous protests throughout the Summer of Love so it was appropriate that the governor spoke from there. Abbott has been pursuing a law and order message, which is popular with Texans if the latest poll from the New York Times/Siena College is to be believed. The poll shows that law and order is more important than the pandemic for Texans. The catch is that when asked, Texans say that racism in the criminal justice system is a bigger issue than riots in cities across America.
Governor Abbott proposed several aggressive new legislative proposals to raise penalties and create new crimes that would require jail time for offenses committed as protests turn into riots. He said, “Today, we are announcing more legislative proposals to do even more to protect our law enforcement officers as well as do more to keep our community safe.”
The legislation would have to be passed by lawmakers in 2021 and it was not immediately clear that such measures would have the support needed to become law. Abbott’s proposals would create felony-level offenses with mandatory jail time for causing injury or destroying property during what is deemed to be a “riot.” Blocking hospital entrances and using lasers to target police would also be felony offenses that would require a jail sentence, Abbott said. Striking an officer with something like a water bottle would lead to a mandatory minimum of six months in jail. Currently, the crime of “participating in a riot” is a misdemeanor offense in Texas with a maximum of six months in jail, and is labeled as a gathering of seven or more people that in part, creates a danger to a person or property. Many protesters in Texas have been arrested on suspicion of such offenses since protests erupted in May after Floyd’s death. Others have been charged with felony-level crimes like assault on a police officer, including an 18-year-old who faces up to 20 years in prison for allegedly throwing a water bottle at an officer.
This all sounds reasonable, especially after the scenes of nightly violence and destruction that flood our television screens every morning. After four months, cities are still on fire and people and property are being harmed in the mix. How long is rioting to be considered expected behavior? Perhaps some jail time will get the attention of rioters who are often just ignored by local public officials who are unwilling to take a stand against them.
Texas cities other than Dallas have experienced protests that turn bad since the death of George Floyd. Dallas, though, seems to have consistent protests, more so than the other big cities. Houston, for example, has seen some protests, mostly immediately following Floyd’s death, but not to the extent that Dallas has. Once the defund the police madness came to Texas, specifically in Austin, Governor Abbott began to move to curb that city’s enthusiasm for cutting the police department’s budget and cutting the number of police officers. He suggested he would place the Austin Police Department under state control. He also has previously announced he will see to it that cities that defund police will find property taxes frozen.
Enablers of rioters are not happy about Abbott’s latest announcement. Organizers wonder how police will determine what is a riot and what is not. Here’s a hint – when fires are set and glass windows are shattered, or water bottles and bricks are thrown at law enforcement, it’s a riot. Protesters who are innocently exercising their First Amendment rights are not tossing Molotov cocktails into a police line. This isn’t hard. Police know a riot when they see one.
Abbott’s new proposals already had fierce opposition from organizers. David Villalobos, with the Texas Organizing Project in Dallas, said he is concerned about how police are able to determine when something is a riot and who they will target, and how it will affect a community that already doesn’t trust the police. “We wouldn’t want [police] to have this wide discretion to deem which protesters are taking part in disorderly conduct or unlawful protests,” he said Thursday. “This seems like a step that would really try to stifle the voice of the people, the people’s right to march and peacefully assemble.” In Austin, where City Council members last month cut the police budget amid an outcry to defund policing and reinvest in other social programs to reduce crime, Austin Justice Coalition Founder Chas Moore said it seemed “democracy is hanging on by a thread.” “I don’t think the governor is moving in the right direction if he’s trying to penalize people for protesting or speaking out against the things people have grievances about,” he said. “It’s not going to stop people from protesting, but I do think we have a more emboldened police department and police forces.”
Texas Democrats say that Abbott is trying to deflect attention away from the coronavirus pandemic in the state. I suspect they are seeing the polls that show Trump is up now over Biden more than he has been in recent weeks. Trump’s message of law and order resonates with Texas Republicans and Independents. The New York Times/Siena College poll of likely Texas voters shows a split between Republican and Democrats over whether the pandemic is the top concern or if it is law and order. Also, there is a divide between urban and more rural Texans. The split is also present over the Black Lives Matter movement. It is wearing thin with white and rural voters.
When asked their views of Black Lives Matter, a majority of urban respondents and almost nine out of 10 Black respondents said they have a favorable view of the movement. That contrasts sharply with the nearly three out of five white respondents and two-thirds of rural respondents who said they view the movement unfavorably.
The race between Trump and Biden in Texas will be closer than previous elections if the polling proves true, but Trump will win Texas. Texas is turning purple and Republicans are going to have to get used to working harder to win. Hopefully, Trump can carry down-ballot candidates to victory and Republicans hold the Texas State House and Senate.


hotair--2020-09-24--Palin threatens Murkowski over SCOTUS vote: I can see 2022 from my house

Via Jim Swift .
A WaPo reporter remembered that Palin made this same threat after Murkowski wobbled on confirming Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 .
I had forgotten — even though I wrote a long-ish post about it at the time .
Nearly everything in that thread applies here too , so go ahead and read it for background .
Having Palin as an enemy doesn ’ t inspire the same fear now among Republican pols that it used to .
The populists who made up her personality cult from 2009 to 2011 long ago reconstituted themselves as even more ardent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I wonder if the splash Trump made in 2011 talking smack about Obama ’ s birth certificate was the beginning of the end of Palinmania .
Probably not — realistically , it was her decision not to run for president in 2012 despite the clamor among right-wing activists .
If she had run that year and challenged Romney , would the history of the party from 2012 onward have changed meaningfully ?
A subject for another day .
Murkowski won a write-in campaign at the height of tea-party fever in 2010 with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miller .
If conservatives couldn ’ t oust Murky in a situation like that , a Senate primary launched by Palin who ’ s now more than 10 years removed from holding any sort of elected office probably isn ’ t scaring her .
The interesting wrinkle would be if Trump , whether as the incumbent president or simply as a private citizen , jumped into the race to campaign on Palin ’ s behalf .
I ’ m sure he ’ d relish it , having been criticized repeatedly by Murkowski and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on SCOTUS confirmations .
Does he have the same hold over Alaska that he has over red states within the lower 48 ?
Alaska ’ s notoriously hard to poll but the margins he ’ s been putting up against Biden there so far this year don ’ t suggest a huge amount of influence .
He led by six in the most recent survey , published in July , but a different poll a few weeks earlier had him ahead by just a point .
Certainly he ’ d have major sway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help Palin to the party ’ s nomination .
But it ’ s hard to believe Murkowski would sit by in a situation like that and absorb the defeat , forcing her to win another write-in campaign in the general election .
If Palin declared her candidacy and polls showed that she stood a real chance of winning the primary , Murky would probably just go independent — or even switch to the Democratic Party , which may well hold the Senate majority at the time .
Two years ago a poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Murkowski with Alaska conservatives , suggesting she ’ d win a primary easily .
But among the total electorate , the numbers flipped : Murkowski was viewed favorably by a margin of 51/37 while Palin was viewed unfavorably by a spread of 31/51 .
Nominate Palin and Republicans might well end up fumbling away the seat .
I hope she runs , mainly because it would be an entertaining race but also because it ’ s been deeply strange that Palin has kept such a low profile throughout Trump ’ s candidacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sideshow character in media has come out of the woodwork over the last five years to get a piece of the Fox/MAGA action , but somehow the most popular populist among conservative activists of the first half of the previous decade has largely vanished .
So odd .
Here ’ s the clip , which is also pretty odd .
Oh , by the way — although Murkowski has said that she thinks Ginsburg ’ s seat should be kept open through the election , she hasn ’ t ruled out voting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her and bring the nomination to a vote .
The sticking point if it ’ s Barrett , which it almost certainly will be , will be abortion .
If pro-choice Murky is convinced that she really will be the fifth ( or sixth ? )
vote to overturn Roe , is that a dealbreaker ?

Via Jim Swift. A WaPo reporter remembered that Palin made this same threat after Murkowski wobbled on confirming Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. I had forgotten — even though I wrote a long-ish post about it at the time.
Nearly everything in that thread applies here too, so go ahead and read it for background.
Having Palin as an enemy doesn’t inspire the same fear now among Republican pols that it used to. The populists who made up her personality cult from 2009 to 2011 long ago reconstituted themselves as even more ardent personality cult for Trump. In hindsight, I wonder if the splash Trump made in 2011 talking smack about Obama’s birth certificate was the beginning of the end of Palinmania. Probably not — realistically, it was her decision not to run for president in 2012 despite the clamor among right-wing activists.
If she had run that year and challenged Romney, would the history of the party from 2012 onward have changed meaningfully? A subject for another day.
Murkowski won a write-in campaign at the height of tea-party fever in 2010 with Palin backing her conservative opponent, Joe Miller. If conservatives couldn’t oust Murky in a situation like that, a Senate primary launched by Palin who’s now more than 10 years removed from holding any sort of elected office probably isn’t scaring her. The interesting wrinkle would be if Trump, whether as the incumbent president or simply as a private citizen, jumped into the race to campaign on Palin’s behalf. I’m sure he’d relish it, having been criticized repeatedly by Murkowski and been crossed more than once by her on SCOTUS confirmations. Does he have the same hold over Alaska that he has over red states within the lower 48?
Alaska’s notoriously hard to poll but the margins he’s been putting up against Biden there so far this year don’t suggest a huge amount of influence. He led by six in the most recent survey, published in July, but a different poll a few weeks earlier had him ahead by just a point. Certainly he’d have major sway in a Republican primary, presumably enough to help Palin to the party’s nomination. But it’s hard to believe Murkowski would sit by in a situation like that and absorb the defeat, forcing her to win another write-in campaign in the general election. If Palin declared her candidacy and polls showed that she stood a real chance of winning the primary, Murky would probably just go independent — or even switch to the Democratic Party, which may well hold the Senate majority at the time.
Two years ago a poll found that Palin was much more popular than Murkowski with Alaska conservatives, suggesting she’d win a primary easily. But among the total electorate, the numbers flipped: Murkowski was viewed favorably by a margin of 51/37 while Palin was viewed unfavorably by a spread of 31/51. Nominate Palin and Republicans might well end up fumbling away the seat.
I hope she runs, mainly because it would be an entertaining race but also because it’s been deeply strange that Palin has kept such a low profile throughout Trump’s candidacy and later presidency. Every fringy populist sideshow character in media has come out of the woodwork over the last five years to get a piece of the Fox/MAGA action, but somehow the most popular populist among conservative activists of the first half of the previous decade has largely vanished. So odd.
Here’s the clip, which is also pretty odd. Oh, by the way — although Murkowski has said that she thinks Ginsburg’s seat should be kept open through the election, she hasn’t ruled out voting for the nominee if Trump and McConnell ignore her and bring the nomination to a vote. The sticking point if it’s Barrett, which it almost certainly will be, will be abortion. If pro-choice Murky is convinced that she really will be the fifth (or sixth?) vote to overturn Roe, is that a dealbreaker?


hotair--2020-09-24--United Airlines introduces COVID-19 rapid testing program for passengers on limited basis for now

Starting on October 15 , United Airlines will offer a COVID-19 testing program for passengers .
This makes United the first airlines to provide the service .
Passengers will be given the option of ordering an at-home testing kit or to reserve a time for a rapid test at the airport .
The catch to this story is that for now , only passengers from San Francisco flying to Hawaii will have access to this new option .
The reason that the Hawaii destination was chosen is that the State of Hawaii has largely been closed to tourists since March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were automatically subjected to a two-week quarantine .
Next month , with proof of a negative COVID-19 test result within 72 hours prior to arrival , Hawaii will waive its two-week quarantine .
Hawaii officials will verify those results as flights come in .
Customers will have to pay for the testing .
Rapid testing is already available at San Francisco International Airport for airline staff and airport employees .
The test takes about 20 minutes from arrival to the result and will cost $ 250 .
The home test option is less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The test kit costs $ 80 plus shipping .
The test goes to a San Francisco lab for processing .
Customers will have results within 48 hours .
Two other airports are working with a private company to offer tests to passengers on any airline – Kennedy Airport in New York City and Newark Airport in New Jersey .
They are working with a private company , XpresCheck , to provide a rapid test before departure .
A recent survey taken by Atmosphere Research survey found three-fourths of flyers support pre-flight coronavirus testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close quarters in which people are sitting and the recycled air on planes .
A rapid test before passengers board a plane seems like it would be a good way to mitigate a super spreader event , once air travel gets back to normal levels .
Flyers who arrive in Hawaii without a rapid test result will still have to do the two-week quarantine .
United Airlines sees this step as the first one to bringing back international travel for Americans .
All of the airlines are pushing for air bridges between major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with pre-flight COVID-19 tests required for all passengers on board .
Hawaii , heavily dependent on tourism , has been hard hit during the pandemic .
According to numbers from Airlines for America , Hawaii is seeing 70 % fewer flights , 91 % less TSA checkpoint traffic , and 94 % less travel into the state compared to usual .
United Airlines ’ official statement points to the fact that the airline worked with Hawaii officials and looks at the testing option as a service to customers to increase airline travel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure that any United customer – both visitors and Hawaiian residents returning home – who tests negative on either test would not be subjected to the state ’ s current 14-day quarantine requirement .
United currently offers more flights to Hawaii than any other major network carrier including daily service between San Francisco and Honolulu ( HNL ) , Maui ( OGG ) and Kona ( KOA ) .
The carrier plans to increase service to Hawaii on October 15 , including the resumption of service between San Francisco and Lihue ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francisco and Maui and Kona .
“ Our new COVID testing program is another way we are helping customers meet their destinations ’ entry requirements , safely and conveniently , ” said Toby Enqvist , Chief Customer Officer at United .
“ We ’ ll look to quickly expand customer testing to other destinations and U.S. airports later this year to complement our state-of-the-art cleaning and safety measures that include a mandatory mask policy , antimicrobial and electrostatic spraying and our hospital-grade HEPA air filtration systems.
” With the air travel industry still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airlines are asking for a second government bail-out to keep afloat and save jobs .
This week executives from American Airlines , United Airlines , and JetBlue Airways , as well as from major aviation unions made a last-ditch effort to appeal to the Trump administration for a six-month extension of the payroll support program granted through the $ 25 billion bailouts from Congress back in March .
If a bailout doesn ’ t come by October 1 , airlines will experience what they label as massive furloughs across the industry .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that air travel will bounce back to previous levels any time soon , given that lockdowns are still in place across the country and no vaccine available yet .

Starting on October 15, United Airlines will offer a COVID-19 testing program for passengers. This makes United the first airlines to provide the service. Passengers will be given the option of ordering an at-home testing kit or to reserve a time for a rapid test at the airport.
The catch to this story is that for now, only passengers from San Francisco flying to Hawaii will have access to this new option. The reason that the Hawaii destination was chosen is that the State of Hawaii has largely been closed to tourists since March. If tourists did come, they were automatically subjected to a two-week quarantine. Next month, with proof of a negative COVID-19 test result within 72 hours prior to arrival, Hawaii will waive its two-week quarantine. Hawaii officials will verify those results as flights come in.
“We really see this as a great opportunity to provide access to testing for our customers, to get them back in the air and traveling as safely as possible,” Aaron McMillan, United’s managing director of operations policy and support, told CBS News transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave.
Customers will have to pay for the testing. Rapid testing is already available at San Francisco International Airport for airline staff and airport employees. The test takes about 20 minutes from arrival to the result and will cost $250. The home test option is less expensive but the results take longer. The test kit costs $80 plus shipping. The test goes to a San Francisco lab for processing. Customers will have results within 48 hours.
“Being able to identify a positive case and pull them out of a public health situation and put them in isolation, and then be able to kind of winnow that group of potential infectious individuals is really what’s going to have an impact,” said Caroline Savello, the chief commercial officer of Color, a company offering COVID-19 testing.
Two other airports are working with a private company to offer tests to passengers on any airline – Kennedy Airport in New York City and Newark Airport in New Jersey. They are working with a private company, XpresCheck, to provide a rapid test before departure. A recent survey taken by Atmosphere Research survey found three-fourths of flyers support pre-flight coronavirus testing. This makes sense because of the close quarters in which people are sitting and the recycled air on planes. A rapid test before passengers board a plane seems like it would be a good way to mitigate a super spreader event, once air travel gets back to normal levels. Flyers who arrive in Hawaii without a rapid test result will still have to do the two-week quarantine.
United Airlines sees this step as the first one to bringing back international travel for Americans. All of the airlines are pushing for air bridges between major cities like New York and London, with pre-flight COVID-19 tests required for all passengers on board.
American Airlines is looking at offering tests to passengers. Lufthansa also plans to offer tests to passengers next month, and already has testing centers for arriving passengers in Munich and Frankfurt.
Hawaii, heavily dependent on tourism, has been hard hit during the pandemic. According to numbers from Airlines for America, Hawaii is seeing 70% fewer flights, 91% less TSA checkpoint traffic, and 94% less travel into the state compared to usual.
The International Air Transport Association on Tuesday called for coronavirus testing at the airport as a requirement for all passengers and airplane crew members before international flights. The group, which represents about 290 airlines worldwide, called on governments to set up and fund the testing regimen.
United Airlines’ official statement points to the fact that the airline worked with Hawaii officials and looks at the testing option as a service to customers to increase airline travel.
The airline worked closely with Hawaii officials to ensure that any United customer – both visitors and Hawaiian residents returning home – who tests negative on either test would not be subjected to the state’s current 14-day quarantine requirement. United currently offers more flights to Hawaii than any other major network carrier including daily service between San Francisco and Honolulu (HNL), Maui (OGG) and Kona (KOA). The carrier plans to increase service to Hawaii on October 15, including the resumption of service between San Francisco and Lihue (LIH) and additional flights between San Francisco and Maui and Kona. “Our new COVID testing program is another way we are helping customers meet their destinations’ entry requirements, safely and conveniently,” said Toby Enqvist, Chief Customer Officer at United. “We’ll look to quickly expand customer testing to other destinations and U.S. airports later this year to complement our state-of-the-art cleaning and safety measures that include a mandatory mask policy, antimicrobial and electrostatic spraying and our hospital-grade HEPA air filtration systems.”
With the air travel industry still devastated due to the coronavirus pandemic, airlines are asking for a second government bail-out to keep afloat and save jobs. This week executives from American Airlines, United Airlines, and JetBlue Airways, as well as from major aviation unions made a last-ditch effort to appeal to the Trump administration for a six-month extension of the payroll support program granted through the $25 billion bailouts from Congress back in March. If a bailout doesn’t come by October 1, airlines will experience what they label as massive furloughs across the industry. It’s hard to imagine, though, that air travel will bounce back to previous levels any time soon, given that lockdowns are still in place across the country and no vaccine available yet.


hotair--2020-09-25--Two new polls: Not much support for Court-packing, even among Democrats

A lucky break for Chuck Schumer , since he ’ s not going to have the votes in the Senate to pack the Court even if he ends up with a majority come January .
That ’ s not to say progressives won ’ t make his life hell if he refuses .
They will .
It might even earn him a credible primary challenge in his next Senate election .
But it ’ s nice for him to be able to point to polling data and say , “ Not only do Americans not want this , even many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Biden ’ s taken heat this week for being cagey about whether he ’ d agree to pack the Court or not , but once again his “ try not to say anything about anything ” strategy has served him well .
If he started hollering about adding justices , he ’ d weird out the people who like him precisely because he ’ s promising a return to civic norms post-Trump .
You can ’ t be the “ norms ” guy if you ’ re blowing up SCOTUS .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s data , how about this , from Yahoo News and YouGov ?
Democrats are more supportive of Court-packing in this poll ( 48/22 ) , but even here they can ’ t get to 50 percent within their own party for the idea .
Having said that , I think this question is a moving target .
*In the abstract* , even Democrats are wary about taking drastic action to shift the Court back towards the center following a strong tilt to the conservative side .
But would they be less wary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or if it nuked ObamaCare ?
Or , the truly apocalyptic scenario , if it upheld some dubious Trump legal challenge to ballots this fall that assured him a second presidential term ?
Those numbers will move , at least on the left .
Americans don ’ t care about process , and Court-packing is a process argument .
But they do care about results .
As their disappointment in results deepens and turns febrile , they ’ ll consider outlandish process ideas to engineer the results they want .
Speaking of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat opposed to overturning Roe ( 29/54 ) and somewhat opposed to overturning ObamaCare ( 29/50 ) .
They think the Court is especially likely to follow through on the latter , with 69 percent saying it ’ s at least somewhat likely that O-Care will be nuked .
Conventional wisdom among the chatterati already holds that Democrats ’ strongest argument in making the case against Trump ’ s SCOTUS nominee is highlighting the threat to ObamaCare , which I think is right .
You ’ re not going to convince Americans that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and you may not be able to convince them that the new Court will nuke Roe , as voters have been warned by liberals about that for nearly 50 years and it still hasn ’ t happened .
But you *might* be able to convince them that a 6-3 conservative majority is about to take away coverage for preexisting conditions in the middle of a pandemic , with many millions of Americans out of work and relying on the O-Care exchanges for insurance .
That ’ s the smart play for Dems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ron Brownstein : Comparable state-by-state data isn ’ t available on the ACA ’ s protections for patients with preexisting conditions .
But the 2018 election results suggest that defending those provisions was an effective argument for Democrats virtually everywhere .
National polling earlier this year by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation reported that not only did 95 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents consider preserving those protections “ extremely ” or “ very ” important , but so did 71 percent of Republicans .
More recent Kaiser polling , conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Report , ” found that voters in Florida , North Carolina , and Arizona all gave Biden big leads over Trump on the issue of protecting patients with preexisting conditions—a measure of how widely Democrats lead on that concern .
Likewise , a new poll from the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund , released today , found that voters in 10 battleground states prefer Biden over Trump on the issue .
The Democrat led by double-digit margins in almost every state tested—not only in places where Democrats have been competitive , such as Michigan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but even in states where the GOP has dominated , like Texas , Georgia , Arizona , and North Carolina .
Opinion on abortion is divided closely enough in some swing states that Democrats screaming about Roe might not do them much good , Brownstein notes .
But there ’ s little division about whether coverage for people with preexisting conditions should continue , and that ’ s the big risk posed if a Republican SCOTUS flushes O-Care .
Trump understands that and did what he could yesterday to show voters that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an executive order stating that it ’ s his policy that such coverage should continue .
But the order has zero practical effect ; it ’ s essentially just a glorified press release by the White House affirming that Trump will push for Congress to reinstate coverage for preexisting conditions after the Trump/Barrett Court blows it up .
He needed something he can point to at Tuesday ’ s debate when Biden inevitably attacks him for trying to take away coverage and demands to know where the GOP ’ s alternate health-care plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace ObamaCare .
The best Trump could do under the circumstances was cough up this toothless document , which WaPo describes as the White House “ rebranding rather than repealing Obamacare.
” Basically true .
By the way , in keeping with the trend in so many other polls this week , both WaPo ’ s ( 57/38 ) and YouGov ’ s ( 53/40 ) surveys find majorities want the next president to fill Ginsburg ’ s seat after the election instead of having Trump fill it now .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Post also points out that 63 percent wanted the Senate to hold hearings and a vote on Merrick Garland in 2016 , and when Republicans blew them off they went out and handed the party total control of government anyway .
These numbers gave me pause , though : That probably doesn ’ t matter either .
People who are more likely to vote Biden now were probably already turbo-charged to vote for him , and only 11 percent overall say that SCOTUS is their top issue .
But I speculated a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an electoral effect from the Barrett nomination , it ’ s more likely to juice Democratic turnout by inspiring rage and fear than Republican turnout by inspiring gratitude .
This result seems to bear that out .
But maybe it ’ s worth it ?
“ I think a 6-3 court is worth the White House and Senate , ” said one Republican Senate staffer to Yahoo News last week .
“ The pro-life community has been waiting on this forever .
There has to be a vote.
” I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyes open .
If putting Barrett on the Court means handing Democrats total control of government next year , hey — life is a serious of trade-offs , right ?
Trump *could* always put the brakes on and decide that he ’ ll hold the vacancy open and let the winner of the election fill the seat , believing that that ’ ll juice turnout on his own side .
( He has about 24 hours before tomorrow ’ s announcement as I write this . )
But at this point , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s an utterly dishonorable figure .
He could lose 538-0 on November 3 and he ’ d be calling McConnell the next day telling him to put Barrett ’ s nomination on the floor anyway .
In that sense , filling the seat before the election is the only logical move for the party .
No one trusts Trump and no one trusts the Republican Senate to stand up to Trump when he wants to do something dubious , like breaking a pre-election promise not to fill the seat if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that they ’ re going to fill this seat regardless .
Better that Republicans just be honest about it then , as they ’ re being .
Here ’ s one of the many people who ’ ve contributed to our country ’ s ongoing transition into a banana republic , naturally doubling down on his actions .

A lucky break for Chuck Schumer, since he’s not going to have the votes in the Senate to pack the Court even if he ends up with a majority come January.
That’s not to say progressives won’t make his life hell if he refuses. They will. It might even earn him a credible primary challenge in his next Senate election.
But it’s nice for him to be able to point to polling data and say, “Not only do Americans not want this, even many in our own party don’t.”
New from WaPo:
A 54 percent majority of Americans oppose increasing the number of justices who sit on the bench in a way that would give the winner of the election more influence over the court’s makeup. About a third of Americans support adding justices, 32 percent, while 12 percent have no opinion. About 6 in 10 Republicans and independents alike oppose increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, while Democrats are relatively split, with 45 percent supporting this and 39 percent opposing it.
Biden’s taken heat this week for being cagey about whether he’d agree to pack the Court or not, but once again his “try not to say anything about anything” strategy has served him well. If he started hollering about adding justices, he’d weird out the people who like him precisely because he’s promising a return to civic norms post-Trump. You can’t be the “norms” guy if you’re blowing up SCOTUS.
If you don’t like WaPo’s data, how about this, from Yahoo News and YouGov?
Only 32 percent support increasing the number of justices to the Supreme Court (39 percent oppose, 29 percent are unsure). Just 37 percent support abolishing the filibuster so that 40 senators cannot block legislation (23 percent oppose, 39 percent are unsure). And voters are divided 35 percent to 35 percent on whether it is a good or bad idea to expand the court “so that five justices are affiliated with the Republicans, five are affiliated with the Democrats, and five are apolitical and chosen by the other 10 justices.”
Democrats are more supportive of Court-packing in this poll (48/22), but even here they can’t get to 50 percent within their own party for the idea.
Having said that, I think this question is a moving target. *In the abstract*, even Democrats are wary about taking drastic action to shift the Court back towards the center following a strong tilt to the conservative side. But would they be less wary if the Court suddenly overturned Roe? Or if it nuked ObamaCare? Or, the truly apocalyptic scenario, if it upheld some dubious Trump legal challenge to ballots this fall that assured him a second presidential term? Those numbers will move, at least on the left. Americans don’t care about process, and Court-packing is a process argument. But they do care about results. As their disappointment in results deepens and turns febrile, they’ll consider outlandish process ideas to engineer the results they want.
Speaking of which, this same YouGov poll finds voters somewhat opposed to overturning Roe (29/54) and somewhat opposed to overturning ObamaCare (29/50). They think the Court is especially likely to follow through on the latter, with 69 percent saying it’s at least somewhat likely that O-Care will be nuked. Conventional wisdom among the chatterati already holds that Democrats’ strongest argument in making the case against Trump’s SCOTUS nominee is highlighting the threat to ObamaCare, which I think is right. You’re not going to convince Americans that Amy Coney Barrett is a “handmaid” and you may not be able to convince them that the new Court will nuke Roe, as voters have been warned by liberals about that for nearly 50 years and it still hasn’t happened. But you *might* be able to convince them that a 6-3 conservative majority is about to take away coverage for preexisting conditions in the middle of a pandemic, with many millions of Americans out of work and relying on the O-Care exchanges for insurance. That’s the smart play for Dems in their messaging next month, argues Ron Brownstein:
Comparable state-by-state data isn’t available on the ACA’s protections for patients with preexisting conditions. But the 2018 election results suggest that defending those provisions was an effective argument for Democrats virtually everywhere. National polling earlier this year by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation reported that not only did 95 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of independents consider preserving those protections “extremely” or “very” important, but so did 71 percent of Republicans. More recent Kaiser polling, conducted in partnership with “The Cook Political Report,” found that voters in Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona all gave Biden big leads over Trump on the issue of protecting patients with preexisting conditions—a measure of how widely Democrats lead on that concern. Likewise, a new poll from the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, released today, found that voters in 10 battleground states prefer Biden over Trump on the issue. The Democrat led by double-digit margins in almost every state tested—not only in places where Democrats have been competitive, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida, but even in states where the GOP has dominated, like Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina.
Opinion on abortion is divided closely enough in some swing states that Democrats screaming about Roe might not do them much good, Brownstein notes. But there’s little division about whether coverage for people with preexisting conditions should continue, and that’s the big risk posed if a Republican SCOTUS flushes O-Care.
Trump understands that and did what he could yesterday to show voters that he wants to protect that coverage, signing an executive order stating that it’s his policy that such coverage should continue. But the order has zero practical effect; it’s essentially just a glorified press release by the White House affirming that Trump will push for Congress to reinstate coverage for preexisting conditions after the Trump/Barrett Court blows it up. He needed something he can point to at Tuesday’s debate when Biden inevitably attacks him for trying to take away coverage and demands to know where the GOP’s alternate health-care plan is after 10 years of trying to replace ObamaCare. The best Trump could do under the circumstances was cough up this toothless document, which WaPo describes as the White House “rebranding rather than repealing Obamacare.” Basically true.
By the way, in keeping with the trend in so many other polls this week, both WaPo’s (57/38) and YouGov’s (53/40) surveys find majorities want the next president to fill Ginsburg’s seat after the election instead of having Trump fill it now. That’s not too ominous for the GOP: The Post also points out that 63 percent wanted the Senate to hold hearings and a vote on Merrick Garland in 2016, and when Republicans blew them off they went out and handed the party total control of government anyway. These numbers gave me pause, though:
That probably doesn’t matter either. People who are more likely to vote Biden now were probably already turbo-charged to vote for him, and only 11 percent overall say that SCOTUS is their top issue. But I speculated a few days ago that, if there’s an electoral effect from the Barrett nomination, it’s more likely to juice Democratic turnout by inspiring rage and fear than Republican turnout by inspiring gratitude. This result seems to bear that out. But maybe it’s worth it? “I think a 6-3 court is worth the White House and Senate,” said one Republican Senate staffer to Yahoo News last week. “The pro-life community has been waiting on this forever. There has to be a vote.” I think Republicans are going into this with their eyes open. If putting Barrett on the Court means handing Democrats total control of government next year, hey — life is a serious of trade-offs, right?
Trump *could* always put the brakes on and decide that he’ll hold the vacancy open and let the winner of the election fill the seat, believing that that’ll juice turnout on his own side. (He has about 24 hours before tomorrow’s announcement as I write this.) But at this point, would anyone on either side believe him? He’s an utterly dishonorable figure. He could lose 538-0 on November 3 and he’d be calling McConnell the next day telling him to put Barrett’s nomination on the floor anyway. In that sense, filling the seat before the election is the only logical move for the party. No one trusts Trump and no one trusts the Republican Senate to stand up to Trump when he wants to do something dubious, like breaking a pre-election promise not to fill the seat if he loses, so the only possible assumption is that they’re going to fill this seat regardless. Better that Republicans just be honest about it then, as they’re being.
Here’s one of the many people who’ve contributed to our country’s ongoing transition into a banana republic, naturally doubling down on his actions.


hotair--2020-09-25--Charles Barkley: 'We need to stop that defund or abolish the cops crap'

Charles Barkley made some news during his appearance on Inside the NBA last night .
There are two clips here , the first of which is Barkley talking about the slogan “ defund police.
” He ’ s absolutely right and I suspect there are a significant number of black Americans who agree with him on this point .
There are ways to support things like sending trained counselors to calls involving people with mental health issues ( think Daniel Prude ) without taking that money away from the police .
All defunding the police is likely to accomplish is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their aren ’ t enough cops to respond to service calls .
But the other comment Barkley made last night is getting even more attention .
He said that the Breonna Taylor case was different from the death of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery .
“ You know we do have to take into account that her boyfriend did shoot at the cops and shot a cop , ” Barkley said .
As you ’ ll see in this clip , Shaq agreed with him on that point .
But today a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s comments including Jemele Hill and also one of the hosts from The Breakfast Club radio show who suggested Barkley didn ’ t know what he was talking about .
This is a tougher call because I ’ m sympathetic to the claim that Kenneth Walker may not have done anything wrong .
His story is that he heard some pounding at the door and feared it was Taylor ’ s ex-boyfriend or someone working with him coming to threaten her .
He further claims that both he and she shouted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves and they never got a reply .
So when the door was busted open he fired a shot fearing the worst .
He was a legal gun owner defending himself and his girlfriend in their home .
That ’ s what he claims happened and if it ’ s true then he was acting within his rights .
Legally , Walker may have been justified under the circumstances , but once he fired that shot the police on the other end of the hallway were also justified in firing back .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire .
She shouldn ’ t be dead but there ’ s no way it makes sense to charge cops who were shot at ( and hit ) with murder or even manslaughter for returning fire .
Anyway , that ’ s why I think Shaq and Barkley are right that this case is different .
In the Taylor shooting both sides arguably had justification for what they did that night .
Finally , here ’ s body cam video released today of the moments immediately after the shooting .
Police are outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer who was shot in the leg and are clearly not sure he ’ s going to make it .
Update : Stuff like this from the Root doesn ’ t help : She wasn ’ t killed in her sleep .
She was in the hallway near the front door .
Police did have a no-knock warrant but they did knock , waking Taylor and Walker , both of whom were out of bed when the shooting happened .

Charles Barkley made some news during his appearance on Inside the NBA last night. There are two clips here, the first of which is Barkley talking about the slogan “defund police.”
Charles Barkley: “You know, I hear these fools on TV talking about ‘defund the police’ and things like that. So that notion they keep saying that … I’m like, wait a minute. Who are Black people supposed to call — Ghostbusters? When we have crime in our neighborhoods?” pic.twitter.com/RXvrelILxJ — Mona Salama (@MonaSalama_) September 25, 2020
He’s absolutely right and I suspect there are a significant number of black Americans who agree with him on this point. There are ways to support things like sending trained counselors to calls involving people with mental health issues (think Daniel Prude) without taking that money away from the police. All defunding the police is likely to accomplish is allowing criminals to victimize more people because their aren’t enough cops to respond to service calls.
But the other comment Barkley made last night is getting even more attention. He said that the Breonna Taylor case was different from the death of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery. “You know we do have to take into account that her boyfriend did shoot at the cops and shot a cop,” Barkley said. As you’ll see in this clip, Shaq agreed with him on that point.
But today a number of people have reacted strongly to Barkley’s comments including Jemele Hill and also one of the hosts from The Breakfast Club radio show who suggested Barkley didn’t know what he was talking about.
This is a tougher call because I’m sympathetic to the claim that Kenneth Walker may not have done anything wrong. His story is that he heard some pounding at the door and feared it was Taylor’s ex-boyfriend or someone working with him coming to threaten her. He further claims that both he and she shouted for the person at the door to identify themselves and they never got a reply. So when the door was busted open he fired a shot fearing the worst. He was a legal gun owner defending himself and his girlfriend in their home. That’s what he claims happened and if it’s true then he was acting within his rights.
Legally, Walker may have been justified under the circumstances, but once he fired that shot the police on the other end of the hallway were also justified in firing back. And Taylor was unfortunately caught in the return fire. She shouldn’t be dead but there’s no way it makes sense to charge cops who were shot at (and hit) with murder or even manslaughter for returning fire.
Anyway, that’s why I think Shaq and Barkley are right that this case is different. In the Taylor shooting both sides arguably had justification for what they did that night.
Finally, here’s body cam video released today of the moments immediately after the shooting. Police are outside the apartment, trying to help the officer who was shot in the leg and are clearly not sure he’s going to make it.
Update: Stuff like this from the Root doesn’t help:
“Mind you, Chuck is talking about an innocent Black woman who was killed in her sleep after police entered her apartment with a no-knock warrant.”
She wasn’t killed in her sleep. She was in the hallway near the front door. Police did have a no-knock warrant but they did knock, waking Taylor and Walker, both of whom were out of bed when the shooting happened.


hotair--2020-09-25--John Legend: "Americans have to start thinking about going somewhere else" if Trump wins re-election

Singer/songwriter John Legend is sending out his hot takes on the possibility of President Trump ’ s re-election .
He is so traumatized over the mere thoughts of Trump winning four more years in the White House that he is advising Americans to leave the country .
In years past , celebrities and public officials that opposed whichever Republican was running for president have been moved to dramatically threaten to move to another country if that person won the election .
They usually choose France or some other European country .
Some already have second homes overseas to go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up empty and the celebrities never actually leave .
It seems cruel , really , for them to keep teasing us .
Legend is preparing to leave ( ahem ! )
if Trump wins because he ’ s killing democracy , you know .
He spoke to Cosmopolitan in the U.K. , ironically .
I ’ m sure some publications in the U.S. will be happy to accommodate his deranged ramblings soon enough .
“ At some point , if that project [ to destroy democracy ] was to be in any way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think about going somewhere that is a true democracy , that has respect for the rule of law and human rights , ” the “ All of Me ” singer said in an interview published this week with Cosmopolitan UK .
“ If America chooses to be that place then people will have to start thinking about going somewhere else .
It is truly disturbing and concerning , ” the musician , who ’ s part of the EGOT club , said .
Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen , a model and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They were frequent guests of the Obama White House and since the election of Donald Trump , they have been very vocal of their opposition to him .
Teigen , in particular , is known for taking to Twitter to post vulgar criticisms of the president and his wife , as well as Ivanka Trump .
Legend performed at the Democrat National Convention last month .
He and his wife support Joe Biden for president .
After Barack Obama delivered his speech at the convention , Legend tweeted that Trump is a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” John Legend argued that Trump is just a ‘ sorry excuse for a president ’ after he was reminded of what the country had before by Obama ’ s amazing speech at the Democratic National Convention .
In fact , the entertainer expressed his disbelief that it was someone like Donald Trump who followed in Barack Obama ’ s footsteps !
‘ Wow .
It will always be stunning that America went from Barack Obama to the weak , sorry excuse for a President we have now , ’ John live tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the event .
In a second tweet , John went on to gush : ‘ What a beautiful speech that was .
Full of eloquence , emotion , and moral weight.
’ In past statements , Trump has shown no love for Legend and his wife .
What celebrities don ’ t understand is that many of us felt the same way about the long , horrible eight years of the Obama/Biden administration .
We thought they were weak and a sorry excuse , too .
The liberal bubble dwellers just assume that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if that was true , Hillary Clinton would be running for re-election right now .
The difference is that conservatives stay put and work to change things the next time around .
Legend and Teigen are thinking about leaving if Trump wins because they find his leadership “ embarrassing ” .
Just as members of the press don ’ t push people who criticize Trump to specify their complaints , Legend wasn ’ t asked about specifics , either .
“ Every once in a while you think about it , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were born and raised here , all of our families are here .
It would be hard to leave .
But I don ’ t know what one ’ s supposed to do when you have a leader who is trying to destroy democracy.
” John , who is expecting his third child with Chrissy , added , “ At some point , if that project [ to destroy democracy ] was to be in any way successful , you ’ d have to think about going somewhere that is a true democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law and human rights .
“ If America chooses to be that place then people will have to start thinking about going somewhere else .
It is truly disturbing and concerning.
” Then Legend does a little gaslighting .
He ’ s not really worried , you know .
Which , if true , poses the question – why even bring all this up then ?
It ’ s for headlines .
John continued , “ I ’ m not nervous .
I strongly believe America is exhausted from three and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the daily efforts to destroy democracy and the free press .
“ I think his handling of the [ COVID-19 ] pandemic has been embarrassing to the entire nation and has caused so much loss of life , that was preventable .
I think people are just exhausted and ready for new leadership : sane leadership , empathetic leadership .
Joe Biden can bring that to the country .
“ We can ’ t bear another four years of this .
As Michelle Obama said , we have to vote like our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the American people will do it .
I truly don ’ t know if we would be a democracy when we were done if we went another four years.
” Trump deranged Democrats are nothing if not dramatic .
As the election grows closer , we hear them say democracy was killed by Trump , they are scared , and their very lives depend on everyone voting .
It ’ s just silly .
Grown adults acting like petulant middle school girls .
Legend is the kind of person who ends friendships @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West is over because West supports Trump , though Legend won ’ t admit it to be true .
We can expect more hysteria from the left as the polls tighten and Trump ’ s re-election chances become apparent .
Maybe it ’ s wishful thinking but it feels like Trump may be rounding the corner and solidifying support in swing states .
Most voters don ’ t really pay much attention to polls but they do pay attention to their neighbor ’ s yard sign or a rally on television .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on television .
Trump has the advantage of voter enthusiasm .
Sleepy Joe is hidden away in his basement which makes it look like his campaign people are afraid he ’ ll misspeak and lose support .
They know he looks frail .
And , most of all it shows the arrogance and entitlement felt by Team Biden .
They don ’ t think Biden needs to truly campaign for the job .
We ’ ll know soon enough if that was a fatal mistake or not .

Singer/songwriter John Legend is sending out his hot takes on the possibility of President Trump’s re-election. He is so traumatized over the mere thoughts of Trump winning four more years in the White House that he is advising Americans to leave the country.
In years past, celebrities and public officials that opposed whichever Republican was running for president have been moved to dramatically threaten to move to another country if that person won the election. They usually choose France or some other European country. Some already have second homes overseas to go to. Alas, these threats always come up empty and the celebrities never actually leave. It seems cruel, really, for them to keep teasing us.
Legend is preparing to leave (ahem!) if Trump wins because he’s killing democracy, you know. He spoke to Cosmopolitan in the U.K., ironically. I’m sure some publications in the U.S. will be happy to accommodate his deranged ramblings soon enough.
“At some point, if that project [to destroy democracy] was to be in any way successful, you’d have to think about going somewhere that is a true democracy, that has respect for the rule of law and human rights,” the “All of Me” singer said in an interview published this week with Cosmopolitan UK. “If America chooses to be that place then people will have to start thinking about going somewhere else. It is truly disturbing and concerning,” the musician, who’s part of the EGOT club, said.
Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen, a model and cookbook author, are Democrat activists. They were frequent guests of the Obama White House and since the election of Donald Trump, they have been very vocal of their opposition to him. Teigen, in particular, is known for taking to Twitter to post vulgar criticisms of the president and his wife, as well as Ivanka Trump. Legend performed at the Democrat National Convention last month. He and his wife support Joe Biden for president. After Barack Obama delivered his speech at the convention, Legend tweeted that Trump is a “weak, sorry excuse for a President.”
John Legend argued that Trump is just a ‘sorry excuse for a president’ after he was reminded of what the country had before by Obama’s amazing speech at the Democratic National Convention. In fact, the entertainer expressed his disbelief that it was someone like Donald Trump who followed in Barack Obama’s footsteps! ‘Wow. It will always be stunning that America went from Barack Obama to the weak, sorry excuse for a President we have now,’ John live tweeted amid the speech Obama was delivering at the event. In a second tweet, John went on to gush: ‘What a beautiful speech that was. Full of eloquence, emotion, and moral weight.’
In past statements, Trump has shown no love for Legend and his wife.
Trump has called Legend “boring,” and referred to Teigen as the performer’s “filthy mouthed wife.”
He’s not wrong.
What celebrities don’t understand is that many of us felt the same way about the long, horrible eight years of the Obama/Biden administration. We thought they were weak and a sorry excuse, too. The liberal bubble dwellers just assume that everyone agrees with them. Of course, if that was true, Hillary Clinton would be running for re-election right now. The difference is that conservatives stay put and work to change things the next time around.
Legend and Teigen are thinking about leaving if Trump wins because they find his leadership “embarrassing”. Just as members of the press don’t push people who criticize Trump to specify their complaints, Legend wasn’t asked about specifics, either.
“Every once in a while you think about it,” the singer told us. “We were born and raised here, all of our families are here. It would be hard to leave. But I don’t know what one’s supposed to do when you have a leader who is trying to destroy democracy.” John, who is expecting his third child with Chrissy, added, “At some point, if that project [to destroy democracy] was to be in any way successful, you’d have to think about going somewhere that is a true democracy, that has respect for the rule of law and human rights. “If America chooses to be that place then people will have to start thinking about going somewhere else. It is truly disturbing and concerning.”
Then Legend does a little gaslighting. He’s not really worried, you know. Which, if true, poses the question – why even bring all this up then? It’s for headlines.
John continued, “I’m not nervous. I strongly believe America is exhausted from three and a half years of Donald Trump. Exhausted from the daily efforts to destroy democracy and the free press. “I think his handling of the [COVID-19] pandemic has been embarrassing to the entire nation and has caused so much loss of life, that was preventable. I think people are just exhausted and ready for new leadership: sane leadership, empathetic leadership. Joe Biden can bring that to the country. “We can’t bear another four years of this. As Michelle Obama said, we have to vote like our lives depend on it. I honestly think the American people will do it. I truly don’t know if we would be a democracy when we were done if we went another four years.”
Trump deranged Democrats are nothing if not dramatic. As the election grows closer, we hear them say democracy was killed by Trump, they are scared, and their very lives depend on everyone voting. It’s just silly. Grown adults acting like petulant middle school girls. Legend is the kind of person who ends friendships over politics. His friendship with Kanye West is over because West supports Trump, though Legend won’t admit it to be true.
We can expect more hysteria from the left as the polls tighten and Trump’s re-election chances become apparent. Maybe it’s wishful thinking but it feels like Trump may be rounding the corner and solidifying support in swing states. Most voters don’t really pay much attention to polls but they do pay attention to their neighbor’s yard sign or a rally on television. Some people even pay attention to campaign ads on television. Trump has the advantage of voter enthusiasm. Sleepy Joe is hidden away in his basement which makes it look like his campaign people are afraid he’ll misspeak and lose support. They know he looks frail. And, most of all it shows the arrogance and entitlement felt by Team Biden. They don’t think Biden needs to truly campaign for the job. We’ll know soon enough if that was a fatal mistake or not.


Report: It's Barrett

The least suspenseful Supreme Court nomination of my lifetime , and almost certainly of yours too .
Who ’ s ever been more of a sure thing for a seat on the Court than Barrett was for Ginsburg ’ s seat , assuming that it was vacated while Trump was president ?
In fact , the only suspense to this “ process ” is whether the White House ever considered another candidate .
Barbara Lagoa ’ s name has been mentioned all week , and if you believe the reporting she really did have some advocates inside the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transactional , taking a shine to the idea of appointing a Cuban-American woman from Florida to the seat , knowing how that might improve his election chances .
But , with no disrespect to Lagoa , the idea was farcical .
Barrett is a known ideological quantity , Lagoa isn ’ t .
If Trump had chosen her over a sureshot conservative like Barrett , Lagoa would have been attacked by righties as the new O ’ Connor every time she joined the Court ’ s liberal bloc on a decision .
Besides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alienating his base , knowing that he lost swing voters years ago .
He governs the country as if he ’ s the president of red-state America , correctly believing that he ’ ll need supernova turnout among his strongest supporters to win another term .
Surely it was explained to him that , although Lagoa might help him in Florida , Republican activists would be extremely disappointed if he whiffed on a chance to put Barrett on the Court .
So that ’ s what he ’ ll do , says CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice , according to multiple senior Republican sources with knowledge of the process .
In conversations with some senior Republican allies on the Hill , the White House is indicating that Barrett is the intended nominee , multiple sources said… Barrett has been the leading choice throughout the week , since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died .
She is the only potential nominee known to have met with the President in person , according to two of the sources .
One source said Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with her since she was a top contender the last time there was a Supreme Court vacancy , when the President chose Justice Brett Kavanaugh instead… “ She was the plan all along .
She ’ s the most distinguished and qualified by traditional measures .
She has the strongest support among the legal conservatives who have dedicated their lives to the court .
She will contribute most to the court ’ s jurisprudence in the years and decades to come , ” according to a former senior administration official familiar with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even bother interviewing Lagoa this week , if I ’ m not mistaken .
Barrett was the only person seriously considered for the job .
She ’ s a former Scalia clerk , a law professor , and an appellate judge for the last few years ( where she ’ s already authored at least one noteworthy decision ) , which means her SCOTUS resume is all one could hope for .
She ’ s reportedly well-liked and well-respected by her colleagues .
She ’ d have been a shortlister with a solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances .
What ’ s given her a special stature , I think , was Dianne Feinstein ’ s ugly and foolish objection at Barrett ’ s Seventh Circuit confirmation hearing a few years ago that “ the dogma lives loudly within you , ” an insinuation that Barrett might be too devoutly Catholic to carry out federal law in an impartial way .
That moment went viral in activist circles , insulted Christians , and , most importantly , made her something of a culture-war martyr .
If Donald Trump isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own the libs by putting a culture-war martyr whom lefties impugned on the Court , why does the Trump presidency exist ?
How could he have chosen anyone but Barrett ?
There ’ s another reason why her selection was a fait accompli .
We can chatter about the nuances of what the GOP did in 2016 ( we had divided government then , and it was a Republican seat ) compared to what it ’ s doing now ( unified government , Democratic seat ) in order to fashion some sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was appropriate to hold open the seat then but fill it now .
It ’ s all horsesh*t. They blocked Garland because they wanted that seat to go to a Republican and they ’ re filling Ginsburg ’ s seat because they want that to go to a Republican too .
It ’ s power politics , red in tooth and claw .
They have full legal authority to do it — just as a government controlled by Democrats would have full legal authority to pack the Court , let me gently remind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ displayed between then and now is going to make an already toxically cynical process even more cynical going forward .
It will stick in the craw of Democrats , left-leaning independents , and those of other stripes who simply want a less ruthless politics for the country .
What makes it even worse , Tim Miller noted in a piece a few days ago , is the unusual degree to which the minority calls the shots politically in America 2020 : I want you to step back and look at our republic through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lives in a median American city and who wasn ’ t educated about our infallible nation by the new Patriotic Common Core Curriculum .
They were born in 1999 .
Two of the three presidents in their lifetime were elected by minority vote .
The only one who was twice elected with a majority vote was denied the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice based on some quite shaky arcana and phony rule-making that they think was largely political bullshit .
The president they know the best has a complete disregard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received about 3 million fewer votes than his opponent , had the help of a foreign enemy , was impeached for soliciting illicit foreign help again and not removed from office .
After all that , he did exactly the thing that his party said the black president who had actually received a majority vote couldn ’ t do in an election year .
Pretty much every person this 21 year old knows is looking for a job in one of the dynamic largely democratic cities where all the growth is in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimal national political power and their vote is irrelevant .
In the Senate , the Republicans hold a majority of the seats representing states that make up a minority of the country .
Nate Silver tells them that for Joe Biden to be assured to win the electoral college he needs to win the popular vote by about 5 points .
5 points !
Americans have long accepted that , under the electoral college , it ’ s possible for the candidate with the most votes nationwide to lose the presidency .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but one which people tolerate because it ’ s fluky .
Except it ’ s not fluky anymore : If Trump wins again this fall , fully half of the last six elections will have been won by a party that received fewer votes than the competition .
In all three cases , that will have been the Republican Party , which also happens to have won the popular vote exactly once in the past 28 years .
The current president , who got fewer votes than his opponent four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anxiety or impulse towards conciliation as a result .
Just the opposite — he governs as if he won 60 percent of the vote in an overwhelmingly Republican nation .
You can sniff that we live in a republic , not a democracy , or that the rules are the rules and that ’ s that .
But a country where minority rule is the norm rather than a once-in-a-lifetime fluke is a country headed for a crisis of legitimacy .
The fact that the GOP ruthlessly blocked Garland in 2016 and now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sped-up confirmation process even though this vacancy opened up much closer to the election than Scalia ’ s did four years ago will deepen the cynicism about the fairness of America ’ s politics .
Since Ginsburg ’ s death was announced on Friday night and Republicans announced that they ’ d move quickly to fill the seat , the line that ’ s stuck in my head is the one David Petraeus famously said at the start of the Iraq war , looking past the easy takeover of that country and thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made to function durably and peacefully .
“ Tell me how this ends , ” he said to reporters .
Same here .
As trust collapses between Americans of different parties and the lesson continues to be learned that one should be as ruthless as possible in any given situation , irrespective of what majority opinion might say : Tell me how this ends .
Anyway .
All of that is just a long way of introducing the point that if you ’ re going to be ruthless and risk all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it will come — then you should certainly make it worthwhile .
That ’ s why it had to Barrett in this case instead of Lagoa or anyone else .
If you ’ re willing to send the message that you ’ ll change the rules as needed to further your own side ’ s power , at least get your money ’ s worth with a superb nominee .
Trump and McConnell are getting their money ’ s worth .

The least suspenseful Supreme Court nomination of my lifetime, and almost certainly of yours too. Who’s ever been more of a sure thing for a seat on the Court than Barrett was for Ginsburg’s seat, assuming that it was vacated while Trump was president?
In fact, the only suspense to this “process” is whether the White House ever considered another candidate. Barbara Lagoa’s name has been mentioned all week, and if you believe the reporting she really did have some advocates inside the White House. I can see Trump, ever transactional, taking a shine to the idea of appointing a Cuban-American woman from Florida to the seat, knowing how that might improve his election chances.
But, with no disrespect to Lagoa, the idea was farcical. Barrett is a known ideological quantity, Lagoa isn’t. If Trump had chosen her over a sureshot conservative like Barrett, Lagoa would have been attacked by righties as the new O’Connor every time she joined the Court’s liberal bloc on a decision. Besides, Trump lives in mortal fear of alienating his base, knowing that he lost swing voters years ago. He governs the country as if he’s the president of red-state America, correctly believing that he’ll need supernova turnout among his strongest supporters to win another term. Surely it was explained to him that, although Lagoa might help him in Florida, Republican activists would be extremely disappointed if he whiffed on a chance to put Barrett on the Court.
So that’s what he’ll do, says CNN.
President Donald Trump intends to choose Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice, according to multiple senior Republican sources with knowledge of the process. In conversations with some senior Republican allies on the Hill, the White House is indicating that Barrett is the intended nominee, multiple sources said… Barrett has been the leading choice throughout the week, since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. She is the only potential nominee known to have met with the President in person, according to two of the sources. One source said Trump was familiar with Barrett already and he met with her since she was a top contender the last time there was a Supreme Court vacancy, when the President chose Justice Brett Kavanaugh instead… “She was the plan all along. She’s the most distinguished and qualified by traditional measures. She has the strongest support among the legal conservatives who have dedicated their lives to the court. She will contribute most to the court’s jurisprudence in the years and decades to come,” according to a former senior administration official familiar with the process.
He didn’t even bother interviewing Lagoa this week, if I’m not mistaken. Barrett was the only person seriously considered for the job.
She’s a former Scalia clerk, a law professor, and an appellate judge for the last few years (where she’s already authored at least one noteworthy decision), which means her SCOTUS resume is all one could hope for. She’s reportedly well-liked and well-respected by her colleagues. She’d have been a shortlister with a solid shot at a Court seat under any circumstances. What’s given her a special stature, I think, was Dianne Feinstein’s ugly and foolish objection at Barrett’s Seventh Circuit confirmation hearing a few years ago that “the dogma lives loudly within you,” an insinuation that Barrett might be too devoutly Catholic to carry out federal law in an impartial way. That moment went viral in activist circles, insulted Christians, and, most importantly, made her something of a culture-war martyr. If Donald Trump isn’t willing to thrill his base and own the libs by putting a culture-war martyr whom lefties impugned on the Court, why does the Trump presidency exist? How could he have chosen anyone but Barrett?
There’s another reason why her selection was a fait accompli. We can chatter about the nuances of what the GOP did in 2016 (we had divided government then, and it was a Republican seat) compared to what it’s doing now (unified government, Democratic seat) in order to fashion some sort of “principled” argument for why it was appropriate to hold open the seat then but fill it now. It’s all horsesh*t. They blocked Garland because they wanted that seat to go to a Republican and they’re filling Ginsburg’s seat because they want that to go to a Republican too. It’s power politics, red in tooth and claw. They have full legal authority to do it — just as a government controlled by Democrats would have full legal authority to pack the Court, let me gently remind you — but certainly the gross hypocrisy displayed between then and now is going to make an already toxically cynical process even more cynical going forward. It will stick in the craw of Democrats, left-leaning independents, and those of other stripes who simply want a less ruthless politics for the country. What makes it even worse, Tim Miller noted in a piece a few days ago, is the unusual degree to which the minority calls the shots politically in America 2020:
I want you to step back and look at our republic through the eyes of a 21 year old who lives in a median American city and who wasn’t educated about our infallible nation by the new Patriotic Common Core Curriculum. They were born in 1999. Two of the three presidents in their lifetime were elected by minority vote. The only one who was twice elected with a majority vote was denied the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice based on some quite shaky arcana and phony rule-making that they think was largely political bullshit. The president they know the best has a complete disregard for the law or political norms, received about 3 million fewer votes than his opponent, had the help of a foreign enemy, was impeached for soliciting illicit foreign help again and not removed from office. After all that, he did exactly the thing that his party said the black president who had actually received a majority vote couldn’t do in an election year. Pretty much every person this 21 year old knows is looking for a job in one of the dynamic largely democratic cities where all the growth is in the country but most of these enclaves have minimal national political power and their vote is irrelevant. In the Senate, the Republicans hold a majority of the seats representing states that make up a minority of the country. Nate Silver tells them that for Joe Biden to be assured to win the electoral college he needs to win the popular vote by about 5 points. 5 points!
Americans have long accepted that, under the electoral college, it’s possible for the candidate with the most votes nationwide to lose the presidency. It’s a quirk of our system, but one which people tolerate because it’s fluky. Except it’s not fluky anymore: If Trump wins again this fall, fully half of the last six elections will have been won by a party that received fewer votes than the competition. In all three cases, that will have been the Republican Party, which also happens to have won the popular vote exactly once in the past 28 years. The current president, who got fewer votes than his opponent four years ago, betrays not the slightest bit of anxiety or impulse towards conciliation as a result. Just the opposite — he governs as if he won 60 percent of the vote in an overwhelmingly Republican nation.
You can sniff that we live in a republic, not a democracy, or that the rules are the rules and that’s that. But a country where minority rule is the norm rather than a once-in-a-lifetime fluke is a country headed for a crisis of legitimacy. The fact that the GOP ruthlessly blocked Garland in 2016 and now will ruthlessly push through Barrett in a sped-up confirmation process even though this vacancy opened up much closer to the election than Scalia’s did four years ago will deepen the cynicism about the fairness of America’s politics. Since Ginsburg’s death was announced on Friday night and Republicans announced that they’d move quickly to fill the seat, the line that’s stuck in my head is the one David Petraeus famously said at the start of the Iraq war, looking past the easy takeover of that country and thinking ahead to how it could possibly be made to function durably and peacefully. “Tell me how this ends,” he said to reporters. Same here. As trust collapses between Americans of different parties and the lesson continues to be learned that one should be as ruthless as possible in any given situation, irrespective of what majority opinion might say: Tell me how this ends.
Anyway. All of that is just a long way of introducing the point that if you’re going to be ruthless and risk all of the long-term damage that comes from that — and it will come — then you should certainly make it worthwhile. That’s why it had to Barrett in this case instead of Lagoa or anyone else. If you’re willing to send the message that you’ll change the rules as needed to further your own side’s power, at least get your money’s worth with a superb nominee. Trump and McConnell are getting their money’s worth.


hotair--2020-09-25--Resistance journalism is not helping the cause of criminal justice reform

Yesterday the Washington Post published a story titled “ Since 2015 : 48 Black Women Killed by the Police .
And Only 1 Charge.
” The story itself connect the lack of charges in the Breonna Taylor case to the wider argument that police are not held accountable when they kill , in this case , black women .
The story quotes Linda Sarsour claiming this is a “ miscarriage of justice.
” The claim made in the headline is eventually made in the story itself and we also find out exactly where these figures come from : So the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the headline ) is that charges were warranted in Taylor ’ s case but that the lack of them isn ’ t surprising because police who kill black women are rarely charged ( 1 out of 48 ) .
What the story never bothers to do is look at any of the details of the cases it is waving around as proof .
It ’ s not hard to go to the Post database and identify the exact 48 cases being discussed .
If you do that , here ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The 38-year-old woman who was shot and killed by Emeryville police Tuesday outside of Home Depot pointed a revolver at a security officer after being caught shoplifting , then tried to carjack at least three cars at gunpoint before pointing the weapon at police , the department said Wednesday.
” • Janisha Fonville : “ Police said she lunged at an officer with a knife , though her girlfriend disputed that.
” • Monique Jenee Deckard : “ A 43-year-old Anaheim woman was identified as the one shot and killed by Anaheim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she charged at them with two knives , officials said.
” • Megan Hockaday : “ A 26-year-old woman was killed in an officer-involved shooting after confronting an Oxnard police officer with a knife Friday morning.
” • Mya Hall : “ The FBI on Tuesday identified Ricky Shawatza Hall , 27 , as one of the two men in a Ford Escape that police fired at as the vehicle plowed into a police cruiser just outside the NSA ’ s Fort Meade campus .
Authorities did not offer more details about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Christian was shot and killed by two Atlanta police officers on April 30 , 2015 .
Police say she stole a truck .
When she was arrested , police say she managed to free herself from handcuffs in the back of a squad car .
They say Christian shot at the officers with a handgun she ’ d somehow held onto .
The officers fired back.
” • Redel Jones : “ A female suspect allegedly armed with a knife was shot by Los Angeles police responding to a strong-arm robbery call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday afternoon.
” • India Kager : “ On September 5 , 2015 , Kager drove Perry from Maryland to Virginia Beach .
SWAT officers planned a vehicle takedown procedure against Perry .
Perry was a known violent criminal , guilty of shootings , robbery , and homicide…When Kager pulled into a 7-Eleven , a police vehicle hit the back of Kager ’ s car , officers descended , threw a flash grenade and smashed the windows .
Perry started shooting at officers and officers returned fire.
” • Marquesha McMillan : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had opened fire on officers Monday morning in the parking lot behind Morris Miller Wines and Liquors , at Alaska and Georgia avenues NW.
” • Bettie Jones : “ Bettie Jones , 55 , a first-floor tenant , was also fatally shot , apparently by accident , as she tried to answer a shared front door for the arriving officers.
” • Janet Wilson : “ The woman again tried to flee , almost running over an officer in the process , Shaw said .
“ At that moment in time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accelerate , almost striking one of the officers who was on foot , ” Shaw said .
“ And one of the on scene officers discharged their duty weapon , striking the suspect and killing them.
” • Sahlah Ridgeway : “ Fowler said Ridgeway was armed with a sawed-off shotgun when she was confronted by police .
When she refused to drop the weapon , an officer shot her , Fowler said.
” There are 36 more women on this list but I don ’ t have time to include all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve listed above are not cherry-picked but in chronological order .
Overall , 18 of the 48 cases involved a woman armed with a gun ( plus 2 more where a toy gun was involved . )
In addition , another 10 cases involved women armed with a knife and 8 where they were behind the wheel of a car .
In seven cases the women were unarmed though in some of those cases ( # 8 ) she was with someone who was armed and shooting at police at the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not that all of these incidents show that the police acted correctly , much less perfectly .
In some cases , like # 10 , police clearly screwed up .
In some of these cases the city settled wrongful death lawsuits .
But in some of these cases it ’ s not at all clear police did anything wrong .
So to simply throw out a headline that says 48 black women were shot in 5 years and only 1 officer was charged doesn ’ t really give anyone any realistic information about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some of them were justified shootings .
Some were clearly mistakes .
And many were more complicated situations not unlike the shooting of Breonna Taylor where her death clearly wasn ’ t her fault but also wasn ’ t unprovoked aggression on the part of police ( they were shot at first by Taylor ’ s boyfriend ) .
Elsewhere in the post , Radley Balko argues that while the shooting of Taylor was a cascade or errors and failures at several levels , “ the decision to charge Detective Brett Hankison with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the decision not to charge the other officers involved in the shooting.
” It ’ s one thing to argue that a careful look at these shootings can point the way to real improvements in the system .
It ’ s another to wave them like a bloody flag and suggest the only answer here is that all of these shootings were unjust and police are routinely getting away with murder .
That ’ s not a realistic or nuanced view , it ’ s just more resistance journalism aimed at pleasing @ @ @ @

Yesterday the Washington Post published a story titled “Since 2015: 48 Black Women Killed by the Police. And Only 1 Charge.” The story itself connect the lack of charges in the Breonna Taylor case to the wider argument that police are not held accountable when they kill, in this case, black women. The story quotes Linda Sarsour claiming this is a “miscarriage of justice.”
“This is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice I’ve seen in about 25 years,” said Linda Sarsour, a political activist who was among the crowd in Louisville when the announcement came down. “I’m remembering a quote by Malcolm X: ‘The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman.’”
The claim made in the headline is eventually made in the story itself and we also find out exactly where these figures come from:
While fewer women than men are killed by the police overall, the conviction rate is low in those cases, too, particularly for Black women. Since 2015, nearly 250 women in total have been killed by police officers, of which 48 — about a fifth — were Black, according to a Washington Post database.
So the general outlines of this story (announced in the headline) is that charges were warranted in Taylor’s case but that the lack of them isn’t surprising because police who kill black women are rarely charged (1 out of 48).
What the story never bothers to do is look at any of the details of the cases it is waving around as proof. It’s not hard to go to the Post database and identify the exact 48 cases being discussed. If you do that, here’s what you find:
Yuvette Henderson: “The 38-year-old woman who was shot and killed by Emeryville police Tuesday outside of Home Depot pointed a revolver at a security officer after being caught shoplifting, then tried to carjack at least three cars at gunpoint before pointing the weapon at police, the department said Wednesday.” Janisha Fonville: “Police said she lunged at an officer with a knife, though her girlfriend disputed that.” Monique Jenee Deckard: “A 43-year-old Anaheim woman was identified as the one shot and killed by Anaheim police officers Sunday night after they say she charged at them with two knives, officials said.” Megan Hockaday: “A 26-year-old woman was killed in an officer-involved shooting after confronting an Oxnard police officer with a knife Friday morning.” Mya Hall: “The FBI on Tuesday identified Ricky Shawatza Hall, 27, as one of the two men in a Ford Escape that police fired at as the vehicle plowed into a police cruiser just outside the NSA’s Fort Meade campus. Authorities did not offer more details about how he died.” Alexia Christian: “Christian was shot and killed by two Atlanta police officers on April 30, 2015. Police say she stole a truck. When she was arrested, police say she managed to free herself from handcuffs in the back of a squad car. They say Christian shot at the officers with a handgun she’d somehow held onto. The officers fired back.” Redel Jones: “A female suspect allegedly armed with a knife was shot by Los Angeles police responding to a strong-arm robbery call at a pharmacy in the Crenshaw District Wednesday afternoon.” India Kager: “On September 5, 2015, Kager drove Perry from Maryland to Virginia Beach. SWAT officers planned a vehicle takedown procedure against Perry. Perry was a known violent criminal, guilty of shootings, robbery, and homicide…When Kager pulled into a 7-Eleven, a police vehicle hit the back of Kager’s car, officers descended, threw a flash grenade and smashed the windows. Perry started shooting at officers and officers returned fire.” Marquesha McMillan: “Police said Marquesha McMillan of Northeast Washington had opened fire on officers Monday morning in the parking lot behind Morris Miller Wines and Liquors, at Alaska and Georgia avenues NW.” Bettie Jones: “Bettie Jones, 55, a first-floor tenant, was also fatally shot, apparently by accident, as she tried to answer a shared front door for the arriving officers.” Janet Wilson: “The woman again tried to flee, almost running over an officer in the process, Shaw said. “At that moment in time, traffic cleared, she was able to accelerate, almost striking one of the officers who was on foot,” Shaw said. “And one of the on scene officers discharged their duty weapon, striking the suspect and killing them.” Sahlah Ridgeway: “Fowler said Ridgeway was armed with a sawed-off shotgun when she was confronted by police. When she refused to drop the weapon, an officer shot her, Fowler said.”
There are 36 more women on this list but I don’t have time to include all of them here. But the ones I’ve listed above are not cherry-picked but in chronological order. Overall, 18 of the 48 cases involved a woman armed with a gun (plus 2 more where a toy gun was involved.) In addition, another 10 cases involved women armed with a knife and 8 where they were behind the wheel of a car. In seven cases the women were unarmed though in some of those cases (#8) she was with someone who was armed and shooting at police at the time she was killed.
My point is not that all of these incidents show that the police acted correctly, much less perfectly. In some cases, like #10, police clearly screwed up. In some of these cases the city settled wrongful death lawsuits. But in some of these cases it’s not at all clear police did anything wrong.
So to simply throw out a headline that says 48 black women were shot in 5 years and only 1 officer was charged doesn’t really give anyone any realistic information about what transpired in those 48 cases. Some of them were justified shootings. Some were clearly mistakes. And many were more complicated situations not unlike the shooting of Breonna Taylor where her death clearly wasn’t her fault but also wasn’t unprovoked aggression on the part of police (they were shot at first by Taylor’s boyfriend).
Elsewhere in the post, Radley Balko argues that while the shooting of Taylor was a cascade or errors and failures at several levels, “the decision to charge Detective Brett Hankison with wanton endangerment was probably correct, as was the decision not to charge the other officers involved in the shooting.”
It’s one thing to argue that a careful look at these shootings can point the way to real improvements in the system. It’s another to wave them like a bloody flag and suggest the only answer here is that all of these shootings were unjust and police are routinely getting away with murder. That’s not a realistic or nuanced view, it’s just more resistance journalism aimed at pleasing a specific audience.