hotair--2020-06-07--Have we found Earth 2.0?

Have we found Earth 2.0?

Rather than focus on what the next plague or other calamity coming our way in 2020 might be , let ’ s take some time this afternoon to think about some good news .
In the event that Earth winds up becoming uninhabitable from any of the disasters currently being contemplated , we may have found a replacement that we can move to .
That ’ s a tall order , considering all of the qualities that a planet would need to possess to be in “ ready to move in ” condition .
But scientists at the Max Planck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Germany have been poring over existing data from the Kepler Space Telescope mission using a recently developed algorithm and they have detected a planet that just might fill the bill .
How close could it be to our own Earth ?
Really , really close .
( Forbes ) Today the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research ( MPS ) in Göttingen is reporting that a project it led has found just that ; an Earth-like , probably rocky planet called KOI-456.04 that orbits a star called Kepler-160 .
This promising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solar system… In short , Kepler-160 is an astrophysical portrayal of our own parent star , says the MPS .
“ The full picture of habitability involves a look at the qualities of the star too ” , said Heller .
Let ’ s start with the good news in terms of the similarities between the two worlds .
KOI-456.04 orbits a star that is almost exactly like our sun and it rides in the habitable zone where liquid water could exist on the surface .
One “ year ” on that planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than our own .
It receives a little more than 90 % of the same amount of starlight we receive from the sun and its average temperature ( if it developed an atmosphere ) should only be slightly cooler than ours .
If there ’ s ever going to be a place where life might arise in conditions similar to what we need , this could be one .
Of course , nothing is ever easy or perfect .
There are some other factors that would make life on KOI-456.04 ( assuming it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home sweet home .
First of all , the planet is at the low end of what ’ s considered to be a super-Earth at roughly double our size and mass .
At twice the size , according to Live Science , the planet ’ s gravity would be approximately 1.5 times that of Earth .
So if you weigh 150 pounds , you ’ d weigh around 225 on the super-Earth .
That ’ s a lot , but it ’ s not a deal-breaker .
You ’ d adapt to it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next generation would grow up experiencing those conditions as normal .
Also , we don ’ t know for sure that the planet would necessarily have an atmosphere .
We only have two examples of rocky worlds in this size range to draw on , those being Earth and Venus .
They both developed atmospheres , but they turned out quite differently .
The third problem is , as noted above , the planet is 3,000 light-years away .
Even if it turns out to be an exact duplicate to our planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no way of getting there .
At least not yet , anyway .
We ’ ll need to get hold of one of the Tic-Tacs first , take it apart , and figure out their gravity drive before we can build a ship to possibly take us there .
And here ’ s the final fly in the ointment .
The scientists who made this discovery aren ’ t 100 % sure that KOI-456.04 is even real .
They admit that it could be “ a statistical fluke or a systematic measurement error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still , they claim they ’ re 85 % sure that it ’ s real .
And if it ’ s real , it could very well be spectacular , to borrow a line from Seinfeld .
Keep your fingers crossed .
As I ’ ve said here repeatedly , the Earth has a finite lifespan as a habitable world even if everything goes our way .
We ’ re going to have to get off this rock sooner or later if our species is to continue .
So we ’ ll need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there and figure out a way to get to them .

Rather than focus on what the next plague or other calamity coming our way in 2020 might be, let’s take some time this afternoon to think about some good news. In the event that Earth winds up becoming uninhabitable from any of the disasters currently being contemplated, we may have found a replacement that we can move to. That’s a tall order, considering all of the qualities that a planet would need to possess to be in “ready to move in” condition. But scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany have been poring over existing data from the Kepler Space Telescope mission using a recently developed algorithm and they have detected a planet that just might fill the bill. How close could it be to our own Earth? Really, really close. (Forbes)
Today the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Göttingen is reporting that a project it led has found just that; an Earth-like, probably rocky planet called KOI-456.04 that orbits a star called Kepler-160. This promising star system is 3,000 light-years from the solar system… In short, Kepler-160 is an astrophysical portrayal of our own parent star, says the MPS. “The full picture of habitability involves a look at the qualities of the star too”, said Heller.
Let’s start with the good news in terms of the similarities between the two worlds. KOI-456.04 orbits a star that is almost exactly like our sun and it rides in the habitable zone where liquid water could exist on the surface. One “year” on that planet is 378 days long, barely longer than our own. It receives a little more than 90% of the same amount of starlight we receive from the sun and its average temperature (if it developed an atmosphere) should only be slightly cooler than ours. If there’s ever going to be a place where life might arise in conditions similar to what we need, this could be one.
Of course, nothing is ever easy or perfect. There are some other factors that would make life on KOI-456.04 (assuming it’s possible) different than our home sweet home.
First of all, the planet is at the low end of what’s considered to be a super-Earth at roughly double our size and mass. At twice the size, according to Live Science, the planet’s gravity would be approximately 1.5 times that of Earth. So if you weigh 150 pounds, you’d weigh around 225 on the super-Earth. That’s a lot, but it’s not a deal-breaker. You’d adapt to it eventually. And anyone born there in the next generation would grow up experiencing those conditions as normal.
Also, we don’t know for sure that the planet would necessarily have an atmosphere. We only have two examples of rocky worlds in this size range to draw on, those being Earth and Venus. They both developed atmospheres, but they turned out quite differently.
The third problem is, as noted above, the planet is 3,000 light-years away. Even if it turns out to be an exact duplicate to our planet and a perfect home, we have no way of getting there. At least not yet, anyway. We’ll need to get hold of one of the Tic-Tacs first, take it apart, and figure out their gravity drive before we can build a ship to possibly take us there.
And here’s the final fly in the ointment. The scientists who made this discovery aren’t 100% sure that KOI-456.04 is even real. They admit that it could be “a statistical fluke or a systematic measurement error instead of a genuine planet.” But still, they claim they’re 85% sure that it’s real. And if it’s real, it could very well be spectacular, to borrow a line from Seinfeld. Keep your fingers crossed. As I’ve said here repeatedly, the Earth has a finite lifespan as a habitable world even if everything goes our way. We’re going to have to get off this rock sooner or later if our species is to continue. So we’ll need to find more worlds like ours out there and figure out a way to get to them.


hotair--2020-06-07--Biden surrogate AOC: What will you do to defund the police?

The latest suicidal politician to join ranks with liberal protesters calling to defund our nation ’ s police departments has emerged .
On a recent conference call , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) echoed calls from many protesters , asking other elected officials what they would be “ willing to sacrifice ” in order to “ defund the police.
” She specifically referenced the NYPD in her home city , but the larger message clearly would apply to police departments around the nation .
This will no doubt bring plenty of cheers from supporters of “ The Squad , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners , employers , and poor people without the means to flee those cities before The Purge begins for real .
( Fox News ) Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threw her weight behind a growing movement to defund police departments that has become a rallying cry for some protesters in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death .
The progressive firebrand put her stamp of approval on the far-left demand as a policy solution to combat police brutality and racial injustice during a congressional primary debate that aired Friday night on NY1 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaged in advocacy ” for a “ reduction of our NYPD budget and defunding a $ 6 billion NYPD budget that costs us books in the hands of our children and costs us very badly needed investment in NYCHA [ New York City Housing Authority ] and public housing.
” The Hill tweeted out the applicable portion of the video which you can watch below .
As noted in the coverage at Fox News , even some of the most liberal Democrats in the country aren ’ t willing to go that far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser have come out against such a radical proposal .
In response to the latter , the Black Lives Matter contingent in Washington took Bowser to task , saying that “ Black Lives Matter means defund the police.
” What should be obvious to anyone with a pulse is that even when we identify individual police officers who turn out to be bad apples , or even entire units with a history of problematic performance , “ defunding ” the police is not the same as “ reforming ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the number of deaths being recorded in a particular hospital , you don ’ t respond by shutting down the hospital or significantly reducing its budget .
I ’ ll confess to having some evil thoughts whenever this subject crops up again in the news .
If it wouldn ’ t prove to be such a catastrophe for all those unable to get out , it would almost be interesting to simply shut down all of the law enforcement in one of these cities someday and just sit back to watch the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the initial protests over the death of George Floyd turned into riots in a matter of hours , a city where all of the cops packed up their homes and their families and moved out would probably not make it to nightfall of the first day before civilization broke down entirely .
The carnage would be unimaginable .
Of course , we can ’ t do that just to prove a point because not all of the law-abiding residents would have the financial means to flee before they were robbed , assaulted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just chalk this incident up as one more thing to keep in mind as you head to the polls this year .
Are people promoting ideas such as these really the ones you want to entrust the future safety and security of the country to ?
But just in case , assuming you live in one of these cities , it might be worth considering getting out before the rush begins .

The latest suicidal politician to join ranks with liberal protesters calling to defund our nation’s police departments has emerged. On a recent conference call, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) echoed calls from many protesters, asking other elected officials what they would be “willing to sacrifice” in order to “defund the police.” She specifically referenced the NYPD in her home city, but the larger message clearly would apply to police departments around the nation. This will no doubt bring plenty of cheers from supporters of “The Squad,” but will likely prove disheartening for business owners, employers, and poor people without the means to flee those cities before The Purge begins for real. (Fox News)
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threw her weight behind a growing movement to defund police departments that has become a rallying cry for some protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s death. The progressive firebrand put her stamp of approval on the far-left demand as a policy solution to combat police brutality and racial injustice during a congressional primary debate that aired Friday night on NY1. Ocasio-Cortez said she’s “actively engaged in advocacy” for a “reduction of our NYPD budget and defunding a $6 billion NYPD budget that costs us books in the hands of our children and costs us very badly needed investment in NYCHA [New York City Housing Authority] and public housing.”
The Hill tweeted out the applicable portion of the video which you can watch below.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: "If you're an elected official… I'm asking you to ask yourself what are you willing to sacrifice to make sure that over-funded police departments are defunded?" pic.twitter.com/1jl3rezBTG — The Hill (@thehill) June 6, 2020
As noted in the coverage at Fox News, even some of the most liberal Democrats in the country aren’t willing to go that far. Both NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser have come out against such a radical proposal. In response to the latter, the Black Lives Matter contingent in Washington took Bowser to task, saying that “Black Lives Matter means defund the police.”
This is a performative distraction from real policy changes. Bowser has consistently been on the wrong side of BLMDC history. This is to appease white liberals while ignoring our demands. Black Lives Matter means defund the police. @emilymbadger say it with us https://t.co/w0ekwSG1ip — Black Lives Matter DC (@DMVBlackLives) June 5, 2020
What should be obvious to anyone with a pulse is that even when we identify individual police officers who turn out to be bad apples, or even entire units with a history of problematic performance, “defunding” the police is not the same as “reforming” the police. If you are concerned about the number of deaths being recorded in a particular hospital, you don’t respond by shutting down the hospital or significantly reducing its budget.
I’ll confess to having some evil thoughts whenever this subject crops up again in the news. If it wouldn’t prove to be such a catastrophe for all those unable to get out, it would almost be interesting to simply shut down all of the law enforcement in one of these cities someday and just sit back to watch the social experiment unfold. As we saw when the initial protests over the death of George Floyd turned into riots in a matter of hours, a city where all of the cops packed up their homes and their families and moved out would probably not make it to nightfall of the first day before civilization broke down entirely. The carnage would be unimaginable. Of course, we can’t do that just to prove a point because not all of the law-abiding residents would have the financial means to flee before they were robbed, assaulted, raped and/or killed.
Let’s just chalk this incident up as one more thing to keep in mind as you head to the polls this year. Are people promoting ideas such as these really the ones you want to entrust the future safety and security of the country to? But just in case, assuming you live in one of these cities, it might be worth considering getting out before the rush begins.


hotair--2020-06-07--Ted Cruz: "Snapchat is explicitly censoring" Trump's account

Is another social media company trying to put a thumb on the scale against President Trump during this election cycle ?
It looks like it .
This time it is Snapchat .
Yesterday I wrote about Reddit and how that social media company rushed through a change to adjust its algorithm after a subreddit of Trump supporters became popular .
We know that Silicon Valley is notoriously liberal in their politics .
Now Senator Ted Cruz is calling out Snapchat over what he sees as censorship of Trump ’ s account on their platform .
Snapchat is best described as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Snap , Inc. What makes the app unique is that it allows the user to post a picture or message which then disappears after a certain amount of time .
After a short time , recipients can no longer see the post .
Snapchat was initially introduced in 2011 .
The company made a decision to stop promoting President Trump ’ s account on its platform .
The move was done to penalize Trump for what the company sees as threats made to protesters by the president .
Apparently , firmly speaking up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can to stop the violence bringing havoc to major cities across the country is a bridge too far for them .
Like others on the left , it is easier for them to fall in line with protests that are often overtaken by violent agitators than it is to support those who are responsible to serve and protect the public .
We ’ ve seen this play out since 1968 .
Now Snapchat finds itself in the political speech war .
Trump supporters are criticizing the move , Biden supporters praise it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t penalizing Trump ( and his campaign ) for anything he has said or posted on Snapchat , it is a reaction to Trump ’ s interactions on other platforms , specifically on Twitter .
This is why their action is troubling to Senator Cruz .
Both he and the Trump campaign are speaking out against the decision .
“ At this point , it is no surprise to anyone that Big Tech doesn ’ t believe in free speech and will happily censor views with which they disagree .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by that low bar , ” Cruz , a frequent critic of the tech industry , told POLITICO in a statement .
“ Snapchat is explicitly censoring admittedly unobjectionable speech as punishment for completely unrelated speech off of Snapchat ’ s platform.
” The Trump campaign , which has railed against Twitter and at Silicon Valley more broadly over accusations they stifle conservative viewpoints , accused Snapchat and its leaders of “ trying to rig the 2020 election , illegally using their corporate funding to promote Joe Biden and suppress President Trump.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather promote extreme left riot videos and encourage their users to destroy America than share the positive words of unity , justice , and law and order from our President , ” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement .
Snap justifies the move by saying it will “ not amplify voices who incite racial violence and injustice by giving them free promotion.
” This affects the site ’ s ‘ Discover ’ section – a place where it promotes specific accounts .
Trump ’ s account wasn ’ t taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer promote the president ’ s account as it has done up until now .
“ Racial violence and injustice have no place in our society and we stand together with all who seek peace , love , equality , and justice in America , ” the company continued .
Like the rest of Trump ’ s opponents , Snap is blaming Trump for all of society ’ s injustices .
It would seem the country had no such problems pre-Trump , right ?
Sleepy Joe , as usual , botched it when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s decision .
He doesn ’ t understand that Trump ’ s account is still there .
He actually made the gaffe on Snapchat .
Poor old Joe .
Bless his heart .
Another day , another quotable gaffe on a video produced in his basement .
To be clear , Snapchat is penalizing Trump on its platform for something posted on another platform , not on its own .
The company isn ’ t virtue-signaling against Trump ’ s Snapchat ’ s posts .
They are carrying water for Twitter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks on Trump ’ s tweets .
It ’ s a blatant attempt to move Trump ’ s account out of the public eye when a user goes to the ‘ Discover ’ to search for celebrities or public figures .
This hasn ’ t been done by any other social media company .
Senator Cruz is right – it is censorship .

Is another social media company trying to put a thumb on the scale against President Trump during this election cycle? It looks like it. This time it is Snapchat.
Yesterday I wrote about Reddit and how that social media company rushed through a change to adjust its algorithm after a subreddit of Trump supporters became popular. We know that Silicon Valley is notoriously liberal in their politics. Now Senator Ted Cruz is calling out Snapchat over what he sees as censorship of Trump’s account on their platform.
Snapchat is best described as a multimedia messaging app, developed by Snap, Inc. What makes the app unique is that it allows the user to post a picture or message which then disappears after a certain amount of time. After a short time, recipients can no longer see the post. Snapchat was initially introduced in 2011. The company made a decision to stop promoting President Trump’s account on its platform. The move was done to penalize Trump for what the company sees as threats made to protesters by the president. Apparently, firmly speaking up and saying he will do what he can to stop the violence bringing havoc to major cities across the country is a bridge too far for them. Like others on the left, it is easier for them to fall in line with protests that are often overtaken by violent agitators than it is to support those who are responsible to serve and protect the public. We’ve seen this play out since 1968.
Now Snapchat finds itself in the political speech war. Trump supporters are criticizing the move, Biden supporters praise it. Here’s the thing – Snapchat isn’t penalizing Trump (and his campaign) for anything he has said or posted on Snapchat, it is a reaction to Trump’s interactions on other platforms, specifically on Twitter. This is why their action is troubling to Senator Cruz. Both he and the Trump campaign are speaking out against the decision.
“At this point, it is no surprise to anyone that Big Tech doesn’t believe in free speech and will happily censor views with which they disagree. But this move is extraordinary even when measured by that low bar,” Cruz, a frequent critic of the tech industry, told POLITICO in a statement. “Snapchat is explicitly censoring admittedly unobjectionable speech as punishment for completely unrelated speech off of Snapchat’s platform.” The Trump campaign, which has railed against Twitter and at Silicon Valley more broadly over accusations they stifle conservative viewpoints, accused Snapchat and its leaders of “trying to rig the 2020 election, illegally using their corporate funding to promote Joe Biden and suppress President Trump.” “Radical Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel would rather promote extreme left riot videos and encourage their users to destroy America than share the positive words of unity, justice, and law and order from our President,” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement.
Snap justifies the move by saying it will “not amplify voices who incite racial violence and injustice by giving them free promotion.” This affects the site’s ‘Discover’ section – a place where it promotes specific accounts. Trump’s account wasn’t taken down, but the site will no longer promote the president’s account as it has done up until now. “Racial violence and injustice have no place in our society and we stand together with all who seek peace, love, equality, and justice in America,” the company continued. Like the rest of Trump’s opponents, Snap is blaming Trump for all of society’s injustices. It would seem the country had no such problems pre-Trump, right?
Sleepy Joe, as usual, botched it when he attempted to poke Trump about Snapchat’s decision. He doesn’t understand that Trump’s account is still there. He actually made the gaffe on Snapchat.
Biden, in contrast, appeared to voice support for Snapchat’s decision — and take a dig at Trump — in a video posted on the platform Wednesday. “I just wanted to tell you I’m proud to be able to run for president and still be on Snapchat,” the presumptive Democratic nominee said.
.@JoeBiden weighs in on Snapchat’s decesion to stop promoting Trump’s account >> “I just wanted to tell you I’m proud to be able to run for President and still be on Snapchat.”pic.twitter.com/d9D0Lw8fyi — Matt Hill (@thematthill) June 3, 2020
Poor old Joe. Bless his heart. Another day, another quotable gaffe on a video produced in his basement.
To be clear, Snapchat is penalizing Trump on its platform for something posted on another platform, not on its own. The company isn’t virtue-signaling against Trump’s Snapchat’s posts. They are carrying water for Twitter and it’s decision to put fact checks on Trump’s tweets. It’s a blatant attempt to move Trump’s account out of the public eye when a user goes to the ‘Discover’ to search for celebrities or public figures. This hasn’t been done by any other social media company. Senator Cruz is right – it is censorship.


hotair--2020-06-07--Protesters boo liberal Minneapolis mayor out of rally after he says he opposes abolishing the police

First , and apropos of nothing , I can ’ t get over how young this guy looks in that outfit .
Did his mom drop him off at the rally ?
Second , note that Jacob Frey is very far from being some law-and-order Republican .
He ’ s not just a Democrat , he got elected mayor running on a platform that included … police reform .
He wept openly on Friday beside the casket at George Floyd ’ s memorial service .
He ’ s in full woke mode in the first clip below — until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him on just how radical he ’ s willing to get in the name of bringing about radical change .
This is the best Trump campaign ad I ’ ve seen this year .
Calls for abolishing — or defunding — the police were by no means limited to Minneapolis .
They ’ ve been ping-ponging around social media all week and showing up at other demonstrations in the past few days : Says Karol Markowicz , “ It ’ s crazy that with everyone fairly united on the idea of reform , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defund the police ’ as the change they want .
I could be convinced the Russians were involved in this one.
” The president sees an opportunity here , quite correctly : YouGov polled Americans a few days ago on five suggested reforms to police practices .
Does any commentary need to be added to these results ?
Not a single demographic group surveyed supported cutting funding for the police .
Even black Americans tilted 33/36 against it .
Emily Ekins notes that a Cato Institute study on attitudes towards policing conducted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black , white and Hispanic Americans oppose reducing the number of police officers in their community—and a third say their community needs more officers.
” How do you suppose voters will respond to the idea of “ defunding , ” or abolishing , police departments entirely ?
Less radical left-wing voices see the peril here and have already taken to insisting that “ defund the police ” doesn ’ t really mean “ defund the police ” : A Twitter pal fired back at her , “ Just like ‘ Death to America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have constructive meaningful dialogue with the American people but their evil president won ’ t let us . '
” The obvious analogy here is to the left ’ s push to “ Abolish ICE ” in 2018 , another issue that polled badly ( but not so badly as to prevent them from taking back the House that fall ) .
I like Sarah Longwell ’ s analogy better , though : Biden ’ s going to have to tread lightly here .
Obviously he can ’ t come out in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would scare the suburbanites he ’ s trying to hold onto .
But he can ’ t show outright contempt for the idea either given that he has a problem already generating enthusiasm among left-wing Democrats and a potentially more significant problem winning over younger black voters .
Expect some rhetoric about how the proposal is “ well-meaning but misguided ” or whatever .
( Cory Booker already took a similar line in an interview this morning . )
Maybe he can get Obama to speak up against it to take some heat @ @ @ @

First, and apropos of nothing, I can’t get over how young this guy looks in that outfit. Did his mom drop him off at the rally?
Second, note that Jacob Frey is very far from being some law-and-order Republican. He’s not just a Democrat, he got elected mayor running on a platform that included … police reform. He wept openly on Friday beside the casket at George Floyd’s memorial service. He’s in full woke mode in the first clip below — until the rally’s organizers decided to test him on just how radical he’s willing to get in the name of bringing about radical change.
This is the best Trump campaign ad I’ve seen this year.
Minneapolis mayor's attempt to show solidarity with protesters takes an unexpected turn here. pic.twitter.com/DLchX1e8si — Liam Donovan (@LPDonovan) June 7, 2020
"Go home Jacob! Go home!" Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was booed out of a protest after he said he did not support abolishing the police department. https://t.co/MgvPSrI0le pic.twitter.com/SzMTYXaHzQ — ABC News (@ABC) June 7, 2020
Calls for abolishing — or defunding — the police were by no means limited to Minneapolis. They’ve been ping-ponging around social media all week and showing up at other demonstrations in the past few days:
DC Mayor Muriel Bowser had "Black Lives Matter" painted onto 16th St. just down from the White House. Last night protesters added "Defund The Police" pic.twitter.com/1GElXtYiSD — Doug Mills (@dougmillsnyt) June 7, 2020
Says Karol Markowicz, “It’s crazy that with everyone fairly united on the idea of reform, protesters have settled on the unpopular ‘defund the police’ as the change they want. I could be convinced the Russians were involved in this one.”
The president sees an opportunity here, quite correctly:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1269617458354282502
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1269630609883910144
YouGov polled Americans a few days ago on five suggested reforms to police practices. Does any commentary need to be added to these results?
Not a single demographic group surveyed supported cutting funding for the police. Even black Americans tilted 33/36 against it. Emily Ekins notes that a Cato Institute study on attitudes towards policing conducted in 2016 found that “9 in 10 black, white and Hispanic Americans oppose reducing the number of police officers in their community—and a third say their community needs more officers.”
How do you suppose voters will respond to the idea of “defunding,” or abolishing, police departments entirely?
Less radical left-wing voices see the peril here and have already taken to insisting that “defund the police” doesn’t really mean “defund the police”:
https://twitter.com/SRuhle/status/1269622507205771265
A Twitter pal fired back at her, “Just like ‘Death to America’ means ‘we just want to have constructive meaningful dialogue with the American people but their evil president won’t let us.'” The obvious analogy here is to the left’s push to “Abolish ICE” in 2018, another issue that polled badly (but not so badly as to prevent them from taking back the House that fall). I like Sarah Longwell’s analogy better, though:
If you don’t mean, “Defund the Police” then don’t say, “Defund the Police.” Please see, “Believe All Women,” for a refresher on why words matter. — Sarah Longwell (@SarahLongwell25) June 7, 2020
Biden’s going to have to tread lightly here. Obviously he can’t come out in favor of defunding the police, as it would scare the suburbanites he’s trying to hold onto. But he can’t show outright contempt for the idea either given that he has a problem already generating enthusiasm among left-wing Democrats and a potentially more significant problem winning over younger black voters. Expect some rhetoric about how the proposal is “well-meaning but misguided” or whatever. (Cory Booker already took a similar line in an interview this morning.) Maybe he can get Obama to speak up against it to take some heat off of him.


hotair--2020-06-07--Can a stiff-necked people ever look up? Sunday reflection

“ Stiff-necked ” feels like a pretty good description of the past three months , at least for me , and I ’ m pretty sure I ’ m not alone in this club .
Thanks to what feels like a replay of the Biblical plagues this year , we ’ ve been hunkering down in homes to avoid both a real plague and now civil unrest .
At times , it feels as though work is all we have , and I feel very fortunate to have that much .
For me , 2020 ’ s theme is plodding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of something .
To put one ’ s head up is to be almost entirely overwhelmed by all sorts of events out of our control .
At times , tunnel vision seems like the only way to survive in Covidia , in the same way that looking down helps on spinning rides .
We can only look up when the ride stops , or we get disoriented and unable to cope .
“ Stiff necked ” seems like a very apropos description for a survival strategy .
Imagine , then , what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Moses came to free them from four hundred years of bondage .
The Israelites came to Egypt with Joseph to work , but became enslaved for centuries .
They had no hope , although they kept their faith and identity as a people .
To look up and question would be to lose one ’ s life .
Those necks got stiffened as a literal survival strategy , and one can imagine only the toughest at that strategy survived .
Self-reliance and self-reflection had to run strong for Moses to bring any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But how does a “ stiff-necked people ” who got toughened up by brutal captivity learn to start looking upward and outward ?
Our first reading today broaches that subject in Moses ’ visit to Mount Sinai .
He brought two stone tablets as commanded , but clearly understood what he was up against as a leader and prophet to the Israelites even after their rescue at the Red Sea : Ironically , as this was happening , the Israelites proved Moses correct .
Rather than looking up — literally — to Moses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sinai , they rebelled and declared their loyalty to an idol they made themselves : the golden calf .
Their years of self-reliance and lack of any evident intercession by the Lord would not prove easily overcome after all .
In fact , the stiff-neckedness of His people would arise time and time again , even after their entry into the Promised Land , even after the kingdoms of David and Solomon , when the Israelites were within grasp of their prophetic mission to the world .
This disobedience and stubborn self-interest is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adam and Eve rebelled against the Lord ’ s leadership as well , attempting to usurp His role and run things as they pleased , rather than as He pleased .
They had much less cause for rebellion , having lived in His presence much more closely than any before or since , but our free will is exactly as theirs was , and the Israelites too .
Our fallen nature pushes us against looking up to the Lord .
We want to believe in utter self-reliance , either as individuals or as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then wonder where He is in times of crisis , as though the Lord has moved off someplace rather than us walking away from Him .
In times of trouble , we are either moved to seek Him again or become even more stiff-necked in our response .
Mostly , though , we blame God for our woes , or worse , use them to disprove His existence .
“ How could a loving God allow [ _____ ] ?
” we ask .
How does a loving God resolve that conundrum ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most famous of all its verses , by sending us His Son to rescue us from our sin .
This is the answer to that question and to our predilection to sin and rejection of God ’ s Word .
The truth is that God loves us so much that He allows us to run this world , in hopes we come back to Him out of love , stiff necks and all .
This was the purpose of Abraham , Moses , and the prophets — to remind us of His Word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose to take it .
The sacrifice of Jesus and His Resurrection answer the question of God ’ s love and care for us .
We have to answer for the stiff necks in response to that .
It ’ s not easy to look up when the world burdens us with cares , as we are discovering in this moment .
It is all too easy to question whether God cares for us at all .
However , Jesus came so that we might have comfort in those dark moments and use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than inward and down , to see not just our cares but those of all our sisters and brothers in the Lord .
The Promised Land is open to all who look up and see that light waiting for them , prepared by the Lord for His children .
The front-page image is a detail from “ Moses Showing the Tablets of the Law to the Israelites , with Portraits of Members of the Panhuys Family , their Relatives and Friends ” by Maerten de Vos , c.1574-5 .
Archived at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Via Wikimedia Commons .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point of view , intended to help prepare myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is John 3:16–18:
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
“Stiff-necked” feels like a pretty good description of the past three months, at least for me, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in this club. Thanks to what feels like a replay of the Biblical plagues this year, we’ve been hunkering down in homes to avoid both a real plague and now civil unrest. At times, it feels as though work is all we have, and I feel very fortunate to have that much.
For me, 2020’s theme is plodding along to get to the end … of something. To put one’s head up is to be almost entirely overwhelmed by all sorts of events out of our control. At times, tunnel vision seems like the only way to survive in Covidia, in the same way that looking down helps on spinning rides. We can only look up when the ride stops, or we get disoriented and unable to cope. “Stiff necked” seems like a very apropos description for a survival strategy.
Imagine, then, what it must have been like for the Israelites when Moses came to free them from four hundred years of bondage. The Israelites came to Egypt with Joseph to work, but became enslaved for centuries. They had no hope, although they kept their faith and identity as a people. To look up and question would be to lose one’s life. Those necks got stiffened as a literal survival strategy, and one can imagine only the toughest at that strategy survived. Self-reliance and self-reflection had to run strong for Moses to bring any people at all out of Egypt.
But how does a “stiff-necked people” who got toughened up by brutal captivity learn to start looking upward and outward? Our first reading today broaches that subject in Moses’ visit to Mount Sinai. He brought two stone tablets as commanded, but clearly understood what he was up against as a leader and prophet to the Israelites even after their rescue at the Red Sea:
Having come down in a cloud, the LORD stood with Moses there and proclaimed his name, “LORD.” Thus the LORD passed before him and cried out, “The LORD, the LORD, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity.” Moses at once bowed down to the ground in worship. Then he said, “If I find favor with you, O LORD, do come along in our company. This is indeed a stiff-necked people; yet pardon our wickedness and sins, and receive us as your own.”
Ironically, as this was happening, the Israelites proved Moses correct. Rather than looking up — literally — to Moses’ encounter with the Lord on Mount Sinai, they rebelled and declared their loyalty to an idol they made themselves: the golden calf. Their years of self-reliance and lack of any evident intercession by the Lord would not prove easily overcome after all. In fact, the stiff-neckedness of His people would arise time and time again, even after their entry into the Promised Land, even after the kingdoms of David and Solomon, when the Israelites were within grasp of their prophetic mission to the world.
This disobedience and stubborn self-interest is just another unfolding of original sin. Adam and Eve rebelled against the Lord’s leadership as well, attempting to usurp His role and run things as they pleased, rather than as He pleased. They had much less cause for rebellion, having lived in His presence much more closely than any before or since, but our free will is exactly as theirs was, and the Israelites too.
Our fallen nature pushes us against looking up to the Lord. We want to believe in utter self-reliance, either as individuals or as societies. We reject His leadership and then wonder where He is in times of crisis, as though the Lord has moved off someplace rather than us walking away from Him. In times of trouble, we are either moved to seek Him again or become even more stiff-necked in our response. Mostly, though, we blame God for our woes, or worse, use them to disprove His existence. “How could a loving God allow [_____]?” we ask.
How does a loving God resolve that conundrum? As our Gospel reading proclaims in the most famous of all its verses, by sending us His Son to rescue us from our sin. This is the answer to that question and to our predilection to sin and rejection of God’s Word. The truth is that God loves us so much that He allows us to run this world, in hopes we come back to Him out of love, stiff necks and all. This was the purpose of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets — to remind us of His Word and the path back, if we choose to take it.
The sacrifice of Jesus and His Resurrection answer the question of God’s love and care for us. We have to answer for the stiff necks in response to that. It’s not easy to look up when the world burdens us with cares, as we are discovering in this moment. It is all too easy to question whether God cares for us at all. However, Jesus came so that we might have comfort in those dark moments and use them to look up and outward, rather than inward and down, to see not just our cares but those of all our sisters and brothers in the Lord. The Promised Land is open to all who look up and see that light waiting for them, prepared by the Lord for His children.
The front-page image is a detail from “Moses Showing the Tablets of the Law to the Israelites, with Portraits of Members of the Panhuys Family, their Relatives and Friends” by Maerten de Vos, c.1574-5. Archived at the Museum Catharijneconvent in Utrecht, Netherlands. Via Wikimedia Commons.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here.


hotair--2020-06-07--Whitmer loses yet another round in court

Things haven ’ t been going well lately for Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer as various citizens go to court in opposition to her stringent shutdown orders in response to the pandemic .
That trend continued this week when the state supreme court ruled in favor of a barbershop owner who decided to reopen his business in defiance of the Governor ’ s executive orders .
While a lower court had sided with the state ’ s right to restrict such operations , the high court ruled that 77-year-old Karl Manke has “ the right to work.
” And this one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court delivering a unanimous decision .
( Deadline ) In a ruling that could have future ramifications in the event a second wave of coronavirus strikes , a 77-year-old Michigan barber has won a legal battle against Michigan ’ s Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , who forced him to shutter his business .
Barber Karl Manke defied shutdown orders from Whitmer and reopened his shop despite state orders prohibiting retail reopenings .
Whitmer , who has drawn heavy criticism for her refusal to bend to demands on reopening businesses , subsequently pulled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , and denounced his activity .
But the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that he has the right to work .
The court was rather pointed in how they structured their ruling , delivering a barely veiled shot at Whitmer ’ s governing style in the process .
They acknowledged that the executive branch does indeed have to power to regulate such activity during a time of crisis , but said that such decisions must be “ made according to the rule of law , not hysteria.
” The Deadline article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this decision could potentially have serious ramifications for other states facing the same debates , particularly if there ’ s a major second wave of the novel coronavirus coming our way later in the year .
Since the first of these executive orders began rolling out in March and April , I ’ ve been issuing notes of caution about the limits of executive authority during times of declared emergencies .
The courts have historically ruled in favor of executive authority above and beyond what the Constitution normally allows , but there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority after the crisis can be reasonably be considered to have passed will bring the wrath of the judicial branch down upon your head quickly .
That wasn ’ t the case here , as it would be tough to argue that the virus has been eliminated to the point where there is no longer a danger of major outbreaks .
But the tougher call to make is when the courts have to decide when aggressive restrictions become “ too aggressive.
” These will always be handled on a case-by-case basis and individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That seems to be the case with Mr. Manke ’ s barbershop .
That type of operation was deemed to be nonessential by the governor and barbershops and salons wouldn ’ t end up being scheduled to reopen until one week from now on June 15th .
So was the court saying that Manke could claim that his business was essential or were they saying that the shutdown had extended to the point where the damage to him outweighed the risk to society ?
We don ’ t know because the opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail .
But the fact that they described Whitmer ’ s order as being “ hysterical ” in nature would tend to make you believe that she had pushed the limits of endurance for small business owners .
I don ’ t know if this ruling will have that much of an impact nationally , however .
First of all , it ’ s unclear if the Supreme Court would affirm the decision if they were asked to .
And courts in other states are under no obligation to take this ruling as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly can ’ t afford to terminate executive authority during a legitimate crisis entirely , but we will continue to need the courts to keep an eye on things and make sure such power isn ’ t abused .

Things haven’t been going well lately for Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer as various citizens go to court in opposition to her stringent shutdown orders in response to the pandemic. That trend continued this week when the state supreme court ruled in favor of a barbershop owner who decided to reopen his business in defiance of the Governor’s executive orders. While a lower court had sided with the state’s right to restrict such operations, the high court ruled that 77-year-old Karl Manke has “the right to work.” And this one wasn’t even close, with the court delivering a unanimous decision. (Deadline)
In a ruling that could have future ramifications in the event a second wave of coronavirus strikes, a 77-year-old Michigan barber has won a legal battle against Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who forced him to shutter his business. Barber Karl Manke defied shutdown orders from Whitmer and reopened his shop despite state orders prohibiting retail reopenings. Whitmer, who has drawn heavy criticism for her refusal to bend to demands on reopening businesses, subsequently pulled Manke’s license, heavily fined him, and denounced his activity. But the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that he has the right to work.
The court was rather pointed in how they structured their ruling, delivering a barely veiled shot at Whitmer’s governing style in the process. They acknowledged that the executive branch does indeed have to power to regulate such activity during a time of crisis, but said that such decisions must be “made according to the rule of law, not hysteria.”
Ouch.
The Deadline article makes a very good point in noting that this decision could potentially have serious ramifications for other states facing the same debates, particularly if there’s a major second wave of the novel coronavirus coming our way later in the year. Since the first of these executive orders began rolling out in March and April, I’ve been issuing notes of caution about the limits of executive authority during times of declared emergencies.
The courts have historically ruled in favor of executive authority above and beyond what the Constitution normally allows, but there are limits. Attempting to extend such authority after the crisis can be reasonably be considered to have passed will bring the wrath of the judicial branch down upon your head quickly. That wasn’t the case here, as it would be tough to argue that the virus has been eliminated to the point where there is no longer a danger of major outbreaks.
But the tougher call to make is when the courts have to decide when aggressive restrictions become “too aggressive.” These will always be handled on a case-by-case basis and individual judgment calls will have to be made. That seems to be the case with Mr. Manke’s barbershop. That type of operation was deemed to be nonessential by the governor and barbershops and salons wouldn’t end up being scheduled to reopen until one week from now on June 15th. So was the court saying that Manke could claim that his business was essential or were they saying that the shutdown had extended to the point where the damage to him outweighed the risk to society?
We don’t know because the opinion doesn’t offer that level of detail. But the fact that they described Whitmer’s order as being “hysterical” in nature would tend to make you believe that she had pushed the limits of endurance for small business owners. I don’t know if this ruling will have that much of an impact nationally, however. First of all, it’s unclear if the Supreme Court would affirm the decision if they were asked to. And courts in other states are under no obligation to take this ruling as precedent. In any event, we clearly can’t afford to terminate executive authority during a legitimate crisis entirely, but we will continue to need the courts to keep an eye on things and make sure such power isn’t abused.


hotair--2020-06-07--Infamous hate crime hoaxer to host race rally in DC

Given the current unrest surrounding the death of George Floyd , it ’ s not surprising to learn that yet another rally is being planned in D.C .
But this one is being announced well in advance , scheduled to take place on August 28th , the anniversary of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King ’ s “ I have a dream ” speech given 57 years ago .
Unfortunately for those interested in participating , the host of this rally is perpetual opportunist Al Sharpton .
Any time there is any sort of unrest involving issues of race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show up and find a way to continue promoting himself , and the current waves of demonstrations are clearly no exception .
( USA Today ) The Rev .
Al Sharpton announced Thursday he is organizing a march in Washington , D.C. , to take place on August 28th , the 57th anniversary of the historic March on Washington to “ restore and recommit that dream.
” “ We ’ re going back to Washington , ” Sharpton declared when giving his eulogy at the funeral of George Floyd , an unarmed black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minneapolis police officer pinned him to the ground with his knee… “ We going back to Washington , Martin , ” Sharpton declared again , addressing Martin Luther King III , the son of the civil rights leader , in the crowd .
“ That ’ s where your father stood in the shadows of the Lincoln Memorial and said , ‘ I have a dream.
’ ” While I don ’ t think anyone will be all that surprised if the unrest over George Floyd ’ s death is still continuing into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Al Sharpton ’ s ability to insert himself into events like this and be taken seriously .
As most of you will recall , Sharpton first broke out on the national stage as a race-baiter back in 1987 when he attempted to pull off the Tawana Brawley hate crime hoax , one of the worst in the nation ’ s history .
He went on from there to form the National Action Network , ostensibly formed as a grassroots campaign to fight racism .
But as numerous reports revealed , NAN regularly threatened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his network with protests and claims of racism .
Sharpton greatly enriched himself by running a protection scheme that Tony Soprano would have been jealous of .
Sharpton went on to form numerous corporations and organizations , both nonprofit and for profit .
The one feature they all had in common was that each and every one of them wound up in trouble with the IRS for not paying their taxes .
Of course , Sharpton ’ s tax woes might have been easier to clear up if not one , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mysteriously gone up in flames , destroying key financial records for which there were no backup copies .
Talk about bad luck !
Al Sharpton eventually tired of NAN and decided to retire , but not before selling the rights to his life story to his own “ charity ” for more than half a million dollars .
That was on top of the more than a quarter-million dollars he pocketed from NAN annually as his salary .
Good work if you can et it , eh ?
Oh , and the fruit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tree .
In 2015 his daughter attempted to sue the City of New York for $ 5 million after slipping and falling on a public street and severely twisting her ankle .
There must have been some sort of miracle or other divine intervention going on , however , since she was filmed mountain climbing almost immediately thereafter .
Even with all of this history to draw on , Sharpton continues to be a darling of the left and his endorsement is mandatory in Democratic politics .
Pretty much every Democratic candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photo-ops with him .
He ’ s wined and dined by presidents .
He was given his own show on MSNBC that he maintained continuously despite abysmal ratings , even when other hosts were being let go .
And the announcement about the upcoming rally was made while he was a guest speaker at George Floyd ’ s memorial service .
Al Sharpton has led a charmed life , to be sure .
In a more sane world , he probably would have been behind bars by now , or at least in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his assets .
And yet , he perseveres .

Given the current unrest surrounding the death of George Floyd, it’s not surprising to learn that yet another rally is being planned in D.C. But this one is being announced well in advance, scheduled to take place on August 28th, the anniversary of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech given 57 years ago. Unfortunately for those interested in participating, the host of this rally is perpetual opportunist Al Sharpton. Any time there is any sort of unrest involving issues of race, you can always expect Al Sharpton to show up and find a way to continue promoting himself, and the current waves of demonstrations are clearly no exception. (USA Today)
The Rev. Al Sharpton announced Thursday he is organizing a march in Washington, D.C., to take place on August 28th, the 57th anniversary of the historic March on Washington to “restore and recommit that dream.” “We’re going back to Washington,” Sharpton declared when giving his eulogy at the funeral of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who suffocated last week after a Minneapolis police officer pinned him to the ground with his knee… “We going back to Washington, Martin,” Sharpton declared again, addressing Martin Luther King III, the son of the civil rights leader, in the crowd. “That’s where your father stood in the shadows of the Lincoln Memorial and said, ‘I have a dream.’ ”
While I don’t think anyone will be all that surprised if the unrest over George Floyd’s death is still continuing into August, I remain perpetually amazed at Al Sharpton’s ability to insert himself into events like this and be taken seriously. As most of you will recall, Sharpton first broke out on the national stage as a race-baiter back in 1987 when he attempted to pull off the Tawana Brawley hate crime hoax, one of the worst in the nation’s history.
He went on from there to form the National Action Network, ostensibly formed as a grassroots campaign to fight racism. But as numerous reports revealed, NAN regularly threatened companies and organizations that refused to donate to his network with protests and claims of racism. Sharpton greatly enriched himself by running a protection scheme that Tony Soprano would have been jealous of.
Sharpton went on to form numerous corporations and organizations, both nonprofit and for profit. The one feature they all had in common was that each and every one of them wound up in trouble with the IRS for not paying their taxes. Of course, Sharpton’s tax woes might have been easier to clear up if not one, but two of his offices hadn’t mysteriously gone up in flames, destroying key financial records for which there were no backup copies. Talk about bad luck!
Al Sharpton eventually tired of NAN and decided to retire, but not before selling the rights to his life story to his own “charity” for more than half a million dollars. That was on top of the more than a quarter-million dollars he pocketed from NAN annually as his salary. Good work if you can et it, eh? Oh, and the fruit apparently doesn’t fall far from the tree. In 2015 his daughter attempted to sue the City of New York for $5 million after slipping and falling on a public street and severely twisting her ankle. There must have been some sort of miracle or other divine intervention going on, however, since she was filmed mountain climbing almost immediately thereafter.
Even with all of this history to draw on, Sharpton continues to be a darling of the left and his endorsement is mandatory in Democratic politics. Pretty much every Democratic candidate for president this cycle sought meetings and photo-ops with him. He’s wined and dined by presidents. He was given his own show on MSNBC that he maintained continuously despite abysmal ratings, even when other hosts were being let go. And the announcement about the upcoming rally was made while he was a guest speaker at George Floyd’s memorial service.
Al Sharpton has led a charmed life, to be sure. In a more sane world, he probably would have been behind bars by now, or at least in bankruptcy court with the IRS seizing all of his assets. And yet, he perseveres.


hotair--2020-06-07--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

“ Trump versus retired military ” is the theme of this morning ’ s Sunday shows , with an array of big names — but notably not James Mattis — set to speak up against using regular U.S. troops to quell rioting .
Some well-known officers scheduled today have already made arguments against using the Insurrection Act in op-eds or interviews this week : Mike Mullen will chat with “ Fox News Sunday , ” James Stavridis will speak to “ Meet the Press , ” and Martin Dempsey will sit with “ This Week ” to discuss their opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment .
One famous retiree who hasn ’ t spoken yet is Colin Powell , who ’ ll talk to “ State of the Union ” about Trump , the military , and the justness of the protesters ’ cause .
I ’ m guessing most Republicans won ’ t like what he has to say .
Another notable omission this morning is Tom Cotton , the chief proponent in Congress of invoking the Insurrection Act and the eye of the storm engulfing the New York Times op-ed page this week .
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to some show .
If not , it looks like Bill Barr will be tasked with defending Trump ’ s position : He ’ s the lead guest on “ Face the Nation , ” where he ’ ll be grilled about that sleazy operation against demonstrators in Lafayette Park on Monday before Trump ’ s church photo op .
Barr insisted to the AP on Friday that he didn ’ t give the order for the Park Police to make a move on protesters .
“ [ M ] y attitude was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t say , ‘ Go do it , ' ” he explained , unclearly .
Margaret Brennan will try to tease something more coherent out of him .
Two black Republicans of note are also scheduled today to give their views of the protests .
A current cabinet official , HUD director Ben Carson , will chat with “ State of the Union.
” A former cabinet official , Condoleezza Rice , will sit down with “ Face the Nation ” to elaborate on the views she shared in this op-ed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush 43 alums on the air this morning siding with protesters and ( likely ) criticizing Trump should make for some extra zesty presidential tweeting later today .
The full line-up is at the AP .

“Trump versus retired military” is the theme of this morning’s Sunday shows, with an array of big names — but notably not James Mattis — set to speak up against using regular U.S. troops to quell rioting. Some well-known officers scheduled today have already made arguments against using the Insurrection Act in op-eds or interviews this week: Mike Mullen will chat with “Fox News Sunday,” James Stavridis will speak to “Meet the Press,” and Martin Dempsey will sit with “This Week” to discuss their opposition to inserting soldiers into a combustible political moment. One famous retiree who hasn’t spoken yet is Colin Powell, who’ll talk to “State of the Union” about Trump, the military, and the justness of the protesters’ cause. I’m guessing most Republicans won’t like what he has to say.
Another notable omission this morning is Tom Cotton, the chief proponent in Congress of invoking the Insurrection Act and the eye of the storm engulfing the New York Times op-ed page this week. Maybe he’ll be a late addition to some show. If not, it looks like Bill Barr will be tasked with defending Trump’s position: He’s the lead guest on “Face the Nation,” where he’ll be grilled about that sleazy operation against demonstrators in Lafayette Park on Monday before Trump’s church photo op. Barr insisted to the AP on Friday that he didn’t give the order for the Park Police to make a move on protesters. “[M]y attitude was get it done, but I didn’t say, ‘Go do it,'” he explained, unclearly. Margaret Brennan will try to tease something more coherent out of him.
Two black Republicans of note are also scheduled today to give their views of the protests. A current cabinet official, HUD director Ben Carson, will chat with “State of the Union.” A former cabinet official, Condoleezza Rice, will sit down with “Face the Nation” to elaborate on the views she shared in this op-ed a few days ago. Having two prominent Bush 43 alums on the air this morning siding with protesters and (likely) criticizing Trump should make for some extra zesty presidential tweeting later today. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-06-08--Trump: My pollster has fact-checked that CNN poll showing me getting blown out in November

A Twitter pal reminds me that John McLaughlin , the pollster who wrote the memo featured in Trump ’ s tweets below , was also hired by the campaign in June 2016 to help Trump develop a strategy to win , ah , New York State .
So .
“ Trump is malignantly crazy about the bad poll numbers , ” said a former White House official to Vanity Fair , quoted in a story that went live coincidentally right around the same time as these tweets .
“ He ’ s going to broom Kushner and [ Brad ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not the public polling that ’ s bugging him , I ’ m sure , as he ’ s beaten expectations on those before .
It ’ s the fact that his internal polling , the sort conducted by McLaughlin , is reportedly “ brutal ” lately .
A few days ago the Times reported this tragicomic detail : “ At times , his allies have taken unusual steps to try to calm his frustration , including commissioning and then leaking a poll last month that suggested that Mr. Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people familiar with the efforts said , even as other Republican and nonpartisan polling showed the president ’ s numbers stagnant.
” He knows he ’ s losing right now .
People whom he trusts are telling him so .
He just doesn ’ t like you knowing it .
No one ’ s suppressing anything by running a “ suppression poll ” five months out from the election .
We ’ ll travel through 5,000 news cycles between now and the election , many of them ( hopefully ) with encouraging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up their minds .
If a pollster wanted to purposely discourage them he ’ d do it a few days before Election Day , not at a moment when they ’ re barely paying attention to the campaign .
McLaughlin ’ s analysis reads a lot like the “ Unskewed Polls ” site that became popular with righties before Election Day 2012 , when voters went out and proved that the polls weren ’ t actually skewed .
Some of what he says is obviously true and well-known to poll-followers , e.g.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states and in polls of likely voters than he is in national polling of adults .
All national polls really give us is a bird ’ s-eye view of how the electorate is trending generally .
But McLaughlin is playing games by reassuring Trump that CNN ’ s poll is necessarily skewed if the share of Republicans in the sample is lower than the share of Republicans ( 33 percent ) who turned out in 2016 .
There ’ s no reason to believe there ’ ll be as many Republicans — or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than there were four years ago .
Turnout levels can and do change .
As importantly , there ’ s no reason to believe that everyone who was a Republican — or a Democrat — in 2016 is still one today .
In fact , CNN ’ s poll also includes fewer self-identified Dems ( 32 percent ) in their sample than the exit polls in 2016 did ( 36 percent ) .
The biggest group in today ’ s sample is self-identified independents .
But some of those independents will begin to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and eventually identify as Dems or Republicans by November ; some of them may also be former Republicans who quit the GOP because they were tired of Trump and aren ’ t coming back .
( When the president reminds people that he has near-unanimous approval among Republicans , one reason for that is that some Never Trumpers left to become indies . )
Point being , the make-up of the electorate in 2016 doesn ’ t tell us much about party ID today .
Especially at a moment when there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a pandemic , gigantic public rallies against police brutality .
Trump and McLaughlin are entitled to call the CNN poll what is , an outlier .
At 55/41 , CNN has Biden leading by twice as many points as most other pollsters do .
( Although a Monmouth poll taken last week had him up 11 . )
If you want to know what the race looks like right now , skip CNN and skim through the latest polls aggregated at RCP .
You ’ ll notice two things .
First , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger over the last 10 days , from 5.3 points on May 30 to 7.8 points now .
There ’ s been a correlated downturn in Trump ’ s approval rating over the same period as well : The other thing you notice in the RCP data is that Biden is notching 50 percent or better regularly now ( five of the last 10 polls ) , which is dangerous territory for Trump .
Harry Enten notes that in June 2016 Hillary Clinton never once made it to 50 percent in a live-interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reliable by experts .
Biden ’ s averaged 51 percent in live-interview polls this week .
He ’ s unquestionably a more formidable challenge for Republicans than Clinton was , at least at this stage .
But it wasn ’ t the national head-to-head polling that grabbed me over the past few days .
Two other surveys did .
First , this one from Michigan : That ’ s a gruesome number in a state Trump famously won in 2016 , and further evidence that Trump has taken a hit nationally lately .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s national poll : It ’ s perfectly fair for Trump to say , “ I didn ’ t create the virus , I didn ’ t wreck the economy , and I didn ’ t kill George Floyd.
” But voters aren ’ t going to do a careful cost/benefit analysis in November .
If they have an uneasy feeling that the country is “ out of control ” they ’ re going to vote for change in hopes of bringing it back under control .
Jonathan Last thinks the outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump is the most well-known and polarizing figure in the country .
Everyone knows him and most people know what they think of him .
Joe Biden is the most famous living Democratic politician who is not a former president .
He has been a national figure for 40 years .
He is the last Democratic vice president .
Most people know what they think of him , too .
More than any presidential election in our lifetimes , this cake started out pre-baked .
And the natural level of the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time left ?
Sure .
But what are voters really going to learn about these two candidates that isn ’ t already priced into the equation ?
A big economic turnaround isn ’ t priced in yet .
A much better than expected picture on the pandemic this fall isn ’ t priced in either .
I ’ m less sure than Last is that Biden has it mostly sewn up .
But there ’ s a reason Trump ’ s anxiety about the polling has reached the point where he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from McLaughlin contesting other pollsters ’ methodology .
The numbers have been bad and within the past week they ’ ve gotten worse , probably because his response to the George Floyd protests was light on sympathy and heavy on wanting to send in the troops .
Now that things have calmed down and we ’ ve had a sunny jobs report to be excited about , maybe that downturn will begin to ease .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s a little background on McLaughlin from a Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s had some big misses , most famously finding a massive lead for his then-boss , Eric Cantor , a few weeks before Cantor was stunned in his primary by Dave Brat .
Quote : “ McLaughlin is known in the industry as someone who sometimes tells his clients what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear , say multiple Republicans who ’ ve worked with him on past races.
” You don ’ t say .

A Twitter pal reminds me that John McLaughlin, the pollster who wrote the memo featured in Trump’s tweets below, was also hired by the campaign in June 2016 to help Trump develop a strategy to win, ah, New York State. So.
“Trump is malignantly crazy about the bad poll numbers,” said a former White House official to Vanity Fair, quoted in a story that went live coincidentally right around the same time as these tweets. “He’s going to broom Kushner and [Brad] Parscale—the numbers are not getting better.” It’s not the public polling that’s bugging him, I’m sure, as he’s beaten expectations on those before. It’s the fact that his internal polling, the sort conducted by McLaughlin, is reportedly “brutal” lately. A few days ago the Times reported this tragicomic detail: “At times, his allies have taken unusual steps to try to calm his frustration, including commissioning and then leaking a poll last month that suggested that Mr. Trump had gained ground rapidly on Mr. Biden, people familiar with the efforts said, even as other Republican and nonpartisan polling showed the president’s numbers stagnant.”
He knows he’s losing right now. People whom he trusts are telling him so. He just doesn’t like you knowing it.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270071794628726784
No one’s suppressing anything by running a “suppression poll” five months out from the election. We’ll travel through 5,000 news cycles between now and the election, many of them (hopefully) with encouraging economic news, before voters start making up their minds. If a pollster wanted to purposely discourage them he’d do it a few days before Election Day, not at a moment when they’re barely paying attention to the campaign.
McLaughlin’s analysis reads a lot like the “Unskewed Polls” site that became popular with righties before Election Day 2012, when voters went out and proved that the polls weren’t actually skewed. Some of what he says is obviously true and well-known to poll-followers, e.g., Trump is certainly doing better in battleground states and in polls of likely voters than he is in national polling of adults. All national polls really give us is a bird’s-eye view of how the electorate is trending generally. But McLaughlin is playing games by reassuring Trump that CNN’s poll is necessarily skewed if the share of Republicans in the sample is lower than the share of Republicans (33 percent) who turned out in 2016. There’s no reason to believe there’ll be as many Republicans — or Democrats — at the polls this fall than there were four years ago. Turnout levels can and do change.
As importantly, there’s no reason to believe that everyone who was a Republican — or a Democrat — in 2016 is still one today. In fact, CNN’s poll also includes fewer self-identified Dems (32 percent) in their sample than the exit polls in 2016 did (36 percent). The biggest group in today’s sample is self-identified independents. But some of those independents will begin to choose sides as the campaign wears on and eventually identify as Dems or Republicans by November; some of them may also be former Republicans who quit the GOP because they were tired of Trump and aren’t coming back. (When the president reminds people that he has near-unanimous approval among Republicans, one reason for that is that some Never Trumpers left to become indies.) Point being, the make-up of the electorate in 2016 doesn’t tell us much about party ID today. Especially at a moment when there’s enormous political upheaval — massive economic pain, a pandemic, gigantic public rallies against police brutality.
Trump and McLaughlin are entitled to call the CNN poll what is, an outlier. At 55/41, CNN has Biden leading by twice as many points as most other pollsters do. (Although a Monmouth poll taken last week had him up 11.) If you want to know what the race looks like right now, skip CNN and skim through the latest polls aggregated at RCP. You’ll notice two things. First, Biden’s lead has gotten meaningfully bigger over the last 10 days, from 5.3 points on May 30 to 7.8 points now. There’s been a correlated downturn in Trump’s approval rating over the same period as well:
Trump's approval rating generally doesn't move much, so this is really one of the steeper shifts we've seen, even though it's only a couple of points.https://t.co/Vfmzd6B2ps pic.twitter.com/Nl63Hj4wcr — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 8, 2020
The other thing you notice in the RCP data is that Biden is notching 50 percent or better regularly now (five of the last 10 polls), which is dangerous territory for Trump. Harry Enten notes that in June 2016 Hillary Clinton never once made it to 50 percent in a live-interview poll, which are generally considered more reliable by experts. Biden’s averaged 51 percent in live-interview polls this week. He’s unquestionably a more formidable challenge for Republicans than Clinton was, at least at this stage.
But it wasn’t the national head-to-head polling that grabbed me over the past few days. Two other surveys did. First, this one from Michigan:
Biden, the presumed Democratic nominee, leads Republican Trump in Michigan 53-41, according to a poll conducted by EPIC-MRA of Lansing between May 30 and last Wednesday. Biden’s lead over Trump in Michigan, seen as a key battleground state in the Nov. 3 presidential election, has doubled from six points in January, when Michigan voters favored Biden over Trump 50-44, in an earlier EPIC-MRA survey… Asked about Trump’s handling of the pandemic, 58% gave him a negative rating, 41% gave him a positive rating, and 1% were undecided, or refused to say.
That’s a gruesome number in a state Trump famously won in 2016, and further evidence that Trump has taken a hit nationally lately. The other noteworthy data comes from NBC’s national poll:
It’s perfectly fair for Trump to say, “I didn’t create the virus, I didn’t wreck the economy, and I didn’t kill George Floyd.” But voters aren’t going to do a careful cost/benefit analysis in November. If they have an uneasy feeling that the country is “out of control” they’re going to vote for change in hopes of bringing it back under control. Jonathan Last thinks the outcome is now — almost — assured:
Donald Trump is the most well-known and polarizing figure in the country. Everyone knows him and most people know what they think of him. Joe Biden is the most famous living Democratic politician who is not a former president. He has been a national figure for 40 years. He is the last Democratic vice president. Most people know what they think of him, too. More than any presidential election in our lifetimes, this cake started out pre-baked. And the natural level of the race is roughly Biden +6. Is there time left? Sure. But what are voters really going to learn about these two candidates that isn’t already priced into the equation? Not much.
A big economic turnaround isn’t priced in yet. A much better than expected picture on the pandemic this fall isn’t priced in either. I’m less sure than Last is that Biden has it mostly sewn up. But there’s a reason Trump’s anxiety about the polling has reached the point where he’s willing to start sweatily tweeting out memos from McLaughlin contesting other pollsters’ methodology. The numbers have been bad and within the past week they’ve gotten worse, probably because his response to the George Floyd protests was light on sympathy and heavy on wanting to send in the troops. Now that things have calmed down and we’ve had a sunny jobs report to be excited about, maybe that downturn will begin to ease.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a little background on McLaughlin from a Vice article published last year. He’s had some big misses, most famously finding a massive lead for his then-boss, Eric Cantor, a few weeks before Cantor was stunned in his primary by Dave Brat. Quote: “McLaughlin is known in the industry as someone who sometimes tells his clients what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear, say multiple Republicans who’ve worked with him on past races.” You don’t say.


hotair--2020-06-08--Last Sunday was the deadliest day in Chicago's history going back to 1961

Sunday May 31 was the single most violent day in Chicago ’ s history going back to at least 1961 .
The last weekend in May , including that Sunday , was the most violent in Chicago ’ s modern history .
While Chicago was roiled by another day of protests and looting in the wake of George Floyd ’ s murder , 18 people were killed Sunday , May 31 , making it the single most violent day in Chicago in six decades , according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab .
The lab ’ s data doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a city with an international reputation for crime — where 900 murders per year were common in the early 1990s — it was the most violent weekend in Chicago ’ s modern history , stretching police resources that were already thin because of protests and looting .
“ We ’ ve never seen anything like it , at all , ” said Max Kapustin , the senior research director at the crime lab .
“ … I don ’ t even know how to put it into context .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen before.
” What ’ s particularly striking is the reason why this happened .
According to Rev .
Michael Pfleger who has been a prominent left-wing activist in Chicago for decades , word got around that police were overwhelmed and were not responding to calls for help .
“ On Saturday and particularly Sunday , I heard people saying all over , ‘ Hey , there ’ s no police anywhere , police ain ’ t doing nothing , ’ ” Pfleger said .
“ I sat and watched a store looted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added .
“ No police came .
I got in my car and drove around to some other places getting looted [ and ] didn ’ t see police anywhere.
” Pfleger warned that if something didn ’ t change May 31 could be just a preview of much worse to come .
Max Kasputin from the U of Chicago Crime Lab told the Chicago Sun-Times , “ When CPD has to turn its attention elsewhere and there ’ s suddenly this vacuum that opens up , you also unfortunately see a picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend where you see an absurd amount of carnage , people getting injured and killed.
” Mayor Lori Lightfoot said even a police force four times the size of the current one couldn ’ t have handled the crisis the city faced that weekend .
Chicago had 65,000 calls for service on May 31 alone , sometimes as many as 2,000 calls were coming in every thirty minutes .
This is why some people who were shot that weekend couldn ’ t get through to police and wound up calling relatives to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this seems to fly in the face of the current calls to defund and disband police .
If one weekend of police absence resulted in the most deadly violence in 60 years , what should we expect when police budgets are slashed ?
Are social workers and counselors going to prevent armed people from shooting into crowds of strangers ?
Obviously not .
So what do we expect will happen when criminals once again sense that there is a vacuum of police presence .
Will everything carry on like normal or will this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last weekend in May ?
I think we already have the answer to that question but it ’ s not clear that anyone is listening .

Sunday May 31 was the single most violent day in Chicago’s history going back to at least 1961. The last weekend in May, including that Sunday, was the most violent in Chicago’s modern history.
While Chicago was roiled by another day of protests and looting in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, 18 people were killed Sunday, May 31, making it the single most violent day in Chicago in six decades, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab. The lab’s data doesn’t go back further than 1961… In a city with an international reputation for crime — where 900 murders per year were common in the early 1990s — it was the most violent weekend in Chicago’s modern history, stretching police resources that were already thin because of protests and looting. “We’ve never seen anything like it, at all,” said Max Kapustin, the senior research director at the crime lab. “ … I don’t even know how to put it into context. It’s beyond anything that we’ve ever seen before.”
What’s particularly striking is the reason why this happened. According to Rev. Michael Pfleger who has been a prominent left-wing activist in Chicago for decades, word got around that police were overwhelmed and were not responding to calls for help.
“On Saturday and particularly Sunday, I heard people saying all over, ‘Hey, there’s no police anywhere, police ain’t doing nothing,’” Pfleger said. “I sat and watched a store looted for over an hour,” he added. “No police came. I got in my car and drove around to some other places getting looted [and] didn’t see police anywhere.”
Pfleger warned that if something didn’t change May 31 could be just a preview of much worse to come. Max Kasputin from the U of Chicago Crime Lab told the Chicago Sun-Times, “When CPD has to turn its attention elsewhere and there’s suddenly this vacuum that opens up, you also unfortunately see a picture like you saw with [last] weekend where you see an absurd amount of carnage, people getting injured and killed.”
Mayor Lori Lightfoot said even a police force four times the size of the current one couldn’t have handled the crisis the city faced that weekend. Chicago had 65,000 calls for service on May 31 alone, sometimes as many as 2,000 calls were coming in every thirty minutes. This is why some people who were shot that weekend couldn’t get through to police and wound up calling relatives to take them to the hospital.
All of this seems to fly in the face of the current calls to defund and disband police. If one weekend of police absence resulted in the most deadly violence in 60 years, what should we expect when police budgets are slashed? Are social workers and counselors going to prevent armed people from shooting into crowds of strangers? Obviously not.
So what do we expect will happen when criminals once again sense that there is a vacuum of police presence. Will everything carry on like normal or will this kind of violence escalate like it did the last weekend in May? I think we already have the answer to that question but it’s not clear that anyone is listening.
Here’s a local news report on the weekend’s unprecedented violence.


hotair--2020-06-08--Minnesota court to hear challenge to Governor Walz's executive authority

In the North Star State , a group of business owners calling itself Free Minnesota has declared that Governor Tim Walz ’ s shutdown orders related to the novel coronavirus have gone too far .
Not only are the regulations negatively impacting the economy , but the group and their attorneys claim that the orders are unconstitutional and a vast overreach of executive authority .
But rather than attempting to get their point across by burning down a few cities , they ’ ve gone to court .
And now a court has agreed to hear their case and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( From the Free Minnesota website ) Late May , a coalition of small businesses calling itself Free Minnesota and a group of legislators who make up the New House Republican Caucus filed suit to end Governor Walz ’ s executive orders related to his declared “ peacetime emergency.
” Judge Thomas Gilligan was assigned to the case .
Although the petitioners requested expedited review , the attorney general ’ s office argued for more time and Judge Gilligan granted it .
A hearing on the merits of the case has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Ramsey County Courthouse .
The lawsuit contends that governor ’ s executive orders violate Minnesota Constitution and the judicially established non-delegation doctrine , because the executive branch is not empowered to make laws .
The lockdown orders given by any number of governors around the country have produced a variety of similar lawsuits , but this one has a bit of a twist that makes it interesting .
Rather than challenging specific details of the orders or claiming that they have “ gone too far , ” while conceding the executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Free Minnesota is claiming that none of Walz ’ s executive orders are constitutional .
There are laws on the books in Minnesota that grant the Governor certain powers to issue peacetime emergency executive orders during a state of emergency .
But the group ’ s attorney , Erick Kaardal , argues that the statutes authorizing peacetime emergency executive orders are themselves unconstitutional .
The basis for this claim is a provision in the state constitution declaring that “ pure legislative power can not be delegated to or exercised by the executive branch.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota argues that even if the law were constitutional it wouldn ’ t apply in this situation .
The law speaks to powers being exercised during natural disasters such as tornadoes and wildfires .
These are finite events with a measurable beginning and end .
They point out that the law contains no provision for a threat to public health being such a condition .
And since the virus may be with us forever , the Governor could , in theory , keep asserting this privilege indefinitely .
It ’ s an interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure how far they will get .
As I ’ ve said here more times than I can count , the courts have generally tended to side with the executive branch during a declared emergency condition , provided they don ’ t push too far or for too long .
Also , I can see the state arguing that the definition of “ pure legislative power ” might not be in play here , since any action taken solely by the executive branch isn ’ t a legislative power by definition .
Further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may speak to natural disasters and provide examples related to weather , but it ’ s hard to deny that the pandemic is both a disaster and natural in origin .
In that light , the courts would likely have some wiggle room to say that the Governor is able to take these actions , distasteful though they may be .
It ’ s also possible that there won ’ t be a finding .
The judge granted the state a delay until July 16th .
If the orders are lifted by then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way out and simply declare that the lawsuit is moot at that point .
I think what I find most interesting about this case is the possibility that the Free Minnesota Coalition might actually prevail .
If they do and the finding is challenged , sending it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States , the justices would have a hot potato in their collective laps indeed .
Ruling such executive powers unconstitutional would hamstring governors all over the country in the event of an emergency .
But based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have handled such questions , I sincerely doubt they would make any sort of sweeping ruling like that .

In the North Star State, a group of business owners calling itself Free Minnesota has declared that Governor Tim Walz’s shutdown orders related to the novel coronavirus have gone too far. Not only are the regulations negatively impacting the economy, but the group and their attorneys claim that the orders are unconstitutional and a vast overreach of executive authority. But rather than attempting to get their point across by burning down a few cities, they’ve gone to court. And now a court has agreed to hear their case and a judge will entertain the suit next month. (From the Free Minnesota website)
Late May, a coalition of small businesses calling itself Free Minnesota and a group of legislators who make up the New House Republican Caucus filed suit to end Governor Walz’s executive orders related to his declared “peacetime emergency.” Judge Thomas Gilligan was assigned to the case. Although the petitioners requested expedited review, the attorney general’s office argued for more time and Judge Gilligan granted it. A hearing on the merits of the case has been set for July 16th at 10:00 AM in the Ramsey County Courthouse. The lawsuit contends that governor’s executive orders violate Minnesota Constitution and the judicially established non-delegation doctrine, because the executive branch is not empowered to make laws.
The lockdown orders given by any number of governors around the country have produced a variety of similar lawsuits, but this one has a bit of a twist that makes it interesting. Rather than challenging specific details of the orders or claiming that they have “gone too far,” while conceding the executive branch’s right to act, Free Minnesota is claiming that none of Walz’s executive orders are constitutional.
There are laws on the books in Minnesota that grant the Governor certain powers to issue peacetime emergency executive orders during a state of emergency. But the group’s attorney, Erick Kaardal, argues that the statutes authorizing peacetime emergency executive orders are themselves unconstitutional. The basis for this claim is a provision in the state constitution declaring that “pure legislative power cannot be delegated to or exercised by the executive branch.”
Going one step further, Free Minnesota argues that even if the law were constitutional it wouldn’t apply in this situation. The law speaks to powers being exercised during natural disasters such as tornadoes and wildfires. These are finite events with a measurable beginning and end. They point out that the law contains no provision for a threat to public health being such a condition. And since the virus may be with us forever, the Governor could, in theory, keep asserting this privilege indefinitely.
It’s an interesting approach, though I’m not sure how far they will get. As I’ve said here more times than I can count, the courts have generally tended to side with the executive branch during a declared emergency condition, provided they don’t push too far or for too long. Also, I can see the state arguing that the definition of “pure legislative power” might not be in play here, since any action taken solely by the executive branch isn’t a legislative power by definition.
Further, the Minnesota law establishing those powers may speak to natural disasters and provide examples related to weather, but it’s hard to deny that the pandemic is both a disaster and natural in origin. In that light, the courts would likely have some wiggle room to say that the Governor is able to take these actions, distasteful though they may be. It’s also possible that there won’t be a finding. The judge granted the state a delay until July 16th. If the orders are lifted by then, the judge might take the easy way out and simply declare that the lawsuit is moot at that point.
I think what I find most interesting about this case is the possibility that the Free Minnesota Coalition might actually prevail. If they do and the finding is challenged, sending it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, the justices would have a hot potato in their collective laps indeed. Ruling such executive powers unconstitutional would hamstring governors all over the country in the event of an emergency. But based on the history of how our courts have handled such questions, I sincerely doubt they would make any sort of sweeping ruling like that.