hotair--2020-11-13--Hmmm: Major law firm withdraws from Team Trump election challenges in PA; <span class='red'>Update:

Hmmm: Major law firm withdraws from Team Trump election challenges in PA; Update: Boycott Jones Day?

This is worrisome in the long term , even if one thinks that Team Trump ’ s legal challenges in the election are without much merit in the short term .
After paying the law firm of Porter Wright nearly three-quarters of a million dollars to represent them in post-election issues , Team Trump got dumped by them first last night in Pennsylvania , and presumably elsewhere soon .
Did they pull out over a conflict with their client — or because of political correctness and pressure ?
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur , the law firm leading the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the presidential election results in Pennsylvania , abruptly withdrew from a federal lawsuit that it filed days earlier on behalf of President Trump .
“ Plaintiffs and Porter Wright have reached a mutual agreement that plaintiffs will be best served if Porter Wright withdraws , ” the law firm said in a federal court filing .
The firm ’ s withdrawal followed an article in The New York Times on Monday described internal tensions at the firm about its work for Mr. Trump ’ s campaign in Pennsylvania .
Some employees said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being used to undercut the integrity of the electoral process .
One Porter Wright lawyer resigned in protest over the summer .
Porter Wright , based in Columbus , Ohio , has received at least $ 727,000 in fees from the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee , according to federal election disclosures .
This might be the result entirely of client pressures , especially in Pennsylvania .
Donald Trump and his campaign keep making claims about fraud and irregularities that his attorneys can ’ t claim in court .
The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican observers got locked out of the ballot-counting process in PA , a claim which their attorneys had to admit wasn ’ t true in court or risk sanctions and their ability to practice law .
If their client has been pressuring them to make false arguments in court , that could explain a reluctance to continue .
However , the timing on Porter Wright ’ s move seems curious , if so .
That exchange in court took place a week ago .
Yesterday , however , the New York Times highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wright and Jones Day , another storied Ohio legal firm retained by Team Trump , over their participation in election challenges .
Doing business with Mr. Trump — with his history of inflammatory rhetoric , meritless lawsuits and refusal to pay what he owes — has long induced heartburn among lawyers , contractors , suppliers and lenders .
But the concerns are taking on new urgency as the president seeks to raise doubts about the election results .
Some senior lawyers at Jones Day , one of the country ’ s largest law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advancing arguments that lack evidence and may be helping Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the integrity of American elections , according to interviews with nine partners and associates , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs .
At another large firm , Porter Wright Morris & Arthur , based in Columbus , Ohio , lawyers have held internal meetings to voice similar concerns about their firm ’ s election-related work for Mr. Trump and the Republican Party , according to people at the firm .
At least one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has earned more than $ 20 million doing business with Trump , his campaigns , and the RNC over the last five years , $ 4 million in this year alone .
That ’ s a lot of income , and it pays more than a few salaries .
Yet this seems to be the bigger concern among some of its attorneys : That in itself is nonsense .
Pursuing election challenges is not “ undermining the rule of law , ” but an exercise in law , as attorneys should especially know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shugerman in my earlier post , but he ’ s worth quoting again here : The lawsuits may prove to be the best way to legitimize President-elect Joe Biden ’ s victory and draw to a close years of bogus complaints about voter fraud .
The lack of merit in the legal complaints means they will be dead on arrival in the courts , and while the resounding rejection of Trump ’ s fantasies by judges will not persuade his fiercest loyalists , it will prevent conspiracy theories from spreading .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general matter , to object to election law litigation : In two years , or four years — and possibly in two months in Georgia — the shoe may be on the other foot .
It would look hypocritical to condemn the very idea of challenging an election result now , only to turn around and do so in different ( albeit more legitimate ) circumstances .
Does it undermine the rule of law to appeal a conviction of a murder defendant one knows to be guilty on technical grounds ?
Should attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and whose causes they agree with ?
The true undermining of the rule of law is the hounding of lawyers based on the clients they accept .
Trump can always find law firms that will take him on as a client , but if these social-media mobs and examples of law-firm wokery set these kinds of precedents , unpopular defendants , plaintiffs , and respondents will eventually find themselves locked out of the legal system .
That will undermine the rule of law , not representing a client in futile efforts in legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticize attorneys for the clients they have represented , especially in a political campaign , the standard lawyer response is also the correct and true one : every client deserves representation in the legal process .
If that ceases to be the standard and the value of the legal profession , then heaven help the lawyers to come , and heaven help us all when we need representation .
That matters a lot more than Trump ’ s futile fights in Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin .
Update : I edited the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Update : I missed this earlier , but it ’ s an important part of the context : On Tuesday , The Lincoln Project , a group of anti-Trump Republicans , said it will spend $ 500,000 on ads targeting Jones Day and a smaller law firm working for Trump , following a Monday New York Times report citing dissent among Jones Day ’ s senior attorneys over its election work for Republicans .
In tweets online , the group , co-founded by conservative lawyer George Conway , who is the husband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has encouraged lawyers and clients to abandon Jones Day .
Online critics of Jones Day also tweeted at its clients , including Verizon VZ.N and General Motors GM.N , urging them to drop the law firm .
A Twitter post by General Motors on Monday recognizing women leaders at the auto company has garnered more than 40 responses , including “ sever ties with @ JonesDay or be prepared for a # BoycottGM ” and “ Are you a Jones Day client ?
Do you really want your name associated with them ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has donated to the Lincoln Project , explained on Tuesday why this is a very bad idea : Read the whole thread .
And big thanks to the Daily Wire ’ s Ben Shapiro for tweeting out this post .
Much appreciated !

This is worrisome in the long term, even if one thinks that Team Trump’s legal challenges in the election are without much merit in the short term. After paying the law firm of Porter Wright nearly three-quarters of a million dollars to represent them in post-election issues, Team Trump got dumped by them first last night in Pennsylvania, and presumably elsewhere soon. Did they pull out over a conflict with their client — or because of political correctness and pressure?
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, the law firm leading the Trump campaign’s efforts to cast doubt on the presidential election results in Pennsylvania, abruptly withdrew from a federal lawsuit that it filed days earlier on behalf of President Trump. “Plaintiffs and Porter Wright have reached a mutual agreement that plaintiffs will be best served if Porter Wright withdraws,” the law firm said in a federal court filing. The firm’s withdrawal followed an article in The New York Times on Monday described internal tensions at the firm about its work for Mr. Trump’s campaign in Pennsylvania. Some employees said they were concerned that the firm was being used to undercut the integrity of the electoral process. One Porter Wright lawyer resigned in protest over the summer. Porter Wright, based in Columbus, Ohio, has received at least $727,000 in fees from the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, according to federal election disclosures.
This might be the result entirely of client pressures, especially in Pennsylvania. Donald Trump and his campaign keep making claims about fraud and irregularities that his attorneys can’t claim in court. The most famous/notorious of these is the claim that Republican observers got locked out of the ballot-counting process in PA, a claim which their attorneys had to admit wasn’t true in court or risk sanctions and their ability to practice law. If their client has been pressuring them to make false arguments in court, that could explain a reluctance to continue.
However, the timing on Porter Wright’s move seems curious, if so. That exchange in court took place a week ago. Yesterday, however, the New York Times highlighted internal divisions and external pressures on Porter Wright and Jones Day, another storied Ohio legal firm retained by Team Trump, over their participation in election challenges.
Doing business with Mr. Trump — with his history of inflammatory rhetoric, meritless lawsuits and refusal to pay what he owes — has long induced heartburn among lawyers, contractors, suppliers and lenders. But the concerns are taking on new urgency as the president seeks to raise doubts about the election results. Some senior lawyers at Jones Day, one of the country’s largest law firms, are worried that it is advancing arguments that lack evidence and may be helping Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the integrity of American elections, according to interviews with nine partners and associates, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs. At another large firm, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, based in Columbus, Ohio, lawyers have held internal meetings to voice similar concerns about their firm’s election-related work for Mr. Trump and the Republican Party, according to people at the firm. At least one lawyer quit in protest.
Jones Day has earned more than $20 million doing business with Trump, his campaigns, and the RNC over the last five years, $4 million in this year alone. That’s a lot of income, and it pays more than a few salaries. Yet this seems to be the bigger concern among some of its attorneys:
In recent days, two Jones Day lawyers said they had faced heckling from friends and others on social media about working at a firm that is supporting Mr. Trump’s efforts. A lawyer in Jones Day’s Washington office felt that the firm risked hurting itself by taking on work that undermined the rule of law. “To me, it seems extremely shortsighted,” the lawyer said.
That in itself is nonsense. Pursuing election challenges is not “undermining the rule of law,” but an exercise in law, as attorneys should especially know. I quoted Fordham Law professor Jed Shugerman in my earlier post, but he’s worth quoting again here:
The lawsuits may prove to be the best way to legitimize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory and draw to a close years of bogus complaints about voter fraud. The lack of merit in the legal complaints means they will be dead on arrival in the courts, and while the resounding rejection of Trump’s fantasies by judges will not persuade his fiercest loyalists, it will prevent conspiracy theories from spreading. It is also a bad idea, as a general matter, to object to election law litigation: In two years, or four years — and possibly in two months in Georgia — the shoe may be on the other foot. It would look hypocritical to condemn the very idea of challenging an election result now, only to turn around and do so in different (albeit more legitimate) circumstances.
Does it undermine the rule of law to appeal a conviction of a murder defendant one knows to be guilty on technical grounds? Should attorneys only take on clients who are popular and whose causes they agree with? The true undermining of the rule of law is the hounding of lawyers based on the clients they accept. Trump can always find law firms that will take him on as a client, but if these social-media mobs and examples of law-firm wokery set these kinds of precedents, unpopular defendants, plaintiffs, and respondents will eventually find themselves locked out of the legal system.
That will undermine the rule of law, not representing a client in futile efforts in legal challenges to election results.
When people criticize attorneys for the clients they have represented, especially in a political campaign, the standard lawyer response is also the correct and true one: every client deserves representation in the legal process. If that ceases to be the standard and the value of the legal profession, then heaven help the lawyers to come, and heaven help us all when we need representation. That matters a lot more than Trump’s futile fights in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Update: I edited the headline for greater precision shortly after publishing.
Update: I missed this earlier, but it’s an important part of the context:
On Tuesday, The Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans, said it will spend $500,000 on ads targeting Jones Day and a smaller law firm working for Trump, following a Monday New York Times report citing dissent among Jones Day’s senior attorneys over its election work for Republicans. In tweets online, the group, co-founded by conservative lawyer George Conway, who is the husband of former Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway, has encouraged lawyers and clients to abandon Jones Day. Online critics of Jones Day also tweeted at its clients, including Verizon VZ.N and General Motors GM.N, urging them to drop the law firm. A Twitter post by General Motors on Monday recognizing women leaders at the auto company has garnered more than 40 responses, including “sever ties with @JonesDay or be prepared for a #BoycottGM” and “Are you a Jones Day client? Do you really want your name associated with them?”
Berkeley law professor Orin Kerr, who has donated to the Lincoln Project, explained on Tuesday why this is a very bad idea:
It's a bad idea for two reasons, I think. 1) Going after lawyers for representing unpopular clients in unpopular legal claims has a really bad history, and tends to not go well. Our legal system needs lawyers to take on unpopular clients. Focus on the clients, not the lawyers. — Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr) November 10, 2020
Read the whole thread. And big thanks to the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro for tweeting out this post. Much appreciated!


hotair--2020-11-14--No vaccines for New York?

No vaccines for New York?

The President ’ s curious remarks yesterday about withholding the shipment of any approved vaccines to New York State caused quite a bit of consternation in Albany .
It seemed pretty obvious that this was nothing but a political shot across the bow at New York Governor Andrew Cuomo , a frequent and aggressive critic of the Trump administration .
But reading into Trump ’ s remarks , he didn ’ t actually say that New Yorkers wouldn ’ t be getting the vaccine .
He simply said that the shipments wouldn ’ t be authorized until the Governor gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) President Trump on Friday celebrated the recent breakthrough of a successful coronavirus vaccine — but said the people of New York wouldn ’ t receive it until Gov .
Andrew Cuomo got out of the way .
In a Rose Garden address on Friday , the commander-in-chief said they would distribute a COVID-19 vaccine across the United States but would not send it to the hard-hit Empire State because Cuomo doesn ’ t trust it .
“ He wants to take his time with a vaccine .
He doesn ’ t trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These are coming form the greatest companies anywhere in the world , the greatest labs in the world , but he doesn ’ t trust the fact that it ’ s this White House , this administration , ” he said .
Trump was referring to Cuomo ’ s previous comments where he basically accused the President of wanting to rush through an unproven vaccine to score points in the election .
As a result , he appointed his own “ scientific panels ” to review any vaccine approved by the FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little more than a bit of political gamesmanship between the Governor and the President .
Trump clearly wanted Cuomo to back down and say that he would approve the vaccine when it became available .
In his response , Cuomo still refused to do so , saying that his panel of medical experts would make that call , not him .
Given the fact that the FDA isn ’ t going to approve a vaccine that didn ’ t pass all of the normal trials , this is a fictional scenario , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sure why the President decided to go down this road in the first place .
For starters , we ’ re still not expecting the Pfizer vaccine ( or any others ) to become widely available until April at the earliest and perhaps not until June .
Any vaccine that receives initial approval will still have to submit three months ’ worth of safety data after the last test subjects are vaccinated .
At this point , barring something truly miraculous happening , Joe Biden will have long since been sworn into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling the authorization .
And it ’ s not the President who makes those decisions anyway .
Neither Trump nor Biden are doctors or specialists in infectious diseases .
The same goes for Cuomo .
That duty is charged to the FDA .
They will let us know when a vaccine has overcome all of the hurdles required to gain approval .
Also , the entire conversation is based on something that ’ s obviously not a certainty at this point .
We can ’ t be certain that Pfizer ’ s vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the last phase of testing and wind up going back to the drawing board .
We also don ’ t know if vaccinated people will wind up contracting the virus anyway if the immunity provided by the vaccine turns out to be short-term .
This was a poor subject for political gamesmanship .
We have far bigger fish to fry at this point , specifically making sure that the Democrats don ’ t take both of the Senate seats in Georgia during the runoff elections .
The government should also be focusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be a second round of COVID relief coming and what it would look like , particularly if many governors are going to start shutting down their states again this winter .
This spat between Trump and Cuomo will fade from memory pretty quickly .
The virus , at least at this point , doesn ’ t look like it will .

The President’s curious remarks yesterday about withholding the shipment of any approved vaccines to New York State caused quite a bit of consternation in Albany. It seemed pretty obvious that this was nothing but a political shot across the bow at New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a frequent and aggressive critic of the Trump administration. But reading into Trump’s remarks, he didn’t actually say that New Yorkers wouldn’t be getting the vaccine. He simply said that the shipments wouldn’t be authorized until the Governor gave his personal approval. (NY Post)
President Trump on Friday celebrated the recent breakthrough of a successful coronavirus vaccine — but said the people of New York wouldn’t receive it until Gov. Andrew Cuomo got out of the way. In a Rose Garden address on Friday, the commander-in-chief said they would distribute a COVID-19 vaccine across the United States but would not send it to the hard-hit Empire State because Cuomo doesn’t trust it. “He wants to take his time with a vaccine. He doesn’t trust where the vaccine’s coming from. These are coming form the greatest companies anywhere in the world, the greatest labs in the world, but he doesn’t trust the fact that it’s this White House, this administration,” he said.
Trump was referring to Cuomo’s previous comments where he basically accused the President of wanting to rush through an unproven vaccine to score points in the election. As a result, he appointed his own “scientific panels” to review any vaccine approved by the FDA.
As I said, this was little more than a bit of political gamesmanship between the Governor and the President. Trump clearly wanted Cuomo to back down and say that he would approve the vaccine when it became available. In his response, Cuomo still refused to do so, saying that his panel of medical experts would make that call, not him. Given the fact that the FDA isn’t going to approve a vaccine that didn’t pass all of the normal trials, this is a fictional scenario, to begin with.
I’m still not sure why the President decided to go down this road in the first place. For starters, we’re still not expecting the Pfizer vaccine (or any others) to become widely available until April at the earliest and perhaps not until June. Any vaccine that receives initial approval will still have to submit three months’ worth of safety data after the last test subjects are vaccinated. At this point, barring something truly miraculous happening, Joe Biden will have long since been sworn into office and it would be his administration handling the authorization.
And it’s not the President who makes those decisions anyway. Neither Trump nor Biden are doctors or specialists in infectious diseases. The same goes for Cuomo. That duty is charged to the FDA. They will let us know when a vaccine has overcome all of the hurdles required to gain approval. Also, the entire conversation is based on something that’s obviously not a certainty at this point. We can’t be certain that Pfizer’s vaccine won’t demonstrate some safety issues during the last phase of testing and wind up going back to the drawing board. We also don’t know if vaccinated people will wind up contracting the virus anyway if the immunity provided by the vaccine turns out to be short-term.
This was a poor subject for political gamesmanship. We have far bigger fish to fry at this point, specifically making sure that the Democrats don’t take both of the Senate seats in Georgia during the runoff elections. The government should also be focusing on whether or not there’s going to be a second round of COVID relief coming and what it would look like, particularly if many governors are going to start shutting down their states again this winter. This spat between Trump and Cuomo will fade from memory pretty quickly. The virus, at least at this point, doesn’t look like it will.


hotair--2020-11-14--Grocers, food brands prepare for the new wave of coronavirus, bring back purchase limits

The latest wave of the coronavirus pandemic is bringing back purchase limits in grocery stores .
This unhappy development is due to the anticipation that the approaching cold and flu season will bring a third wave of the virus , as some parts of the country are beginning to experience .
Retailers are trying to avoid the kinds of empty shelves that shoppers saw during the initial outbreak of the pandemic .
In order to prevent hoarding or large purchases of specific items during a single shopping trip , many major retailers are limiting purchases .
Items like paper goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time since the spring .
With people at home more because of lockdowns and social distancing measures , there is a renewed demand for items like paper towels , toilet paper , and frozen food for easy meals .
New shortages of some items like spices and butter and other staple ingredients in cooking are being reported .
Is anyone else besides me having flashbacks to trying to purchase regularly used products only to find stores out of stock with no alternative products to offer ?
Grocers are trying to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation ’ s largest grocer , and Publix Super Markets Inc. , a chain of more than 1,200 stores in the Southeast , reinstated limits on bath tissue and paper towels last week .
Kroger also brought back limits on hand soap and disinfectant wipes .
Recently , there has been some shortage of paper and cleaning products as coronavirus cases surge , said Kevin Hourican , chief executive of food-service distributor Sysco Corp. “ We ’ re on the cusp of the next uptick in major pandemic buying , ” said Dave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Seasons Market LLC , which operates stores on the West Coast .
Customers stocked up heavily on paper goods and cleaning products over the weekend , he added .
There is some optimism from retailers that hoarding will not be the problem it was in earlier months .
By now , the thinking goes , consumers have fully stocked pantries and are prepared for potential shortages on the horizon .
Limits are being placed on some purchases as precautionary measures .
Some shortages are still with us , though .
Cleaning wipes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be in very short supply well into 2021 .
A surge in the sales of bleach is expected .
An increase in the sales of face masks and immunity-boosting products are being reported .
Manufacturers and retailers have not fully recovered from the first wave of the pandemic .
Supply inventories have been rebuilt but not fully replenished .
Grocery stores are preparing for new demands by another wave of the pandemic along with the upcoming holidays .
Holiday food shopping intersects this year with the preparations being made for more strict lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their full orders of baking items , soup , and other fast-selling products .
Some grocery store chains haven ’ t lifted initial restrictions .
Some are going region to region , tailoring supplies with demands , and grocers have given priority to keeping shelves stocked with basic staples versus offering wide varieties of choices .
In other words , you can buy your favorite brand of chips but maybe not your favorite flavor if it isn ’ t the top-selling one .
Preparations for holiday cooking and baking has produced shortages because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People at home more often than usual , cooking most meals at home , has already kept suppliers busy .
As a Southern cook , the potential for shortages in the butter supply is particularly troubling .
Oh , no , not the butter !
I kid .
Kinda .
In normal years , consumers stock up on frozen foods , meats , and dairy products as the weather changes and holidays approach .
This year consumers are doing it earlier .
Another factor to take into consideration – many people purchased a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to keep more frozen food .
According to the IRI CPG Demand Index , which measures weekly consumer spending , sales of frozen foods , including meals and snacks , jumped in grocery stores for the week ended Nov. 1 compared with a year ago .
Bob Nolan , head of analytics at Conagra Brands Inc. , maker of Healthy Choice frozen meals and Birds Eye frozen vegetables , said the demand is partly driven by consumers filling up secondary freezers they bought during the pandemic .
“ Now those people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they did in the spring , ” he said .
Robinson Fresh , the produce division of logistics company C.H .
Robinson , said it is working with retailers this winter to put inventory in multiple locations in case there is a surge in one area and less than expected in another .
“ For years , we built a just-in-time supply chain .
Now , we need a just-in-case one , ” said Michael Castagnetto , president of Robinson Fresh .
Food suppliers have taken to heart lessons learned after the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supply chain capabilities have increased as well as production capacity to accelerate production .
More employees have been hired , too , by companies like Frito-Lay .
Frito-Lay , a subsidiary of PepsiCo.
, is stepping up its inventory levels in anticipation of elevated demand between Thanksgiving and the Super Bowl .
While the holiday season is often a precursor for an uptick in inventory preparation , the snack company is increasing its system-wide inventory by 1.5 million cases , to meet the same needs from the first wave of COVID-19 in March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from that first wave is the leveraged data insights and capabilities we now have to prepare ourselves for any additional surge activity that we would see in the winter , ” senior vice president of sales and chief consumer officer at Frito-Lay America Mike del Pozzo told FOX Business .
At the beginning of the pandemic , when demand spiked to unprecedented levels , Frito-Lay was forced to reduce 21 % of its items , including some of its core brands like Lay ’ s Lightly Salted , Fritos Scoops Spicy Jalapeños and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temporary cuts to deliver the volume of its most in-demand products and ensure availability everywhere for consumers .
While 95 % or more of paused items have since returned to the market , the chip company has taken precautionary measures to prevent any future interruption .
The lesson most of us learned from the first shortages back in the spring was to just stay prepared as much as possible .
In our house , we replace items as they are used instead of letting the pantry supplies get low as we did pre-pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are prepared for shortages , should they occur in our area .
It ’ s a lot like staying prepared for hurricane season year-round .

The latest wave of the coronavirus pandemic is bringing back purchase limits in grocery stores. This unhappy development is due to the anticipation that the approaching cold and flu season will bring a third wave of the virus, as some parts of the country are beginning to experience. Retailers are trying to avoid the kinds of empty shelves that shoppers saw during the initial outbreak of the pandemic.
In order to prevent hoarding or large purchases of specific items during a single shopping trip, many major retailers are limiting purchases. Items like paper goods and frozen foods are being limited for the first time since the spring. With people at home more because of lockdowns and social distancing measures, there is a renewed demand for items like paper towels, toilet paper, and frozen food for easy meals. New shortages of some items like spices and butter and other staple ingredients in cooking are being reported. Is anyone else besides me having flashbacks to trying to purchase regularly used products only to find stores out of stock with no alternative products to offer? Grocers are trying to avoid that now.
Kroger Co., the nation’s largest grocer, and Publix Super Markets Inc., a chain of more than 1,200 stores in the Southeast, reinstated limits on bath tissue and paper towels last week. Kroger also brought back limits on hand soap and disinfectant wipes. Recently, there has been some shortage of paper and cleaning products as coronavirus cases surge, said Kevin Hourican, chief executive of food-service distributor Sysco Corp. “We’re on the cusp of the next uptick in major pandemic buying,” said Dave Kauder, vice president of merchandising at New Seasons Market LLC, which operates stores on the West Coast. Customers stocked up heavily on paper goods and cleaning products over the weekend, he added.
There is some optimism from retailers that hoarding will not be the problem it was in earlier months. By now, the thinking goes, consumers have fully stocked pantries and are prepared for potential shortages on the horizon. Limits are being placed on some purchases as precautionary measures. Some shortages are still with us, though. Cleaning wipes, for example, will continue to be in very short supply well into 2021. A surge in the sales of bleach is expected. An increase in the sales of face masks and immunity-boosting products are being reported.
Manufacturers and retailers have not fully recovered from the first wave of the pandemic. Supply inventories have been rebuilt but not fully replenished. Grocery stores are preparing for new demands by another wave of the pandemic along with the upcoming holidays. Holiday food shopping intersects this year with the preparations being made for more strict lockdowns. Retailers still aren’t receiving their full orders of baking items, soup, and other fast-selling products.
Some grocery store chains haven’t lifted initial restrictions. Some are going region to region, tailoring supplies with demands, and grocers have given priority to keeping shelves stocked with basic staples versus offering wide varieties of choices. In other words, you can buy your favorite brand of chips but maybe not your favorite flavor if it isn’t the top-selling one. Preparations for holiday cooking and baking has produced shortages because the rush came faster this year. People at home more often than usual, cooking most meals at home, has already kept suppliers busy. As a Southern cook, the potential for shortages in the butter supply is particularly troubling. Oh, no, not the butter! I kid. Kinda.
Butter supply, which typically gets tighter in the winter months when people cook more at home, is particularly squeezed this year, said Scott Crawford, chief merchandising officer at grocery delivery company Fresh Direct LLC. The company is securing new local and premium butter suppliers to avoid running out. Organic butter, in particular, has been harder to find because there are fewer producers, said Mr. Kauder of New Seasons.
In normal years, consumers stock up on frozen foods, meats, and dairy products as the weather changes and holidays approach. This year consumers are doing it earlier. Another factor to take into consideration – many people purchased a second freezer since the pandemic began in order to keep more frozen food.
According to the IRI CPG Demand Index, which measures weekly consumer spending, sales of frozen foods, including meals and snacks, jumped in grocery stores for the week ended Nov. 1 compared with a year ago. Bob Nolan, head of analytics at Conagra Brands Inc., maker of Healthy Choice frozen meals and Birds Eye frozen vegetables, said the demand is partly driven by consumers filling up secondary freezers they bought during the pandemic. “Now those people have more capacity to store frozen food than they did in the spring,” he said. Robinson Fresh, the produce division of logistics company C.H. Robinson, said it is working with retailers this winter to put inventory in multiple locations in case there is a surge in one area and less than expected in another. “For years, we built a just-in-time supply chain. Now, we need a just-in-case one,” said Michael Castagnetto, president of Robinson Fresh.
Food suppliers have taken to heart lessons learned after the first wave of the pandemic. Investments in supply chain capabilities have increased as well as production capacity to accelerate production. More employees have been hired, too, by companies like Frito-Lay.
Frito-Lay, a subsidiary of PepsiCo., is stepping up its inventory levels in anticipation of elevated demand between Thanksgiving and the Super Bowl. While the holiday season is often a precursor for an uptick in inventory preparation, the snack company is increasing its system-wide inventory by 1.5 million cases, to meet the same needs from the first wave of COVID-19 in March. “One thing we took away from that first wave is the leveraged data insights and capabilities we now have to prepare ourselves for any additional surge activity that we would see in the winter,” senior vice president of sales and chief consumer officer at Frito-Lay America Mike del Pozzo told FOX Business. At the beginning of the pandemic, when demand spiked to unprecedented levels, Frito-Lay was forced to reduce 21% of its items, including some of its core brands like Lay’s Lightly Salted, Fritos Scoops Spicy Jalapeños and Doritos Salsa Verde. The company made temporary cuts to deliver the volume of its most in-demand products and ensure availability everywhere for consumers. While 95% or more of paused items have since returned to the market, the chip company has taken precautionary measures to prevent any future interruption.
The lesson most of us learned from the first shortages back in the spring was to just stay prepared as much as possible. In our house, we replace items as they are used instead of letting the pantry supplies get low as we did pre-pandemic. We don’t hoard but we are prepared for shortages, should they occur in our area. It’s a lot like staying prepared for hurricane season year-round.


hotair--2020-11-14--More Alito: COVID restrictions are "previously unimaginable"

Yesterday , Ed Morrissey covered some of the many headlines coming from Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito ’ s recent speech before the Federalist Society .
Most of that had to do with religious freedom , the First Amendment and current issues related to those subjects .
But there was another , shorter portion of Alito ’ s remarks I wanted to touch on this weekend .
They had to do with the onerous mandates and executive orders being handed down in response to the pandemic .
As you will see , Alito is obviously not a fan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declaring such executive actions entirely unconstitutional .
( Associated Press ) Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday sounded an alarm about restrictions imposed because of the coronavirus pandemic , saying they shouldn ’ t become a “ recurring feature after the pandemic has passed.
” “ The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty , ” Alito said in an address to the conservative Federalist Society , which is holding its annual convention virtually because of the pandemic .
Alito noted that he was “ not diminishing the severity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health ” or saying anything about “ whether any of these restrictions represent good public policy.
” He cautioned against his words being “ twisted or misunderstood.
” Alito clearly seemed to be aware that he was playing with fire here and he walked a fine line between criticizing the authoritarian impulses of some executives while recognizing that some compromises would need to be made in the interest of public safety during a state of emergency .
He gave a nod to the severity of the pandemic and said that he wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to whether such orders represent “ good public policy.
” But you ’ ll note that he also didn ’ t say that they are good public policy either .
Perhaps more telling was his next comment .
He described the current situation by saying it is an “ indisputable statement of fact that we have never before seen restrictions as severe , extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.
” Those don ’ t sound like the words of someone showering praise on executive branch officials for implementing drastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of citizens without the benefit of involving the applicable legislative bodies in the process .
But at the same time , it ’ s impossible to ignore the fact that the lower courts have largely backed the ability of governors and mayors to impose such restrictions during a declared state of emergency .
Would the Supreme Court follow a similar pattern ?
Perhaps for a limited time , yes .
But Alito went on to say “ we surely don ’ t want them to become a recurring feature after the pandemic has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right ?
We keep hearing the phrase “ after the pandemic has passed ” during discussions of lockdowns and bans on social gatherings .
But how are we supposed to draw a line saying that the pandemic “ has passed ?
” When there ’ s a vaccine widely available ?
When the total number of active cases reaches some arbitrary number ?
Surely there ’ s a limit to the court ’ s patience in such matters .
The linked report reminds us that the Supreme Court heard two cases earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions on attendance of religious services .
In both cases , the court refused to strike them down , but it was by a 5-4 margin each time .
Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the liberals in each instance while Alito did not .
But now , the notorious RBG is no longer with us and Amy Coney Barrett is in her place .
How will the court vote if a similar challenge to executive orders reaches them ?
We can ’ t be entirely sure , but I think Alito was @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Yesterday, Ed Morrissey covered some of the many headlines coming from Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s recent speech before the Federalist Society. Most of that had to do with religious freedom, the First Amendment and current issues related to those subjects. But there was another, shorter portion of Alito’s remarks I wanted to touch on this weekend. They had to do with the onerous mandates and executive orders being handed down in response to the pandemic. As you will see, Alito is obviously not a fan, though he appears to stop short of declaring such executive actions entirely unconstitutional. (Associated Press)
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday sounded an alarm about restrictions imposed because of the coronavirus pandemic, saying they shouldn’t become a “recurring feature after the pandemic has passed.” “The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty,” Alito said in an address to the conservative Federalist Society, which is holding its annual convention virtually because of the pandemic. Alito noted that he was “not diminishing the severity of the virus’ threat to public health” or saying anything about “whether any of these restrictions represent good public policy.” He cautioned against his words being “twisted or misunderstood.”
Alito clearly seemed to be aware that he was playing with fire here and he walked a fine line between criticizing the authoritarian impulses of some executives while recognizing that some compromises would need to be made in the interest of public safety during a state of emergency. He gave a nod to the severity of the pandemic and said that he wasn’t making any sort of declaration as to whether such orders represent “good public policy.” But you’ll note that he also didn’t say that they are good public policy either.
Perhaps more telling was his next comment. He described the current situation by saying it is an “indisputable statement of fact that we have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.”
Those don’t sound like the words of someone showering praise on executive branch officials for implementing drastic restrictions on the free movement and actions of citizens without the benefit of involving the applicable legislative bodies in the process. But at the same time, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that the lower courts have largely backed the ability of governors and mayors to impose such restrictions during a declared state of emergency. Would the Supreme Court follow a similar pattern?
Perhaps for a limited time, yes. But Alito went on to say “we surely don’t want them to become a recurring feature after the pandemic has passed.” There’s the rub, right? We keep hearing the phrase “after the pandemic has passed” during discussions of lockdowns and bans on social gatherings. But how are we supposed to draw a line saying that the pandemic “has passed?” When there’s a vaccine widely available? When the total number of active cases reaches some arbitrary number?
Surely there’s a limit to the court’s patience in such matters. The linked report reminds us that the Supreme Court heard two cases earlier this year from California and Nevada involving restrictions on attendance of religious services. In both cases, the court refused to strike them down, but it was by a 5-4 margin each time. Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the liberals in each instance while Alito did not. But now, the notorious RBG is no longer with us and Amy Coney Barrett is in her place. How will the court vote if a similar challenge to executive orders reaches them? We can’t be entirely sure, but I think Alito was giving us a hint this week.


hotair--2020-11-14--Young Kim flips another seat in California, GOP now +8 in the House

This race was called last night by the Associated Press .
Like the Michelle Steel race , this one has been looking good for days but it was close enough that we had to wait .
Now it ’ s in the books as the 11th flipped seat for the GOP so far : Republican challenger Young Kim has unseated Democratic Rep. Gil Cisneros in a tight rematch for the 39th congressional district , flipping back a second local House seat that Republicans lost to Democrats in 2018… Cisneros issued a statement saying “ the voters have spoken ” after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the vote .
While there were still several thousand mail-in and provisional ballots left to tally across the three counties that touch CA-39 , both candidates said the math made it clear that Kim had won the race .
This result this year is the reverse of what happened in 2018 when Kim narrowly lost the seat to Cisneros after an early lead : When the two first squared off for the seat , in 2018 , Cisneros trailed Kim on election night by 3,900 votes , leading to early announcements that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman in Congress .
But early results have traditionally favored Republicans in California elections .
And over the next few days , as mail-in ballots were tabulated into the total , Cisneros pulled ahead .
More than a week later he was declared the winner , beating Kim by 3.2 percentage points , or 7,611 votes .
This year it was Cisneros that led on election night and Kim who slowly chipped away at that lead .
This win means the GOP has flipped 11 seats .
Since the Democrats have flipped 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP to +8 .
Note that if you look at the NY Times House results page it has not been updated to show the win by Nicole Malliotakis in NY-11 even though Rep. Max Rose has conceded the race .
So what ’ s next ?
There are still two very close races in California .
CA-21 is looking like another pickup for the GOP .
Greater than 98 % of the vote is in and David Valadao has a 2,257 vote lead over Rep. TJ Cox .
The other seat is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Mike Garcia is hanging on to a slim 104 vote lead over Democratic challenger Christy Smith .
This is a seat that Garcia won in a special election after Katie Hill resigned .
According to CBS Los Angeles , it is “ unclear how many ballots remain to be counted.
” So we ’ ll just have to wait and see on this one .
In all there are 13 races left to be called and 7 of those are in New York .
As of this morning , the GOP leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , Kim was gracious in victory .
She posted this video after her win last night .
It ’ s nice to hear a winner say something positive about America : “ As an immigrant to America , I know that the promise of America is alive .
America is a country where an immigrant girl from South Korea can rise to be your representative in the United States Congress .
Thank you for your faith in me and let ’ s get to work for the 39th District .
”

This race was called last night by the Associated Press. Like the Michelle Steel race, this one has been looking good for days but it was close enough that we had to wait. Now it’s in the books as the 11th flipped seat for the GOP so far:
Republican challenger Young Kim has unseated Democratic Rep. Gil Cisneros in a tight rematch for the 39th congressional district, flipping back a second local House seat that Republicans lost to Democrats in 2018… Cisneros issued a statement saying “the voters have spoken” after latest results showed Kim with 50.6% of the vote. While there were still several thousand mail-in and provisional ballots left to tally across the three counties that touch CA-39, both candidates said the math made it clear that Kim had won the race.
This result this year is the reverse of what happened in 2018 when Kim narrowly lost the seat to Cisneros after an early lead:
When the two first squared off for the seat, in 2018, Cisneros trailed Kim on election night by 3,900 votes, leading to early announcements that Kim had become the first Korean American woman in Congress. But early results have traditionally favored Republicans in California elections. And over the next few days, as mail-in ballots were tabulated into the total, Cisneros pulled ahead. More than a week later he was declared the winner, beating Kim by 3.2 percentage points, or 7,611 votes.
This year it was Cisneros that led on election night and Kim who slowly chipped away at that lead.
This win means the GOP has flipped 11 seats. Since the Democrats have flipped 3, that brings the net gain for the GOP to +8. Note that if you look at the NY Times House results page it has not been updated to show the win by Nicole Malliotakis in NY-11 even though Rep. Max Rose has conceded the race.
So what’s next? There are still two very close races in California. CA-21 is looking like another pickup for the GOP. Greater than 98% of the vote is in and David Valadao has a 2,257 vote lead over Rep. TJ Cox. The other seat is much closer. In CA-25, GOP Rep. Mike Garcia is hanging on to a slim 104 vote lead over Democratic challenger Christy Smith. This is a seat that Garcia won in a special election after Katie Hill resigned. According to CBS Los Angeles, it is “unclear how many ballots remain to be counted.” So we’ll just have to wait and see on this one.
In all there are 13 races left to be called and 7 of those are in New York. As of this morning, the GOP leads in 9 of those 13 races.
Finally, Kim was gracious in victory. She posted this video after her win last night. It’s nice to hear a winner say something positive about America: “As an immigrant to America, I know that the promise of America is alive. America is a country where an immigrant girl from South Korea can rise to be your representative in the United States Congress. Thank you for your faith in me and let’s get to work for the 39th District.”


hotair--2020-11-14--Endgame for Trump's legal strategy: Giuliani now in charge of all voter-fraud lawsuits

All week I ’ ve been referring to Trump ’ s court battle as the “ respectable ” phase of his attempt to cling to power insofar as all sides acknowledge that a candidate is entitled to seek legal remedies for voter fraud — assuming any meaningful evidence exists .
Putting a declining clown like Rudy in charge of the effort means the effort is no longer respectable .
It ’ s essentially a concession that Team Trump has nothing to substantiate its allegations and what remains of the legal “ strategy ” is just loud conspiratorial noises .
Giuliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a long time and he ’ s never specialized in election law as far as I ’ m aware .
He ’ s a PR flack at this point in his career , one whom Trump appreciates because he ’ s willing to make wild charges against the president ’ s enemies in hopes of damaging their credibility , the closest thing Trump has to a Roy Cohn .
You don ’ t make Rudy the face of your legal effort if you want to convince a judge , you make Rudy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want to convince Newsmax viewers .
Who , of course , are already pretty convinced .
Trump ’ s advisors reportedly recognize that deputizing Rudy is a disaster , and not just legally .
Although Giuliani ’ s fondness for conspiracies makes him an effective PR conduit to the GOP base , that same quality makes him poisonous to the rest of the public .
A serious effort to overturn the election and legitimize that outcome in the eyes of tens of millions of skeptics would require the most sober possible presentation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With Giuliani , Trump ’ s doing the opposite .
He ’ s throwing in the towel on winning in court and authorizing Rudy to start lighting things on fire rhetorically instead .
[ T ] he involvement of Mr. Giuliani , who held a widely mocked news conference in front of a landscaping company in Philadelphia last weekend in which he claimed widespread fraud , has vexed people on the campaign and in the White House .
A half-dozen other Trump advisers have described Mr. Giuliani ’ s efforts as counterproductive and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unwarranted optimism about what could happen .
Those advisers have said that they are concerned Mr. Giuliani is damaging not only Mr. Trump ’ s remaining legal options , but his legacy and his future opportunities in politics as he considers another campaign in 2024… In an Oval Office meeting with aides on Thursday , Mr. Trump put Mr. Giuliani on speakerphone so the others could hear him .
He angrily accused the aides of not telling the president the truth , according to people briefed on the meeting .
Justin Clark , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressively on Mr. Giuliani , said the people briefed on what took place .
The most pitiful moment for the Trump campaign since the election was Giuliani ’ s bizarre press conference last weekend at the Four Seasons — not the hotel , but a landscaping company by that same name in Philadelphia .
Trump advisors reportedly watched in horror as Rudy turned what was aiming to be a serious legal effort involving top-tier talent into another bizarre sideshow : Senior campaign aides scurried to urge organizers to kill the event , infamously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — a landscaping business adjacent to an adult bookstore and a crematorium .
But Giuliani plowed ahead anyway , delivering a conspiracy-filled rant that undercut the legal strategy the president ’ s advisers had meticulously mapped out in the run-up to the election .
Campaign officials described the episode as disastrous , saying it scared off many of the lawyers they spent months recruiting , who now no longer wanted to be involved .
With the campaign already facing exceedingly long odds in its recount efforts , there are widespread concerns within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s antics are thwarting the president ’ s legal machinery from within… Republican officials said they viewed Trump ’ s decision to promote Giuliani as an implicit acknowledgment that his legal options are closing and a sign that he ’ s determined to go out guns blazing .
Top Republicans described a feeling of resignation late Friday that the election was coming to a close .
The “ serious ” side of the legal effort is aimed at chipping away votes from Biden in states where the margins were narrow-ish , hopefully forcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not sure what .
No recount is going to put Trump ahead .
But an incremental strategy might succeed in raising some doubt about the legitimacy of Biden ’ s win among voters outside the GOP base .
Rudy ’ s strategy , by contrast , is maximalist and aimed right at the base : Trump was robbed , massive fraud happened , and now it ’ s simply a matter of screaming about it .
Politico has a story today about Trump ’ s lawsuits in Michigan , Pennsylvania , Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which probably encouraged him to switch to the Giuliani approach .
At this point , he has nothing to lose .
The story features a quote from Ben Ginsberg , precisely the sort of respected Republican election-law specialist that a credible effort to prove fraud would involve .
“ They ’ re throwing the kitchen sink against the wall to see what sticks — a mixed metaphor that ’ s deserving of this legal strategy .
And ‘ legal strategy ’ should be in quotes , ” Ginsberg told the outlet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked on Bush ’ s 2000 Florida effort , laughed that Trump ’ s claims of widespread fraud are “ purely outlandish stuff.
” Putting Rudy in charge is an admission of that .
It ’ s a semi-official announcement that we ’ re leaving the “ respectable ” phase and entering the “ desperation ” phase .
The most one can say about Giuliani ’ s inevitable failure to overturn the results is that Ginsberg and Richard wouldn ’ t have fared better .
In the end this is a problem of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence just isn ’ t there , as members of Bill Barr ’ s own Justice Department have begun to acknowledge : None of the signers represent districts in swing states but the silence thus far about massive fraud involving Dominion software from U.S .
Attorneys who do is deafening .
Between the DOJ ’ s failure to find gamechanging fraud and the Trump campaign ’ s failure to support its most outlandish claims , the already tiny chance that a state legislature might void its election results and hand its electors to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders in Arizona , Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have all said recently that they won ’ t override their election results and choose the nuclear option to keep Trump in office .
If you ’ re going to set your own state on fire that way , you ’ d want at least a fig leaf of credible fraud to justify doing so .
There ’ s not even a fig leaf this year .
Awarding electors to Trump in that situation would be out-and-out election theft by the state legislature without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify it .
Here ’ s where we are with the president ’ s own message : The reason they can ’ t check the ballots for signatures is that the ballots themselves aren ’ t signed .
The outside envelope is signed and that signature is verified ; then the ballot is removed and tossed onto the pile for counting .
That ’ s the only way to preserve the secrecy of how the voter voted .
You can ’ t track a person ’ s ballot back to their envelope once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump himself seems to have figured that out at some point overnight and then took to tweeting this : That ’ s not what the consent decree did , said Erick Erickson , who lives in Georgia and has practiced election law before .
It just extended the time for signature verification .
( He elaborated in this thread . )
Trump ’ s argument against mail-in ballots is essentially that they ’ re so inherently unverifiable that they shouldn ’ t count , period , no matter what sort of security check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but ( a ) he ’ s had four years to litigate that point and ( b ) no court is about to declare 60 million mail-in votes invalid now .
He ’ s just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks , as Ginsberg said .
Even some of the handful of “ dead voters ” in Georgia this year recently touted by him and his allies turned out to be not so dead after all .
That ’ s what the “ desperation ” phase looks like .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point is no longer to convince the bulk of the population that Trump won and deserves to remain in power .
It ’ s to affirm the absolute conviction of MAGA Nation that he won even though he won ’ t remain in power .
If you can watch this… …then the “ desperation ” phase is aimed at you .
One more point in closing .
I haven ’ t independently checked Kyle Becker ’ s claim here but I ’ ll trust that he ’ s right : Some Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concluded that the president must have been cheated .
If Republicans everywhere else on the map beat Democrats , how likely is it that Trump didn ’ t beat the Democrat in his own race ?
But that logic is ass-backwards .
The question is : If the president was the victim of fraud in his own race , how likely is it that fraud wasn ’ t committed against Republicans in other races ?
If Democrats had the power to rig the numbers and get Biden over the top in swing states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lose every toss-up in the House , weakening Pelosi ’ s hold on power ?
Why wouldn ’ t they have rigged Senate races too ?
Biden ’ s going to end up entering office at the mercy of Mitch McConnell and , to a lesser degree , Kevin McCarthy .
There ’ s an internal logic to why Americans voted as they did this year .
At the presidential level and downballot , they voted against the “ chaos ” candidates .
In Senate and House races , that meant voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defund the police and advance socialism .
At the presidential level , that meant voting against a person who ’ s spent four years swinging wildly at his political enemies , feuding with his own former advisors like James Mattis , and not even attempting to contain a disease that ’ s out of control in the United States after having already killed 200,000 people .
I repeat what I said yesterday : If any other Democrat but Biden had run against Trump , they too probably would have been sunk by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialist messaging .
But voters have had 50 years to get to know Biden and just couldn ’ t be convinced that a term with him as president would be more chaotic than another with Trump , especially with Trump term-limited and free to govern as chaotically as he liked .
Sleepy Joe ’ s sleepiness probably won him the election .

All week I’ve been referring to Trump’s court battle as the “respectable” phase of his attempt to cling to power insofar as all sides acknowledge that a candidate is entitled to seek legal remedies for voter fraud — assuming any meaningful evidence exists.
Putting a declining clown like Rudy in charge of the effort means the effort is no longer respectable. It’s essentially a concession that Team Trump has nothing to substantiate its allegations and what remains of the legal “strategy” is just loud conspiratorial noises. Giuliani hasn’t been a serious lawyer in a long time and he’s never specialized in election law as far as I’m aware. He’s a PR flack at this point in his career, one whom Trump appreciates because he’s willing to make wild charges against the president’s enemies in hopes of damaging their credibility, the closest thing Trump has to a Roy Cohn. You don’t make Rudy the face of your legal effort if you want to convince a judge, you make Rudy the face of your legal effort if you want to convince Newsmax viewers. Who, of course, are already pretty convinced.
Trump’s advisors reportedly recognize that deputizing Rudy is a disaster, and not just legally. Although Giuliani’s fondness for conspiracies makes him an effective PR conduit to the GOP base, that same quality makes him poisonous to the rest of the public. A serious effort to overturn the election and legitimize that outcome in the eyes of tens of millions of skeptics would require the most sober possible presentation of facts and evidence of fraud. With Giuliani, Trump’s doing the opposite. He’s throwing in the towel on winning in court and authorizing Rudy to start lighting things on fire rhetorically instead.
[T]he involvement of Mr. Giuliani, who held a widely mocked news conference in front of a landscaping company in Philadelphia last weekend in which he claimed widespread fraud, has vexed people on the campaign and in the White House. A half-dozen other Trump advisers have described Mr. Giuliani’s efforts as counterproductive and said that he was giving the president unwarranted optimism about what could happen. Those advisers have said that they are concerned Mr. Giuliani is damaging not only Mr. Trump’s remaining legal options, but his legacy and his future opportunities in politics as he considers another campaign in 2024… In an Oval Office meeting with aides on Thursday, Mr. Trump put Mr. Giuliani on speakerphone so the others could hear him. He angrily accused the aides of not telling the president the truth, according to people briefed on the meeting. Justin Clark, the deputy campaign manager, pushed back aggressively on Mr. Giuliani, said the people briefed on what took place.
The most pitiful moment for the Trump campaign since the election was Giuliani’s bizarre press conference last weekend at the Four Seasons — not the hotel, but a landscaping company by that same name in Philadelphia. Trump advisors reportedly watched in horror as Rudy turned what was aiming to be a serious legal effort involving top-tier talent into another bizarre sideshow:
Senior campaign aides scurried to urge organizers to kill the event, infamously staged at the wrong “Four Seasons” — a landscaping business adjacent to an adult bookstore and a crematorium. But Giuliani plowed ahead anyway, delivering a conspiracy-filled rant that undercut the legal strategy the president’s advisers had meticulously mapped out in the run-up to the election. Campaign officials described the episode as disastrous, saying it scared off many of the lawyers they spent months recruiting, who now no longer wanted to be involved. With the campaign already facing exceedingly long odds in its recount efforts, there are widespread concerns within Trumpworld and GOP circles that Giuliani’s antics are thwarting the president’s legal machinery from within… Republican officials said they viewed Trump’s decision to promote Giuliani as an implicit acknowledgment that his legal options are closing and a sign that he’s determined to go out guns blazing. Top Republicans described a feeling of resignation late Friday that the election was coming to a close.
The “serious” side of the legal effort is aimed at chipping away votes from Biden in states where the margins were narrow-ish, hopefully forcing recounts, and then … I’m not sure what. No recount is going to put Trump ahead. But an incremental strategy might succeed in raising some doubt about the legitimacy of Biden’s win among voters outside the GOP base. Rudy’s strategy, by contrast, is maximalist and aimed right at the base: Trump was robbed, massive fraud happened, and now it’s simply a matter of screaming about it.
Politico has a story today about Trump’s lawsuits in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia sputtering out, which probably encouraged him to switch to the Giuliani approach. At this point, he has nothing to lose. The story features a quote from Ben Ginsberg, precisely the sort of respected Republican election-law specialist that a credible effort to prove fraud would involve. “They’re throwing the kitchen sink against the wall to see what sticks — a mixed metaphor that’s deserving of this legal strategy. And ‘legal strategy’ should be in quotes,” Ginsberg told the outlet. Barry Richard, another election-law attorney who worked on Bush’s 2000 Florida effort, laughed that Trump’s claims of widespread fraud are “purely outlandish stuff.” Putting Rudy in charge is an admission of that. It’s a semi-official announcement that we’re leaving the “respectable” phase and entering the “desperation” phase.
The most one can say about Giuliani’s inevitable failure to overturn the results is that Ginsberg and Richard wouldn’t have fared better. In the end this is a problem of evidence, not representation. And the evidence just isn’t there, as members of Bill Barr’s own Justice Department have begun to acknowledge:
Sixteen assistant U.S. attorneys specially assigned to monitor malfeasance in the 2020 election urged Attorney General William P. Barr on Friday to rescind his recent memorandum allowing investigators to publicly pursue allegations of “vote tabulation irregularities” in certain cases before results are certified, saying they had not seen evidence of any substantial anomalies… The signers wrote that in the places where they served as district election officers, taking in reports of possible election-related crimes, there was no evidence of the kind of fraud that Barr’s memo had highlighted. Barr’s memo authorized prosecutors “to pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certification of elections in your jurisdictions in certain cases,” particularly where the outcome of an election could be affected.
None of the signers represent districts in swing states but the silence thus far about massive fraud involving Dominion software from U.S. Attorneys who do is deafening. Between the DOJ’s failure to find gamechanging fraud and the Trump campaign’s failure to support its most outlandish claims, the already tiny chance that a state legislature might void its election results and hand its electors to Trump has dwindled to nothing. Republican leaders in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have all said recently that they won’t override their election results and choose the nuclear option to keep Trump in office. If you’re going to set your own state on fire that way, you’d want at least a fig leaf of credible fraud to justify doing so. There’s not even a fig leaf this year. Awarding electors to Trump in that situation would be out-and-out election theft by the state legislature without even a pretense of ballot mischief to justify it.
Here’s where we are with the president’s own message:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327413534901350400
The reason they can’t check the ballots for signatures is that the ballots themselves aren’t signed. The outside envelope is signed and that signature is verified; then the ballot is removed and tossed onto the pile for counting. That’s the only way to preserve the secrecy of how the voter voted. You can’t track a person’s ballot back to their envelope once their signature’s been checked. Trump himself seems to have figured that out at some point overnight and then took to tweeting this:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327619654592892931
That’s not what the consent decree did, said Erick Erickson, who lives in Georgia and has practiced election law before. It just extended the time for signature verification. (He elaborated in this thread.) Trump’s argument against mail-in ballots is essentially that they’re so inherently unverifiable that they shouldn’t count, period, no matter what sort of security check is in place. Which is nice, but (a) he’s had four years to litigate that point and (b) no court is about to declare 60 million mail-in votes invalid now. He’s just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, as Ginsberg said. Even some of the handful of “dead voters” in Georgia this year recently touted by him and his allies turned out to be not so dead after all. That’s what the “desperation” phase looks like.
In the “desperation” phase, the point is no longer to convince the bulk of the population that Trump won and deserves to remain in power. It’s to affirm the absolute conviction of MAGA Nation that he won even though he won’t remain in power. If you can watch this…
…and still believe this…
AMAZING! More than one MILLION marchers for President @realDonaldTrump descend on the swamp in support. Best base in political history — we LOVE you guys!!! ❤🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/vU65nqCSns — Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) November 14, 2020
…then the “desperation” phase is aimed at you.
One more point in closing. I haven’t independently checked Kyle Becker’s claim here but I’ll trust that he’s right:
https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1327457314622877696
Some Trump fans read Becker’s tweet and concluded that the president must have been cheated. If Republicans everywhere else on the map beat Democrats, how likely is it that Trump didn’t beat the Democrat in his own race? But that logic is ass-backwards. The question is: If the president was the victim of fraud in his own race, how likely is it that fraud wasn’t committed against Republicans in other races? If Democrats had the power to rig the numbers and get Biden over the top in swing states, why would they conceivably allow themselves to lose every toss-up in the House, weakening Pelosi’s hold on power? Why wouldn’t they have rigged Senate races too? Biden’s going to end up entering office at the mercy of Mitch McConnell and, to a lesser degree, Kevin McCarthy.
There’s an internal logic to why Americans voted as they did this year. At the presidential level and downballot, they voted against the “chaos” candidates. In Senate and House races, that meant voting against people from the party that wanted to defund the police and advance socialism. At the presidential level, that meant voting against a person who’s spent four years swinging wildly at his political enemies, feuding with his own former advisors like James Mattis, and not even attempting to contain a disease that’s out of control in the United States after having already killed 200,000 people. I repeat what I said yesterday: If any other Democrat but Biden had run against Trump, they too probably would have been sunk by the “defund the police” and socialist messaging. But voters have had 50 years to get to know Biden and just couldn’t be convinced that a term with him as president would be more chaotic than another with Trump, especially with Trump term-limited and free to govern as chaotically as he liked. Sleepy Joe’s sleepiness probably won him the election.


hotair--2020-11-14--Warnock, 2009: Socialism is supported by Scripture, you know

To answer the question I floated on Wednesday … the GOP does indeed appear to be pacing itself in the oppo drops for the Georgia Senate runoffs .
On Thursday , Raphael Warnock told MSNBC ’ s Joy Reid that he was sick of accusations that he was a crypto-socialist .
By the next day , the Washington Free Beacon published this silly Warnock sermon from 2009 in which the now Democratic nominee insisted that socialism is supported by the Scriptures , and that socialism is already a way of life .
Why not socialized medicine , too ?
Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is battling accusations that he has embraced socialism , something he has dismissed out of hand .
“ It would be funny if it weren ’ t sad , ” Warnock told MSNBC ’ s Joy Ann Reid on Thursday .
But Warnock ’ s denials appear to conflict with a 2009 sermon in which he argued that socialism is supported by Scripture and compared socialized health care to such run-of-the-mill government services as police protection .
Warnock , who is locked in a tight Senate race against Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members should have “ all things in common.
” “ You don ’ t solve the problem simply by calling something ‘ socialism.
’ There are some things that we have in common , ” Warnock said .
“ We don ’ t ask people to buy their own police protection , their own fire protection .
We decided long ago that we ought to pool our resources and pick up everybody ’ s garbage so that free enterprise can take place .
There are some things we have in common.
” Actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pool our resources ” on garbage collection .
I live in a community where we individually contract for that service , and it works just fine .
I pay them directly , and they respond to me directly — or they lose my business .
The reason we pool resources for police departments is because law enforcement involves coercive use of force , on which the government has a monopoly ( for good reason ) .
That ’ s not “ socialism ” — it ’ s the alternative to anarchy , examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where “ abolish the police ” has become the new mantra .
Let ’ s not forget that this new mantra comes courtesy of Warnock ’ s and Democrats ’ progressive allies , too .
Speaking of coercion , it ’ s amusing to hear Warnock deride “ folks talking as if they knew what they ’ re talking about ” while referencing Acts 2 .
That wasn ’ t socialism either , despite the preaching we hear about it , because it was an entirely voluntary arrangement .
Acts 2 describes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no coercion applied at all for the sharing of goods between the members of the church .
Acts 2 became the model for monastic living , not governance .
Socialism uses the coercive force of government to seize and redistribute goods , which is opposite the spirit and the reality of the small-scale cooperative model in Acts 2 .
Even the more contemporaneous example given by Warnock is wrong .
People lined up to get an H1N1 swine-flu vaccine in 2009 , but the vaccine existed because of free enterprise , not socialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its distribution went through both governmental and private-sector channels .
More people probably lined up in Walgreens outlets than Department of Health offices for that vaccine .
The vaccine to COVID-19 will exist because of private enterprise too , although accelerated by government support through purchase incentives ( which isn ’ t socialist either , but isn ’ t a great model except in emergencies ) .
If one wants a communal , public-sector response to a health crisis , we can use the CDC ’ s botch job on testing for COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a price .
If we had a socialized-medicine approach where government controlled pharmaceutical development , we ’ d wait years for a vaccine , if not decades .
Private-sector competition drives innovation ; socialist systems don ’ t innovate and are forced to steal technology instead , as we saw with the Soviet Union and now with China .
Not only is Warnock wrong in 2009 , Warnock is being a hypocrite in 2020 .
And probably still wrong as well if Warnock was being honest , as his denials on this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it weren ’ t sad , ” too .
The GOP seems quite prepared for a runoff against Warnock , and they ’ re not yet out of ammunition , either .
It ’ s as if they sandbagged Democrats into nominating him so that the GOP and Kelly Loeffler could turn Warnock into a punching bag for two months .
Democrats should worry what else the GOP has gleaned from Warnock ’ s long trail of sermons and speeches … and perhaps no one should be more worried than Jon Ossoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warnock at the hip now .

To answer the question I floated on Wednesday … the GOP does indeed appear to be pacing itself in the oppo drops for the Georgia Senate runoffs. On Thursday, Raphael Warnock told MSNBC’s Joy Reid that he was sick of accusations that he was a crypto-socialist. By the next day, the Washington Free Beacon published this silly Warnock sermon from 2009 in which the now Democratic nominee insisted that socialism is supported by the Scriptures, and that socialism is already a way of life. Why not socialized medicine, too?
Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Rev. Raphael Warnock is battling accusations that he has embraced socialism, something he has dismissed out of hand. “It would be funny if it weren’t sad,” Warnock told MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid on Thursday. But Warnock’s denials appear to conflict with a 2009 sermon in which he argued that socialism is supported by Scripture and compared socialized health care to such run-of-the-mill government services as police protection. Warnock, who is locked in a tight Senate race against Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler, argued that the New Testament says church members should have “all things in common.” “You don’t solve the problem simply by calling something ‘socialism.’ There are some things that we have in common,” Warnock said. “We don’t ask people to buy their own police protection, their own fire protection. We decided long ago that we ought to pool our resources and pick up everybody’s garbage so that free enterprise can take place. There are some things we have in common.”
Actually, we all didn’t “pool our resources” on garbage collection. I live in a community where we individually contract for that service, and it works just fine. I pay them directly, and they respond to me directly — or they lose my business. The reason we pool resources for police departments is because law enforcement involves coercive use of force, on which the government has a monopoly (for good reason). That’s not “socialism” — it’s the alternative to anarchy, examples of which are playing out in cities where “abolish the police” has become the new mantra. Let’s not forget that this new mantra comes courtesy of Warnock’s and Democrats’ progressive allies, too.
Speaking of coercion, it’s amusing to hear Warnock deride “folks talking as if they knew what they’re talking about” while referencing Acts 2. That wasn’t socialism either, despite the preaching we hear about it, because it was an entirely voluntary arrangement. Acts 2 describes a commune, not socialism; there was no coercion applied at all for the sharing of goods between the members of the church. Acts 2 became the model for monastic living, not governance. Socialism uses the coercive force of government to seize and redistribute goods, which is opposite the spirit and the reality of the small-scale cooperative model in Acts 2.
Even the more contemporaneous example given by Warnock is wrong. People lined up to get an H1N1 swine-flu vaccine in 2009, but the vaccine existed because of free enterprise, not socialism. Private-sector pharmaceuticals developed it, and its distribution went through both governmental and private-sector channels. More people probably lined up in Walgreens outlets than Department of Health offices for that vaccine. The vaccine to COVID-19 will exist because of private enterprise too, although accelerated by government support through purchase incentives (which isn’t socialist either, but isn’t a great model except in emergencies).
If one wants a communal, public-sector response to a health crisis, we can use the CDC’s botch job on testing for COVID-19, for which we are still paying a price. If we had a socialized-medicine approach where government controlled pharmaceutical development, we’d wait years for a vaccine, if not decades. Private-sector competition drives innovation; socialist systems don’t innovate and are forced to steal technology instead, as we saw with the Soviet Union and now with China.
Not only is Warnock wrong in 2009, Warnock is being a hypocrite in 2020. And probably still wrong as well if Warnock was being honest, as his denials on this point can likely be described as “funny if it weren’t sad,” too.
The GOP seems quite prepared for a runoff against Warnock, and they’re not yet out of ammunition, either. It’s as if they sandbagged Democrats into nominating him so that the GOP and Kelly Loeffler could turn Warnock into a punching bag for two months. Democrats should worry what else the GOP has gleaned from Warnock’s long trail of sermons and speeches … and perhaps no one should be more worried than Jon Ossoff, who’s essentially chained to Warnock at the hip now.


hotair--2020-11-14--Appeals court rules Governor Abbott's lockdown orders trump those of El Paso County Judge

The Eighth Court of Appeals ruled late Friday night to overturn El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego ’ s order to shut down non-essential businesses .
A temporary halt to the order was issued Thursday and that halt was upheld in the court ’ s final ruling Friday .
The battle between El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego and the orders issued by Governor Abbott to manage the coronavirus outbreak in Texas began when Samaniego issued a shutdown order on Oct. 29 .
The county judge was responding to an increase in cases and hospitalizations in the El Paso area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ El Paso has surpassed 70,000 as of Friday .
Samaniego extended the original shutdown order past Thanksgiving .
Responding to the extension , a group of restaurant owners and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit to stop the extended lockdown .
This is the problem with the lockdowns – they begin and then they are extended with no end in sight .
Samaniego ’ s reasoning was that closing non-essential businesses would stop the spread of the virus in El Paso County .
His initial lockdown order didn ’ t achieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are continuing to rise .
The appeals court ruled that the county judge didn ’ t have the authority to make separate rules for the county .
Just like all the other counties in Texas , El Paso County must follow the governor ’ s orders .
Chief Justice Alley acknowledged the uptick in cases despite previous lockdown orders but said , “ A servant can not have two masters.
” That means if the governor allows something , the county can ’ t prohibit it .
El Paso County will remain under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit capacity of most businesses to 50 % , keep bars closed and ban restaurants from offering dine-in services after 9 p.m. Texas has not fully re-opened since the first statewide shutdown earlier this year .
It ’ s been a bumpy ride for Governor Abbott to manage the pandemic and health risks for Texans while trying to keep as many businesses operating as possible to manage the economic crisis brought about by the shutdowns .
The appeals court encouraged local officials to find some middle ground between stricter restrictions and current state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the Governor ’ s order , that County can not prohibit it , ” the judges wrote .
“ If activities are prohibited by the Governor ’ s order , the County can not allow them.
” The court ruled , however , that the brief submitted by El Paso County didn ’ t indicate any attempts to work out some middle ground .
The court allows “ for the possibilities that parties might identify some stand-alone restrictions in [ the county order ] that would not be inconsistent with [ Abbott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court wrote .
“ None of the briefing before us has attempted to tease out any discrete restriction which might compliment or otherwise not conflict … and it would be inappropriate for us to attempt to do so here.
” County attorneys argued last week that Samaniego ’ s order could stand based on the provisions of the Texas Disaster Act of 1975 .
But Paxton ’ s office argued that the act supersedes local declarations .
The opinion issued Friday sided with the state .
The battle continues , though , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surfaced after the court ’ s final ruling Friday .
Attorney General Paxton celebrated the win while Judge Samaniego took his frustrations out on Paxton .
That tweet prompted a response from Samaniego which reminded Paxton that El Paso residents are also Paxton ’ s constituents despite the long distance from Austin .
Samaniego also finds himself at odds with the Mayor of El Paso .
Mayor Dee Margo noted that he was not consulted with Samaniego before extending the lockdown order and worries about local businesses .
He pointed out that 26 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more than 15,000 jobs have been lost because of the pandemic .

The Eighth Court of Appeals ruled late Friday night to overturn El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego’s order to shut down non-essential businesses. A temporary halt to the order was issued Thursday and that halt was upheld in the court’s final ruling Friday.
The battle between El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego and the orders issued by Governor Abbott to manage the coronavirus outbreak in Texas began when Samaniego issued a shutdown order on Oct. 29. The county judge was responding to an increase in cases and hospitalizations in the El Paso area. The number of total cases in El Paso has surpassed 70,000 as of Friday. Samaniego extended the original shutdown order past Thanksgiving. Responding to the extension, a group of restaurant owners and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit to stop the extended lockdown.
This is the problem with the lockdowns – they begin and then they are extended with no end in sight. Samaniego’s reasoning was that closing non-essential businesses would stop the spread of the virus in El Paso County. His initial lockdown order didn’t achieve that result, though, and hospitalizations are continuing to rise. The appeals court ruled that the county judge didn’t have the authority to make separate rules for the county. Just like all the other counties in Texas, El Paso County must follow the governor’s orders. Chief Justice Alley acknowledged the uptick in cases despite previous lockdown orders but said, “A servant cannot have two masters.” That means if the governor allows something, the county can’t prohibit it.
El Paso County will remain under the governor’s latest orders – limit capacity of most businesses to 50%, keep bars closed and ban restaurants from offering dine-in services after 9 p.m. Texas has not fully re-opened since the first statewide shutdown earlier this year. It’s been a bumpy ride for Governor Abbott to manage the pandemic and health risks for Texans while trying to keep as many businesses operating as possible to manage the economic crisis brought about by the shutdowns. The appeals court encouraged local officials to find some middle ground between stricter restrictions and current state mandates. “If conduct is allowed under the Governor’s order, that County cannot prohibit it,” the judges wrote. “If activities are prohibited by the Governor’s order, the County cannot allow them.” The court ruled, however, that the brief submitted by El Paso County didn’t indicate any attempts to work out some middle ground.
The court allows “for the possibilities that parties might identify some stand-alone restrictions in [the county order] that would not be inconsistent with [Abbott’s order],” the court wrote. “None of the briefing before us has attempted to tease out any discrete restriction which might compliment or otherwise not conflict … and it would be inappropriate for us to attempt to do so here.” County attorneys argued last week that Samaniego’s order could stand based on the provisions of the Texas Disaster Act of 1975. But Paxton’s office argued that the act supersedes local declarations. The opinion issued Friday sided with the state.
The battle continues, though, at least on Twitter. Politics and emotions surfaced after the court’s final ruling Friday. Attorney General Paxton celebrated the win while Judge Samaniego took his frustrations out on Paxton.
My statement on the 8th Court of Appeals striking down El Paso County’s lockdown order ⬇ pic.twitter.com/vxzZWHNKlJ — Texas Attorney General (@TXAG) November 14, 2020
That tweet prompted a response from Samaniego which reminded Paxton that El Paso residents are also Paxton’s constituents despite the long distance from Austin.
I guess El Paso is too far for Paxton to comprehend that we too are his constituents. I intend to use my legal authority to do everything possible to protect our community. I pray that his rhetoric won’t discourage our courageous healthcare workers..we will always be grateful! — County Judge Ricardo Samaniego (@EPCountyJudge) November 14, 2020
Samaniego also finds himself at odds with the Mayor of El Paso. Mayor Dee Margo noted that he was not consulted with Samaniego before extending the lockdown order and worries about local businesses. He pointed out that 26% of small businesses have closed, and more than 15,000 jobs have been lost because of the pandemic.


hotair--2020-11-14--The reason Elizabeth Warren probably won't get a cabinet position

From the moment it began to look like Joe Biden would probably end up winning the presidency , he started coming under pressure from progressive groups to put some far-left liberals in his cabinet .
Near the top of the list were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders .
Both of them were darlings of the socialist movement during the Democratic primary race and their supporters clearly still want those types of voices in positions of power .
Both of those potential choices would cause immediate problems for Joe Biden and the Democrats , however .
Both Warren and Biden are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration of Republican governors .
( Charlie Baker in Massachusetts and Phil Scott in Vermont . )
If Warren gets plucked out of her Senate seat , Baker will get to appoint her replacement , at least temporarily .
It ’ s already far from certain that the Democrats will be able to take the Senate majority as things stand currently .
They would need to win both of the upcoming runoff elections in Georgia just to get to 50 seats .
The Democrats in Massachusetts are looking to change that situation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure in the legislature that would force the Governor to replace any Senate vacancy with a member of the same party until a special election could be held .
Baker clearly isn ’ t a fan of the plan and said this week that he would veto such a measure if it crossed his desk .
( CBS Boston ) There is a new proposal that would require Gov .
Baker to pick a senator from the same party as the candidate leaving .
The governor told WBZ-TV ’ s Jon Keller if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veto it .
“ Every time this particular issue comes before the commonwealth , the legislature changes the rules based on the circumstances at that particular time , ” Baker said .
“ It ’ s a bad look for everybody and if they were to send legislation to change the rules yet again , you know and I don ’ t say this very often , I ’ d veto that.
” Baker has pretty much drawn a line in the sand here , so if the legislature does try to ram @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
The problem is that the amendment is attached to the state budget which is generally considered a “ must-pass ” piece of legislation .
The Democrats hold massive majorities in both the state House and Senate , so they could probably override the veto and force the law into place if they wanted to , but that process would take time .
In the meantime , if Joe Biden did pick Warren for a cabinet post shortly after taking office , Baker might be able to sneak in under the wire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the new rule went into effect .
Even that would be a temporary situation , however .
Massachusetts state law authorizes the Governor to name a replacement , but he also must call a special election no more than 160 days after the vacancy occurs .
The winner of that special election would then serve out the remainder of the vacating senator ’ s term before presumably running for a full term of their own .
The same situation applies in Vermont , except the Governor has six months to call the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the vacancy came up less than six months before the next general election , in which case they could hold both on the same day .
In either case , the Democrats would almost certainly get the seat back by the end of 2021 , but they would leave Biden with even less power in the upper chamber for most of the first year of his presidency .
I think that the progressive wing of the party is in for an unpleasant surprise .
Why would Biden weaken his own position in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bros ?
Biden himself has cast doubts on whether he would run for a second term even assuming that he manages to last for a full four years .
He has very little to fear from the far-left wing of his party .
There are plenty of other potential Democratic candidates for cabinet positions out there that wouldn ’ t bring up this sort of mess .
If Biden really wanted to start shaking things up he should start offering some cabinet positions to Republican Senators .
That would make 2021 more interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not sure anyone in the GOP Senate majority would accept the invitation at this point .

From the moment it began to look like Joe Biden would probably end up winning the presidency, he started coming under pressure from progressive groups to put some far-left liberals in his cabinet. Near the top of the list were Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Both of them were darlings of the socialist movement during the Democratic primary race and their supporters clearly still want those types of voices in positions of power.
Both of those potential choices would cause immediate problems for Joe Biden and the Democrats, however. Both Warren and Biden are from states that are currently under the administration of Republican governors. (Charlie Baker in Massachusetts and Phil Scott in Vermont.) If Warren gets plucked out of her Senate seat, Baker will get to appoint her replacement, at least temporarily. It’s already far from certain that the Democrats will be able to take the Senate majority as things stand currently. They would need to win both of the upcoming runoff elections in Georgia just to get to 50 seats.
The Democrats in Massachusetts are looking to change that situation, however. They’ve posted a measure in the legislature that would force the Governor to replace any Senate vacancy with a member of the same party until a special election could be held. Baker clearly isn’t a fan of the plan and said this week that he would veto such a measure if it crossed his desk. (CBS Boston)
There is a new proposal that would require Gov. Baker to pick a senator from the same party as the candidate leaving. The governor told WBZ-TV’s Jon Keller if it came to that, he would veto it. “Every time this particular issue comes before the commonwealth, the legislature changes the rules based on the circumstances at that particular time,” Baker said. “It’s a bad look for everybody and if they were to send legislation to change the rules yet again, you know and I don’t say this very often, I’d veto that.”
Baker has pretty much drawn a line in the sand here, so if the legislature does try to ram this through, he will probably veto it. The problem is that the amendment is attached to the state budget which is generally considered a “must-pass” piece of legislation. The Democrats hold massive majorities in both the state House and Senate, so they could probably override the veto and force the law into place if they wanted to, but that process would take time.
In the meantime, if Joe Biden did pick Warren for a cabinet post shortly after taking office, Baker might be able to sneak in under the wire and name a Republican to replace her before the new rule went into effect. Even that would be a temporary situation, however. Massachusetts state law authorizes the Governor to name a replacement, but he also must call a special election no more than 160 days after the vacancy occurs. The winner of that special election would then serve out the remainder of the vacating senator’s term before presumably running for a full term of their own.
The same situation applies in Vermont, except the Governor has six months to call the special election. The exception would be if the vacancy came up less than six months before the next general election, in which case they could hold both on the same day. In either case, the Democrats would almost certainly get the seat back by the end of 2021, but they would leave Biden with even less power in the upper chamber for most of the first year of his presidency.
I think that the progressive wing of the party is in for an unpleasant surprise. Why would Biden weaken his own position in the Senate just to satisfy the Bernie Bros? Biden himself has cast doubts on whether he would run for a second term even assuming that he manages to last for a full four years. He has very little to fear from the far-left wing of his party. There are plenty of other potential Democratic candidates for cabinet positions out there that wouldn’t bring up this sort of mess. If Biden really wanted to start shaking things up he should start offering some cabinet positions to Republican Senators. That would make 2021 more interesting to be certain, though I’m not sure anyone in the GOP Senate majority would accept the invitation at this point.