hotair--2020-12-10--106 House Republicans sign onto Texas's disgraceful election lawsuit because that's what being a goo

106 House Republicans sign onto Texas's disgraceful election lawsuit because that's what being a good Republican means now

I ’ m reading headlines today at liberal websites like “ The GOP Abandons Democracy ” and “ More Than Half of House Republicans Sign On to Trump ’ s Election Coup ” and feeling the old familiar urge to bristle with indignation .
Surely the left is once again demagoging some legitimate Republican project in hyperbolic scaremongering terms .
Liberal bias , plain as day .
It isn ’ t .
Those headlines are accurate .
The Republican Party , at least a substantial chunk of it , is now the sort of sinister caricature of itself that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hyperpartisanship it ’ s almost impossible to be as wretched and corrupt as your political enemies claim you are , but somehow they ’ ve done it .
More than half the House caucus has joined a lawsuit that would disenfranchise millions , cause an irreparable schism between U.S. states , install a disordered unelected demagogue in office for another four years , and obliterate whatever remaining institutional credibility the Supreme Court has .
These people would end the United States as we know it if they could .
The contempt expressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage isn ’ t half as acidic as it should be .
Still , I ’ m glad they made their position plain .
They ’ ve created a handy list going forward of people who should never hold elected office in this country again .
If I ’ m ever given the opportunity to vote for one , I ’ ll be sure to vote for their opponent .
Some of the names are predictable MAGA goons like Matt Gaetz but there are bona fide disappointments like Steve Scalise , Cathy McMorris-Rodgers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned Trump stooge Dan Crenshaw .
All are morally disqualified from holding positions of public trust .
It ’ s no comfort either that most , even all , know that the Texas suit is anti-democratic garbage that would make the country ungovernable and are supporting it in full confidence that it ’ s doomed to fail — that is , that this is an empty loyalty gesture aimed at Trump and his base .
That ’ s reason enough to never support them again .
Burning the American flag is a gesture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be unelectable in most parts of this country .
These cretins want to burn a lot more than that .
Un-American behavior has no place in American government .
“ Enemies of the people ” one might call them , to borrow one of the president ’ s favorite phrases .
As a Twitter pal says , anyone who ’ s willing to overturn an election on the flimsiest pretenses of fraud is willing to go much further .
They ’ re a menace to the country , nothing less .
Anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP is an autocracy now and they ’ re merely going along to get along in that system needs to explain why other congressional Republicans , including Ted Cruz ’ s former chief of staff , have kept their civic bearings here : Even Roy has to hedge his dissent with nonsense about Georgia ’ s outcome being in some doubt despite a full recount and a hand recount there .
But he at least grasps that letting Texas sue to invalidate another state ’ s election procedures would open the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other endlessly to try to compel them to follow the laws , customs , and procedures followed by their own states .
For that reason alone , SCOTUS will flush this idiotic complaint .
It ’ s not going to singlehandedly shift the United States from a federalist system to one where certain states get to impose their governing preferences on others with the Court ’ s blessing .
And if it did , Erick Erickson ’ s right about what would happen .
“ Wait for Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wait for progressive states to start suing conservative states over religious liberty , transgender rights , police brutality , tax policies that ‘ steal ’ residents of progressive states , etc.
” That ’ s one obvious reason why the House members who ’ ve signed on to the Texas suit aren ’ t taking it seriously — the discord it would unleash is apparent even to non-lawyers .
Another is the fact that every one of these 106 was on the same ballot on November 3 as Trump and Biden .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every member of the House elected last month in Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin can ’ t properly be seated in the next Congress because there ’ s no way to have confidence in the integrity of the ballots that handed them their victory .
The worst part of this , though , and the part for which they ’ ll be ultimately remembered is that they chose to egg Trump on at a moment when he inevitably began hinting that people should get hurt if he doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to escalate dramatically .
This is a very dangerous moment in our history.
” “ The public can ’ t take this anymore.
” He ’ s still dialing up state legislators to try to convince them to void their elections and execute a coup on his behalf in case his court challenges fail , which they will .
Anyone who pretends to care about the Founders and the Constitution , as all 106 of these frauds do , should grasp that if separation of powers means anything it means that when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to assert its power , the other branches have a duty to check it by asserting their own .
The Supreme Court will assert itself , possibly before the day is out .
The 106 House members who signed on here , to their lasting disgrace , decided to abet the mayhem and demagoguery instead .
Enemies of the people .
A stain on the Constitution of the United States .
Today ’ s roll call of shame might not be the last one .
New York magazine makes a good point about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ object to Congress ’ s official recording of the electoral college vote on January 6 .
If one member of the House and one member of the Senate object to the awarding of electors from a state , both houses of Congress then have to vote on how that state ’ s electors should be awarded .
( If they can ’ t agree then the results on election night hold , which means Biden ’ s sure to win anyway thanks to the Democratic majority in the House . )
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Senate may be forced to go on record in a floor vote and say whether they believe the votes in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Georgia or Arizona — or all of them — should go to Trump or Biden .
That ’ s McConnell ’ s worst nightmare , as it would force the swing-staters in his caucus into a high-stakes no-win choice .
The smart move would be for no one to object so that the floor vote doesn ’ t happen .
But this party is nothing more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a show of loyalty by insisting that the vote happen .
He ’ ll want to know who the “ traitors ” are , and his base will want to know too .
That ’ s what congressional Republicans deserve .
The only way this perverse fascist episode can end is with Ken Paxton , Texas ’ s AG , receiving a corrupt pardon from Trump as thanks for his role in bringing this lawsuit .
We ’ re well on our way .
I ’ ll leave you with this .

I’m reading headlines today at liberal websites like “The GOP Abandons Democracy” and “More Than Half of House Republicans Sign On to Trump’s Election Coup” and feeling the old familiar urge to bristle with indignation. Surely the left is once again demagoging some legitimate Republican project in hyperbolic scaremongering terms. Liberal bias, plain as day.
It isn’t. Those headlines are accurate. The Republican Party, at least a substantial chunk of it, is now the sort of sinister caricature of itself that a leftist might draw. In an age of hyperpartisanship it’s almost impossible to be as wretched and corrupt as your political enemies claim you are, but somehow they’ve done it. More than half the House caucus has joined a lawsuit that would disenfranchise millions, cause an irreparable schism between U.S. states, install a disordered unelected demagogue in office for another four years, and obliterate whatever remaining institutional credibility the Supreme Court has.
These people would end the United States as we know it if they could. The contempt expressed for them in the left’s coverage isn’t half as acidic as it should be.
Still, I’m glad they made their position plain. They’ve created a handy list going forward of people who should never hold elected office in this country again. If I’m ever given the opportunity to vote for one, I’ll be sure to vote for their opponent.
⚖JUST IN: New amicus brief from 106 Republican House members in support of Texas' bid to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's win in the Supreme Court. Here they are👇 pic.twitter.com/QLN4jDfoto — John Kruzel (@johnkruzel) December 10, 2020
Some of the names are predictable MAGA goons like Matt Gaetz but there are bona fide disappointments like Steve Scalise, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Elise Stefanik, and war hero turned Trump stooge Dan Crenshaw. All are morally disqualified from holding positions of public trust. It’s no comfort either that most, even all, know that the Texas suit is anti-democratic garbage that would make the country ungovernable and are supporting it in full confidence that it’s doomed to fail — that is, that this is an empty loyalty gesture aimed at Trump and his base.
That’s reason enough to never support them again. Burning the American flag is a gesture too but a politician who did it would be unelectable in most parts of this country. These cretins want to burn a lot more than that. Un-American behavior has no place in American government.
“Enemies of the people” one might call them, to borrow one of the president’s favorite phrases. As a Twitter pal says, anyone who’s willing to overturn an election on the flimsiest pretenses of fraud is willing to go much further. They’re a menace to the country, nothing less.
Anyone inclined to excuse them on grounds that the GOP is an autocracy now and they’re merely going along to get along in that system needs to explain why other congressional Republicans, including Ted Cruz’s former chief of staff, have kept their civic bearings here:
Today, a number of my colleagues will be filing an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit filed by the State of Texas regarding the election results of several other states. Respectfully, I will not join because I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation… (1/5) — Chip Roy (@chiproytx) December 10, 2020
…states increased the casting of illegal votes and undermine confidence in our elections. The American people are raising legitimate questions & they deserve answers. I strongly support the continued pursuit of litigation where most likely to succeed – such as Georgia… (3/5) — Chip Roy (@chiproytx) December 10, 2020
…sovereignty from the meddling of other states. Our remedy must be, from this day forward, to decline to allow the usurpation of our authority as people – through our states – to govern ourselves in all respects. #StandUpForAmerica #Federalism (5/5) — Chip Roy (@chiproytx) December 10, 2020
Even Roy has to hedge his dissent with nonsense about Georgia’s outcome being in some doubt despite a full recount and a hand recount there. But he at least grasps that letting Texas sue to invalidate another state’s election procedures would open the door to blue states and red ones suing each other endlessly to try to compel them to follow the laws, customs, and procedures followed by their own states. For that reason alone, SCOTUS will flush this idiotic complaint. It’s not going to singlehandedly shift the United States from a federalist system to one where certain states get to impose their governing preferences on others with the Court’s blessing.
And if it did, Erick Erickson’s right about what would happen. “Wait for Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo to give this precedent a whirl. Wait for progressive states to start suing conservative states over religious liberty, transgender rights, police brutality, tax policies that ‘steal’ residents of progressive states, etc.” That’s one obvious reason why the House members who’ve signed on to the Texas suit aren’t taking it seriously — the discord it would unleash is apparent even to non-lawyers. Another is the fact that every one of these 106 was on the same ballot on November 3 as Trump and Biden. If their suit prevails, at a minimum every member of the House elected last month in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin can’t properly be seated in the next Congress because there’s no way to have confidence in the integrity of the ballots that handed them their victory.
The worst part of this, though, and the part for which they’ll be ultimately remembered is that they chose to egg Trump on at a moment when he inevitably began hinting that people should get hurt if he doesn’t get his way:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337042714924380166
“This is going to escalate dramatically. This is a very dangerous moment in our history.” “The public can’t take this anymore.” He’s still dialing up state legislators to try to convince them to void their elections and execute a coup on his behalf in case his court challenges fail, which they will. Anyone who pretends to care about the Founders and the Constitution, as all 106 of these frauds do, should grasp that if separation of powers means anything it means that when one branch turns to demagoguery and mayhem to assert its power, the other branches have a duty to check it by asserting their own. The Supreme Court will assert itself, possibly before the day is out. The 106 House members who signed on here, to their lasting disgrace, decided to abet the mayhem and demagoguery instead.
Enemies of the people. A stain on the Constitution of the United States.
Today’s roll call of shame might not be the last one. New York magazine makes a good point about the Trumpist plan in the works to object to Congress’s official recording of the electoral college vote on January 6. If one member of the House and one member of the Senate object to the awarding of electors from a state, both houses of Congress then have to vote on how that state’s electors should be awarded. (If they can’t agree then the results on election night hold, which means Biden’s sure to win anyway thanks to the Democratic majority in the House.) In other words, every Republican in the House and Senate may be forced to go on record in a floor vote and say whether they believe the votes in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Georgia or Arizona — or all of them — should go to Trump or Biden. That’s McConnell’s worst nightmare, as it would force the swing-staters in his caucus into a high-stakes no-win choice.
The smart move would be for no one to object so that the floor vote doesn’t happen. But this party is nothing more than a loyalty cult now and Trump will demand a show of loyalty by insisting that the vote happen. He’ll want to know who the “traitors” are, and his base will want to know too. That’s what congressional Republicans deserve.
The only way this perverse fascist episode can end is with Ken Paxton, Texas’s AG, receiving a corrupt pardon from Trump as thanks for his role in bringing this lawsuit. We’re well on our way. I’ll leave you with this.


hotair--2020-12-10--Houston, we have a road rage shooting problem, Governor Abbott deploys DPS

Governor Abbott announced Wednesday that he is deploying resources from the Texas Department of Public Safety ( DPS ) to Houston .
This move is to support the Houston Police Department as it deals with a sharp rise in road rage shootings and other violent crimes .
The announcement from the governor ’ s office followed a news conference held the previous day by Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo .
Acevedo spoke about the new task force put in place to help combat road rage incidents on Houston ’ s streets and roadways .
The situation has gotten out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , according to preliminary crime analysis , there have been about 200 incidents in the first 10 months of this year that have ended with someone being shot on our roadways compared to 150 during the same period a year ago .
Six of the road rage incidents have led to murder , Acevedo said , including the case involving HPD Sgt .
Sean Rios .
Rios was shot to death in November during a gun battle in north Houston .
“ Anyone who thinks they can go out there and engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thinks they ’ re going to get away with it would be wrong , ” Acevedo said .
For such a big city ( 4th in the nation ) , Houston isn ’ t known as a violent city .
It ’ s not a perfect utopia but it is common for both residents and visitors to note that for its size and large population , Houston doesn ’ t seem to have problems with violence as many other cities do .
So , when there is a rise in crime , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticeable .
Houston does have a problem with gang-related violence due to the fact that so many gangs are found in Houston because of the city ’ s proximity to the Mexican border , but this is a different kind of problem .
Governor Greg Abbott today directed the Texas Department of Public Safety ( DPS ) to provide support to the Houston Police Department ( HPD ) in their efforts to address an alarming rise in road rage-related shootings in the city of Houston .
DPS will deploy marked and unmarked patrol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HPD .
Furthermore , Governor Abbott directed DPS to deploy multiple resources to support HPD and the Harris County Sheriff ’ s Office Violent Crime Prevention operations , including DPS Special Agents and State Troopers to conduct gang and drug investigative operations and a team of DPS Intelligence Analysts .
DPS will also provide one helicopter and two patrol planes to provide direct air support .
“ The State of Texas is working closely with HPD to provide the necessary resources that will effectively combat violence in the Houston community , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DPS is providing to HPD will protect Houstonians and crack down on illegal and violent activity , including road rage-related shootings , within the city.
” Some of the “ necessary resources ” that the state is providing include one helicopter and two patrol planes to provide direct air support .
In the last two weeks , two road rage shootings occurred just days apart .
It will be quite a task to monitor Houston ’ s traffic on the toll roads and freeways .
Everyone drives – there is little use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city .
Houston is notorious for its traffic problems , I say this as a resident of Houston .
Road rage shootings being added on top of the usual frustrations in driving is an unnerving thought .
Yet , here we are .
Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez offers some basic suggestions , like keeping your cool when driving , while noting this has been a rough year on everyone .
According to the Texas Department of Insurance , 80 % of polled drivers express serious aggression , anger or road rage at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take a breath and , you know , not pull out your gun .
From what I ’ ve been reading about this , it looks like Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner is missing in action on this subject .
Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg attended the announcement and reminded people that road ragers could lose their vehicles .
“ Just the fact that you ’ re using a gun , putting people ’ s lives at risk allows the district attorney ’ s office , under law , to subject a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Ogg said .
“ I ’ m pledging our office will do this where the evidence supports it and where the officers have gathered enough information from you the public , which is often misreported as a minor traffic crime , but is often something far more deadly.
” Ogg also pleaded for the public to report reckless driving , anyone using guns on the roads , and freeway and road stunts and takeovers .
The advice from AAA is common sense – don ’ t respond , avoid eye contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain space around your vehicle , and contact 911 if needed .
None of that is easy to do when you ’ re dealing with a crazy or unsafe driver , but just don ’ t engage with the other driver .
The aggravation isn ’ t worth being shot over .
Violent crime , in general in Houston , is up .
It ’ s due to a perfect storm , according to the police chief .
He points his finger to the broken bond system as the biggest problem .
Gang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase , as well as the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic .
The push to release criminals , even violent criminals , as a part of bond reform has worsened the crime rates in cities .
“ If you would tell me I ’ d be in a major U.S. city and violent criminals would get out in Texas on $ 100 bonds , I would have said you ’ re crazy , ” Acevedo said .
Releasing suspects in violent criminals on bond also makes it tougher to solve the crimes because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you witness a murder , and you ’ re seeing time and again that the murderer is going in one door and , a day or two later , they ’ re back out , our level of cooperation is quickly going down , ” Acevedo said .
“ People are afraid , and they should be afraid.
” On a brighter note , there is a 20 % decrease in rape and a 5 % decrease in robberies .
It ’ s been a tough year and even drivers on roadways @ @ @ @ @

Governor Abbott announced Wednesday that he is deploying resources from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to Houston. This move is to support the Houston Police Department as it deals with a sharp rise in road rage shootings and other violent crimes.
The announcement from the governor’s office followed a news conference held the previous day by Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo. Acevedo spoke about the new task force put in place to help combat road rage incidents on Houston’s streets and roadways. The situation has gotten out of control.
On Tuesday, Acevedo said that, according to preliminary crime analysis, there have been about 200 incidents in the first 10 months of this year that have ended with someone being shot on our roadways compared to 150 during the same period a year ago. Six of the road rage incidents have led to murder, Acevedo said, including the case involving HPD Sgt. Sean Rios. Rios was shot to death in November during a gun battle in north Houston. “Anyone who thinks they can go out there and engage in road rage and commit aggravated assault and thinks they’re going to get away with it would be wrong,” Acevedo said.
For such a big city (4th in the nation), Houston isn’t known as a violent city. It’s not a perfect utopia but it is common for both residents and visitors to note that for its size and large population, Houston doesn’t seem to have problems with violence as many other cities do. So, when there is a rise in crime, especially violent crime, it’s noticeable. Houston does have a problem with gang-related violence due to the fact that so many gangs are found in Houston because of the city’s proximity to the Mexican border, but this is a different kind of problem.
The press release from Governor Abbott’s office:
Governor Greg Abbott today directed the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to provide support to the Houston Police Department (HPD) in their efforts to address an alarming rise in road rage-related shootings in the city of Houston. DPS will deploy marked and unmarked patrol units to patrol hot spots identified by HPD. Furthermore, Governor Abbott directed DPS to deploy multiple resources to support HPD and the Harris County Sheriff’s Office Violent Crime Prevention operations, including DPS Special Agents and State Troopers to conduct gang and drug investigative operations and a team of DPS Intelligence Analysts. DPS will also provide one helicopter and two patrol planes to provide direct air support. “The State of Texas is working closely with HPD to provide the necessary resources that will effectively combat violence in the Houston community,” said Governor Abbott. “The support that DPS is providing to HPD will protect Houstonians and crack down on illegal and violent activity, including road rage-related shootings, within the city.”
Some of the “necessary resources” that the state is providing include one helicopter and two patrol planes to provide direct air support. In the last two weeks, two road rage shootings occurred just days apart. It will be quite a task to monitor Houston’s traffic on the toll roads and freeways. Everyone drives – there is little use of public transportation in most parts of the city. Houston is notorious for its traffic problems, I say this as a resident of Houston. Road rage shootings being added on top of the usual frustrations in driving is an unnerving thought. Yet, here we are.
Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez offers some basic suggestions, like keeping your cool when driving, while noting this has been a rough year on everyone. According to the Texas Department of Insurance, 80% of polled drivers express serious aggression, anger or road rage at least once a year. Everyone needs to take a breath and, you know, not pull out your gun.
Sheriff Ed Gonzalez called on the community to slow down, calm down and stop with the aggressive driving. “This year has been very difficult, and there’s been a lot of loss both in our community and in our nation, and we shouldn’t be compounding that suffering with unnecessary carnage on our roadways,” Gonzalez said.
From what I’ve been reading about this, it looks like Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner is missing in action on this subject. Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg attended the announcement and reminded people that road ragers could lose their vehicles.
“Just the fact that you’re using a gun, putting people’s lives at risk allows the district attorney’s office, under law, to subject a vehicle to forfeiture as a criminal instrument,” Ogg said. “I’m pledging our office will do this where the evidence supports it and where the officers have gathered enough information from you the public, which is often misreported as a minor traffic crime, but is often something far more deadly.” Ogg also pleaded for the public to report reckless driving, anyone using guns on the roads, and freeway and road stunts and takeovers.
The advice from AAA is common sense – don’t respond, avoid eye contact, don’t make gestures, maintain space around your vehicle, and contact 911 if needed. None of that is easy to do when you’re dealing with a crazy or unsafe driver, but just don’t engage with the other driver. The aggravation isn’t worth being shot over.
Violent crime, in general in Houston, is up. It’s due to a perfect storm, according to the police chief. He points his finger to the broken bond system as the biggest problem. Gang crime and drug-related murders account for the increase, as well as the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic. The push to release criminals, even violent criminals, as a part of bond reform has worsened the crime rates in cities.
“If you would tell me I’d be in a major U.S. city and violent criminals would get out in Texas on $100 bonds, I would have said you’re crazy,” Acevedo said. Releasing suspects in violent criminals on bond also makes it tougher to solve the crimes because witnesses are scared to cooperate. “If you witness a murder, and you’re seeing time and again that the murderer is going in one door and, a day or two later, they’re back out, our level of cooperation is quickly going down,” Acevedo said. “People are afraid, and they should be afraid.”
On a brighter note, there is a 20% decrease in rape and a 5% decrease in robberies. It’s been a tough year and even drivers on roadways are feeling the stress.


hotair--2020-12-10--Wait, is the House GOP going to tank the defense bill to make Trump happy?

Somehow I missed this quote from Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday night .
Are these people actually going to block defense spending in order to salute a lame duck who ’ s throwing a public tantrum over a Big Tech regulation he doesn ’ t even understand ?
What ’ s left of this party and its “ beliefs ” ?
The most pitiful part is that it ’ s hard to argue with McCarthy ’ s political calculations , cynical though they are .
Most of his caucus represents blood-red districts where Trumpism exists in its most cultish form .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be viewed by some voters there as an act of supreme disloyalty to the cult leader , especially after Trump starts screaming about it on Twitter .
No cause , including funding U.S. troops , is so noble as to excuse that affront .
As he entered the House floor for that vote , McCarthy told reporters that he would absolutely vote for the National Defense Authorization Act , a yearly exercise deemed so key to basic functions of the military that it has passed for 59 straight years .
However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not vote to override President Trump ’ s threatened veto out of his anger toward social media laws that have no place in a debate about the military… “ My point has always been , when I became a leader , I would not vote against the president ’ s veto .
I will hold up the president ’ s veto , ” McCarthy told reporters , adding : “ We ’ ve always worked together to make bills better.
” McCarthy is confident that he has plenty of Republicans who , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the legislation until they are against it , unwilling to cross Trump on a veto override vote .
They need 290 votes to override a veto , which Trump has promised repeatedly unless the bill includes a last-second repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and excludes a provision that would eventually lead to the renaming of military bases named after Confederates .
They got 335 for the bill on Tuesday night .
If 46 Republicans follow McCarthy ’ s lead by flipping to no on overriding that veto , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is sworn in , when a simple majority of the House will be enough to get this done .
McCarthy ’ s willing to stiff the Pentagon for six weeks knowing that his cause is futile , for no better reason than to pander to Trump fans who don ’ t understand that Section 230 repeal isn ’ t happening under these circumstances .
There ’ s another possibility , though .
Maybe McCarthy is actually engaged in a bit of kabuki with help from his number three , Liz Cheney .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s voting with the president on a major bill , that ’ s a major influence on the leadership and the rest of the caucus .
But not this time : It could be that that ’ s just Cheney being a Cheney .
She ’ s an uberhawk and she ’ s not going to let McCarthy ’ s toadyism towards Trump stop her from making sure that the Pentagon is funded .
But it could also be that she and McCarthy are coordinating on this little two-step , aiming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that the bill passes .
So here ’ s McCarthy , the leader , doing a big MAGA loyalty song-and-dance to please the base while Cheney , the chair of the House Republican Conference , once again politely defies Trump because she has other policy priorities .
Cheney ’ s support for an override will give cover to other House Republicans to break with Trump while McCarthy ’ s opposition to an override will give cover to Trumpier types in the caucus to uphold the veto .
Maybe the two of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scenes about which caucus members will be voting which way , with a few dozen reps from MAGA districts authorized to protect their right flanks by voting no — but not so many that it would actually knock the bill down below the 290 it needs to overcome Trump .
Few Republicans in the Senate seem to have any qualms about nuking Trump ’ s veto in this case .
There must be a few dozen Republicans in the House willing to give Pelosi the votes she needs to make sure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t bet my life ’ s savings on it .
Jonathan Last is right that the GOP is an autocracy now , with every political demand made by the president just another dumb loyalty test that congressional Republicans need to pass .
Consider : Why has the GOP gone crazy and insisted that the election was “ stolen ” ?
The answer—the only answer—is : Because Donald Trump said so .
What if Trump emerged after the election and said , “ Tough loss .
Joe Biden put up a good fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2024 to beat him like a drum.
” Well , in that situation , there would be no move to overturn the election and no one in the precincts of Conservatism Inc. would be arguing that , ackshually , Donald Trump won by a landslide .
They would not be arguing that because there is no evidence for this argument .
None .
Absent a command from Trump , no outside observer would have come to this verdict on their own .
But present a command from Trump , this position became mandatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crazy by contemplating blocking defense spending ?
The answer — the only answer — is : Because Donald Trump said so .
It feels almost like an act of generosity that he deigned to specify Section 230 as his grounds for wanting the bill to fail instead of just telling McCarthy and the rest , “ I want you to vote no on this because it would please me if you did so.
” What would McCarthy have said if he had ?
Look again at the quote up top .
He admits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support a Trump veto , no questions asked , no matter how stupid , petulant , or damaging it is .
So maybe there ’ s no kabuki here with Cheney .
Maybe McCarthy really does intend to serve his master by taking a dump on the military .
Speaking of autocracy , Axios has a piece today about some Senate Republicans angling to stall confirmation of Biden ’ s cabinet nominees for some unspecified period of time because cultists haven ’ t yet accepted that Biden ’ s going to be president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s litigation ongoing , and the election result is disputed , I do not think you will see the Senate act to confirm any nominee , ” said — who else ?
— Ted Cruz , never mind that Congress itself will record the votes of the electoral college on January 6 .
Does Cruz mean to say that they ’ ll hold up hearings on nominees even after that date provided that Trump continues to file frivolous lawsuits ?
I guess the answer is , “ If that ’ s what Trump @ @ @ @ @ @

Somehow I missed this quote from Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday night. Are these people actually going to block defense spending in order to salute a lame duck who’s throwing a public tantrum over a Big Tech regulation he doesn’t even understand?
What’s left of this party and its “beliefs”?
The most pitiful part is that it’s hard to argue with McCarthy’s political calculations, cynical though they are. Most of his caucus represents blood-red districts where Trumpism exists in its most cultish form. Overriding the president’s veto will be viewed by some voters there as an act of supreme disloyalty to the cult leader, especially after Trump starts screaming about it on Twitter. No cause, including funding U.S. troops, is so noble as to excuse that affront.
As he entered the House floor for that vote, McCarthy told reporters that he would absolutely vote for the National Defense Authorization Act, a yearly exercise deemed so key to basic functions of the military that it has passed for 59 straight years. However, the GOP leader said, he absolutely would not vote to override President Trump’s threatened veto out of his anger toward social media laws that have no place in a debate about the military… “My point has always been, when I became a leader, I would not vote against the president’s veto. I will hold up the president’s veto,” McCarthy told reporters, adding: “We’ve always worked together to make bills better.” McCarthy is confident that he has plenty of Republicans who, just like he is doing, will be for the legislation until they are against it, unwilling to cross Trump on a veto override vote.
They need 290 votes to override a veto, which Trump has promised repeatedly unless the bill includes a last-second repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and excludes a provision that would eventually lead to the renaming of military bases named after Confederates. They got 335 for the bill on Tuesday night. If 46 Republicans follow McCarthy’s lead by flipping to no on overriding that veto, Congress is stuck — at least until Biden is sworn in, when a simple majority of the House will be enough to get this done.
McCarthy’s willing to stiff the Pentagon for six weeks knowing that his cause is futile, for no better reason than to pander to Trump fans who don’t understand that Section 230 repeal isn’t happening under these circumstances.
There’s another possibility, though. Maybe McCarthy is actually engaged in a bit of kabuki with help from his number three, Liz Cheney. Normally when the minority leader says he’s voting with the president on a major bill, that’s a major influence on the leadership and the rest of the caucus. But not this time:
Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, a member of the House Republican leadership, urged Trump not to follow through on his veto threat, but added that if he does veto it, “We should override.″
It could be that that’s just Cheney being a Cheney. She’s an uberhawk and she’s not going to let McCarthy’s toadyism towards Trump stop her from making sure that the Pentagon is funded. But it could also be that she and McCarthy are coordinating on this little two-step, aiming to simultaneously pander to Trump while also making sure that the bill passes. So here’s McCarthy, the leader, doing a big MAGA loyalty song-and-dance to please the base while Cheney, the chair of the House Republican Conference, once again politely defies Trump because she has other policy priorities. Cheney’s support for an override will give cover to other House Republicans to break with Trump while McCarthy’s opposition to an override will give cover to Trumpier types in the caucus to uphold the veto.
Maybe the two of them even have it all worked out behind the scenes about which caucus members will be voting which way, with a few dozen reps from MAGA districts authorized to protect their right flanks by voting no — but not so many that it would actually knock the bill down below the 290 it needs to overcome Trump. Few Republicans in the Senate seem to have any qualms about nuking Trump’s veto in this case. There must be a few dozen Republicans in the House willing to give Pelosi the votes she needs to make sure the troops get paid.
Although I wouldn’t bet my life’s savings on it. Jonathan Last is right that the GOP is an autocracy now, with every political demand made by the president just another dumb loyalty test that congressional Republicans need to pass.
Consider: Why has the GOP gone crazy and insisted that the election was “stolen”? The answer—the only answer—is: Because Donald Trump said so. What if Trump emerged after the election and said, “Tough loss. Joe Biden put up a good fight. I’ll be back in 2024 to beat him like a drum.” Well, in that situation, there would be no move to overturn the election and no one in the precincts of Conservatism Inc. would be arguing that, ackshually, Donald Trump won by a landslide. They would not be arguing that because there is no evidence for this argument. None. Absent a command from Trump, no outside observer would have come to this verdict on their own. But present a command from Trump, this position became mandatory.
Why has the House GOP gone crazy by contemplating blocking defense spending? The answer — the only answer — is: Because Donald Trump said so. It feels almost like an act of generosity that he deigned to specify Section 230 as his grounds for wanting the bill to fail instead of just telling McCarthy and the rest, “I want you to vote no on this because it would please me if you did so.” What would McCarthy have said if he had?
Look again at the quote up top. He admits flat out that he’ll always support a Trump veto, no questions asked, no matter how stupid, petulant, or damaging it is.
So maybe there’s no kabuki here with Cheney. Maybe McCarthy really does intend to serve his master by taking a dump on the military.
Speaking of autocracy, Axios has a piece today about some Senate Republicans angling to stall confirmation of Biden’s cabinet nominees for some unspecified period of time because cultists haven’t yet accepted that Biden’s going to be president. “As long as there’s litigation ongoing, and the election result is disputed, I do not think you will see the Senate act to confirm any nominee,” said — who else? — Ted Cruz, never mind that Congress itself will record the votes of the electoral college on January 6. Does Cruz mean to say that they’ll hold up hearings on nominees even after that date provided that Trump continues to file frivolous lawsuits? I guess the answer is, “If that’s what Trump wants.” It always is.


hotair--2020-12-10--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: SCOTUS dice, Hunter's vice, Congress' price, FDA device, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We will await a decision from the Supreme Court in Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDA ’ s decision on the Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19 .
And what exactly is going on with Congress and COVID-19 relief ?
• Andrew Malcolm joins us for Thursday with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day , especially the media bias that buried the Hunter Biden story until after the election .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We will await a decision from the Supreme Court in Texas v PA et al, plus the FDA’s decision on the Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19. And what exactly is going on with Congress and COVID-19 relief?
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays Thursday with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day, especially the media bias that buried the Hunter Biden story until after the election.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-12-10--Biden asked Dr. Fauci to stay on with his administration, but what about Dr. Birx?

What ’ s the deal , Joe ?
Joe Biden asked Dr. Fauci to stay on with his administration but so far , Dr. Birx is getting the brush-off .
While Fauci is receiving fawning press coverage and on the lists of finalists for awards recognizing his work during the coronavirus pandemic at the White House , Deborah Birx is updating her resume and making her case to the incoming administration .
We ’ ve been assured that Joe Biden is an advocate for women and will hire a whole lot of them for big important roles , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , is that she isn ’ t as willing to go against President Trump , publicly at least , as Fauci is .
Fauci is very careful to protect his image for the cool crowd who mostly dwell in The Swamp .
Fauci has secured a spot with the Biden administration ’ s coronavirus task force .
Biden has already appointed transition co-chair and Obama administration alumnus Jeffrey Zients to serve as White House coronavirus coordinator .
Fauci will be working under him .
Like Fauci , Birx has worked for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 40-year history of service .
Speaking at a Wall Street Journal CEO conference on Tuesday , Birx , a public servant for 40 years , said she planned to remain in government but has yet to hear from the Biden transition team about how or if she ’ ll be used on the pandemic .
Birx was pulled away from her ambassadorial post as the U.S. global AIDS coordinator to assist the task force .
She worked alongside her mentor , Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious-disease expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contradict questionable statements by Trump .
She was appointed to the AIDS post in 2014 by President Barack Obama , and it is up to Biden whether to return her to that position .
“ I think the one thing I bring to this is really understanding epidemics around the globe , ” she said .
Fauci and Birx both acknowledge that Birx is a protege of Fauci ’ s , he has served as her mentor for most of her career in public health .
When she first came onboard with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was hailed as the ultimate professional .
Obama administration alum was quick to speak favorably of her .
Some of her likeability from the Democrats , though , soon vanished when it became clear that Birx is a team player and wasn ’ t willing to trash talk Trump ’ s statements or opinions that became public .
She has been more diplomatic in her opinions than Fauci , who appears to be more ego-driven at this point .
Fauci is really enjoying his 15-minutes of fame .
He has said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s offer to join his team .
Birx says she sees herself in a scaled-back role in the Biden administration .
In her coronavirus task force role , Birx faced criticism for defending Trump after he suggested during an April briefing that ultraviolet light and ingesting disinfectants could serve as treatment for the virus .
Birx explained that Trump “ likes to talk that through out loud and really have that dialogue.
” Birx urged Trump to follow the data as he pushed to relax social distancing restrictions .
She wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faced criticism after she said in a television interview early in the crisis that Trump ’ s “ ability to analyze and integrate data that comes out of his long history in business has really been a real benefit during these discussions about medical issues.
” Jeremy Konyndyk , now a member of the Biden transition ’ s Health and Human Services team originally applauded Birx ’ s appointment to the current White House coronavirus task force but then grew to oppose her as she didn ’ t criticize Trump for withdrawing from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He accused her of “ repeatedly undermined her scientific credibility , publicly , in order to shield the President ” in a tweet .
The irony in this is that Trump , too , criticizes Birx , just as he does Fauci .
Speaker Pelosi turned on Birx for not pushing back harder when , in her eyes , Trump did not speak of the coronavirus in as dire words as she wanted him to do .
And , we know that there are stories that Birx did not approve of Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the team .
Last Sunday , Birx was a guest on Meet the Press and she was a little quicker to speak up about false information about the virus .
She specifically addressed those who “ parrot myths ” about coronavirus guidance to mitigate the spread of the virus .
“ And I think our job is to constantly say those are myths , they are wrong and you can see the evidence base.
” Trump critics blame him for diminishing the reputations of career public health servants like Birx .
She is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s departure from reality become so extreme that it put her and others on the task force in an untenable position , ” said Michael Weinstein , who heads the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and got to know Birx professionally after she was named the global AIDS coordinator in 2014 .
“ History will have to judge whether they enabled the president by giving him credibility based on their expertise or whether she and the others did more in helping prevent more people from being hurt by the craziness , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Joe Biden is really serious about being a unifier ( he isn ’ t ) and a supporter of women in the workforce ( only to check the boxes for identity politics ) then he should offer Dr. Birx a position in his administration .
What ’ s the holdup , Joe ?

What’s the deal, Joe? Joe Biden asked Dr. Fauci to stay on with his administration but so far, Dr. Birx is getting the brush-off. While Fauci is receiving fawning press coverage and on the lists of finalists for awards recognizing his work during the coronavirus pandemic at the White House, Deborah Birx is updating her resume and making her case to the incoming administration. We’ve been assured that Joe Biden is an advocate for women and will hire a whole lot of them for big important roles, you know.
The problem for Dr. Birx, though, is that she isn’t as willing to go against President Trump, publicly at least, as Fauci is. Fauci is very careful to protect his image for the cool crowd who mostly dwell in The Swamp. Fauci has secured a spot with the Biden administration’s coronavirus task force. Biden has already appointed transition co-chair and Obama administration alumnus Jeffrey Zients to serve as White House coronavirus coordinator. Fauci will be working under him. Like Fauci, Birx has worked for all past presidents for decades – Birx has a 40-year history of service.
Speaking at a Wall Street Journal CEO conference on Tuesday, Birx, a public servant for 40 years, said she planned to remain in government but has yet to hear from the Biden transition team about how or if she’ll be used on the pandemic. Birx was pulled away from her ambassadorial post as the U.S. global AIDS coordinator to assist the task force. She worked alongside her mentor, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, who was less hesitant to directly contradict questionable statements by Trump. She was appointed to the AIDS post in 2014 by President Barack Obama, and it is up to Biden whether to return her to that position. “I think the one thing I bring to this is really understanding epidemics around the globe,” she said.
Fauci and Birx both acknowledge that Birx is a protege of Fauci’s, he has served as her mentor for most of her career in public health. When she first came onboard with the Trump White House coronavirus task force, she was hailed as the ultimate professional. Obama administration alum was quick to speak favorably of her.
Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, called Birx “great.” Former Secretary of State John Kerry, who will serve as a special envoy on climate for Biden, described Birx at her 2014 swearing-in ceremony to serve as the U.S. global AIDS coordinator as someone who “embodies the best of what it means to be a pioneer, to be a practitioner, and a public servant all rolled into one.”
Some of her likeability from the Democrats, though, soon vanished when it became clear that Birx is a team player and wasn’t willing to trash talk Trump’s statements or opinions that became public. She has been more diplomatic in her opinions than Fauci, who appears to be more ego-driven at this point. Fauci is really enjoying his 15-minutes of fame. He has said he didn’t hesitate to accept Biden’s offer to join his team. Birx says she sees herself in a scaled-back role in the Biden administration.
In her coronavirus task force role, Birx faced criticism for defending Trump after he suggested during an April briefing that ultraviolet light and ingesting disinfectants could serve as treatment for the virus. Birx explained that Trump “likes to talk that through out loud and really have that dialogue.” Birx urged Trump to follow the data as he pushed to relax social distancing restrictions. She wasn’t above flattering the president. She faced criticism after she said in a television interview early in the crisis that Trump’s “ability to analyze and integrate data that comes out of his long history in business has really been a real benefit during these discussions about medical issues.”
Jeremy Konyndyk, now a member of the Biden transition’s Health and Human Services team originally applauded Birx’s appointment to the current White House coronavirus task force but then grew to oppose her as she didn’t criticize Trump for withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO). He accused her of “repeatedly undermined her scientific credibility, publicly, in order to shield the President” in a tweet.
The irony in this is that Trump, too, criticizes Birx, just as he does Fauci. Speaker Pelosi turned on Birx for not pushing back harder when, in her eyes, Trump did not speak of the coronavirus in as dire words as she wanted him to do. And, we know that there are stories that Birx did not approve of Dr. Atlas when he was brought on to the team.
Last Sunday, Birx was a guest on Meet the Press and she was a little quicker to speak up about false information about the virus. She specifically addressed those who “parrot myths” about coronavirus guidance to mitigate the spread of the virus. “And I think our job is to constantly say those are myths, they are wrong and you can see the evidence base.”
Trump critics blame him for diminishing the reputations of career public health servants like Birx. She is criticized for enabling Trump.
“The president’s departure from reality become so extreme that it put her and others on the task force in an untenable position,” said Michael Weinstein, who heads the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and got to know Birx professionally after she was named the global AIDS coordinator in 2014. “History will have to judge whether they enabled the president by giving him credibility based on their expertise or whether she and the others did more in helping prevent more people from being hurt by the craziness,” he said.
It seems to me that if Joe Biden is really serious about being a unifier (he isn’t) and a supporter of women in the workforce (only to check the boxes for identity politics) then he should offer Dr. Birx a position in his administration. What’s the holdup, Joe?


hotair--2020-12-10--Why on earth are the feds holding back half of the first batch of vaccine doses?

Another terrible idea brought to you by the people who passed on purchasing several hundred million more doses of Pfizer ’ s A+ vaccine when offered the chance and still haven ’ t been able to explain why .
I doubt Trump bears any blame for either decision .
Given his disinterest in policy detail , it ’ s hard to imagine him giving specific orders on vaccine procurement or distribution .
Both of these cases were probably instances of his health-care bureaucrats telling him “ here ’ s what we want to do ” and him saying “ fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Which makes it that much worse .
Experts are supposed to know what they ’ re doing .
Why don ’ t they ?
A top federal vaccine official said Wednesday that 2.9 million doses of Pfizer ’ s Covid-19 vaccine will be shipped around the country in the first week after it is authorized by the Food and Drug Administration — half of the initial shipment from Pfizer .
On a call with reporters , Gen. Gustave F. Perna , the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed , the federal effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that 2.9 million doses would be sent out once the vaccine is authorized , and 2.9 million saved for booster shots , which are given three weeks later .
The remaining 500,000 of an available 6.4 million doses are to be held in reserve , in case they are unexpectedly needed .
That would make sense *if* it were true that someone receiving the first dose of the vaccine has zero immunity from the virus until they receive the second dose .
In that case there ’ d be logic to making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially if we ’ re worried that supply-chain problems and manufacturing delays will make the second dose hard to come by for awhile .
Once they ’ re immunized , that ’ s 2.9 million people who can no longer spread the virus to others — we hope .
( Pfizer ’ s not sure yet whether people who ’ ve been vaccinated can still be infectious . )
But it ’ s not true .
On the contrary , Pfizer ’ s own data suggests that the first dose alone provides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can produce 80 percent immunity in 5.8 million people , hopefully rendering them incapable of transmitting the disease in the process , obviously that ’ s a better outcome than full immunity in just 2.9 million people at a moment when you ’ re desperate to slow down community spread .
Even if vaccinated people remain infectious after contracting the virus , it might be that 80 percent immunity is enough to reduce some of the load on hospitals by turning cases that would have otherwise been severe into mild ones .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ partial immunity for the many over full immunity for a few as a means of pandemic control , going so far as to say that he ’ d use the entire first batch of vaccines stretching into January for first doses only .
Get as many people partially immunized as you can and then hope and trust that Pfizer ’ s and Moderna ’ s manufacturing capacity catches up .
“ We should get as many shots in our arms as possible right away , ” he told the USA TODAY Editorial Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to cut ( the doses ) in half and give half of it now and hold onto it , so we have supply in January to get the second dose … I just fundamentally disagree with that.
” As the U.S. continues to suffer from a surge with nearly 200,000 new cases each day , according to a USA TODAY analysis of Johns Hopkins data , Gottlieb says the government should focus on vaccinating as many people as possible with first doses .
He anticipates another 40 million doses should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the two-dose regimen .
The counterargument is that there ’ s a risk that the second doses won ’ t be available in three or four weeks ’ time , which means people who got the first dose would end up as guinea pigs in an impromptu experiment to see what happens when you go longer than a month between doses .
Is there any realistic likelihood of adverse side effects from that , though ?
The chief risk , one would think , would be that their immunity would fall off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got the second dose , possibly requiring them to get a third dose in order to be fully immunized .
Seems like a risk worth taking with 3,000 people dying every day without the vaccine , though .
How many of those 3,000 who died yesterday would be alive if they ’ d had 80 percent immunity against the virus when they were infected ?
Besides , we ’ re already out on a limb in managing the vaccine timetable .
Despite the feds ’ assurances that everyone who wants a vaccine by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the number of doses on order from Moderna and Pfizer will only cover 100 million people .
To get the rest of the population immunized in a timely manner will require approval of vaccines from other manufacturers that are still in trials , and it ’ s an open question right now whether any will meet the safety and efficacy benchmarks .
If not , we ’ re staring at a shortage .
The man who ’ ll inherit this problem six weeks from now promised a few days ago that 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first 100 days of his administration , which would mean 50 million people fully vaccinated by April 30 .
That ’ d be nice , but that ’ s just 15 percent of the population .
Assuming another 15 percent have natural immunity by that point , we ’ d still have a ways to go before herd immunity set in .
Moderna might come to the rescue on a looming vaccine shortage , though : Half a billion doses from Moderna plus 100 million from Pfizer would cover nearly the entire U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destined to refuse the vaccine , it would almost certainly ensure that everyone who wants the shot will get one soonish .
The question is purely whether Moderna can hit its goal of producing 500 million to one billion doses next year and how quickly .
Either way , it ’ s a no-brainer that the feds should exercise their option and make sure those extra 400 million doses are on order , just in case .
But that ’ s not to say that Moderna will be their best choice when all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember that Johnson & Johnson is testing a one-dose vaccine that can be produced a bit more easily than Pfizer ’ s and Moderna ’ s products can .
If the efficacy data confirms that that ’ s another A+ inoculation , it ’ ll be a godsend in terms of fully immunizing millions of recipients in much less time than the competition .
That ’ s the only reason I can think of for why the feds might not want to go all-in on Pfizer and Moderna .
Maybe they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J instead .
Fingers crossed that they have reason to .

Another terrible idea brought to you by the people who passed on purchasing several hundred million more doses of Pfizer’s A+ vaccine when offered the chance and still haven’t been able to explain why.
I doubt Trump bears any blame for either decision. Given his disinterest in policy detail, it’s hard to imagine him giving specific orders on vaccine procurement or distribution. Both of these cases were probably instances of his health-care bureaucrats telling him “here’s what we want to do” and him saying “fine, whatever you think is best.”
Which makes it that much worse. Experts are supposed to know what they’re doing. Why don’t they?
A top federal vaccine official said Wednesday that 2.9 million doses of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine will be shipped around the country in the first week after it is authorized by the Food and Drug Administration — half of the initial shipment from Pfizer. On a call with reporters, Gen. Gustave F. Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed, the federal effort to speed a vaccine to market, said that 2.9 million doses would be sent out once the vaccine is authorized, and 2.9 million saved for booster shots, which are given three weeks later. The remaining 500,000 of an available 6.4 million doses are to be held in reserve, in case they are unexpectedly needed.
That would make sense *if* it were true that someone receiving the first dose of the vaccine has zero immunity from the virus until they receive the second dose. In that case there’d be logic to making sure 2.9 million people are fully vaccinated, especially if we’re worried that supply-chain problems and manufacturing delays will make the second dose hard to come by for awhile. Once they’re immunized, that’s 2.9 million people who can no longer spread the virus to others — we hope. (Pfizer’s not sure yet whether people who’ve been vaccinated can still be infectious.)
But it’s not true. On the contrary, Pfizer’s own data suggests that the first dose alone provides quite a lot of immunity:
Pfizer reports “52.4% efficacy” for single dose but that includes the first seven days, before things kick in, when most new infections happened. At 10-12 days, the chart (eyeballing, no underlying data yet) looks ~80-85% efficacy. Unpleasant trade-off but reality is unpleasant. — zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) December 10, 2020
If you can produce 80 percent immunity in 5.8 million people, hopefully rendering them incapable of transmitting the disease in the process, obviously that’s a better outcome than full immunity in just 2.9 million people at a moment when you’re desperate to slow down community spread. Even if vaccinated people remain infectious after contracting the virus, it might be that 80 percent immunity is enough to reduce some of the load on hospitals by turning cases that would have otherwise been severe into mild ones.
Former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb also favors partial immunity for the many over full immunity for a few as a means of pandemic control, going so far as to say that he’d use the entire first batch of vaccines stretching into January for first doses only. Get as many people partially immunized as you can and then hope and trust that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s manufacturing capacity catches up.
“We should get as many shots in our arms as possible right away,” he told the USA TODAY Editorial Board on Monday. “The idea that we need to cut (the doses) in half and give half of it now and hold onto it, so we have supply in January to get the second dose … I just fundamentally disagree with that.” As the U.S. continues to suffer from a surge with nearly 200,000 new cases each day, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Johns Hopkins data, Gottlieb says the government should focus on vaccinating as many people as possible with first doses. He anticipates another 40 million doses should be ready in time for the second shot of the two-dose regimen.
The counterargument is that there’s a risk that the second doses won’t be available in three or four weeks’ time, which means people who got the first dose would end up as guinea pigs in an impromptu experiment to see what happens when you go longer than a month between doses. Is there any realistic likelihood of adverse side effects from that, though? The chief risk, one would think, would be that their immunity would fall off a bit by the time they finally got the second dose, possibly requiring them to get a third dose in order to be fully immunized.
Seems like a risk worth taking with 3,000 people dying every day without the vaccine, though. How many of those 3,000 who died yesterday would be alive if they’d had 80 percent immunity against the virus when they were infected?
Besides, we’re already out on a limb in managing the vaccine timetable. Despite the feds’ assurances that everyone who wants a vaccine by May will be able to get one, the number of doses on order from Moderna and Pfizer will only cover 100 million people. To get the rest of the population immunized in a timely manner will require approval of vaccines from other manufacturers that are still in trials, and it’s an open question right now whether any will meet the safety and efficacy benchmarks. If not, we’re staring at a shortage. The man who’ll inherit this problem six weeks from now promised a few days ago that 100 million doses would be distributed within the first 100 days of his administration, which would mean 50 million people fully vaccinated by April 30. That’d be nice, but that’s just 15 percent of the population. Assuming another 15 percent have natural immunity by that point, we’d still have a ways to go before herd immunity set in.
Moderna might come to the rescue on a looming vaccine shortage, though:
Existing U.S. deals with Pfizer and Moderna for 100 million doses of each company’s vaccine are only enough to inoculate a maximum of 100 million people combined. But earlier this year, Moderna said the U.S. has the option to buy 400 million more doses at a fixed price of $16.50 per shot… “The U.S. Supply Agreement provides the U.S. Government with four additional and separate options to purchase 100 million doses per option of mRNA-1273,” Moderna said in the filing earlier this year. “Each option is exercisable at the sole discretion of the U.S. Government,” at various times during the first half of 2021.
Half a billion doses from Moderna plus 100 million from Pfizer would cover nearly the entire U.S. population, and since some Americans are destined to refuse the vaccine, it would almost certainly ensure that everyone who wants the shot will get one soonish. The question is purely whether Moderna can hit its goal of producing 500 million to one billion doses next year and how quickly. Either way, it’s a no-brainer that the feds should exercise their option and make sure those extra 400 million doses are on order, just in case. But that’s not to say that Moderna will be their best choice when all of the vaccine data is in: Remember that Johnson & Johnson is testing a one-dose vaccine that can be produced a bit more easily than Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products can. If the efficacy data confirms that that’s another A+ inoculation, it’ll be a godsend in terms of fully immunizing millions of recipients in much less time than the competition. That’s the only reason I can think of for why the feds might not want to go all-in on Pfizer and Moderna. Maybe they’re hoping to go all-in on J&J instead. Fingers crossed that they have reason to.


hotair--2020-12-10--SCOTUS showdown: Ohio opposes Texas -- on remedies; six states move to join lawsuit; <span class='re

SCOTUS showdown: Ohio opposes Texas -- on remedies; six states move to join lawsuit; Update: PA says suit "seditious abuse of the judicial process"

In about an hour , the Supreme Court ’ s deadline for submitting motions and amici briefs in Texas v PA et al will expire .
After that , the vigil starts .
Will the court even bother to take up the case at all , delivering a single-line order dismissing it ?
Or will they feel compelled to consider it and with it the prospect of changing the results of the election ?
The state of Ohio tried a novel approach in its filings .
Attorney General Dave Yost and Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers argue that the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consideration in original actions between states , as is the case here .
They then urge the court to rule decisively against Texas , arguing that federalism does not allow for states to dictate terms to each other — even though Ohio does have sympathy for the underlying argument : Article II of the Constitution directs that “ [ e ] ach State shall appoint ” presidential electors “ in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.
” Art .
II , §1 , cl.2 .
Whatever “ the Legislature thereof ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts thereof.
” Thus , when state election codes dictate the manner for appointing presidential electors , state courts must respect the legislature ’ s work : they may not change the rules by which electors are chosen through judge-made doctrines or by rewriting statutes in the guise of interpretation .
See Democratic Nat ’ l Comm .
v. Wis. State Legislature , 592 U.S. __ , slip op .
9 n.1 ( 2020 ) ( Kavanaugh , J. , concurring ) ; Bush v. Gore , 531 U.S. 98 , 120 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , concurring ) ; see also Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar , 592 U.S. __ , slip op .
1 ( 2020 ) ( Statement of Alito , J. )
.
This does not mean that state-court interpretations of state law are entitled to no deference .
But at some point , a purported “ interpretation ” becomes “ not a construction ” of the relevant text , “ but a rewriting of it.
” State Bd .
of Equalization of Cal .
v. Young ’ s Market Co. , 299 U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Electors Clause prohibits such rewritings in the context of presidential elections .
Precisely because Ohio holds this view about the meaning of the Electors Clause , it can not support Texas ’ s plea for relief .
Texas seeks a “ remand to the State legislatures to allocate electors in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
” Br .
in Support of Motion for Leave to File 16 .
Such an order would violate , not honor , the Electors Clause .
Federal courts , just like state courts , lack authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointing presidential electors .
And so federal courts , just like state courts , lack authority to order legislatures to appoint electors without regard to the results of an already-completed election .
What is more , the relief that Texas seeks would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system : the idea that the States are sovereigns , free to govern themselves .
The federal government has only those powers that the Constitution gives to it .
And nothing in the Constitution empowers courts to issue orders affirmatively directing the States how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the relief , however , Ohio urges the court to rule on the proper form of managing election rules for federal office : Although Ohio does not endorse Texas ’ s proposed relief , it does endorse its call for a ruling on the meaning of the Electors Clause .
More precisely , Ohio urges the Court to decide , at the earliest available opportunity , whether state courts and state executive actors violate the Electors Clause when they change the rules by which presidential elections are run .
In late October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s failure to decide that question in another case had “ needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious post-election problems.
” Boockvar , 592 U.S. __ , slip op .
at 1 ( Statement of Alito , J. )
.
Unfortunately , he was right .
In many States , citizens voted for President under rules created by state judiciaries and state executive actors rather than state legislatures .
See , e.g.
, id.
, slip op .
at 1–2 ; Moore v. Circosta , 592 U.S. __ , slip op @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , J. , dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief ) ; Tex .
League of United Latin Am .
Citizens v. Hughs , 978 F.3d 136 , 151–52 ( 5th Cir .
2020 ) ( Ho , J. , concurring ) .
Because this Court has never decided whether the Electors Clause permits such alterations to the method for choosing presidential electors , Americans are left to wonder whether the process by which they voted for President was consistent with our country ’ s founding charter .
Those doubts will linger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a victory that all Americans will deem legitimate , and “ the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat.
” United States v. Windsor , 570 U.S. 744 , 802 ( 2013 ) ( Scalia , J. , dissenting ) .
Meanwhile , six states have petitioned the court to join Texas in the original complaint .
Missouri , which led the amicus brief from 17 states on Texas ’ behalf , now leads the new petition seeking to add itself , Louisiana , Arkansas , Mississippi , South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ et al .
It ’ s mostly boilerplate , but this part is intriguing , especially given the absence of the other 11 amicus partners : Fourth , the Intervening States ’ interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties in the case .
The Intervening States do not doubt that Plaintiff State of Texas will vigorously and effectively litigate this case , but the Attorney General of each individual State is best situated to represent the interests of that State and its People .
The requirement for adequacy of representation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mine Workers of America , 404 U.S. 528 , 538 n.10 ( 1972 ) , and the undersigned Attorneys General respectfully submit that they are the most adequate representatives of their respective States .
Cf .
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Indiana , 281 U.S. 163 , 173 ( 1930 ) ( “ [ B ] y virtue of the original jurisdiction over controversies between states , [ a State ] must be deemed to represent all its citizens.
” ) .
Moreover , Plaintiff State of Texas has consented to the intervention requested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for President Trump .
Do the other eleven states think Texas does adequately represent their interests ?
Or are they just not too interested in attaching themselves so explicitly to Texas ’ lawsuit ?
Interestingly , at least as of this writing , there do not appear to be any amici briefs supporting the four respondent states [ see first update ] .
Arizona also filed a motion for an amicus brief , but theirs won ’ t argue for the case in either direction .
Instead , they would just urge the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they choose to take up the case at all .
No one so far seems in favor of the one-line dismissal method used in the Kelly Parnell et al v PA case .
We may wait longer than some would like , therefore , to get a decision from the court .
It ’ s at least possible that the court could quickly rule that the remedies in the Texas complaint are out of bounds , but that it might take up the rest of the issue as Ohio suggests .
That might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punted once on this issue with Pennsylvania before the election .
Another punt with the remedies mooted might be pretty tempting again .
Stay tuned .
Anything could happen after 3 pm ET today .
Update : What I meant to write was that no other states had filed amici briefs supporting the respondents .
There is an amicus brief filed on their behalf from Carter Phillips , Stuart Gerson , John Danforth , Christine Todd Whitman , Lowell Weicker et al .
They argue against standing of outside states in another state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court itself has no real jurisdiction : The Electors Clause and 3 U.S.C .
§ 5 contradict the Plaintiff ’ s unprecedented argument that a presidential election dispute is a controversy between two or more states .
These provisions contradict Plaintiff ’ s argument by authorizing each state to delegate by statute the adjudication of all controversies or contests concerning federal presidential election results in that state to that state ’ s courts .
Such statutory delegation to state courts is part of each state legislature ’ s chosen statutory “ manner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the statutes on , for example , mail-in voting .
A state ’ s chosen “ manner ” applies “ exclusively , ” McPherson v. Blacker , 146 U.S. 1 , 27 ( 1892 ) , “ absent some other constitutional constraint.
” Chiafalo v. Washington , 140 S. Ct. 2316 , 2324 ( 2020 ) ( emphasis added ) .
There is no constitutional constraint against state courts being the trial courts for presidential election disputes .
… Plaintiff ’ s Motions make a mockery of federalism and separation of powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional principles for this Court to serve as the trial court for presidential election disputes .
That would be an attractive exit ramp , if the court was interested in looking for one .
Update : Pennsylvania has filed its response , and it doesn ’ t mince words .
Their summary accuses Texas of a ” seditious abuse of the judicial process , ” and says its case is based on a “ surreal alternate reality ” : What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the election that have already been considered , and rejected , by this Court and other courts .
It attempts to exploit this Court ’ s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters .
But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims , which , in any event , are barred by laches , and are moot , meritless , and dangerous .
Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election , and nothing in the text , history , or structure of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections .
Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court .
Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution , so much as disregard it .
The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas ’ s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct .
That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “ one in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Texas ’ s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact .
The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process , and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated .
Other than that , Mrs. Lincoln , how did you like the play ?

In about an hour, the Supreme Court’s deadline for submitting motions and amici briefs in Texas v PA et al will expire. After that, the vigil starts. Will the court even bother to take up the case at all, delivering a single-line order dismissing it? Or will they feel compelled to consider it and with it the prospect of changing the results of the election?
The state of Ohio tried a novel approach in its filings. Attorney General Dave Yost and Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers argue that the Supreme Court does not have the discretion to deny consideration in original actions between states, as is the case here. They then urge the court to rule decisively against Texas, arguing that federalism does not allow for states to dictate terms to each other — even though Ohio does have sympathy for the underlying argument:
Article II of the Constitution directs that “[e]ach State shall appoint” presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Art. II, §1, cl.2. Whatever “the Legislature thereof” means, it does not mean “the courts thereof.” Thus, when state election codes dictate the manner for appointing presidential electors, state courts must respect the legislature’s work: they may not change the rules by which electors are chosen through judge-made doctrines or by rewriting statutes in the guise of interpretation. See Democratic Nat’l Comm. v. Wis. State Legislature, 592 U.S. __, slip op. 9 n.1 (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 120 (2000) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring); see also Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, 592 U.S. __, slip op. 1 (2020) (Statement of Alito, J.). This does not mean that state-court interpretations of state law are entitled to no deference. But at some point, a purported “interpretation” becomes “not a construction” of the relevant text, “but a rewriting of it.” State Bd. of Equalization of Cal. v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 62 (1936). The Electors Clause prohibits such rewritings in the context of presidential elections. Precisely because Ohio holds this view about the meaning of the Electors Clause, it cannot support Texas’s plea for relief. Texas seeks a “remand to the State legislatures to allocate electors in a manner consistent with the Constitution.” Br. in Support of Motion for Leave to File 16. Such an order would violate, not honor, the Electors Clause. Federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to change the legislatively chosen method for appointing presidential electors. And so federal courts, just like state courts, lack authority to order legislatures to appoint electors without regard to the results of an already-completed election. What is more, the relief that Texas seeks would undermine a foundational premise of our federalist system: the idea that the States are sovereigns, free to govern themselves. The federal government has only those powers that the Constitution gives to it. And nothing in the Constitution empowers courts to issue orders affirmatively directing the States how to exercise their constitutional authority.
Apart from the relief, however, Ohio urges the court to rule on the proper form of managing election rules for federal office:
Although Ohio does not endorse Texas’s proposed relief, it does endorse its call for a ruling on the meaning of the Electors Clause. More precisely, Ohio urges the Court to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, whether state courts and state executive actors violate the Electors Clause when they change the rules by which presidential elections are run. In late October, Justice Alito predicted that the Court’s failure to decide that question in another case had “needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious post-election problems.” Boockvar, 592 U.S. __, slip op. at 1 (Statement of Alito, J.). Unfortunately, he was right. In many States, citizens voted for President under rules created by state judiciaries and state executive actors rather than state legislatures. See, e.g., id., slip op. at 1–2; Moore v. Circosta, 592 U.S. __, slip op. 1–2 (2020) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting from denial of application for injunctive relief); Tex. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Hughs, 978 F.3d 136, 151–52 (5th Cir. 2020) (Ho, J., concurring). Because this Court has never decided whether the Electors Clause permits such alterations to the method for choosing presidential electors, Americans are left to wonder whether the process by which they voted for President was consistent with our country’s founding charter. Those doubts will linger, “robbing the winners of” a victory that all Americans will deem legitimate, and “the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat.” United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 802 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Meanwhile, six states have petitioned the court to join Texas in the original complaint. Missouri, which led the amicus brief from 17 states on Texas’ behalf, now leads the new petition seeking to add itself, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah to Texas v PA et al. It’s mostly boilerplate, but this part is intriguing, especially given the absence of the other 11 amicus partners:
Fourth, the Intervening States’ interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties in the case. The Intervening States do not doubt that Plaintiff State of Texas will vigorously and effectively litigate this case, but the Attorney General of each individual State is best situated to represent the interests of that State and its People. The requirement for adequacy of representation is “minimal,” Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972), and the undersigned Attorneys General respectfully submit that they are the most adequate representatives of their respective States. Cf. Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Indiana, 281 U.S. 163, 173 (1930) (“[B]y virtue of the original jurisdiction over controversies between states, [a State] must be deemed to represent all its citizens.”). Moreover, Plaintiff State of Texas has consented to the intervention requested in this Motion, as has counsel for President Trump.
Do the other eleven states think Texas does adequately represent their interests? Or are they just not too interested in attaching themselves so explicitly to Texas’ lawsuit?
Interestingly, at least as of this writing, there do not appear to be any amici briefs supporting the four respondent states [see first update]. Arizona also filed a motion for an amicus brief, but theirs won’t argue for the case in either direction. Instead, they would just urge the court to act quickly and substantially if they choose to take up the case at all. No one so far seems in favor of the one-line dismissal method used in the Kelly Parnell et al v PA case.
We may wait longer than some would like, therefore, to get a decision from the court. It’s at least possible that the court could quickly rule that the remedies in the Texas complaint are out of bounds, but that it might take up the rest of the issue as Ohio suggests. That might be a good idea, but they punted once on this issue with Pennsylvania before the election. Another punt with the remedies mooted might be pretty tempting again.
Stay tuned. Anything could happen after 3 pm ET today.
Update: What I meant to write was that no other states had filed amici briefs supporting the respondents. There is an amicus brief filed on their behalf from Carter Phillips, Stuart Gerson, John Danforth, Christine Todd Whitman, Lowell Weicker et al. They argue against standing of outside states in another state’s election, and therefore the Supreme Court itself has no real jurisdiction:
The Electors Clause and 3 U.S.C. § 5 contradict the Plaintiff’s unprecedented argument that a presidential election dispute is a controversy between two or more states. These provisions contradict Plaintiff’s argument by authorizing each state to delegate by statute the adjudication of all controversies or contests concerning federal presidential election results in that state to that state’s courts. Such statutory delegation to state courts is part of each state legislature’s chosen statutory “manner” for presidential elections as much as are the statutes on, for example, mail-in voting. A state’s chosen “manner” applies “exclusively,” McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892), “absent some other constitutional constraint.” Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324 (2020) (emphasis added). There is no constitutional constraint against state courts being the trial courts for presidential election disputes. … Plaintiff’s Motions make a mockery of federalism and separation of powers. It would violate the most fundamental constitutional principles for this Court to serve as the trial court for presidential election disputes.
That would be an attractive exit ramp, if the court was interested in looking for one.
Update: Pennsylvania has filed its response, and it doesn’t mince words. Their summary accuses Texas of a ” seditious abuse of the judicial process,” and says its case is based on a “surreal alternate reality”:
What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it. The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?