hotair--2020-09-26--Whataburger employee says she was fired for wearing a Black Lives Matter face mask

A black Whataburger employee in Fort Worth , Texas alleges that she was fired for wearing a face mask in support of Black Lives Matter .
Ma ’ Kiya Congious says that she received compliments from some customers but a white customer complained .
That customer threatened to call the corporate office with her complaint .
Congious ’ supervisor told her to replace the mask with an approved one .
Pretty simple , right ?
Companies have dress codes , especially when all the employees wear uniforms .
The point is that they all dress alike , identifying themselves as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask carried a political message , which is not allowed .
Congious says that no , it isn ’ t a political message but a message of support .
“ It ’ s not a political thing , ” Congious said .
“ It ’ s just a statement that says , ‘ Black Lives Matter , ’ because we do matter.
” She claims she was fired for refusing to put on a different mask and the police were called when she refused to leave the premises .
“ I asked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my mask was inappropriate .
It ’ s a solid color .
It doesn ’ t have any gang-related anything on it , ” she told KDFW ’ s Lyannane Nguyen .
“ I asked for them to explain it to me .
They couldn ’ t explain it to me.
” During the dispute with her supervisor , Congious asked how to request her two-week ’ s notice , according to Fort Worth Star Telegram ’ s Brian Lopez .
“ You want to put your two weeks notice in ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and you don ’ t have to come back at all.
” That exchange makes it look like the company accepted her resignation , which is different than outright firing her .
I would imagine she asked about putting in her notice because how she left the company affects if she qualifies for unemployment benefits until she finds other employment .
The supervisor accepted her resignation .
All of this happened on August 3 .
Wednesday the 19-year-old announced she filed a discrimination complaint with the State of Texas .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was confused by her supervisor ’ s acceptance of her two weeks ’ notice .
She said she was just asking about the process and had not decided to leave her job .
Because she continued to ask her supervisor about it , she says the police were called .
In the complaint , Congious said she hadn ’ t made up her mind about putting in her two weeks ’ notice and was only asking abut her options .
Confused by the manager ’ s response , Congious kept pressing about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the police on her , she said .
Congious then left the Whataburger .
In a press conference on Wednesday , the ex-employee said the situation made her feel discriminated against and she wants her story to create change for Black people in the workforce .
For her , Black Lives Matter is a statement and there ’ s no political affiliation .
“ I do have a 5-month-old baby and as he comes up in the world , I don ’ t want him to experience anything like this at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the woman will be paid for two weeks she was scheduled to work .
The police were called because she made threats to management .
Her lawyer is going with a discrimination case .
He and Congious see it as a racial thing , not a matter of abiding by the dress code .
There is a hiccup here , though , for Whataburger .
The company ’ s mask policy doesn ’ t specifically address political statements .
It simply reads “ plain or work-appropriate patterned bandanas or other cloth material may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mouth.
” Congious can quibble over the meaning of “ work-appropriate ” , I suppose .
The face masks I see employees wearing at the Whataburger I go to is a simple orange face mask with the Whataburger logo on it .
Obviously , the company makes available masks that coordinate with the uniforms .
The question is whether or not her supervisor acted because a white customer spoke up against the mask .
Congious was working and already wearing the mask .
She says she first wore the mask on July 31 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it .
The Whataburger is in a historically black part of town , according to reports .
When the customer complained the following Monday , that is when the supervisor sat her down , along with other employees , and explained the mask policy .
Her complaint says other employees have worn masks with a Gucci logo or the Mexican flag .
The complaint lists five steps of action Whataburger and the public need to take .
The boycott is ridiculous and bullying a company into saying words on social media is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I suspect , and it wouldn ’ t be unusual for the company to celebrate Juneteenth , especially given the Texas history with that date .
As the company statement says , though , if non-Whataburger slogans are part of the uniform , all slogans would have to be allowed .
Dress codes are in place for a reason .
They maintain peace in the workplace and , more importantly , don ’ t offend customers .
The young woman may not think Black Lives Matter is a political statement but in today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is a political movement , not just a warm and fuzzy statement .
It doesn ’ t look like her own skin color had anything to do with this .
It was the message on her mask .

A black Whataburger employee in Fort Worth, Texas alleges that she was fired for wearing a face mask in support of Black Lives Matter. Ma’Kiya Congious says that she received compliments from some customers but a white customer complained. That customer threatened to call the corporate office with her complaint. Congious’ supervisor told her to replace the mask with an approved one.
Pretty simple, right? Companies have dress codes, especially when all the employees wear uniforms. The point is that they all dress alike, identifying themselves as employees. The supervisor said that her mask carried a political message, which is not allowed. Congious says that no, it isn’t a political message but a message of support. “It’s not a political thing,” Congious said. “It’s just a statement that says, ‘Black Lives Matter,’ because we do matter.”
She claims she was fired for refusing to put on a different mask and the police were called when she refused to leave the premises.
“I asked for them to provide me details on why my mask was inappropriate. It’s a solid color. It doesn’t have any gang-related anything on it,” she told KDFW’s Lyannane Nguyen. “I asked for them to explain it to me. They couldn’t explain it to me.” During the dispute with her supervisor, Congious asked how to request her two-week’s notice, according to Fort Worth Star Telegram’s Brian Lopez. “You want to put your two weeks notice in?” a supervisor said. “We accept it, and you don’t have to come back at all.”
That exchange makes it look like the company accepted her resignation, which is different than outright firing her. I would imagine she asked about putting in her notice because how she left the company affects if she qualifies for unemployment benefits until she finds other employment. The supervisor accepted her resignation.
All of this happened on August 3. Wednesday the 19-year-old announced she filed a discrimination complaint with the State of Texas. She has a lawyer and is claiming she was confused by her supervisor’s acceptance of her two weeks’ notice. She said she was just asking about the process and had not decided to leave her job. Because she continued to ask her supervisor about it, she says the police were called.
In the complaint, Congious said she hadn’t made up her mind about putting in her two weeks’ notice and was only asking abut her options. Confused by the manager’s response, Congious kept pressing about what it meant, after which her managers called the police on her, she said. Congious then left the Whataburger. In a press conference on Wednesday, the ex-employee said the situation made her feel discriminated against and she wants her story to create change for Black people in the workforce. For her, Black Lives Matter is a statement and there’s no political affiliation. “I do have a 5-month-old baby and as he comes up in the world, I don’t want him to experience anything like this at all,” Congious said.
Whataburger says the woman will be paid for two weeks she was scheduled to work. The police were called because she made threats to management.
“Whataburger supports racial equality,” the statement read. “This is simply a matter of enforcing our uniform policy. Whataburger employees are provided company-issued masks that comply with our policy and adhere to CDC and local government guidance.”
Her lawyer is going with a discrimination case. He and Congious see it as a racial thing, not a matter of abiding by the dress code.
Smith, Congious’ lawyer, said “Federal and state law make it illegal to discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of their employment because of their race and color. We believe that’s what the evidence will show Whataburger did when they mistreated Ma’Kiya for wearing a ‘Black Lives Matter’ mask.”
There is a hiccup here, though, for Whataburger. The company’s mask policy doesn’t specifically address political statements. It simply reads “plain or work-appropriate patterned bandanas or other cloth material may be used to cover your nose and mouth.” Congious can quibble over the meaning of “work-appropriate”, I suppose. The face masks I see employees wearing at the Whataburger I go to is a simple orange face mask with the Whataburger logo on it. Obviously, the company makes available masks that coordinate with the uniforms.
The question is whether or not her supervisor acted because a white customer spoke up against the mask. Congious was working and already wearing the mask. She says she first wore the mask on July 31 and management didn’t say anything about it. The Whataburger is in a historically black part of town, according to reports. When the customer complained the following Monday, that is when the supervisor sat her down, along with other employees, and explained the mask policy. Her complaint says other employees have worn masks with a Gucci logo or the Mexican flag.
“Whataburger wants you to wear a mask that has no opinions whatsoever on them,” the manager said in a video recording taken by Congious. “You’re entitled to your personal opinions, that’s fine. But at Whataburger we don’t want to portray them because some people may be offended. This is a big business. … Whataburger doesn’t want to get into anything political because we’re just hamburgers and fries.”
The complaint lists five steps of action Whataburger and the public need to take.
The public should boycott Whataburger for 90 days to see what actions the company takes to show that “Black Lives Matter.”
The company should allow Black Lives Matter masks.
The CEO should say “Black Lives Matter to Whataburger” on social media.
The company should provide more implicit bias training.
The company should celebrate Juneteenth starting next year.
The boycott is ridiculous and bullying a company into saying words on social media is cringe-worthy. Better training is doable, I suspect, and it wouldn’t be unusual for the company to celebrate Juneteenth, especially given the Texas history with that date. As the company statement says, though, if non-Whataburger slogans are part of the uniform, all slogans would have to be allowed. Dress codes are in place for a reason. They maintain peace in the workplace and, more importantly, don’t offend customers. The young woman may not think Black Lives Matter is a political statement but in today’s atmosphere, it is. It is a political movement, not just a warm and fuzzy statement. It doesn’t look like her own skin color had anything to do with this. It was the message on her mask.


hotair--2020-09-26--Liberal law prof: Barrett is "a brilliant lawyer, a genuine and good person" and belongs on the Cour

Liberal law prof: Barrett is "a brilliant lawyer, a genuine and good person" and belongs on the Court

Hats off to Noah Feldman for having the integrity and sheer guts , frankly , to have written this piece .
It won ’ t make him any friends on his own side but it might help drain out of the body politic a bit of the toxic ruthlessness that poisons every SCOTUS fight nowadays .
Feldman clerked for David Souter the same year that Barrett clerked for Scalia .
Supreme Court clerks are the best of the best among America ’ s law students ; according to Feldman , Barrett was the best of the best within that group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its entirety , as no excerpt can do it justice .
It ’ s a love letter from start to finish : Yes , he disagrees with Barrett ’ s judicial philosophy , but on every conceivable measure of merit — intellect , diligence , temperament — her selection to the Court is a no-brainer .
Remember that this guy testified against Trump during the House ’ s impeachment hearings late last year .
For him to say this about a Trump nominee is remarkable .
I got to know Barrett more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term .
Of the thirty-some clerks that year , all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court , Barrett stood out .
Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen , she was one of the two strongest lawyers .
The other was Jenny Martinez , now dean of the Stanford Law School .
When assigned to work on an extremely complex , difficult case , especially one involving a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to Barrett to explain it to me .
Then I would go to Martinez to tell me what I should think about it… To add to her merits , Barrett is a sincere , lovely person .
I never heard her utter a word that wasn ’ t thoughtful and kind — including in the heat of real disagreement about important subjects .
She will be an ideal colleague .
I don ’ t really believe in “ judicial temperament , ” because some of the greatest justices were irascible , difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe in an ideal judicial temperament of calm and decorum , rest assured that Barrett has it .
This combination of smart and nice will be scary for liberals .
“ I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith , applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed , ” he notes at one point , which may be a jab at Democrats inclined to question her impartiality because of her religion .
I wonder if he ’ s willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee next month given the utter insanity of America ’ s partisan climate when hearings begin , a few weeks away from a presidential election .
He ’ d be a killer witness for Republicans .
As for how Dems are planning to handle this , they ’ re weighing their options .
Personal attacks on the nominee herself seem much more likely to backfire than to advance lefty interests .
( Which is not to say they won ’ t happen .
See my point about toxic ruthlessness above . )
Certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being a fifth vote against Roe and ObamaCare , a talking point that ’ s much more likely to prove productive on Election Day .
What ’ s uncertain at the moment is whether they ’ ll try to obstruct the confirmation process itself by slowing down Senate business so that a vote can ’ t be held before the election .
Even if they could pull that off , is it in their interest to do so ?
I ’ m not sure .
One of the first strategic decisions will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courtesy visits , many of which occur before a confirmation hearing , particularly with members of leadership and of the Judiciary Committee .
Some , like Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) , have said they won ’ t meet with the nominee… Once the nominee gets to the hearing stage of the process , Democrats must decide whether to essentially protest the entire nomination and largely refuse to participate , or to engage and try to expose flaws in the judge ’ s background during what would probably be more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some activists are pushing Democrats to either boycott the hearings completely , or to use a rare maneuver to short-circuit the hearings after just two hours… A number of Democrats — from liberals such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( Mass . )
to moderates such as Sen. Michael F. Bennet ( Colo. ) — have publicly stated that they want to use the confirmation process to highlight the outcome of a conservative replacing Ginsburg , particularly on health care .
Some Democrats have argued privately that the best way to highlight that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be watched by millions of voters .
They ’ d be complete idiots to boycott the hearings .
The opportunity to grandstand on camera about Roe , ObamaCare , and the hypocrisy of blockading Merrick Garland while ramming Barrett through is literally the only part of this process that might work for them .
If nothing else , they can use it as a chance to highlight the potential of Barrett casting a deciding vote in Trump ’ s favor in a legal challenge over disputed ballots that decides the election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be petulant and disrespectful to the nominee .
And of course it would leave the GOP free to use its time to praise Barrett and ask her softball questions .
She ’ s on record as saying that John Roberts “ pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute ” in the Court ’ s famous ObamaCare case in 2012 .
If nothing else , Dems should show up and leverage that quote during Q & A to spook voters that she ’ s going to take coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstructing Senate business to try to prevent a vote before the election , that ’ s tricky for them .
If they have a way to do it , they ’ ll have to do it .
For one thing , their base will demand it .
And there ’ s at least a small chance that a resounding Democratic win on November 3 would give some Senate Republicans cold feet about holding a confirmation vote during the lame-duck session .
The bigger Biden ’ s margin of victory , the bigger the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public wants him to make this pick after all .
( It ’ s a less than 10 percent chance , but it ’ s not quite zero . )
The wrinkle for Dems is that if this seat isn ’ t filled by November 3 , that ’ ll become a powerful argument for right-leaning voters who dislike Trump to hold their noses and vote for him again .
Right , right , it ’ s powerful fuel for Democratic turnout too , but that fuel will be there for them no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if she ’ s confirmed before Election Day , they ’ ll turn out in droves to express their anger and fear .
It ’ s GOP turnout that ’ s a bit variable , I think , depending on whether the seat is filled or not .
Dems would be risking boosting that turnout if they managed to delay a confirmation vote .
I ’ ll leave you with this quote given to Vanity Fair by a Democratic Senate aide , which I think ably summarizes the message you ’ ll hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sure , there ’ s a chance Dianne Feinstein or Mazie Hirono or whoever will start screeching about Barrett ’ s allegiance to Catholic dogma , but Biden and most of the Democratic powers that be will be laser-focused on this : “ This is at once really complicated and really simple .
And it ’ s really simple because we took back the house in ’ 18 by talking about health care and talking about nothing other than health care… This is really simple , America .
The ACA is about to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t use the word jurisprudence .
Don ’ t talk about precedent .
No one gives a sh*t. People care about their health care .
”

Hats off to Noah Feldman for having the integrity and sheer guts, frankly, to have written this piece. It won’t make him any friends on his own side but it might help drain out of the body politic a bit of the toxic ruthlessness that poisons every SCOTUS fight nowadays.
Feldman clerked for David Souter the same year that Barrett clerked for Scalia. Supreme Court clerks are the best of the best among America’s law students; according to Feldman, Barrett was the best of the best within that group. You should read his piece in its entirety, as no excerpt can do it justice. It’s a love letter from start to finish: Yes, he disagrees with Barrett’s judicial philosophy, but on every conceivable measure of merit — intellect, diligence, temperament — her selection to the Court is a no-brainer.
Remember that this guy testified against Trump during the House’s impeachment hearings late last year. For him to say this about a Trump nominee is remarkable.
I got to know Barrett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term. Of the thirty-some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court, Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School. When assigned to work on an extremely complex, difficult case, especially one involving a hard-to-comprehend statutory scheme, I would first go to Barrett to explain it to me. Then I would go to Martinez to tell me what I should think about it… To add to her merits, Barrett is a sincere, lovely person. I never heard her utter a word that wasn’t thoughtful and kind — including in the heat of real disagreement about important subjects. She will be an ideal colleague. I don’t really believe in “judicial temperament,” because some of the greatest justices were irascible, difficult and mercurial. But if you do believe in an ideal judicial temperament of calm and decorum, rest assured that Barrett has it. This combination of smart and nice will be scary for liberals.
“I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed,” he notes at one point, which may be a jab at Democrats inclined to question her impartiality because of her religion. I wonder if he’s willing to say all of this before the Judiciary Committee next month given the utter insanity of America’s partisan climate when hearings begin, a few weeks away from a presidential election. He’d be a killer witness for Republicans.
As for how Dems are planning to handle this, they’re weighing their options. Personal attacks on the nominee herself seem much more likely to backfire than to advance lefty interests. (Which is not to say they won’t happen. See my point about toxic ruthlessness above.) Certainly they can and will accuse Barrett of being a fifth vote against Roe and ObamaCare, a talking point that’s much more likely to prove productive on Election Day. What’s uncertain at the moment is whether they’ll try to obstruct the confirmation process itself by slowing down Senate business so that a vote can’t be held before the election. Even if they could pull that off, is it in their interest to do so? I’m not sure.
One of the first strategic decisions will be whether to give the nominee her standard courtesy visits, many of which occur before a confirmation hearing, particularly with members of leadership and of the Judiciary Committee. Some, like Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), have said they won’t meet with the nominee… Once the nominee gets to the hearing stage of the process, Democrats must decide whether to essentially protest the entire nomination and largely refuse to participate, or to engage and try to expose flaws in the judge’s background during what would probably be more than a dozen hours of questioning over two days. Some activists are pushing Democrats to either boycott the hearings completely, or to use a rare maneuver to short-circuit the hearings after just two hours… A number of Democrats — from liberals such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) to moderates such as Sen. Michael F. Bennet (Colo.) — have publicly stated that they want to use the confirmation process to highlight the outcome of a conservative replacing Ginsburg, particularly on health care. Some Democrats have argued privately that the best way to highlight that issue is at a confirmation hearing that will be watched by millions of voters.
They’d be complete idiots to boycott the hearings. The opportunity to grandstand on camera about Roe, ObamaCare, and the hypocrisy of blockading Merrick Garland while ramming Barrett through is literally the only part of this process that might work for them. If nothing else, they can use it as a chance to highlight the potential of Barrett casting a deciding vote in Trump’s favor in a legal challenge over disputed ballots that decides the election. Beyond that, skipping the hearing would be petulant and disrespectful to the nominee. And of course it would leave the GOP free to use its time to praise Barrett and ask her softball questions. She’s on record as saying that John Roberts “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute” in the Court’s famous ObamaCare case in 2012. If nothing else, Dems should show up and leverage that quote during Q&A to spook voters that she’s going to take coverage for preexisting conditions away.
As for obstructing Senate business to try to prevent a vote before the election, that’s tricky for them. If they have a way to do it, they’ll have to do it. For one thing, their base will demand it. And there’s at least a small chance that a resounding Democratic win on November 3 would give some Senate Republicans cold feet about holding a confirmation vote during the lame-duck session. The bigger Biden’s margin of victory, the bigger the chance that four GOPers would decide the public wants him to make this pick after all. (It’s a less than 10 percent chance, but it’s not quite zero.) The wrinkle for Dems is that if this seat isn’t filled by November 3, that’ll become a powerful argument for right-leaning voters who dislike Trump to hold their noses and vote for him again. Right, right, it’s powerful fuel for Democratic turnout too, but that fuel will be there for them no matter what happens with Barrett. Even if she’s confirmed before Election Day, they’ll turn out in droves to express their anger and fear. It’s GOP turnout that’s a bit variable, I think, depending on whether the seat is filled or not. Dems would be risking boosting that turnout if they managed to delay a confirmation vote.
I’ll leave you with this quote given to Vanity Fair by a Democratic Senate aide, which I think ably summarizes the message you’ll hear from Dems for the next month. Sure, there’s a chance Dianne Feinstein or Mazie Hirono or whoever will start screeching about Barrett’s allegiance to Catholic dogma, but Biden and most of the Democratic powers that be will be laser-focused on this: “This is at once really complicated and really simple. And it’s really simple because we took back the house in ’18 by talking about health care and talking about nothing other than health care… This is really simple, America. The ACA is about to go away because of this. Don’t use the word jurisprudence. Don’t talk about precedent. No one gives a sh*t. People care about their health care.”


hotair--2020-09-26--Are you ready for ... President Meghan Markle in 2024?

Impossible ?
After Donald Trump won the presidency by successfully rebranding himself the hero of the common man , anything ’ s possible , I suppose .
How about an American who married into the British royal family running as a hero of the proletarian masses marching toward a socialist utopia ?
Yeah , sure , why not , Vanity Fair suggests : Her comments about the election may have raised some eyebrows back in Britain this week , but the Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle plans to continue canvassing ahead of November ’ s U.S. presidential election , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in politics—including a possible White House run .
Rumors abound that Meghan could run for president in 2024 , and she got the attention of the office ’ s current occupant , who said in a press conference on Wednesday that he is “ not a fan ” of the duchess .
Donald Trump was responding to a video that she and Prince Harry made to promote Time 100 ’ s list of the most influential people in 2020 , in which she declared that November ’ s election is “ the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s possible that 2024 could be even more important for her personally .
“ One of the reasons she was so keen not to give up her American citizenship was so she had the option to go into politics , ” said a close friend of the royal .
“ I think if Meghan and Harry ever gave up their titles she would seriously consider running for president.
” Hmmmm .
Has anyone considered the idea that this could all be a fantastic plot by Queen Elizabeth to take back The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed Harry to marry a C-list American actress and made her into an international celebrity .
Then they send the pair off to North America to build her credibility .
She runs for president , and voila !
A family merger !
Naah .
They can ’ t even organize well enough to keep Prince Andrew away from Jeffrey Epstein , after all , or from talking to the BBC about it .
The rumors of a 2024 run sound rather intriguing , though .
Does that mean that Markle , her courtiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an open primary that year ?
That would mean that they are planning around a second Trump term rather than a two-term Biden presidency , or Harris-Biden presidency .
Anyway , if Markle thinks that her celebrity translates to political support , she ’ s obviously spent too much time in the royal bubble .
In the first place , the only two points for which Markle is known is for a short and middling acting career and then marrying into nobility .
That makes Markle part of the weirdo soap opera @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many Americans , not a part of the political firmament that they take seriously .
Granted , Trump did a pretty good job translating celebrity to political support , but he also built a massive real-estate business for decades before going the reality-TV route .
He didn ’ t just marry into wealth and A-list celebrity before turning his eyes toward the White House .
If Markle dips her toes into the 2024 water , she ’ d better be prepared .
Not only will all of the weirdness surrounding the royal family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Markle ’ s rather famous stateside family dysfunctions , too .
And even more than that , it seems : Have fun storming out of the castle !

Impossible? After Donald Trump won the presidency by successfully rebranding himself the hero of the common man, anything’s possible, I suppose. How about an American who married into the British royal family running as a hero of the proletarian masses marching toward a socialist utopia?
Yeah, sure, why not, Vanity Fair suggests:
Her comments about the election may have raised some eyebrows back in Britain this week, but the Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle plans to continue canvassing ahead of November’s U.S. presidential election, and hasn’t ruled out a career in politics—including a possible White House run. Rumors abound that Meghan could run for president in 2024, and she got the attention of the office’s current occupant, who said in a press conference on Wednesday that he is “not a fan” of the duchess. Donald Trump was responding to a video that she and Prince Harry made to promote Time 100’s list of the most influential people in 2020, in which she declared that November’s election is “the most important election of our lifetime.” But it’s possible that 2024 could be even more important for her personally. “One of the reasons she was so keen not to give up her American citizenship was so she had the option to go into politics,” said a close friend of the royal. “I think if Meghan and Harry ever gave up their titles she would seriously consider running for president.”
Hmmmm. Has anyone considered the idea that this could all be a fantastic plot by Queen Elizabeth to take back The Colonies? Think about it: they allowed Harry to marry a C-list American actress and made her into an international celebrity. Then they send the pair off to North America to build her credibility. She runs for president, and voila! A family merger!
Naah. They can’t even organize well enough to keep Prince Andrew away from Jeffrey Epstein, after all, or from talking to the BBC about it.
The rumors of a 2024 run sound rather intriguing, though. Does that mean that Markle, her courtiers, and bookmakers think that Democrats will have an open primary that year? That would mean that they are planning around a second Trump term rather than a two-term Biden presidency, or Harris-Biden presidency.
Anyway, if Markle thinks that her celebrity translates to political support, she’s obviously spent too much time in the royal bubble. In the first place, the only two points for which Markle is known is for a short and middling acting career and then marrying into nobility. That makes Markle part of the weirdo soap opera of the British royal family that fascinates many Americans, not a part of the political firmament that they take seriously. Granted, Trump did a pretty good job translating celebrity to political support, but he also built a massive real-estate business for decades before going the reality-TV route. He didn’t just marry into wealth and A-list celebrity before turning his eyes toward the White House.
If Markle dips her toes into the 2024 water, she’d better be prepared. Not only will all of the weirdness surrounding the royal family get trotted out, but so will Markle’s rather famous stateside family dysfunctions, too. And even more than that, it seems:
😂😂 I have your high school receipts, Meghan. FYI https://t.co/TfldBEU0sb — Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) September 26, 2020
Have fun storming out of the castle!


hotair--2020-09-26--NASA astronaut's voting plan is out of this world

Why let a little detail like being more than 200 miles above earth interfere with exercising your right to vote ?
NASA astronaut Kate Rubins isn ’ t going to let a little thing like being at the International Space Station get in her way of voting in the election in November .
Right now Kate is in Star City , Russia preparing with two cosmonauts for a mid-October launch .
They will have a six-month stay at the International Space Station .
“ I think it ’ s really important for everybody to vote , ” Rubins said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ space , then I believe folks can do it from the ground , too.
” “ It ’ s critical to participate in our democracy , ” Rubins said .
“ We consider it an honor to be able to vote from space.
” NASA makes it easy for astronauts working in space to vote .
Most astronauts live in the Houston area .
A 1997 Texas law allows astronauts to vote from space using a secure electronic ballot .
The ballot is forwarded by Mission Control to the space station .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county clerk ’ s office .
This isn ’ t Rubins ’ first time to vote from space .
She cast an absentee ballot in the 2016 presidential election .
She and astronaut Shane Kimbrough voted from the International Space Station .
Kimbrough voted on Election Day .
Kimbrough arrived at the space station in mid-October that year .
He said at the time it would be special to say he voted from space .
By the time he ’ s back on Earth in February , America will have a new commander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much apolitical , ” he told reporters last month .
“ And I ’ ll be glad to welcome the new president , whoever that is.
” The previous U.S. space station resident , Kate Rubins , also cast an absentee ballot from up there , before returning to Earth a week ago , according to NASA .
Kate will be doing some important research at the space station for the scientific and medical communities .
Rubins , the first person to sequence DNA in space , plans to work on a cardiovascular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ station ’ s Cold Atom Lab .
While she ’ s there , she ’ ll celebrate the 20th anniversary of continuous human presence on the space station , and welcome the crew of the second SpaceX commercial crew mission , expected to arrive in late October .
According to her bio , Rubins was the 60th woman to fly in space when she launched on a Soyuz spacecraft to the International Space Station on July 7 , 2016 .
She returned to Earth on October 30 , 2016 , aboard a Soyuz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Expedition 48 and Expedition 49 of the International Space Station .
She is a molecular biologist .

Why let a little detail like being more than 200 miles above earth interfere with exercising your right to vote? NASA astronaut Kate Rubins isn’t going to let a little thing like being at the International Space Station get in her way of voting in the election in November.
Right now Kate is in Star City, Russia preparing with two cosmonauts for a mid-October launch. They will have a six-month stay at the International Space Station.
“I think it’s really important for everybody to vote,” Rubins said. “If we can do it from space, then I believe folks can do it from the ground, too.” “It’s critical to participate in our democracy,” Rubins said. “We consider it an honor to be able to vote from space.”
NASA makes it easy for astronauts working in space to vote. Most astronauts live in the Houston area. A 1997 Texas law allows astronauts to vote from space using a secure electronic ballot. The ballot is forwarded by Mission Control to the space station. Then the completed ballot is relayed to the county clerk’s office. This isn’t Rubins’ first time to vote from space. She cast an absentee ballot in the 2016 presidential election. She and astronaut Shane Kimbrough voted from the International Space Station. Kimbrough voted on Election Day. Kimbrough arrived at the space station in mid-October that year. He said at the time it would be special to say he voted from space.
By the time he’s back on Earth in February, America will have a new commander in chief. Astronauts are “pretty much apolitical,” he told reporters last month. “And I’ll be glad to welcome the new president, whoever that is.” The previous U.S. space station resident, Kate Rubins, also cast an absentee ballot from up there, before returning to Earth a week ago, according to NASA.
Kate will be doing some important research at the space station for the scientific and medical communities.
Rubins, the first person to sequence DNA in space, plans to work on a cardiovascular experiment and conduct research using the space station’s Cold Atom Lab. While she’s there, she’ll celebrate the 20th anniversary of continuous human presence on the space station, and welcome the crew of the second SpaceX commercial crew mission, expected to arrive in late October.
According to her bio, Rubins was the 60th woman to fly in space when she launched on a Soyuz spacecraft to the International Space Station on July 7, 2016. She returned to Earth on October 30, 2016, aboard a Soyuz. She was a crew member of Expedition 48 and Expedition 49 of the International Space Station. She is a molecular biologist.


hotair--2020-09-26--NYT: Maybe a little anti-Catholicism is a good thing when it comes to Barrett

Just hours before Donald Trump will presumably announce his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , the New York Times pushed out this attempt to rehab attacks on Barrett over her Catholic faith .
Give Elizabeth Bruenig this much credit — she manages to front-load the debunking of attacks on Barrett over the false People of Praise/ ” Handmaid ’ s Tale ” connection .
Dianne Feinstein ’ s comment , “ the dogma lives loudly within you , and that ’ s of concern , ” is called infamous .
However , all that is mere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game in a confirmation hearing , because of its “ fundamental conflict ” with “ the American ethos ” : But the animosity faced by Catholics in today ’ s America has little in common with its direct predecessor .
Real sex-abuse scandals have replaced the imaginary ones circulated in the lurid tracts of yesteryear .
White Catholics are no longer subject to the religious bigotry that once animated vicious rumors and , occasionally , violent attacks on Catholics and their places of learning and worship .
Rather than regenerating a long-vanquished prejudice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merely renewed attention to a fundamental conflict , centuries underway , between Catholicism and the American ethos .
… Roman Catholicism does not readily distinguish between public and private moral obligations .
In the thought of John Locke , one of liberalism ’ s earliest architects , willingness to make that distinction was critical to participation in a tolerant society .
“ Basically , ” the political theorist Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote in a 1999 essay , “ Locke drew up a strong civic map with religion within one sphere and government in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizen of each so long as that citizen never attempted to merge and blend the two.
” Locke notably excluded Catholics from the religions meriting toleration because he suspected they could not be trusted to leave their faith in the appropriate sphere .
Locke ’ s concern was not entirely baseless .
I ’ ll say it wasn ’ t , but not in the way Bruenig assumes .
Locke lived and worked in a society which actively barred Catholics from openly practicing their faith privately or publicly , and which excluded them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholics couldn ’ t even vote , let alone be elected to Parliament , and were barred from many professions .
All due respect to Locke ’ s status as a philosophical giant , but in his time and place it was the Protestants that had a tough time being able to “ leave their faith in the appropriate sphere.
” In fact , the liberals in Great Britain wouldn ’ t begin to rectify their anti-Catholic bigotry until well after a century had passed after Locke ’ s death , and decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious expression for all faiths .
Locke ’ s exclusion is a reflection of the bigotry and political animus of his time , not exactly a commendable quality , but one that Bruenig for some reason embraces .
Bruenig ’ s arguments suffer in the particulars , not just philosophically .
She criticizes Catholics for their resort to the courts to carve out exceptions to regulations : But Catholic institutions are another story : It is in their fortunes that Locke ’ s suspicions have proven most prescient .
Roman Catholic schools have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employment statutes , scoring a win in a case argued before the Supreme Court as recently as this summer .
Catholic hospitals have found themselves embroiled in court battles for refusing to perform or even discuss abortions , regardless of state or federal law .
And , perhaps most famously , the Little Sisters of the Poor , an order of Catholic nuns that operates nursing homes for low-income seniors , fought the Affordable Care Act ’ s contraception mandate all the way to the Supreme Court , and won .
In each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exemptions to various laws , citing the First Amendment .
Ahem .
Bruenig seems unaware that Catholics are hardly alone in any of these issues .
The most significant Supreme Court case on ministerial exceptions for church institutions was Hosanna Tabor , a 9-0 decision on behalf of a Lutheran school , not a Catholic school , and also on the basis of the First Amendment .
Likewise , the Supreme Court and lower courts have decided against the HHS contraception mandate on behalf of non-Catholic churches as well as private business owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sisters of the Poor .
Hobby Lobby involved evangelical business owners , not Catholics .
Masterpiece Cakeshop didn ’ t involve Catholics , either .
Bruenig also glosses over the core issue in Espinoza too , which was Montana ’ s Blaine amendment — an amendment that sprang from direct , explicit anti-Catholicism in the 19th century , and which exists in 37 state constitutions .
In short , Bruenig accidentally demonstrates an animus , if not a bigotry , that goes beyond Catholicism .
It extends to all Christians by her own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems unaware of it , and truly to all faith .
She sees the Lockean formula as one that keeps faith out of the public square altogether : That concept of “ spheres ” was specifically rejected by the framers of the Constitution — men who descended either directly or culturally from heterodox faith communities and knew the isolation created by government exclusion that resulted from it .
They saw the Lockean sphere issue quite differently : the sphere should restrain government from interfering in religious expression , not the other way around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to carefully delineate the jurisdiction and power of government to keep it from trampling on areas of religious expression , and then to guarantee the latter explicitly .
A properly constituted government would therefore not care whether someone was Catholic or Protestant , because such a government would not intrude on their religious expression either privately or publicly and not create the conflicts in the first place .
Bruenig and the NYT wants to rehabilitate anti-Catholic bigotry to damage Barrett ’ s nomination , but more broadly they want to promote anti-religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominance .
The founders understood the consequences of that better than Bruenig does .
Correction : I misspelled Elizabeth Bruenig ’ s name throughout this piece as “ Breunig ” on original publication .
I apologize to Ms. Bruenig and readers for that error .

Just hours before Donald Trump will presumably announce his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the New York Times pushed out this attempt to rehab attacks on Barrett over her Catholic faith. Give Elizabeth Bruenig this much credit — she manages to front-load the debunking of attacks on Barrett over the false People of Praise/”Handmaid’s Tale” connection. Dianne Feinstein’s comment, “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern,” is called infamous.
However, all that is mere predicate to declare attacks on Catholicism fair game in a confirmation hearing, because of its “fundamental conflict” with “the American ethos”:
But the animosity faced by Catholics in today’s America has little in common with its direct predecessor. Real sex-abuse scandals have replaced the imaginary ones circulated in the lurid tracts of yesteryear. White Catholics are no longer subject to the religious bigotry that once animated vicious rumors and, occasionally, violent attacks on Catholics and their places of learning and worship. Rather than regenerating a long-vanquished prejudice, Ms. Barrett’s nomination has merely renewed attention to a fundamental conflict, centuries underway, between Catholicism and the American ethos. … Roman Catholicism does not readily distinguish between public and private moral obligations. In the thought of John Locke, one of liberalism’s earliest architects, willingness to make that distinction was critical to participation in a tolerant society. “Basically,” the political theorist Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote in a 1999 essay, “Locke drew up a strong civic map with religion within one sphere and government in another. A person could be a citizen of each so long as that citizen never attempted to merge and blend the two.” Locke notably excluded Catholics from the religions meriting toleration because he suspected they could not be trusted to leave their faith in the appropriate sphere. Locke’s concern was not entirely baseless.
I’ll say it wasn’t, but not in the way Bruenig assumes. Locke lived and worked in a society which actively barred Catholics from openly practicing their faith privately or publicly, and which excluded them from civil rights on that basis. Catholics couldn’t even vote, let alone be elected to Parliament, and were barred from many professions. All due respect to Locke’s status as a philosophical giant, but in his time and place it was the Protestants that had a tough time being able to “leave their faith in the appropriate sphere.” In fact, the liberals in Great Britain wouldn’t begin to rectify their anti-Catholic bigotry until well after a century had passed after Locke’s death, and decades after the United States guaranteed freedom of religious expression for all faiths. Locke’s exclusion is a reflection of the bigotry and political animus of his time, not exactly a commendable quality, but one that Bruenig for some reason embraces.
Bruenig’s arguments suffer in the particulars, not just philosophically. She criticizes Catholics for their resort to the courts to carve out exceptions to regulations:
But Catholic institutions are another story: It is in their fortunes that Locke’s suspicions have proven most prescient. Roman Catholic schools have warred bitterly over their exemption from anti-discrimination employment statutes, scoring a win in a case argued before the Supreme Court as recently as this summer. Catholic hospitals have found themselves embroiled in court battles for refusing to perform or even discuss abortions, regardless of state or federal law. And, perhaps most famously, the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that operates nursing homes for low-income seniors, fought the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate all the way to the Supreme Court, and won. In each case, Catholic institutions have asked for exemptions to various laws, citing the First Amendment.
Ahem. Bruenig seems unaware that Catholics are hardly alone in any of these issues. The most significant Supreme Court case on ministerial exceptions for church institutions was Hosanna Tabor, a 9-0 decision on behalf of a Lutheran school, not a Catholic school, and also on the basis of the First Amendment. Likewise, the Supreme Court and lower courts have decided against the HHS contraception mandate on behalf of non-Catholic churches as well as private business owners prior to their latest ruling on Little Sisters of the Poor. Hobby Lobby involved evangelical business owners, not Catholics. Masterpiece Cakeshop didn’t involve Catholics, either. Bruenig also glosses over the core issue in Espinoza too, which was Montana’s Blaine amendment — an amendment that sprang from direct, explicit anti-Catholicism in the 19th century, and which exists in 37 state constitutions.
In short, Bruenig accidentally demonstrates an animus, if not a bigotry, that goes beyond Catholicism. It extends to all Christians by her own use of examples, even if Bruenig seems unaware of it, and truly to all faith. She sees the Lockean formula as one that keeps faith out of the public square altogether:
Generally, contemporary American Catholics aren’t particularly beholden to the church; as I wrote recently, the logic of partisanship has replaced the moral primacy of the faith. That means that, for most Catholics, their religious beliefs never clash with their civic interests in a disruptive way.
That concept of “spheres” was specifically rejected by the framers of the Constitution — men who descended either directly or culturally from heterodox faith communities and knew the isolation created by government exclusion that resulted from it. They saw the Lockean sphere issue quite differently: the sphere should restrain government from interfering in religious expression, not the other way around. The proper way to do that was to carefully delineate the jurisdiction and power of government to keep it from trampling on areas of religious expression, and then to guarantee the latter explicitly. A properly constituted government would therefore not care whether someone was Catholic or Protestant, because such a government would not intrude on their religious expression either privately or publicly and not create the conflicts in the first place.
Bruenig and the NYT wants to rehabilitate anti-Catholic bigotry to damage Barrett’s nomination, but more broadly they want to promote anti-religious bigotry to clear the way for government dominance. The founders understood the consequences of that better than Bruenig does.
Correction: I misspelled Elizabeth Bruenig’s name throughout this piece as “Breunig” on original publication. I apologize to Ms. Bruenig and readers for that error.


hotair--2020-09-26--Judge blocks removal of straight ticket voting in Texas, throws last minute chaos to election offici

Judge blocks removal of straight ticket voting in Texas, throws last minute chaos to election officials

This was to be the first presidential election without the option for voters to cast a straight-ticket ballot in Texas .
During the 2017 legislative session , the Texas legislature ended straight-ticket voting .
A last-minute amendment to the legislation delayed its implementation until this year ’ s general election .
Late Friday , U.S. District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo threw another wrench into the plan .
It ’ s less than three weeks until early voting begins in Texas .
Ballots are already in the mail for those who are voting by mail .
Some eager voters have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This last-minute change puts an unexpected burden on local and state election officials .
Voting machines will have to be recalibrated and ballots will have to be reprinted .
Judge Marmolejo doesn ’ t care about all that .
There ’ s a coronavirus out there , you know , and Democrats are using it to their advantage .
The judge says eliminating straight-ticket voting during a pandemic will slow voting down and increase lines of voters waiting to cast a ballot .
Therefore , the risk of catching the virus increases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new law would “ impose a discriminatory burden ” on black and Hispanic voters and “ create comparatively less opportunities for these voters to participate in the political process.
” So , not only will the law make voters actually think before voting in an election instead of just pulling a lever for straight-ticket voting but it ’ s too much of a burden for minority voters to figure out which candidates they support .
This ruling reads as though the judge – an Obama appointee and a naturalized citizen herself – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I single out Democrat voters because the Democrat Party thinks eliminating straight-ticket voting benefits Republican voters .
Democrats even sued to get straight-ticket voting back but lost in court .
Until Friday .
The Texas Association for Retired Americans , a group named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit , would be endangered without straight-ticket voting so concern for their health “ outweighed by the inconveniences resulting.
” Make no mistake , this is a biased political judgement .
Republicans want to encourage voters to make informed decisions about candidates instead of just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the ballot .
The Texas Legislature is Republican-controlled .
Most states don ’ t even allow straight-ticket voting .
Texas Democrats claim it helps Democrat voters .
Most states don ’ t allow for one-punch voting , but its elimination in Texas met intense opposition from Democrats , who fear the change will be most felt among voters of color and lead to voter drop-off , particularly in blue urban counties that have the longest ballots in the state .
In Harris County , for example , ballots can go on for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district judges and other local officials up for election .
Democrats worried that having to vote on each individual race would slow people down , causing longer lines at the polls .
Over the past four presidential elections , one-punch voting has generally proved more popular among Democrats in Texas ’ 10 largest counties .
About two-thirds of people who voted in Texas in the 2018 general election used the straight-ticket option .
Talk about low expectations .
Democrats sure don ’ t think too highly of their voters .
When Democrats first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March , Judge Marmolejo dismissed the case .
Another lawsuit was filed by the state Democrat Party but they dropped out of the lawsuit when the Texas Association for Retired Americans joined as plaintiffs .
The judge knew that overruling the new law was wrong .
Yet , now she has and is blaming the coronavirus .
Democrat leadership is cheering , anticipating victories in November down-ballot as they experienced in 2018 .
Harris County ( Houston ) , for example , turned solid blue for the first time .
Texans have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the general election .
“ Time and time again Republican leadership has tried to make it harder to vote and time and time again federal courts strike it down , ” Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa said in a statement after the ruling .
“ Texas Democrats will have to continue to win at the ballot box to protect the right vote .
Until the new Texas majority wipes out these out-of-touch Republicans , Texas Democrats will never stop fighting for Texans in court.
” Multiple voting cases have ended up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the coronavirus pandemic began .
Democrats sued to expand eligibility for mail-in voting , but those attempts have failed so far .
Meanwhile , in July , Gov .
Greg Abbott added six days to the early voting period , moving the start date up to Oct. 13 from Oct. 19 , citing the contagion .
He is facing a lawsuit over the extension from members of his own party .
The constant claims from Democrats that voting is made too difficult in Texas is malarkey .
This year , because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded to the longest period there has ever been .
The number of voting locations across the state has tripled .
Huge sports stadiums are being turned into voting centers .
This latest ruling by a Democrat appointee is being made to favor Democrats in a year where the hopes of Texas Democrats are high that they will finally turn Texas blue again , after more than two decades of Republicans holding all statewide offices .
They expect Democrat voters to pull the lever for Biden and vote all the way down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ ll see if Republicans appeal this ruling .
President Trump will win Texas in November .
Biden and the Democrats may make continued inroads into turning Texas purple but it won ’ t be a blue state on November 4 .
The real push by Democrats this election is to turn over the Texas Legislature to the Democrat control .
Straight-ticket voting will help them with that goal but there is no certainty they will be successful with that this year .

This was to be the first presidential election without the option for voters to cast a straight-ticket ballot in Texas. During the 2017 legislative session, the Texas legislature ended straight-ticket voting. A last-minute amendment to the legislation delayed its implementation until this year’s general election. Late Friday, U.S. District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo threw another wrench into the plan.
It’s less than three weeks until early voting begins in Texas. Ballots are already in the mail for those who are voting by mail. Some eager voters have already returned their ballots, votes cast. This last-minute change puts an unexpected burden on local and state election officials. Voting machines will have to be recalibrated and ballots will have to be reprinted. Judge Marmolejo doesn’t care about all that. There’s a coronavirus out there, you know, and Democrats are using it to their advantage. The judge says eliminating straight-ticket voting during a pandemic will slow voting down and increase lines of voters waiting to cast a ballot. Therefore, the risk of catching the virus increases, she reasons.
She also noted that the new law would “impose a discriminatory burden” on black and Hispanic voters and “create comparatively less opportunities for these voters to participate in the political process.” So, not only will the law make voters actually think before voting in an election instead of just pulling a lever for straight-ticket voting but it’s too much of a burden for minority voters to figure out which candidates they support. This ruling reads as though the judge – an Obama appointee and a naturalized citizen herself – thinks Democrat voters are slow and stupid. I single out Democrat voters because the Democrat Party thinks eliminating straight-ticket voting benefits Republican voters. Democrats even sued to get straight-ticket voting back but lost in court. Until Friday.
The Texas Association for Retired Americans, a group named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, would be endangered without straight-ticket voting so concern for their health “outweighed by the inconveniences resulting.” Make no mistake, this is a biased political judgement. Republicans want to encourage voters to make informed decisions about candidates instead of just mindlessly pulling a lever for one party down the ballot. The Texas Legislature is Republican-controlled. Most states don’t even allow straight-ticket voting. Texas Democrats claim it helps Democrat voters.
Most states don’t allow for one-punch voting, but its elimination in Texas met intense opposition from Democrats, who fear the change will be most felt among voters of color and lead to voter drop-off, particularly in blue urban counties that have the longest ballots in the state. In Harris County, for example, ballots can go on for pages because of the number of state district judges and other local officials up for election. Democrats worried that having to vote on each individual race would slow people down, causing longer lines at the polls. Over the past four presidential elections, one-punch voting has generally proved more popular among Democrats in Texas’ 10 largest counties. About two-thirds of people who voted in Texas in the 2018 general election used the straight-ticket option.
Talk about low expectations. Democrats sure don’t think too highly of their voters. When Democrats first sued to bring back straight-ticket voting last March, Judge Marmolejo dismissed the case. Another lawsuit was filed by the state Democrat Party but they dropped out of the lawsuit when the Texas Association for Retired Americans joined as plaintiffs. The judge knew that overruling the new law was wrong. Yet, now she has and is blaming the coronavirus. Democrat leadership is cheering, anticipating victories in November down-ballot as they experienced in 2018. Harris County (Houston), for example, turned solid blue for the first time. Texans have been keeping track of multiple lawsuits this year over the general election.
“Time and time again Republican leadership has tried to make it harder to vote and time and time again federal courts strike it down,” Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa said in a statement after the ruling. “Texas Democrats will have to continue to win at the ballot box to protect the right vote. Until the new Texas majority wipes out these out-of-touch Republicans, Texas Democrats will never stop fighting for Texans in court.” Multiple voting cases have ended up in court in Texas in the months since the coronavirus pandemic began. Democrats sued to expand eligibility for mail-in voting, but those attempts have failed so far. Meanwhile, in July, Gov. Greg Abbott added six days to the early voting period, moving the start date up to Oct. 13 from Oct. 19, citing the contagion. He is facing a lawsuit over the extension from members of his own party.
The constant claims from Democrats that voting is made too difficult in Texas is malarkey. This year, because of the coronavirus, early voting has been expanded to the longest period there has ever been. The number of voting locations across the state has tripled. Huge sports stadiums are being turned into voting centers. This latest ruling by a Democrat appointee is being made to favor Democrats in a year where the hopes of Texas Democrats are high that they will finally turn Texas blue again, after more than two decades of Republicans holding all statewide offices. They expect Democrat voters to pull the lever for Biden and vote all the way down the ballot for Democrats with a single motion.
We’ll see if Republicans appeal this ruling. President Trump will win Texas in November. Biden and the Democrats may make continued inroads into turning Texas purple but it won’t be a blue state on November 4. The real push by Democrats this election is to turn over the Texas Legislature to the Democrat control. Straight-ticket voting will help them with that goal but there is no certainty they will be successful with that this year.


hotair--2020-09-27--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

In a normal year the Sunday shows would be chest-deep in election politics this morning .
In 2020 they ’ re forced to juggle the election , a global pandemic , economic stimulus from Congress to relieve massive unemployment , the president of the United States refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power , and — oh , right — Ruth Bader Ginsburg being replaced by a justice who might well be the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and ObamaCare .
Amy Coney Barrett ’ s SCOTUS nomination is the lead topic , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to preview the coming confirmation battle .
( Which won ’ t be much of a battle .
The result is a fait accompli . )
For the GOP it ’ ll be Mike Lee on “ This Week , ” Tom Cotton on “ State of the Union , ” and John Kennedy on “ Fox News Sunday.
” No Lindsey Graham , oddly enough , even though he ’ s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and needs earned media to compete in his South Carolina Senate race .
For Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Meet the Press , ” Dick Durbin on “ This Week , ” Biden pal Chris Coons on “ Face the Nation , ” and Joe Manchin on “ State of the Union.
” Manchin ’ s the most noteworthy guest , as he ’ s perpetually caught in the middle in SCOTUS battles due to his unusual role as a Democrat representing a very red state .
Party loyalty will require him to vote against Barrett , I suspect , knowing that her confirmation is assured anyway .
But electoral reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he won ’ t support Court-packing or ending the filibuster next year if Dems end up with a Senate majority .
Each senator will also be quizzed about Trump ’ s attempts to undermine confidence in the election , starting with his ambivalence about transferring power .
Expect GOPers to reassure the hosts they should take him neither seriously nor literally ( “ Trump says a lot of stuff ” ) even though they ’ ll all dutifully go along with whatever he ends up doing in November .
Nancy Pelosi is on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Union ” to continue her PR effort on behalf of the Democrats ’ stimulus plan and to comment on matters various and sundry .
And look out for Mark Meadows , as he ’ s in the thick of two important developments this week .
One is Trump ’ s new plan to send $ 200 gift cards to seniors before the election to help pay for prescription drugs ; Meadows reportedly spearheaded that effort despite his previous history as a devout fiscal hawk .
He ’ s also at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push to stop the FDA from slowing down the vaccine approval process to make sure that whatever ends up being approved really is rock-solid in safety and efficacy .
He ’ ll be on “ Face the Nation ” to explain why Trump ’ s electoral interests are apparently more important than making sure the vaccine works .
The full line-up is at the AP .

In a normal year the Sunday shows would be chest-deep in election politics this morning. In 2020 they’re forced to juggle the election, a global pandemic, economic stimulus from Congress to relieve massive unemployment, the president of the United States refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, and — oh, right — Ruth Bader Ginsburg being replaced by a justice who might well be the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and ObamaCare.
Lot on the plate today.
Amy Coney Barrett’s SCOTUS nomination is the lead topic, of course, with an array of senators lined up to preview the coming confirmation battle. (Which won’t be much of a battle. The result is a fait accompli.) For the GOP it’ll be Mike Lee on “This Week,” Tom Cotton on “State of the Union,” and John Kennedy on “Fox News Sunday.” No Lindsey Graham, oddly enough, even though he’s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and needs earned media to compete in his South Carolina Senate race. For Democrats it’ll be Cory Booker on “Meet the Press,” Dick Durbin on “This Week,” Biden pal Chris Coons on “Face the Nation,” and Joe Manchin on “State of the Union.” Manchin’s the most noteworthy guest, as he’s perpetually caught in the middle in SCOTUS battles due to his unusual role as a Democrat representing a very red state. Party loyalty will require him to vote against Barrett, I suspect, knowing that her confirmation is assured anyway. But electoral reality will also force him to reiterate that he won’t support Court-packing or ending the filibuster next year if Dems end up with a Senate majority.
Each senator will also be quizzed about Trump’s attempts to undermine confidence in the election, starting with his ambivalence about transferring power. Expect GOPers to reassure the hosts they should take him neither seriously nor literally (“Trump says a lot of stuff”) even though they’ll all dutifully go along with whatever he ends up doing in November.
Nancy Pelosi is on today too, stopping by “State of the Union” to continue her PR effort on behalf of the Democrats’ stimulus plan and to comment on matters various and sundry. And look out for Mark Meadows, as he’s in the thick of two important developments this week. One is Trump’s new plan to send $200 gift cards to seniors before the election to help pay for prescription drugs; Meadows reportedly spearheaded that effort despite his previous history as a devout fiscal hawk. He’s also at the heart of the White House’s push to stop the FDA from slowing down the vaccine approval process to make sure that whatever ends up being approved really is rock-solid in safety and efficacy. He’ll be on “Face the Nation” to explain why Trump’s electoral interests are apparently more important than making sure the vaccine works. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-09-27--Lindsey Graham confirms start date of Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation process

Senator Lindsey Graham is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee so he is setting the timeline for Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation .
He confirmed the starting date of October 12 during an interview on FNC Saturday .
By Sunday morning , he elaborated on how the process will proceed .
On FBN ’ s Sunday Morning Futures , said more than half of Supreme Court nominees have had hearings done within 16 days or less so that works out to Oct. 12 .
He ’ ll be able to hand ACB ’ s nomination off to Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planned .
“ We ’ ll have a day of introduction .
We ’ ll have two days of questioning , Tuesday and Wednesday , and on [ Oct. 15 ] we ’ ll begin the markup.
” “ We ’ ll hold it over for a week , and we ’ ll report her nomination out of the committee on Oct. 22 , ” he continued .
“ Then it will be up to Sen. [ Mitch ] McConnell as to what to do with the nomination once it comes out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the political atmosphere in 2020 is nowhere near reasonable .
Senator Dick Durbin was asked Sunday if Democrats can slow down the process by denying unanimous consent to meet and holding a series of quorum calls .
That was the suggestion from Adam Jentleson , deputy chief of staff for former Sen. Harry Reid .
ABC ’ s George Stephanopoulos , former Clinton staffer , asked if that was enough to throw a wrench in the Republicans ’ plan .
Nah , said Durbin .
Durbin , believe it or not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the process should be , too .
Democrats have no “ procedural silver bullet ” .
“ I know Adam .
I like Adam and respect him , but he ’ s wrong , ” the Illinois senator responded .
“ We could slow it down perhaps a matter of hours , maybe days at the most , but we can ’ t stop the outcome , ” he added .
“ What we should do is to address this now respectfully.
” Durbin said his caucus has “ no procedural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle beyond the election .
“ That ’ s true , ” the Senate Democratic Whip told Stephanopoulos , adding that if two GOP senators beyond Sens .
Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) and Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) decide against confirming Barrett ahead of the election , “ then we could have a different timing , perhaps a different outcome.
” It should be no surprise that that advice came from a former Harry Reid staffer .
Reid was notoriously vicious in political battles – remember , he said on the floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t pay taxes then laughed about his lie afterward saying , “ It worked.
” He didn ’ t care about truthfulness during the 2012 presidential election as long as his lies got to voters and they believed his outlandish claims .
Reid is responsible for doing away with the filibuster in the Senate , mostly to ram through the House ’ s Obamacare legislation .
But it ’ s President Trump who is killing civility and tradition in politics , right ?
Durbin even said he will meet with Amy Coney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a matter of respect , he said .
This is the kind of magnanimous behavior we are not accustomed to seeing from Durbin .
Jen Rubin , columnist for the Washington Post who was once the newspaper ’ s token conservative , wasn ’ t happy with Durbin ’ s answer .
Meanwhile , Joe Biden was able to get out of bed and get dressed to show up and make a statement on Trump ’ s Supreme Court nomination .
In a rare press conference appearance , he proceeded to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RBG and how evil Trump is for moving forward , doing his constitutional duty .
He went too far , as he always does , and came forth with a list of horrible things that will happen to Americans should ACB become the ninth justice .
He mentioned that if he wins the election , the nominee ’ s name should be withdrawn and he should be able to pick his own nominee .
If Republicans have their way , ACB will be confirmed before Election Day and Joe will just have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duty .
Look at the crazy assertions Biden makes .
He ’ s the one who is supposed to be able to unite the country .
If he couldn ’ t do it in 47 years , why believe he can do it now ?
We don ’ t need to go back to the status quo past .
The Obama-Biden administration got us President Trump , after all .
As a final note , Biden only took three questions from the press after his speech about ACB .
Three questions .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s view for most of the month and only allows a few reporters into venues when he does come out of the basement for air .
The press is so in the tank for him , though , they just go along with his handlers keeping them at a distance .

Senator Lindsey Graham is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee so he is setting the timeline for Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation. He confirmed the starting date of October 12 during an interview on FNC Saturday. By Sunday morning, he elaborated on how the process will proceed.
On FBN’s Sunday Morning Futures, said more than half of Supreme Court nominees have had hearings done within 16 days or less so that works out to Oct. 12. He’ll be able to hand ACB’s nomination off to Mitch McConnell by October 22 if it goes as planned.
“We’ll have a day of introduction. We’ll have two days of questioning, Tuesday and Wednesday, and on [Oct. 15] we’ll begin the markup.” “We’ll hold it over for a week, and we’ll report her nomination out of the committee on Oct. 22,” he continued. “Then it will be up to Sen. [Mitch] McConnell as to what to do with the nomination once it comes out of committee.”
This sounds reasonable but we know the political atmosphere in 2020 is nowhere near reasonable. Senator Dick Durbin was asked Sunday if Democrats can slow down the process by denying unanimous consent to meet and holding a series of quorum calls. That was the suggestion from Adam Jentleson, deputy chief of staff for former Sen. Harry Reid. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton staffer, asked if that was enough to throw a wrench in the Republicans’ plan. Nah, said Durbin. Durbin, believe it or not, said the nominee should be treated respectfully, as the process should be, too. Democrats have no “procedural silver bullet”.
“I know Adam. I like Adam and respect him, but he’s wrong,” the Illinois senator responded. “We could slow it down perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most, but we can’t stop the outcome,” he added. “What we should do is to address this now respectfully.” Durbin said his caucus has “no procedural silver bullet” to delay the confirmation battle beyond the election. “That’s true,” the Senate Democratic Whip told Stephanopoulos, adding that if two GOP senators beyond Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) decide against confirming Barrett ahead of the election, “then we could have a different timing, perhaps a different outcome.”
NEW: Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin tells @GStephanopoulos that Senate Democrats can “slow” the process of confirming Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most, but we can’t stop the outcome.” https://t.co/zTNMzk2uyg pic.twitter.com/mA8TYkY9Df — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) September 27, 2020
It should be no surprise that that advice came from a former Harry Reid staffer. Reid was notoriously vicious in political battles – remember, he said on the floor of the Senate that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes then laughed about his lie afterward saying, “It worked.” He didn’t care about truthfulness during the 2012 presidential election as long as his lies got to voters and they believed his outlandish claims. Reid is responsible for doing away with the filibuster in the Senate, mostly to ram through the House’s Obamacare legislation. But it’s President Trump who is killing civility and tradition in politics, right?
Durbin even said he will meet with Amy Coney Barrett before the confirmation hearing. It’s a matter of respect, he said. This is the kind of magnanimous behavior we are not accustomed to seeing from Durbin.
When asked whether he would meet with Barrett, Durbin said he will “extend that courtesy, if she requests it, for at least a socially distanced, safe meeting, perhaps over the phone.” “I want to be respectful,” he said. “We disagree on some things. And in terms of participating in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I’ll be there to do my job.”
Jen Rubin, columnist for the Washington Post who was once the newspaper’s token conservative, wasn’t happy with Durbin’s answer.
Dems, do better. — Jennifer 'pro-reality' Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) September 27, 2020
Meanwhile, Joe Biden was able to get out of bed and get dressed to show up and make a statement on Trump’s Supreme Court nomination. In a rare press conference appearance, he proceeded to ramble on about the Supreme Court and RBG and how evil Trump is for moving forward, doing his constitutional duty. He went too far, as he always does, and came forth with a list of horrible things that will happen to Americans should ACB become the ninth justice.
Joe Biden on selection of Amy Coney Barrett: "The American people understand the urgency of this moment… They understand that if Donald Trump gets his way — they could lose their right to vote, their right to clean air and water, their right to equal pay." pic.twitter.com/UCXf2To3bG — The Hill (@thehill) September 27, 2020
He mentioned that if he wins the election, the nominee’s name should be withdrawn and he should be able to pick his own nominee. If Republicans have their way, ACB will be confirmed before Election Day and Joe will just have to live with the president doing his constitutional duty. Look at the crazy assertions Biden makes. He’s the one who is supposed to be able to unite the country. If he couldn’t do it in 47 years, why believe he can do it now? We don’t need to go back to the status quo past. The Obama-Biden administration got us President Trump, after all.
As a final note, Biden only took three questions from the press after his speech about ACB. Three questions. He’s been absent from the public’s view for most of the month and only allows a few reporters into venues when he does come out of the basement for air. The press is so in the tank for him, though, they just go along with his handlers keeping them at a distance.


hotair--2020-09-27--NYT: Minneapolis city council's abolish-the-police mission has "collapsed"

This outcome was entirely predictable , and for many who live in Minneapolis , a huge relief as well .
The New York Times describes the collapse of the abolish-the-police mission by the city “ a case study in how idealistic calls for structural change can falter.
” It ’ s better described as yet another reminder that sloganeering doesn ’ t replace actual governance , and what happens when politicians react to activists rather than talk to their own constituents : Over three months ago , a majority of the Minneapolis City Council pledged to defund the city ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement that reverberated across the country .
It shook up Capitol Hill and the presidential race , shocked residents , delighted activists and changed the trajectory of efforts to overhaul the police during a crucial window of tumult and political opportunity .
Now some council members would like a do-over .
Councilor Andrew Johnson , one of the nine members who supported the pledge in June , said in an interview that he meant the words “ in spirit , ” not by the letter .
Another councilor , Phillipe Cunningham , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ up for interpretation ” and that even among council members soon after the promise was made , “ it was very clear that most of us had interpreted that language differently.
” Lisa Bender , the council president , paused for 16 seconds when asked if the council ’ s statement had led to uncertainty at a pivotal moment for the city .
“ I think our pledge created confusion in the community and in our wards , ” she said .
Oh , come on .
That ’ s a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in creating that “ confusion.
” Almost four months earlier , Bender publicly advocated for “ dismantling ” the police .
Bender went on CNN to accuse people who called police over property crimes as operating from “ privilege.
” She also challenged others who might quail at the abolition effort to “ stick with it ” to “ dismantle white supremacy in all systems ” : The pledge didn ’ t create confusion ; Bender and her police-abolition advocates made their mission very clear .
What caused the confusion — to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that Bender and the council never came up with a plan to eliminate the MPD .
In the above video from the first week of June , Bender even claimed that they had already laid the groundwork for it .
And yet , nearly four months later , the council has yet to even put forward a skeleton of a plan , even as they demanded to have a charter amendment placed on the ballot to remove the requirement to field a police department .
Shortly after Bender ’ s CNN interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homicides — skyrocketed .
The city ’ s response to that was a letter asking citizens to be more compliant with the criminals .
Business owners began relocating out of the city .
Outraged residents , including prominent black leaders in the city , began demanding more police resources and complained that city council leaders never bothered to ask them in the first place about police abolition .
It got so bad than Bender herself tried posing as a law-and-order politician , demanding to know from Chief Medaria Arradondo , “ Where are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much even for Bender ’ s ally on abolition , councillor Phillipe Cunningham : As the discussion about crime continued , Council Member Phillipe Cunningham pointed out that some of his colleagues appeared to be contradicting earlier statements in favor of ending the department .
“ What I am sort of flabbergasted by is … colleagues who a very short time ago who were calling for abolition , who are now suggesting that we should be putting more funding and resources into MPD , ” said Cunningham , whose ward includes North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardest hit by the recent violence .
“ We know that this is not producing different outcomes.
” Cunningham could have saved the shocked , shocked response .
The abolish-the-police project from the city council was all about political reaction and blame avoidance .
Bender argued for abolition on the basis that the council had put efforts into police reform for years without success , hoping that voters wouldn ’ t take the correct lesson from that — and kick all of them out of office in favor of people who would get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NYT laments this outcome as a lost opportunity : The regrets formalize a retreat that has quietly played out in Minneapolis in the months since George Floyd was killed by the police and the ensuing national uproar over the treatment of Black Americans by law enforcement and the country at large .
After a summer that challenged society ’ s commitment to racial equality and raised the prospect of sweeping political change , a cool autumn reality is settling in .
National polls show decreasing support for Black Lives Matter since a sea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Minneapolis , the most far-reaching policy efforts meant to address police violence have all but collapsed .
It was a lost opportunity , but not for BLM or police abolition , an utterly unworkable idea — and an unwanted idea in the neighborhoods that need law enforcement the most , as the council discovered .
No , it was a lost opportunity for actual police-reform groups that got sidelined by Bender ’ s grandstanding .
Now they ’ re also getting sidelined in the backlash to it : A group advocating for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city leaders and Mayor Jacob Frey of failing to be transparent in ongoing police contract talks after promising greater community involvement in the process .
The group , Minneapolis for a Better Police Contract , also accused Frey of failing to respond to recommendations the group put forward in a meeting at City Hall , arguing “ the contract is a needed vehicle to respond to the concerns the public has repeatedly raised about lack of police accountability.
” During a meeting , Frey staffers promised to open labor negotiations to the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizer .
“ I worry that we ’ re worse off than we were before the torture and murder of George Floyd , because of the hunkering down of the mayor , ” she said , adding Frey ’ s office had stopped responding to the group ’ s voice mails and e-mails .
“ Elected officials do not appreciate the pent-up anger , the generational anger — they ’ re just playing with people ’ s emotions and people ’ s lives.
” There are some legitimate concerns about accountability and cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the union .
Currently , the cost per police employee ( not just sworn officers ) is just over $ 180,000 per year , a cost that keeps the city from right-sizing its patrol force for proper community policing .
This problem goes back decades and involves more than just the police contracts , and it stems from public-employee union support for Democrats in local elections , who then have the authority to negotiate those contracts .
The solution would be to stop electing people beholden to the PEUs in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those negotiations .
Maybe in the next election , voters will take these issues seriously enough to stop electing clowns to the city council .

This outcome was entirely predictable, and for many who live in Minneapolis, a huge relief as well. The New York Times describes the collapse of the abolish-the-police mission by the city “a case study in how idealistic calls for structural change can falter.” It’s better described as yet another reminder that sloganeering doesn’t replace actual governance, and what happens when politicians react to activists rather than talk to their own constituents:
Over three months ago, a majority of the Minneapolis City Council pledged to defund the city’s police department, making a powerful statement that reverberated across the country. It shook up Capitol Hill and the presidential race, shocked residents, delighted activists and changed the trajectory of efforts to overhaul the police during a crucial window of tumult and political opportunity. Now some council members would like a do-over. Councilor Andrew Johnson, one of the nine members who supported the pledge in June, said in an interview that he meant the words “in spirit,” not by the letter. Another councilor, Phillipe Cunningham, said that the language in the pledge was “up for interpretation” and that even among council members soon after the promise was made, “it was very clear that most of us had interpreted that language differently.” Lisa Bender, the council president, paused for 16 seconds when asked if the council’s statement had led to uncertainty at a pivotal moment for the city. “I think our pledge created confusion in the community and in our wards,” she said.
Oh, come on. That’s a very passive-voice description of Bender’s own role in creating that “confusion.” Almost four months earlier, Bender publicly advocated for “dismantling” the police. Bender went on CNN to accuse people who called police over property crimes as operating from “privilege.” She also challenged others who might quail at the abolition effort to “stick with it” to “dismantle white supremacy in all systems”:
If you are a comfortable white person asking to dismantle the police I invite you to reflect: are you willing to stick with it? Will you be calling in three months to ask about garage break-ins? Are you willing to dismantle white supremacy in all systems, including a new system? — Lisa Bender (@lisabendermpls) June 3, 2020
The pledge didn’t create confusion; Bender and her police-abolition advocates made their mission very clear. What caused the confusion — to the extent that confusion actually exists — was that Bender and the council never came up with a plan to eliminate the MPD. In the above video from the first week of June, Bender even claimed that they had already laid the groundwork for it. And yet, nearly four months later, the council has yet to even put forward a skeleton of a plan, even as they demanded to have a charter amendment placed on the ballot to remove the requirement to field a police department.
Shortly after Bender’s CNN interview, crime — especially violent crime and homicides — skyrocketed. The city’s response to that was a letter asking citizens to be more compliant with the criminals. Business owners began relocating out of the city. Outraged residents, including prominent black leaders in the city, began demanding more police resources and complained that city council leaders never bothered to ask them in the first place about police abolition.
It got so bad than Bender herself tried posing as a law-and-order politician, demanding to know from Chief Medaria Arradondo, “Where are the police?” That hypocrisy was too much even for Bender’s ally on abolition, councillor Phillipe Cunningham:
As the discussion about crime continued, Council Member Phillipe Cunningham pointed out that some of his colleagues appeared to be contradicting earlier statements in favor of ending the department. “What I am sort of flabbergasted by is … colleagues who a very short time ago who were calling for abolition, who are now suggesting that we should be putting more funding and resources into MPD,” said Cunningham, whose ward includes North Side neighborhoods that have been among the hardest hit by the recent violence. “We know that this is not producing different outcomes.”
Cunningham could have saved the shocked, shocked response. The abolish-the-police project from the city council was all about political reaction and blame avoidance. Bender argued for abolition on the basis that the council had put efforts into police reform for years without success, hoping that voters wouldn’t take the correct lesson from that — and kick all of them out of office in favor of people who would get police reform and accountability correct.
The NYT laments this outcome as a lost opportunity:
The regrets formalize a retreat that has quietly played out in Minneapolis in the months since George Floyd was killed by the police and the ensuing national uproar over the treatment of Black Americans by law enforcement and the country at large. After a summer that challenged society’s commitment to racial equality and raised the prospect of sweeping political change, a cool autumn reality is settling in. National polls show decreasing support for Black Lives Matter since a sea change of good will in June. In Minneapolis, the most far-reaching policy efforts meant to address police violence have all but collapsed.
It was a lost opportunity, but not for BLM or police abolition, an utterly unworkable idea — and an unwanted idea in the neighborhoods that need law enforcement the most, as the council discovered. No, it was a lost opportunity for actual police-reform groups that got sidelined by Bender’s grandstanding. Now they’re also getting sidelined in the backlash to it:
A group advocating for police reform in Minneapolis has accused some city leaders and Mayor Jacob Frey of failing to be transparent in ongoing police contract talks after promising greater community involvement in the process. The group, Minneapolis for a Better Police Contract, also accused Frey of failing to respond to recommendations the group put forward in a meeting at City Hall, arguing “the contract is a needed vehicle to respond to the concerns the public has repeatedly raised about lack of police accountability.” During a meeting, Frey staffers promised to open labor negotiations to the public, according to Stacey Gurian-Sherman, an organizer. “I worry that we’re worse off than we were before the torture and murder of George Floyd, because of the hunkering down of the mayor,” she said, adding Frey’s office had stopped responding to the group’s voice mails and e-mails. “Elected officials do not appreciate the pent-up anger, the generational anger — they’re just playing with people’s emotions and people’s lives.”
There are some legitimate concerns about accountability and cost in relation to the contract between MPD and the union. Currently, the cost per police employee (not just sworn officers) is just over $180,000 per year, a cost that keeps the city from right-sizing its patrol force for proper community policing. This problem goes back decades and involves more than just the police contracts, and it stems from public-employee union support for Democrats in local elections, who then have the authority to negotiate those contracts. The solution would be to stop electing people beholden to the PEUs in order to get tough on behalf of taxpayers in those negotiations. Maybe in the next election, voters will take these issues seriously enough to stop electing clowns to the city council.