hotair--2020-10-12--Biden to Senate Dems: Ixnay about aith-fay on arrett-Bay

This will get hailed as a leadership move only if Senate Democrats manage to restrain themselves .
In reality , though , Joe Biden ’ s only following along with the prevailing wisdom within his party .
This morning , Biden told reporters that questions about Amy Coney Barrett ’ s faith should be off limits in her Senate confirmation hearing this week .
Instead , Biden wants his fellow Democrats to stay more on message .
Never mind that this message is even more off base than questions about her faith , even if it ’ s a far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden says Senate Democrats should make health care the focus of Amy Coney Barrett ’ s Supreme Court confirmation hearings , not the conservative judge ’ s Catholic faith .
Biden is also a practicing Catholic .
He told reporters ahead of a campaign trip to Ohio on Monday he doesn ’ t think “ there ’ s any question about her faith.
” Biden says the more important matter is that “ this nominee says she wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.
” Before Barrett was a federal judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice John Roberts ’ majority opinion upholding the 2010 health care law .
The law is being challenged again , with oral arguments set for Nov. 10 , a week after the election .
Just because she questioned Roberts ’ reasoning doesn ’ t mean that she “ wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.
” For example , even pro-abortion lawyers have questioned the reasoning behind Roe v Wade while supporting its outcome .
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the reasoning behind Roe , calling it faulty and expressing unhappiness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Ginsburg , the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman ’ s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping , and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since .
Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone , a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law , spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “ Roe v. Wade at 40.
” “ My criticism of Roe is that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the side of change , ” Ginsburg said .
She would ’ ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually , in a process that included state legislatures and the courts , she added .
Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy , rather than women ’ s rights .
“ Roe isn ’ t really about the woman ’ s choice , is it ?
” Ginsburg said .
“ It ’ s about the doctor ’ s freedom to practice…it wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So questioning the reasoning of a Supreme Court decision does not equate to a determination to overturn it .
Besides , this is hyperbole anyway ; no one really expects the upcoming case of California v Texas to provide that pretext anyway .
It ’ s a Hail Mary play by the Trump administration based on a severability argument that conservatives have lost before .
The part of the law that Roberts ’ reasoning explained was the individual mandate , which now carries no enforcement mechanism at all , which means no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aside stare decisis .
Andy McCarthy provided a clear-headed analysis of California v Texas two weeks ago , in which he declared his doubts that “ a single justice will vote to hold the whole of the ACA unconstitutional.
” ( Andy re-upped the argument today , in fact , in reaction to the hearing . )
He counts at least five votes to uphold severability arguments that would moot this challenge , and Barrett ’ s more likely than not to defer to Congress as well .
Barrett ’ s previous writings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the judiciary to defer to Congress in all but explicitly unconstitutional actions would suggest a far different outcome than Biden hyperbolizes here .
If Republicans want to repeal ObamaCare , they ’ ll have to do it in Congress — and the next time , they should have a plan to replace it first .
Still , it makes for a tasty way for Democrats to frame the election , if not Barrett ’ s nomination .
CBS ’ Nancy Cordes reported this morning that Democrats will use the hearing to push their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage for hours of earned-media advantage … even though they know Barrett won ’ t be able to commit one way or the other on policy choices : That ’ s what makes Biden ’ s call today nothing more than a rubber stamp rather than leadership .
Senate Democrats , or at least most of them , reached this conclusion two weeks ago .
At the same time , they also crafted this strategy , recognizing that they couldn ’ t derail the confirmation but instead needed to find ways to benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their smartest decision yet on the Barrett nomination , and far better than their shameful character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh .
That doesn ’ t mean Republicans have to ignore previous Democratic attacks on Barrett over her faith .
More than one Senate Republican on the Judiciary Committee reminded viewers of that history .
Josh Hawley delivered this slam on their “ bigotry , ” for which Senate Democrats would prefer not to add more fodder .
Or should .

This will get hailed as a leadership move only if Senate Democrats manage to restrain themselves. In reality, though, Joe Biden’s only following along with the prevailing wisdom within his party. This morning, Biden told reporters that questions about Amy Coney Barrett’s faith should be off limits in her Senate confirmation hearing this week.
Instead, Biden wants his fellow Democrats to stay more on message. Never mind that this message is even more off base than questions about her faith, even if it’s a far more legitimate topic:
New: Joe Biden says there should be NO questions about Amy Coney Barrett’s faith this week during hearings. @cbsnews pic.twitter.com/3KeIqbJnZS — Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) October 12, 2020
Presidential candidate Joe Biden says Senate Democrats should make health care the focus of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, not the conservative judge’s Catholic faith. Biden is also a practicing Catholic. He told reporters ahead of a campaign trip to Ohio on Monday he doesn’t think “there’s any question about her faith.” Biden says the more important matter is that “this nominee says she wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.” Before Barrett was a federal judge, she questioned the reasoning behind Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion upholding the 2010 health care law. The law is being challenged again, with oral arguments set for Nov. 10, a week after the election.
Just because she questioned Roberts’ reasoning doesn’t mean that she “wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.” For example, even pro-abortion lawyers have questioned the reasoning behind Roe v Wade while supporting its outcome. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the reasoning behind Roe, calling it faulty and expressing unhappiness that it short-circuited the political process:
For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since. Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.” “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights. “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”
So questioning the reasoning of a Supreme Court decision does not equate to a determination to overturn it. Besides, this is hyperbole anyway; no one really expects the upcoming case of California v Texas to provide that pretext anyway. It’s a Hail Mary play by the Trump administration based on a severability argument that conservatives have lost before. The part of the law that Roberts’ reasoning explained was the individual mandate, which now carries no enforcement mechanism at all, which means no one has standing to challenge it even setting aside stare decisis.
Andy McCarthy provided a clear-headed analysis of California v Texas two weeks ago, in which he declared his doubts that “a single justice will vote to hold the whole of the ACA unconstitutional.” (Andy re-upped the argument today, in fact, in reaction to the hearing.) He counts at least five votes to uphold severability arguments that would moot this challenge, and Barrett’s more likely than not to defer to Congress as well. Barrett’s previous writings on stare decisis and the requirement of the judiciary to defer to Congress in all but explicitly unconstitutional actions would suggest a far different outcome than Biden hyperbolizes here. If Republicans want to repeal ObamaCare, they’ll have to do it in Congress — and the next time, they should have a plan to replace it first.
Still, it makes for a tasty way for Democrats to frame the election, if not Barrett’s nomination. CBS’ Nancy Cordes reported this morning that Democrats will use the hearing to push their election-cycle health-care messaging, exploiting the national coverage for hours of earned-media advantage … even though they know Barrett won’t be able to commit one way or the other on policy choices:
.@nancycordes reports Democrats in Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings intend to stay focused on Obamacare, and whether Barrett supports Trump administration's attempts to end it: "Those are the real stakes here. They don't want to get distracted" https://t.co/uScvfX9o80 pic.twitter.com/fVZRafG6S4 — CBS News (@CBSNews) October 12, 2020
That’s what makes Biden’s call today nothing more than a rubber stamp rather than leadership. Senate Democrats, or at least most of them, reached this conclusion two weeks ago. At the same time, they also crafted this strategy, recognizing that they couldn’t derail the confirmation but instead needed to find ways to benefit from it. This strategy might be their smartest decision yet on the Barrett nomination, and far better than their shameful character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh.
That doesn’t mean Republicans have to ignore previous Democratic attacks on Barrett over her faith. More than one Senate Republican on the Judiciary Committee reminded viewers of that history. Josh Hawley delivered this slam on their “bigotry,” for which Senate Democrats would prefer not to add more fodder. Or should.


hotair--2020-10-12--IBD national poll: Biden lead moves from three to 8.5 points in a week

Noteworthy for two reasons .
One is that IBD and its partner TIPP like to say that they were one of the two most accurate pollsters in 2016 , which is … sort of true .
Their final national poll had Trump ahead by two points , 45/43 .
That did reflect the ultimate outcome of the race inasmuch as Trump won the election , but national polls are really just guesstimates of the national popular vote .
Looked at that way , IBD was off by millions of votes .
Other pollsters , like ABC/WaPo , got much closer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Still , if you ’ re inclined to believe that accuracy in 2016 should carry extra weight this year , IBD/TIPP is a poll worth paying special attention to .
The other noteworthy aspect is that their last poll of the race published a week ago had it much tighter than other pollsters did .
Biden 49 , Trump 46 is what IBD saw , which isn ’ t altogether encouraging for the president — Biden being close to 50 percent is worrisome — but is a hell of a lot more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now .
Trump can win the electoral college if he ’ s down three in national polls on Election Day .
If he ’ s down eight , say , then no way .
Today ’ s new IBD/TIPP poll : Biden 51.9 , Trump 43.4 in a three-way race that includes the libertarian candidate , a margin of 8.5 points .
In a two-way race Biden leads by 10.4 points .
With IBD now momentarily forecasting a Biden landslide , the last true notable outlier is gone .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s national tracker : Of 14 national polls published this month , Biden leads by double digits in 10 of them .
Trump ’ s best result is a five-point deficit from The Hill/HarrisX .
Nate Silver said awhile back that even a “ small ” five-point margin of victory in the popular vote should all but guarantee that Biden will get what he needs in swing states to reach 270 electoral votes .
To put that another way , even the most encouraging result for Trump lately has him in a hole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climb out of if the vote were held today .
Follow the link above to the IBD/TIPP survey and you ’ ll find familiar trends .
Trump ’ s winning men but getting obliterated among women .
Trump ’ s leading narrowly among whites and losing vastly among nonwhites .
Biden leads almost unanimously among Democrats whereas Trump loses a meaningful ( nine percent ) share of Republicans .
Interestingly , although the debate on September 29 is already viewed widely as an inflection point in the national polling , IBD ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was conducted over two days in the immediate aftermath of that debate .
The fact that he ’ s collapsing now suggests that it was the circumstances of his COVID infection and the outbreak at the White House that have driven voters towards Biden .
Another poll published yesterday , from ABC/WaPo , also found the pandemic to be a special liability for Trump .
They had Biden up 12 overall , 53/41 , but up 17 on who ’ s more trusted to handle COVID , with two-thirds of voters saying Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection .
A record high of 73 percent say they ’ re worried that they or a family member will catch the virus .
Trump and the GOP have gone all-in over the past few months pushing the idea that it ’ s time to get “ back to normal , ” with Trump even cutting a video on the White House balcony upon returning from Walter Reed encouraging people not to treat the virus like a big deal because , after all , he recovered .
That message is wildly out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seems ; the spectacle of the president himself needing a hospital and a team of doctors to help him through his infection doubtless made the anxiety that much worse .
He had seven months to adopt a “ safety first ” approach and align himself with majority sentiment .
He never did it .
Amy Walter looks at the big picture .
In 2016 Trump “ threaded the needle ” in swing states by winning them narrowly across the board despite losing the popular vote .
How ’ d he do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat , not someone easily demonized .
Trump ’ s getting creamed among independents in some polls , with ABC/WaPo recording the biggest margin for a Democrat among that group this weekend since 1988 .
And there are no high-profile third-party candidates like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to chip votes off of Biden ’ s margin .
Trump needs a boost to get out of the hole he ’ s in .
If it can ’ t come entirely from blowout Republican turnout , where can it come from ?
Byron York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out there for him .
There was that Gallup poll a few days ago showing that 56 percent believe they ’ re better off now than they were four years ago .
Trump still leads Biden on the economy in many surveys , and he ’ s underperforming his job approval in the head-to-head polls , which implies that he has room to grow .
But York ’ s also realistic : “ Some Trump supporters ignore the news because some of the polls were wrong in 2016 .
They shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no doubt Trump is facing a serious challenge.
” He makes a good point about the irony of Trump ’ s position : He had an advantage over other 2016 contenders because of his celebrity , because he had for years been the star of a highly-rated television show .
But now he is struggling because , even though he can point to solid accomplishments — on the economy , deregulation , judicial appointments , tax reform , defeating ISIS , reducing illegal immigration , and more — he has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They want a president who acts like their vision of a president .
Trump doesn ’ t .
And that , more than issues , more than whether voters are better off today than they were four years ago , might be the deciding factor in 2020 .
Americans wanted a brash outsider , someone with no patience for ruling-class politesse .
In the end they got more than they bargained for , a guy who couldn ’ t act even a little “ presidential ” ( especially on the pandemic ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done wonders for his support among centrists .
If he loses next month , that ’ ll go down as one of the three things that cost him his presidency .
The second thing that cost him , as I said above , was his reluctance to approach the pandemic from the standpoint of “ safety first.
” And the third thing is his baffling willingness to let Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan shape his agenda for the most part instead of insisting on the sort of populist economic policies that helped get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder for a big infrastructure deal .
He could have grabbed Senate Republicans by the throat over the summer to get a new COVID stimulus done .
Now he ’ s a prisoner of his own passivity .
I ’ ll leave you with this amusing clip , via the Right Scoop .
Trump still enjoys an enthusiasm advantage over Biden , 75/60 in the new ABC/WaPo poll .
If his strategy for winning this time is nothing more or less than turning out every Republican under the sun , enthusiasm is his @ @ @

Noteworthy for two reasons. One is that IBD and its partner TIPP like to say that they were one of the two most accurate pollsters in 2016, which is … sort of true. Their final national poll had Trump ahead by two points, 45/43. That did reflect the ultimate outcome of the race inasmuch as Trump won the election, but national polls are really just guesstimates of the national popular vote. Looked at that way, IBD was off by millions of votes. Other pollsters, like ABC/WaPo, got much closer to forecasting Clinton’s two-point margin.
Still, if you’re inclined to believe that accuracy in 2016 should carry extra weight this year, IBD/TIPP is a poll worth paying special attention to.
The other noteworthy aspect is that their last poll of the race published a week ago had it much tighter than other pollsters did. Biden 49, Trump 46 is what IBD saw, which isn’t altogether encouraging for the president — Biden being close to 50 percent is worrisome — but is a hell of a lot more encouraging than every other survey out there right now. Trump can win the electoral college if he’s down three in national polls on Election Day. If he’s down eight, say, then no way.
Today’s new IBD/TIPP poll: Biden 51.9, Trump 43.4 in a three-way race that includes the libertarian candidate, a margin of 8.5 points. In a two-way race Biden leads by 10.4 points. With IBD now momentarily forecasting a Biden landslide, the last true notable outlier is gone. Here’s the state of play in RCP’s national tracker:
Of 14 national polls published this month, Biden leads by double digits in 10 of them. Trump’s best result is a five-point deficit from The Hill/HarrisX. Nate Silver said awhile back that even a “small” five-point margin of victory in the popular vote should all but guarantee that Biden will get what he needs in swing states to reach 270 electoral votes. To put that another way, even the most encouraging result for Trump lately has him in a hole that’d be too big to climb out of if the vote were held today.
Follow the link above to the IBD/TIPP survey and you’ll find familiar trends. Trump’s winning men but getting obliterated among women. Trump’s leading narrowly among whites and losing vastly among nonwhites. Biden leads almost unanimously among Democrats whereas Trump loses a meaningful (nine percent) share of Republicans. Interestingly, although the debate on September 29 is already viewed widely as an inflection point in the national polling, IBD’s last poll showing Trump down just three was conducted over two days in the immediate aftermath of that debate. The fact that he’s collapsing now suggests that it was the circumstances of his COVID infection and the outbreak at the White House that have driven voters towards Biden.
Another poll published yesterday, from ABC/WaPo, also found the pandemic to be a special liability for Trump. They had Biden up 12 overall, 53/41, but up 17 on who’s more trusted to handle COVID, with two-thirds of voters saying Trump didn’t take proper precautions against infection. A record high of 73 percent say they’re worried that they or a family member will catch the virus. Trump and the GOP have gone all-in over the past few months pushing the idea that it’s time to get “back to normal,” with Trump even cutting a video on the White House balcony upon returning from Walter Reed encouraging people not to treat the virus like a big deal because, after all, he recovered. That message is wildly out of sync with how voters are feeling, it seems; the spectacle of the president himself needing a hospital and a team of doctors to help him through his infection doubtless made the anxiety that much worse. He had seven months to adopt a “safety first” approach and align himself with majority sentiment. He never did it.
Amy Walter looks at the big picture. In 2016 Trump “threaded the needle” in swing states by winning them narrowly across the board despite losing the popular vote. How’d he do it?
To be successful, this ‘thread the needle’ re-election strategy required four main elements: 1. A united, enthusiastic and engaged GOP base 2. A deeply flawed opponent 3. Decent support among independent voters (Even as Trump ran up the score among his base in 2016, he also carried independent voters by 2-points.) 4. Third-party candidates siphoning off enough votes to allow Trump to win key states with a plurality as he did in 2016… Right now, only #1 is there for him. Even that rock-solid support from his base is looking shaky in the wake of his disastrous debate performance and COVID diagnosis.
Biden’s a genial generic Democrat, not someone easily demonized. Trump’s getting creamed among independents in some polls, with ABC/WaPo recording the biggest margin for a Democrat among that group this weekend since 1988. And there are no high-profile third-party candidates like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to chip votes off of Biden’s margin. Trump needs a boost to get out of the hole he’s in. If it can’t come entirely from blowout Republican turnout, where can it come from?
Byron York notes that there *are* some good indicators out there for him. There was that Gallup poll a few days ago showing that 56 percent believe they’re better off now than they were four years ago. Trump still leads Biden on the economy in many surveys, and he’s underperforming his job approval in the head-to-head polls, which implies that he has room to grow. But York’s also realistic: “Some Trump supporters ignore the news because some of the polls were wrong in 2016. They shouldn’t. The polls are real, and there is no doubt Trump is facing a serious challenge.” He makes a good point about the irony of Trump’s position:
He had an advantage over other 2016 contenders because of his celebrity, because he had for years been the star of a highly-rated television show. But now he is struggling because, even though he can point to solid accomplishments — on the economy, deregulation, judicial appointments, tax reform, defeating ISIS, reducing illegal immigration, and more — he has not given some Americans the performance they want. They want a president who acts like their vision of a president. Trump doesn’t. And that, more than issues, more than whether voters are better off today than they were four years ago, might be the deciding factor in 2020.
Americans wanted a brash outsider, someone with no patience for ruling-class politesse. In the end they got more than they bargained for, a guy who couldn’t act even a little “presidential” (especially on the pandemic) despite the fact that it would have done wonders for his support among centrists. If he loses next month, that’ll go down as one of the three things that cost him his presidency. The second thing that cost him, as I said above, was his reluctance to approach the pandemic from the standpoint of “safety first.” And the third thing is his baffling willingness to let Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan shape his agenda for the most part instead of insisting on the sort of populist economic policies that helped get him elected. He could have pushed harder for a big infrastructure deal. He could have grabbed Senate Republicans by the throat over the summer to get a new COVID stimulus done. Now he’s a prisoner of his own passivity.
I’ll leave you with this amusing clip, via the Right Scoop. Trump still enjoys an enthusiasm advantage over Biden, 75/60 in the new ABC/WaPo poll. If his strategy for winning this time is nothing more or less than turning out every Republican under the sun, enthusiasm is his only hope.


hotair--2020-10-12--Mark Cuban on the NBA's support for BLM and China

Mark Cuban appeared on Megyn Kelly ’ s podcast which was posted today .
The entire interview was 50 minutes long and Kelly spent a significant amount of time pressing him on the NBA ’ s support for both Black Lives Matter and China .
Kellly pointed out that BLM was founded by a group of Marxists and supports some fairly extreme views about things like the nuclear family and defunding the police .
Cuban argued that the NBA supports “ the movement ” not the official BLM organization which he referred to as “ BLM.com.
” “ If we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t you think that we would have had one of them on an NBA broadcast to talk about it ?
” Cuban said .
“ The main takeaway on BLM , the main push , this is what they say their single issue is , their biggest issue— whenever you see a representative from the group , an organizer , people who go to the protests it ’ s one thing : defund the police , ” Kelly replied .
“ No , that ’ s crazy !
” Cuban said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that defunding the police is not what BLM is about .
“ We ’ re supporting of trying to end racism .
We ’ re supportive of police reform but you ’ ve never , ever heard us talk about Marxism , ” he said .
“ To pretend that Black Lives Matter , dot com or otherwise , is not about defunding the police is to be dishonest , ” Kelly argued .
“ And the basketball players who have spoken about this have made clear that they support that .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defund and dismantle the police force , ” she added .
“ Individual players can have their opinions , right ?
” Cuban said .
The argument goes on like this for several more minutes .
To sum up , Cuban admits the founders of BLM are Marxists but claims the NBA doesn ’ t support that .
Cuban admits outspoken players support defunding the police but claims the NBA doesn ’ t support that either .
Furthermore he claims those things are not really central to the “ movement ” known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that several cities have already defunded the police in response to BLM ’ s demands , Cuban denies this is what BLM is about .
Cuban goes on to deny that flooding the NBA with politics had anything to do with the disappointing ratings for the finals this year .
He admitted that the ratings were lower than expected but said things like horse racing were also down this year .
Kelly pointed out that football and baseball were not down by similar amounts .
In fact , it appears Sunday Night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBA finals last night : ABC ’ s broadcast of the Los Angeles Lakers ’ victory over the Miami Heat in Game 6 of the 2020 NBA finals was no match for “ Sunday Night Football ” on NBC , according to the earliest available Nielsen numbers .
Last night , the Lakers ’ 106-93 defeat of the Heat was down 57 % in TV ratings from the big finish of 2019 ’ s NBA finals , when the Toronto Raptors beat the Golden State Warriors… NBC was first in ratings with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demographic and in total viewers with an average of 10.1 million , according to preliminary numbers… The NBA Finals game itself , starting at 7:30 p.m .
ET , averaged a 2.1/11 and 5.6 million viewers .
Cuban didn ’ t really have an answer for that except to argue that broadcast television is down overall and so was the Stanley Cup Finals .
“ The whole thing about politics is nonsense , ” Cuban said .
Finally , Kelly turned to the question of the NBA ’ s connection to China noting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silence is violence.
” Just moments after he defended the NBA ’ s embrace of politics when it came to BLM , Cuban suddenly reverses course and doesn ’ t want politics to interfere with the NBA ’ s business with China .
“ The question remains , why won ’ t you and the NBA explicitly condemn that ?
” she asked Cuban , one of the league ’ s most vocal owners .
“ I personally put a priority on domestic issues .
I ’ m against human rights violations around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Including the ones in China ?
” Kelly asked .
“ China is not the only country with human rights violations , ” Cuban replied .
“ Including China , Mark ?
” she later pressed after some cross-talk .
“ Yes , including China .
Any human rights violations anywhere are wrong , ” Cuban responded before also mentioning Turkey and some countries in Africa as other places where abuses occur .
“ Why would the NBA take $ 500 million dollars-plus from a country that is engaging in ethnic cleansing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So basically , you ’ re saying nobody should do business with China ever , ” Cuban retorted .
Kelly continued to press him Eventually Cuban stated , “ They are a customer of ours , and guess what , Megyn ?
I ’ m OK with doing business with China .
You know I wish I could solve all the world ’ s problems , Megyn , and I ’ m sure you do too .
But we can ’ t .
So we have to pick our battles.
” So they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts , and they support China despite the racism and human rights abuses .
Cuban is trying to square a circle here and it just doesn ’ t make any sense apart from the millions China is paying .
You can listen to the full podcast here .
Here ’ s the segment of Cuban and Kelly sparring over Black Lives Matter :

Mark Cuban appeared on Megyn Kelly’s podcast which was posted today. The entire interview was 50 minutes long and Kelly spent a significant amount of time pressing him on the NBA’s support for both Black Lives Matter and China.
Kellly pointed out that BLM was founded by a group of Marxists and supports some fairly extreme views about things like the nuclear family and defunding the police. Cuban argued that the NBA supports “the movement” not the official BLM organization which he referred to as “BLM.com.”
“If we were supportive of those three founders, don’t you think that we would have had one of them on an NBA broadcast to talk about it?” Cuban said.
“The main takeaway on BLM, the main push, this is what they say their single issue is, their biggest issue— whenever you see a representative from the group, an organizer, people who go to the protests it’s one thing: defund the police,” Kelly replied.
“No, that’s crazy!” Cuban said. Cuban then spent several minutes arguing that defunding the police is not what BLM is about. “We’re supporting of trying to end racism. We’re supportive of police reform but you’ve never, ever heard us talk about Marxism,” he said.
“To pretend that Black Lives Matter, dot com or otherwise, is not about defunding the police is to be dishonest,” Kelly argued. “And the basketball players who have spoken about this have made clear that they support that. They’ve talked about how they want to defund and dismantle the police force,” she added.
“Individual players can have their opinions, right?” Cuban said.
The argument goes on like this for several more minutes. To sum up, Cuban admits the founders of BLM are Marxists but claims the NBA doesn’t support that. Cuban admits outspoken players support defunding the police but claims the NBA doesn’t support that either. Furthermore he claims those things are not really central to the “movement” known as BLM. Even when Kelly points out that several cities have already defunded the police in response to BLM’s demands, Cuban denies this is what BLM is about.
Cuban goes on to deny that flooding the NBA with politics had anything to do with the disappointing ratings for the finals this year. He admitted that the ratings were lower than expected but said things like horse racing were also down this year. Kelly pointed out that football and baseball were not down by similar amounts. In fact, it appears Sunday Night Football got much higher ratings than the NBA finals last night:
ABC’s broadcast of the Los Angeles Lakers’ victory over the Miami Heat in Game 6 of the 2020 NBA finals was no match for “Sunday Night Football” on NBC, according to the earliest available Nielsen numbers. Last night, the Lakers’ 106-93 defeat of the Heat was down 57% in TV ratings from the big finish of 2019’s NBA finals, when the Toronto Raptors beat the Golden State Warriors… NBC was first in ratings with a 2.7 rating/15 share in the advertiser-coveted 18-49 demographic and in total viewers with an average of 10.1 million, according to preliminary numbers… The NBA Finals game itself, starting at 7:30 p.m. ET, averaged a 2.1/11 and 5.6 million viewers.
Cuban didn’t really have an answer for that except to argue that broadcast television is down overall and so was the Stanley Cup Finals. “The whole thing about politics is nonsense,” Cuban said.
Finally, Kelly turned to the question of the NBA’s connection to China noting that she’s been told “silence is violence.” Just moments after he defended the NBA’s embrace of politics when it came to BLM, Cuban suddenly reverses course and doesn’t want politics to interfere with the NBA’s business with China.
“The question remains, why won’t you and the NBA explicitly condemn that?” she asked Cuban, one of the league’s most vocal owners. “I personally put a priority on domestic issues. I’m against human rights violations around the world,” he responded. “Including the ones in China?” Kelly asked. “China is not the only country with human rights violations,” Cuban replied. “Including China, Mark?” she later pressed after some cross-talk. “Yes, including China. Any human rights violations anywhere are wrong,” Cuban responded before also mentioning Turkey and some countries in Africa as other places where abuses occur. “Why would the NBA take $500 million dollars-plus from a country that is engaging in ethnic cleansing?” Kelly later asked. “So basically, you’re saying nobody should do business with China ever,” Cuban retorted.
Kelly continued to press him Eventually Cuban stated, “They are a customer of ours, and guess what, Megyn? I’m OK with doing business with China. You know I wish I could solve all the world’s problems, Megyn, and I’m sure you do too. But we can’t. So we have to pick our battles.”
So they support BLM, but not the controversial parts, and they support China despite the racism and human rights abuses. Cuban is trying to square a circle here and it just doesn’t make any sense apart from the millions China is paying.
You can listen to the full podcast here. Here’s the segment of Cuban and Kelly sparring over Black Lives Matter:


hotair--2020-10-12--Trump: I'll "check into" the UFO question (Video)

An interesting moment cropped up yesterday when President Trump called in for an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo .
After going over most of the hot topics of the day , she finished the interview by bringing up the formation of the Pentagon ’ s UAP Task Force , created to investigate reports of UFOs encountered by our military .
But rather than just asking the President about the need for the task force or concerns regarding national security , Bartiromo leveled the journalistic lance directly at Trump and hit him with the underlying question that most politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to give voice to .
“ Mr .
President , as we wrap up here , are there UFOs ?
” Trump ’ s response left something to be desired ( at least in my opinion ) but he also didn ’ t totally shy away from it , either .
( Insider.com ) President Donald Trump said in an interview on Sunday that he plans on looking further into US intelligence on the existence of UFOs .
Fox News host Maria Bartiromo asked Trump during “ Sunday Morning Futures ” about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Pentagon launched a task force to investigate sightings of unidentified flying objects in August .
The group is called the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force ( UAPTF ) .
“ Mr .
President , as we wrap up here , are there UFOs ?
” Bartiromo said .
“ Well I ’ m gon na have to check on that , ” Trump replied .
“ I mean , I ’ ve heard that .
I heard that two days ago , so I ’ ll check on that .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at that.
” Here ’ s the video of the exchange .
It ’ s only one minute and 20 seconds long .
Judge for yourself how serious both Bartiromo and the President were taking this issue and see what you think of Trump ’ s response .
It certainly sounded to me like Donald Trump was taking the issue more seriously than Bartiromo was , particularly since she prefaces the question by saying “ I want to end on a lighter note.
” Trump , meanwhile , confesses that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offers nothing further than a promise to look into it and get back to her .
Of course , that ’ s a rather empty line if nobody presses him with a followup in the near future .
But he clearly wasn ’ t laughing it off .
There are a couple of reasons I said I wasn ’ t all that impressed with the President ’ s answer .
First and foremost , he was asked specifically about the UAP Task Force and he said he ’ d heard about it two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been blowing up all summer and nobody bothered to brief the President about it until last week ?
That seems unlikely This leads me to believe that he ’ s either not really interested in the UAPTF or he ’ s in the loop but he was dodging the question because he didn ’ t want to touch on a sensitive national security issue .
If either of those possibilities is the truth , it doesn ’ t lead me to think that he ’ ll be “ getting back to us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The more encouraging possibility is that he heard something new about UFOs in the past few days but he ’ s not ready to talk about it at this time .
If so , perhaps he ’ ll dish something up later .
Allow me to drop myself into the role of one of the President ’ s advisors here for a moment .
President Trump , when someone asks you point-blank , “ Are there UFO ?
” you already have the answer .
Yes .
Yes , there are UFOs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and released three videos of them .
That doesn ’ t mean they are 100 % necessarily aliens , but they are objects , they are flying , and our military can ’ t identify them .
That ’ s really all you need to say if you ’ re not feeling particularly generous in dishing out new information .
While we ’ re on the subject , here ’ s one more quick item to pass your time .
It ’ s a brief , six-minute video from one of the folks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s basically asking a question based on the as-yet unproven premise that not only are there UFOs in our skies but that we are being visited by an alien intelligence of some sort .
If that ’ s the case , why haven ’ t they “ disclosed ” their presence for us by now in an open unmistakable fashion ?
While not invoking the tired old phrase specifically , he ’ s essentially asking why they haven ’ t just landed on the White House lawn and started giving interviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll interject a partial answer of my own .
Unless they ’ re actively here to try to either help us or invade us ( with no repeatable , verifiable sign of either thus far ) why would they ?
What benefit would we be to a clearly far more advanced species ?
While I still maintain it ’ s foolhardy to attempt to assign human emotions and motivations to an alien intelligence we can ’ t know or assume anything about , I tend to agree with John E.L. Tenney who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you traveled halfway around the world to teach algebra to a cat ?
In any event , enjoy the video .

An interesting moment cropped up yesterday when President Trump called in for an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartiromo. After going over most of the hot topics of the day, she finished the interview by bringing up the formation of the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force, created to investigate reports of UFOs encountered by our military. But rather than just asking the President about the need for the task force or concerns regarding national security, Bartiromo leveled the journalistic lance directly at Trump and hit him with the underlying question that most politicians and mainstream media reporters never seem to want to give voice to. “Mr. President, as we wrap up here, are there UFOs?”
Trump’s response left something to be desired (at least in my opinion) but he also didn’t totally shy away from it, either. (Insider.com)
President Donald Trump said in an interview on Sunday that he plans on looking further into US intelligence on the existence of UFOs. Fox News host Maria Bartiromo asked Trump during “Sunday Morning Futures” about the Department of Defense’s announcement that the Pentagon launched a task force to investigate sightings of unidentified flying objects in August. The group is called the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF). “Mr. President, as we wrap up here, are there UFOs?” Bartiromo said. “Well I’m gonna have to check on that,” Trump replied. “I mean, I’ve heard that. I heard that two days ago, so I’ll check on that. I’ll take a good, strong look at that.”
Here’s the video of the exchange. It’s only one minute and 20 seconds long. Judge for yourself how serious both Bartiromo and the President were taking this issue and see what you think of Trump’s response.
It certainly sounded to me like Donald Trump was taking the issue more seriously than Bartiromo was, particularly since she prefaces the question by saying “I want to end on a lighter note.” Trump, meanwhile, confesses that he’s been informed about this, but offers nothing further than a promise to look into it and get back to her. Of course, that’s a rather empty line if nobody presses him with a followup in the near future. But he clearly wasn’t laughing it off.
There are a couple of reasons I said I wasn’t all that impressed with the President’s answer. First and foremost, he was asked specifically about the UAP Task Force and he said he’d heard about it two days ago. Seriously? This news has been blowing up all summer and nobody bothered to brief the President about it until last week? That seems unlikely This leads me to believe that he’s either not really interested in the UAPTF or he’s in the loop but he was dodging the question because he didn’t want to touch on a sensitive national security issue. If either of those possibilities is the truth, it doesn’t lead me to think that he’ll be “getting back to us” with more information any time soon. The more encouraging possibility is that he heard something new about UFOs in the past few days but he’s not ready to talk about it at this time. If so, perhaps he’ll dish something up later.
Allow me to drop myself into the role of one of the President’s advisors here for a moment. President Trump, when someone asks you point-blank, “Are there UFO?” you already have the answer. Yes. Yes, there are UFOs. Your own Pentagon already said so and released three videos of them. That doesn’t mean they are 100% necessarily aliens, but they are objects, they are flying, and our military can’t identify them. That’s really all you need to say if you’re not feeling particularly generous in dishing out new information.
While we’re on the subject, here’s one more quick item to pass your time. It’s a brief, six-minute video from one of the folks on #UFOtwitter that I follow. He’s basically asking a question based on the as-yet unproven premise that not only are there UFOs in our skies but that we are being visited by an alien intelligence of some sort. If that’s the case, why haven’t they “disclosed” their presence for us by now in an open unmistakable fashion? While not invoking the tired old phrase specifically, he’s essentially asking why they haven’t just landed on the White House lawn and started giving interviews.
Before you watch it, I’ll interject a partial answer of my own. Unless they’re actively here to try to either help us or invade us (with no repeatable, verifiable sign of either thus far) why would they? What benefit would we be to a clearly far more advanced species? While I still maintain it’s foolhardy to attempt to assign human emotions and motivations to an alien intelligence we can’t know or assume anything about, I tend to agree with John E.L. Tenney who once asked when was the last time you traveled halfway around the world to teach algebra to a cat? In any event, enjoy the video.


hotair--2020-10-12--Sasse (and WaPo): Stacking, packing, Biden, and boneheads -- a "Civics 101" lesson

This might be the most worthwhile eleven minutes of the entire confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett , and it ’ s not surprising that it came from Republican Ben Sasse .
He ’ s been a gadfly at times , a more committed conservative than partisan actor , and perhaps the GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with the most credibility to deliver this “ Civics 101 ” spanking to his colleagues .
Sasse starts off with religious liberty , but that ’ s just a warm-up to his amiable yet pointed criticism of Democrats ’ demands for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the judicial activism which has distorted the constitutional balance in government : Now a couple of terms that all of our eight-graders should know as things we should reject in common .
And again , shared rejection , not Republican versus Democrat or Democrat versus Republican , but a shared American rejection .
And the first is this : judicial activism .
Judicial activism is the idea that judges get to advocate for or advance policies , even though they don ’ t have to stand for election before the voters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activism is the really bad idea that tries to convince the American people to view the judiciary as a block of progressive votes and conservative votes , Republican justices and Democratic justices .
This is the confused idea that the Supreme Court is just another arena for politics .
When politicians try to demand that judicial nominees , who are supposed to be fair and impartial , when politicians try to get judicial nominees to give their views on cases or to give their views on policies , to try to get them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court cases , we are politicizing the courts and that is wrong .
That is a violation of our oath to the constitution .
Likewise , when politicians refuse to give answers to the pretty basic question of whether or not they want to try to change the number of justices in the court , which is what court packing actually is .
When they want to try to change the outcomes of what courts do in the future by trying to change the size and composition of the court : that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reduces public trust .
On the other hand , depoliticizing the court looks a lot like letting courts and judges do their jobs and the Congress do our jobs .
You don ’ t like the policies in America ?
Great , elect different people in the House and in the Senate and in the presidency .
Fire the politicians at the next election , but voters don ’ t have the freedom to fire the judges ; therefore , we should not view judges , and we should not encourage the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as ultimately politicians who hide behind their robes .
The antidote to judicial activism is originalism .
Originalism , also known as textualism , is basically the old idea from eighth grade civics that judges don ’ t get to make laws .
Judges just apply them .
An originalist comes to the court with a fundamental humility and modesty about what the job is that they are there to do .
An originalist doesn ’ t think of herself as a super legislator whose opinions will be read by angels from stone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the other hand , is the bad idea that judges ’ black robes are just fake , and truthfully they are wearing red or blue partisan jerseys under there .
We should reject all such judges , and so today , when we have a nominee before us , we should be asking her questions that are not about trying to predetermine how certain cases will be judged .
Sasse then gets even more pointed about court packing .
He rips Democrats for trying to cast it as “ reform , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in court packing by filling existing open seats .
That ’ s “ playing people for fools , ” Sasse scolds : A final term that we should be clear about , I mentioned early but I think it ’ s worth underscoring , is we should underscore what is court packing .
Court packing is the idea that we should blow up our shared civics , that we should end the deliberative structure of the Senate by making it just another majoritarian body for the purposes of packing the Supreme Court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the full debate here in the Senate , and it is a partisan suicide bombing that would end the deliberative structure of the United States Senate , and make this job less interesting for all 100 of us , not for 47 or 53 , because it ’ s hard to get to a super majority that tries to protect the American people from 51-49 , 49-51 swings all the time .
What blowing up the filibuster would ultimately do is try to turn the Supreme Court into the ultimate super-legislature .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as some of you who wrote the memo over the weekend got the media to bite on .
Court packing destroying the system we have now .
It is not reforming the system we have now , and anybody who uses the language that implies filling legitimate vacancies is just another form of court packing , that ’ s playing the American people for fools .
Interestingly , the Washington Post ’ s Aaron Blake largely concurs with Sasse on this point .
Democrats are attempting to confuse people between “ packing ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at which neither party has succeeded — with “ stacking , ” something both parties have done when the opportunities arose : Fair use limits what can be excerpted .
Oddly , though , Blake blames Republicans for “ arguably the most consequential judicial gamesmanship in modern political history ” by a “ blockade ” Barack Obama ’ s attempts to stack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals , among other openings .
Blake says this is what prompted Harry Reid ’ s nuclear option in 2013 .
Blake seems to forget that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Bush in 2002-5 , only relenting a bit when the Gang of Fifteen came up with a compromise that forced Bush to withdraw several of his nominees .
Republicans at that time had floated the nuclear option but backed down when Democrats organized a bipartisan push against it .
When Democrats pushed the nuclear option , suddenly the previous Democratic members of the Gang of Fifteen happily supported the rule change by Reid … the one that also allowed Republicans to stack the courts over the last three years .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between “ stacking ” and “ packing , ” and he ’ s also correct that Republicans confused the two terms often enough in 2013 , which Allahpundit also recalled .
As for Biden , he knows the difference too , or at least did at one time .
In a much-circulated clip from 1983 that ’ s gaining traction again today , Biden called court packing a “ bonehead ” move by FDR .
“ President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Biden said during the hearing .
“ It was totally within his right to do that—he violated no law , he was legalistically absolutely correct.
” “ But it was a bonehead idea .
It was a terrible , terrible mistake to make , and it put in question , for an entire decade , the independence of the most significant body—including the Congress in my view—the most significant body in this country , the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
” The big takeaway here is that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when this was common wisdom .
Hence the need for Sasse ’ s lecture .

This might be the most worthwhile eleven minutes of the entire confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett, and it’s not surprising that it came from Republican Ben Sasse. He’s been a gadfly at times, a more committed conservative than partisan actor, and perhaps the GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with the most credibility to deliver this “Civics 101” spanking to his colleagues.
Sasse starts off with religious liberty, but that’s just a warm-up to his amiable yet pointed criticism of Democrats’ demands for Barrett’s views on policies and of the judicial activism which has distorted the constitutional balance in government:
Now a couple of terms that all of our eight-graders should know as things we should reject in common. And again, shared rejection, not Republican versus Democrat or Democrat versus Republican, but a shared American rejection. And the first is this: judicial activism. Judicial activism is the idea that judges get to advocate for or advance policies, even though they don’t have to stand for election before the voters and even though have lifetime tenure. Judicial activism is the really bad idea that tries to convince the American people to view the judiciary as a block of progressive votes and conservative votes, Republican justices and Democratic justices. This is the confused idea that the Supreme Court is just another arena for politics. When politicians try to demand that judicial nominees, who are supposed to be fair and impartial, when politicians try to get judicial nominees to give their views on cases or to give their views on policies, to try to get them to pre-commit to certain outcomes in future court cases, we are politicizing the courts and that is wrong. That is a violation of our oath to the constitution. Likewise, when politicians refuse to give answers to the pretty basic question of whether or not they want to try to change the number of justices in the court, which is what court packing actually is. When they want to try to change the outcomes of what courts do in the future by trying to change the size and composition of the court: that is a bad idea that politicizes the judiciary and reduces public trust. On the other hand, depoliticizing the court looks a lot like letting courts and judges do their jobs and the Congress do our jobs. You don’t like the policies in America? Great, elect different people in the House and in the Senate and in the presidency. Fire the politicians at the next election, but voters don’t have the freedom to fire the judges; therefore, we should not view judges, and we should not encourage the judges or public to view them, as ultimately politicians who hide behind their robes. The antidote to judicial activism is originalism. Originalism, also known as textualism, is basically the old idea from eighth grade civics that judges don’t get to make laws. Judges just apply them. An originalist comes to the court with a fundamental humility and modesty about what the job is that they are there to do. An originalist doesn’t think of herself as a super legislator whose opinions will be read by angels from stone tablets in heaven. Judicial activism, on the other hand, is the bad idea that judges’ black robes are just fake, and truthfully they are wearing red or blue partisan jerseys under there. We should reject all such judges, and so today, when we have a nominee before us, we should be asking her questions that are not about trying to predetermine how certain cases will be judged.
Sasse then gets even more pointed about court packing. He rips Democrats for trying to cast it as “reform,” and for claiming that Republicans have engaged in court packing by filling existing open seats. That’s “playing people for fools,” Sasse scolds:
A final term that we should be clear about, I mentioned early but I think it’s worth underscoring, is we should underscore what is court packing. Court packing is the idea that we should blow up our shared civics, that we should end the deliberative structure of the Senate by making it just another majoritarian body for the purposes of packing the Supreme Court. Court packing would depend on the destruction of the full debate here in the Senate, and it is a partisan suicide bombing that would end the deliberative structure of the United States Senate, and make this job less interesting for all 100 of us, not for 47 or 53, because it’s hard to get to a super majority that tries to protect the American people from 51-49, 49-51 swings all the time. What blowing up the filibuster would ultimately do is try to turn the Supreme Court into the ultimate super-legislature. Court packing is not judicial reform, as some of you who wrote the memo over the weekend got the media to bite on. Court packing destroying the system we have now. It is not reforming the system we have now, and anybody who uses the language that implies filling legitimate vacancies is just another form of court packing, that’s playing the American people for fools.
Interestingly, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake largely concurs with Sasse on this point. Democrats are attempting to confuse people between “packing” — which has a specific meaning and at which neither party has succeeded — with “stacking,” something both parties have done when the opportunities arose:
Some Democrats are pushing their party to “pack” the court with more justices to retaliate against the GOP’s judicial gamesmanship, but Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden continues to refuse to say whether he supports it. Liberals are apoplectic that Biden’s refusal to take a position has become such a story, arguing that it pales in comparison to what Republicans have done. And liberals appear to have settled upon a new talking point: It’s the GOP that has packed the courts. We can say a few things: Biden’s refusal to answer this question is a real story. This is an issue of huge importance to the country’s future come 2021, if Democrats control the Senate and the presidency and would have the power to pack the court. Biden’s defenders argue that his refusal to answer is smart politics; that may be true, but smart strategy is one thing, while transparency is quite another. The attempt to label what the GOP has done “court-packing” is too cute by half. Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the court in the 1930s, court-packing has been understood to mean statutorily adding seats on the bench so you can tip its balance in one fell swoop; it has never meant more broadly doing controversial and/or brazen things to game the process and get more judges for your side. Republicans have unquestionably done the latter. At numerous points in recent years, Republicans have floated or done things with little or no precedent to help their party install a higher percentage of sitting judges. So while it may not be “court-packing,” you could sure call it something else. I’d humbly submit that a more apt term would be “court-stacking.”
Fair use limits what can be excerpted. Oddly, though, Blake blames Republicans for “arguably the most consequential judicial gamesmanship in modern political history” by a “blockade” Barack Obama’s attempts to stack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, among other openings. Blake says this is what prompted Harry Reid’s nuclear option in 2013. Blake seems to forget that Democrats did the same thing to George W. Bush in 2002-5, only relenting a bit when the Gang of Fifteen came up with a compromise that forced Bush to withdraw several of his nominees. Republicans at that time had floated the nuclear option but backed down when Democrats organized a bipartisan push against it. When Democrats pushed the nuclear option, suddenly the previous Democratic members of the Gang of Fifteen happily supported the rule change by Reid … the one that also allowed Republicans to stack the courts over the last three years.
However, Blake’s correct about the difference between “stacking” and “packing,” and he’s also correct that Republicans confused the two terms often enough in 2013, which Allahpundit also recalled. As for Biden, he knows the difference too, or at least did at one time. In a much-circulated clip from 1983 that’s gaining traction again today, Biden called court packing a “bonehead” move by FDR.
“President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the Court,” Biden said during the hearing. “It was totally within his right to do that—he violated no law, he was legalistically absolutely correct.” “But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body—including the Congress in my view—the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”
The big takeaway here is that there are more boneheads today than in 1983, when this was common wisdom. Hence the need for Sasse’s lecture.


hotair--2020-10-12--'Day of Rage' Rioters in Portland tear down statue of Abraham Lincoln, vandalize buildings (Update)

Today is Columbus Day which has been renamed “ Indigenous People ’ s Day ” in many places around the country .
In preparation for today a group of Antifa in Portland planned an “ Indigenous People ’ s Day of Rage ” promising “ direct action.
” The result was a bunch of destruction overnight and threats against anyone who tried to film it .
A group of protesters toppled statues of former presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln and shattered the entrance to the Oregon Historical Society in Portland ’ s South Park Blocks late Sunday before moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storefronts and engaging in other acts of destruction .
Police declared the event a riot and ordered people rampaging through the city ’ s streets to disperse but did not directly intervene until nearly an hour after the first statue fell .
The crowd scattered when police cruisers flooded the area , and officers in tactical gear appeared to make several arrests… The organizers had signaled their aggressive stance for the night , calling for “ direct action ” and demanding that the video live-streamers and photographers who had become staples of such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowd were repeatedly admonished not to film .
Passersby who happened upon the group were ordered by demonstrators to stop filming or delete photographs , including an apartment resident who had lasers shined at his eyes and a liquid thrown in his face as he appeared to shoot video of the scene from his terrace .
Usually these events have multiple people filming from various angles but last night there was almost no video of the criminal acts simply because the mob demanded it .
In fact , most of the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even try .
The Oregonian published photos from last night showing the damage caused by the rioters but none of the photos show any people involved , only the aftermath .
There are a couple of brief clips of a statue of Teddy Roosevelt being pulled down shot by someone who was part of the group : And this one ( 2nd below ) showing the mob celebrating .
The top clip shows the Lincoln statue already on the ground : In addition to the two statues , the rioters also did a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Society museum : The rioters also smashed up the Portland State University police office , which got the attention of President Trump : All together the rioters did a significant amount of damage last night and no one is going to be held accountable for it .
Now that Antifa has seen how easy it is to demand a First Amendment free zone , they ’ ll be doing this more often I suspect .
Portland clearly wants this to happen .
The Antifa candidate for mayor is currently running ahead of incumbent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least he ’ s not a fan of Stalin and Mao .
That seems like a really low bar but it looks like one Portland ’ s voters won ’ t be able to clear .
If Portland wants the city to be ruled by vandals and mobs ( while also defunding police ) then maybe we should just let them have what they want .
At some point , when the revolutionaries are pulling people out of their homes or burning down banks , I think they ’ ll regret it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remind them there is no one else to blame .
Some people clearly need to learn some lessons of history the hard way .
Here ’ s a report from KOIN6 that really gives a sense of where the statues were located relative to one another and to the historical society .
Update : I missed this earlier .
One of the people who regularly films these riots offered an excuse for not doing so last night : “ Why burn bridges for a few videos ?
Reporters aren ’ t police .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ statues were alive .
”

Today is Columbus Day which has been renamed “Indigenous People’s Day” in many places around the country. In preparation for today a group of Antifa in Portland planned an “Indigenous People’s Day of Rage” promising “direct action.”
Tonight the “indigenous” faction of antifa held a “day of rage” riot in Portland. They banned video recording as the criminal acts were planned ahead. They’ve toppled the statues of Roosevelt & Lincoln so far using chains. #PortlandRiots pic.twitter.com/PkTqxeCLIj — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) October 12, 2020
The result was a bunch of destruction overnight and threats against anyone who tried to film it.
A group of protesters toppled statues of former presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln and shattered the entrance to the Oregon Historical Society in Portland’s South Park Blocks late Sunday before moving into other areas of downtown, smashing storefronts and engaging in other acts of destruction. Police declared the event a riot and ordered people rampaging through the city’s streets to disperse but did not directly intervene until nearly an hour after the first statue fell. The crowd scattered when police cruisers flooded the area, and officers in tactical gear appeared to make several arrests… The organizers had signaled their aggressive stance for the night, calling for “direct action” and demanding that the video live-streamers and photographers who had become staples of such events stay away. People in the crowd were repeatedly admonished not to film. Passersby who happened upon the group were ordered by demonstrators to stop filming or delete photographs, including an apartment resident who had lasers shined at his eyes and a liquid thrown in his face as he appeared to shoot video of the scene from his terrace.
Usually these events have multiple people filming from various angles but last night there was almost no video of the criminal acts simply because the mob demanded it. In fact, most of the people who usually film these riots didn’t even try.
That Portland self-identified video journalists followed antifa instructions to not record a pre-planned violent criminal riot tonight tells you what you need to know about the previous information coming from those sources. They prioritize protecting antifa over truth. — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) October 12, 2020
The Oregonian published photos from last night showing the damage caused by the rioters but none of the photos show any people involved, only the aftermath. There are a couple of brief clips of a statue of Teddy Roosevelt being pulled down shot by someone who was part of the group:
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1315519781756260353
And this one (2nd below) showing the mob celebrating. The top clip shows the Lincoln statue already on the ground:
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1315530771281539072
In addition to the two statues, the rioters also did a lot of damage to the Oregon Historical Society museum:
Wells Fargo:
A jewelry store:
Subway:
Jimmy Johns:
The rioters also smashed up the Portland State University police office, which got the attention of President Trump:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1315617492606353408
All together the rioters did a significant amount of damage last night and no one is going to be held accountable for it. Now that Antifa has seen how easy it is to demand a First Amendment free zone, they’ll be doing this more often I suspect.
Portland clearly wants this to happen. The Antifa candidate for mayor is currently running ahead of incumbent Mayor Wheeler. Wheeler is incompetent but at least he’s not a fan of Stalin and Mao. That seems like a really low bar but it looks like one Portland’s voters won’t be able to clear.
If Portland wants the city to be ruled by vandals and mobs (while also defunding police) then maybe we should just let them have what they want. At some point, when the revolutionaries are pulling people out of their homes or burning down banks, I think they’ll regret it. When that happens we can all remind them there is no one else to blame. Some people clearly need to learn some lessons of history the hard way.
Here’s a report from KOIN6 that really gives a sense of where the statues were located relative to one another and to the historical society.
Update: I missed this earlier. One of the people who regularly films these riots offered an excuse for not doing so last night: “Why burn bridges for a few videos? Reporters aren’t police. And it’s not like the statues were alive.”


hotair--2020-10-12--ABA: Barrett "well qualified" to serve on SCOTUS

Color me a bit surprised at this last-minute non-bombshell .
It ’ s tough to argue that Barrett wouldn ’ t be “ well qualified ” after three years on the appellate court , and prior to that having taught constitutional law at George Washington University and Notre Dame for nearly 15 years .
Elena Kagan got the WQ ten years ago despite never having worked as a judge at any level , nor as a trial lawyer [ see update ] , and only practiced law for eight years before going into government .
The American Bar Association hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cloistering itself from political consideration over the years .
Nevertheless , last night the ABA gave Barrett its highest blessing : The vote shows that the ABA is still playing games .
Kagan got the WQ on a unanimous vote with one abstention , again despite falling short of the declared qualifications the ABA uses for that rating .
Ed Whelan explained them at the time — the link to the ABA explanation is now dead — as twelve years in the practice of law , of which Kagan fell well short even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice , ” as well as at least a minimal amount of time as a jurist .
Barrett has judicial experience ( and at the appellate level ) that Kagan entirely lacked , plus more scholarly experience in the law .
Kagan , on the other hand , had plenty of experience working for Joe Biden on the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Clinton and Obama White Houses .
That seems more than anything else to have impressed the ABA into its unanimous “ well qualified ” rating .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh a “ well qualified ” rating .
However , after Senate Democrats leaked unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct , the ABA announced that they would “ review ” that decision on the basis of “ temperament ” — even though none of the allegations had any evidentiary support , nor did any of them have to do with Kavanaugh ’ s work as an attorney or judge .
After the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh , the ABA reversed itself again and dropped their “ review.
” Nevertheless , the ABA ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Barrett ’ s qualifications for the position .
The threat of blowback has apparently convinced Senate Democrats to avoid attacks on Barrett as some kind of religious fanatic too , even if the media keeps flogging those stories ad infinitum .
So what will Senate Democrats use for their attacks ?
Stay tuned , but so far in this hearing , they ’ ve barely addressed Barrett .
It sounds more like a confirmation hearing for Donald Trump .
Update : Kagan did represent the Obama administration at the Supreme Court as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not technically trial experience , but it ’ s not nothing either .

Color me a bit surprised at this last-minute non-bombshell. It’s tough to argue that Barrett wouldn’t be “well qualified” after three years on the appellate court, and prior to that having taught constitutional law at George Washington University and Notre Dame for nearly 15 years. Elena Kagan got the WQ ten years ago despite never having worked as a judge at any level, nor as a trial lawyer [see update], and only practiced law for eight years before going into government.
The American Bar Association hasn’t exactly been monkish lately in cloistering itself from political consideration over the years. Nevertheless, last night the ABA gave Barrett its highest blessing:
Ahead of her confirmation hearing tomorrow, the ABA rates Amy Coney Barrett as “well qualified” pic.twitter.com/0iRQDvlpfd — Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) October 12, 2020
The vote shows that the ABA is still playing games. Kagan got the WQ on a unanimous vote with one abstention, again despite falling short of the declared qualifications the ABA uses for that rating. Ed Whelan explained them at the time — the link to the ABA explanation is now dead — as twelve years in the practice of law, of which Kagan fell well short even in the broadest possible definition of “practice,” as well as at least a minimal amount of time as a jurist. Barrett has judicial experience (and at the appellate level) that Kagan entirely lacked, plus more scholarly experience in the law. Kagan, on the other hand, had plenty of experience working for Joe Biden on the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Clinton and Obama White Houses. That seems more than anything else to have impressed the ABA into its unanimous “well qualified” rating.
It’s true that the ABA also gave Brett Kavanaugh a “well qualified” rating. However, after Senate Democrats leaked unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct, the ABA announced that they would “review” that decision on the basis of “temperament” — even though none of the allegations had any evidentiary support, nor did any of them have to do with Kavanaugh’s work as an attorney or judge. After the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh, the ABA reversed itself again and dropped their “review.”
Nevertheless, the ABA’s decision has all but closed off any attacks on Barrett’s qualifications for the position. The threat of blowback has apparently convinced Senate Democrats to avoid attacks on Barrett as some kind of religious fanatic too, even if the media keeps flogging those stories ad infinitum. So what will Senate Democrats use for their attacks? Stay tuned, but so far in this hearing, they’ve barely addressed Barrett. It sounds more like a confirmation hearing for Donald Trump.
Update: Kagan did represent the Obama administration at the Supreme Court as Solicitor General for fourteen months. That’s not technically trial experience, but it’s not nothing either.


hotair--2020-10-12--White House: We think Senate Republicans will "go along" with a stimulus deal between Trump and Pelo

White House: We think Senate Republicans will "go along" with a stimulus deal between Trump and Pelosi

Try to wrap your mind around the possibility that the last few weeks of this race will be spent with Trump and Pelosi aligned against Senate Republicans on the terms of a stimulus package .
The chance of that is small .
It would require the White House and House Dems to finally , finally , finally reach a consensus somehow on sticking points that have bedeviled them for months , starting with federal bailout money for state and local governments with budget deficits .
Trump upped his offer this weekend to $ 1.8 trillion but Pelosi immediately dismissed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps back ” because they still can ’ t agree on particulars like weekly unemployment benefits .
That ’ s probably how things will remain until Election Day , in a partisan standoff .
Certainly that ’ s what Mitch McConnell is hoping , as that would be the least bad option for his caucus .
But Pelosi must be tempted at this point to take Trump ’ s offer and stick it to McConnell .
If she and the president come to terms , suddenly Trump would be pitted not against Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate .
And since Trump is and can only be Trump , he ’ ll probably take to demagoging them publicly to try to pressure them into approving the deal .
Imagine the president effectively campaigning against the GOP in the waning days of the race with several Republican-held Senate seats hanging in the balance .
Imagine him losing the election after Senate Republicans refused to pass anything and laying the blame at their feet .
What would that do to the post-Trump GOP ?
The White House ’ s view , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell ’ s bluff by reaching a deal with Pelosi , Senate Republicans will grit their teeth and pass it .
Kayleigh McEnany made that point on Fox : Larry Kudlow said the same thing yesterday in an interview with Jake Tapper : Take a minute to appreciate this .
Twenty-two days out from an election , with no movement on a stimulus deal for months , the White House ’ s strategy for getting an essential fiscal rescue plan passed is to dare senators from his own party to oppose him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to strong-arm the Senate GOP this way , why didn ’ t he do it back in August , when his polling was a bit stronger ?
Why wait for a cliffhanger right before Election Day that risks dividing the party before the big vote and making Trump look horribly weak if Senate Republicans end up defying him ?
Mark Meadows and Steve Mnuchin held a conference call with McConnell ’ s caucus on Saturday .
It did not go well : “ There ’ s no appetite right now to spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number , ” said Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-Tenn. ) , according to two sources briefed on the call .
Sen. John Barrasso ( R-Wyo . )
said that giving into Pelosi on anything seen as expansion of Obamacare in the next recovery bill will be seen as “ an enormous betrayal by our supporters , ” according to people familiar with the call… This would be “ the deal knell for our majority if Pelosi gets this win , ” warned Sen. Marsha Blackburn ( R-Tenn. ) , according to one source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-Utah ) warned Republicans could lose support in the election if they accepted this .
“ You all will have to come to my funeral , ” Meadows reportedly said after hearing all that , knowing he ’ d have to relay the information to Trump .
Look at the names in that excerpt .
Barrasso , Lee , and Blackburn all hold safe seats in red states and Alexander is retiring .
It ’ s one thing for them to say “ we can ’ t support a bill of $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s fiscally irresponsible to do so , however dire America ’ s economic outlook might be.
” ( Kudlow suggested elsewhere yesterday that Trump would be willing to go even higher , beyond Pelosi ’ s sticker price . )
But it ’ s insulting to our collective intelligence for them to pretend that there might be a voter revolt in red states if — gasp — Congress capped four years of profligate spending with one more stimulus blowout .
No Republican voters are staying home this fall in protest if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; we ’ re fully five years removed from the tea-party movement metastasizing into a Trump cult , and that cult will happily support whatever Republicans might do to try to improve Trump ’ s reelection chances .
The stimulus is the one thing left on the table that might matter .
Certainly it would matter more to swing voters than rubber-stamping another Trump SCOTUS nominee .
What ’ s going on here is simple .
Trump is drowning and , rather than toss him a life preserver that probably won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going to let him drown and protect itself .
They ’ re betting that a Democratic wave three weeks from now will replace Trumpism with fiscal responsibility as the GOP ’ s new ideological guiding light .
And so they ’ re pre-positioning themselves for it by balking at a stimulus deal .
Their Faustian bargain with Trump produced three Supreme Court justices .
They got what they wanted from the deal and now they ’ re done .
The question is when Trump realizes that and how he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply sign on to Pelosi ’ s offer in desperation and demand that Senate Republicans pass it ?
Will he start attacking GOP candidates personally for “ disloyalty ” ?
I ’ ll leave you with this tweet from a few hours ago , in which an impatient Trump complains that Republicans are spending time on a Barrett confirmation hearing instead of following the ruthless power politics of this process to its logical conclusion , i.e .
just holding a floor vote to confirm her now and moving on .
The moment is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that other Republicans in government don ’ t fear him the way they used to .
Buckle up .

Try to wrap your mind around the possibility that the last few weeks of this race will be spent with Trump and Pelosi aligned against Senate Republicans on the terms of a stimulus package.
The chance of that is small. It would require the White House and House Dems to finally, finally, finally reach a consensus somehow on sticking points that have bedeviled them for months, starting with federal bailout money for state and local governments with budget deficits. Trump upped his offer this weekend to $1.8 trillion but Pelosi immediately dismissed it as “one step forward, two steps back” because they still can’t agree on particulars like weekly unemployment benefits. That’s probably how things will remain until Election Day, in a partisan standoff. Certainly that’s what Mitch McConnell is hoping, as that would be the least bad option for his caucus.
But Pelosi must be tempted at this point to take Trump’s offer and stick it to McConnell. If she and the president come to terms, suddenly Trump would be pitted not against Democrats but against his own party in the Senate. And since Trump is and can only be Trump, he’ll probably take to demagoging them publicly to try to pressure them into approving the deal. Imagine the president effectively campaigning against the GOP in the waning days of the race with several Republican-held Senate seats hanging in the balance. Imagine him losing the election after Senate Republicans refused to pass anything and laying the blame at their feet. What would that do to the post-Trump GOP?
The White House’s view, not unreasonably, is that if Trump calls McConnell’s bluff by reaching a deal with Pelosi, Senate Republicans will grit their teeth and pass it. Kayleigh McEnany made that point on Fox:
WH Press Sec Kayleigh McEnany on ongoing stimulus negotations: "I believe Senate Republicans will ultimately come along with what the president wants … We believe Senate Republicans are not what's blocking this, it is Democrats." pic.twitter.com/XAmYPuHd6D — The Recount (@therecount) October 12, 2020
Larry Kudlow said the same thing yesterday in an interview with Jake Tapper:
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow says he doesn’t think the stimulus deal is dead, despite President Trump’s $1.8 trillion proposal facing opposition from Senate GOP. “I think if an agreement can be reached, they will go along with it” https://t.co/Viunv4eaxp #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/RNV1O8GzSr — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) October 11, 2020
Take a minute to appreciate this. Twenty-two days out from an election, with no movement on a stimulus deal for months, the White House’s strategy for getting an essential fiscal rescue plan passed is to dare senators from his own party to oppose him. An obvious question: If Trump was willing to strong-arm the Senate GOP this way, why didn’t he do it back in August, when his polling was a bit stronger? Why wait for a cliffhanger right before Election Day that risks dividing the party before the big vote and making Trump look horribly weak if Senate Republicans end up defying him?
Mark Meadows and Steve Mnuchin held a conference call with McConnell’s caucus on Saturday. It did not go well:
“There’s no appetite right now to spend the White House number or the House number,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), according to two sources briefed on the call. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said that giving into Pelosi on anything seen as expansion of Obamacare in the next recovery bill will be seen as “an enormous betrayal by our supporters,” according to people familiar with the call… This would be “the deal knell for our majority if Pelosi gets this win,” warned Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), according to one source. Both she and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) warned Republicans could lose support in the election if they accepted this.
“You all will have to come to my funeral,” Meadows reportedly said after hearing all that, knowing he’d have to relay the information to Trump.
Look at the names in that excerpt. Barrasso, Lee, and Blackburn all hold safe seats in red states and Alexander is retiring. It’s one thing for them to say “we can’t support a bill of $1.8 trillion of higher as we believe it’s fiscally irresponsible to do so, however dire America’s economic outlook might be.” (Kudlow suggested elsewhere yesterday that Trump would be willing to go even higher, beyond Pelosi’s sticker price.) But it’s insulting to our collective intelligence for them to pretend that there might be a voter revolt in red states if — gasp — Congress capped four years of profligate spending with one more stimulus blowout. No Republican voters are staying home this fall in protest if the Senate takes Pelosi’s offer; we’re fully five years removed from the tea-party movement metastasizing into a Trump cult, and that cult will happily support whatever Republicans might do to try to improve Trump’s reelection chances. The stimulus is the one thing left on the table that might matter. Certainly it would matter more to swing voters than rubber-stamping another Trump SCOTUS nominee.
What’s going on here is simple. Trump is drowning and, rather than toss him a life preserver that probably won’t save him anyway, the Senate GOP’s going to let him drown and protect itself. They’re betting that a Democratic wave three weeks from now will replace Trumpism with fiscal responsibility as the GOP’s new ideological guiding light. And so they’re pre-positioning themselves for it by balking at a stimulus deal. Their Faustian bargain with Trump produced three Supreme Court justices. They got what they wanted from the deal and now they’re done.
The question is when Trump realizes that and how he’ll react when he does. Will he simply sign on to Pelosi’s offer in desperation and demand that Senate Republicans pass it? Will he start attacking GOP candidates personally for “disloyalty”? I’ll leave you with this tweet from a few hours ago, in which an impatient Trump complains that Republicans are spending time on a Barrett confirmation hearing instead of following the ruthless power politics of this process to its logical conclusion, i.e. just holding a floor vote to confirm her now and moving on. The moment is coming when he’ll finally grasp that other Republicans in government don’t fear him the way they used to. Buckle up.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1315652617863864320


hotair--2020-10-12--Great Britain to move to "three-tiered" lockdown protocol

BoJo had better hope that he hasn ’ t lost his mojo .
There now appears to be little question that the United Kingdom ( along with much of the rest of Europe ) is in the midst of a second or third wave of COVID-19 infections , depending on how you count “ waves.
” While not fully spread across the entire nation , many new hotspots have cropped up and ICU beds are becoming scarce since this wave is happening simultaneously with the expected , seasonal arrival of the flu .
With that in mind , Boris Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out yet another series of lockdown orders to “ flatten the curve ” before the situation spirals further out of control .
But it won ’ t be a universal lockdown like they did in the spring and early summer .
This one will have three different levels of restrictions based on the severity of the outbreak in each given area .
The problem is , many of the Brits are fed up with all of this , and compliance with the new orders doesn ’ t appear to be a given .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus ’ resurgence , Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to announce a new three-tier local lockdown system Monday , which could temporarily close pubs and restaurants in the virus hot spots .
The speculation is that those areas put under the tightest restrictions would forbid all household mixing , indoors or outside .
He is briefing members of the Cabinet by conference call Sunday .
Local leaders in northern England have vented their fury at the Conservative government over what they see as an “ inadequate ” wage support scheme that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling them about the upcoming restrictions .
The wage plan aims to help employees in companies that are forced to close because of virus restrictions , but mayors say it ’ s not generous enough in paying only two-thirds of employees ’ wages and doesn ’ t compensate those indirectly hit by any business closures , such as drink suppliers to pubs .
Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick on Sunday sought to assuage concerns that the government was being overly hierarchical in its approach .
There ’ s already a lot of pushback to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press and at protests staged by angry Brits .
One of their complaints is that the government isn ’ t handing out the “ free money ” fast enough or to the right people .
Parliament is preparing yet another stimulus package to help those who lose their jobs when businesses – particularly restaurants and pubs – are forced to close .
But the measure doesn ’ t do much , if anything to prevent those businesses from going under if they are closed for too long .
Further , the proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses that wind up being indirectly crushed .
One example of that would be a company that provides beverages to pubs .
With all of the gin joints shut down , nobody orders any fresh supplies so the company generates no revenue and has to cut its workers loose .
But they aren ’ t covered in the stimulus package , even though both the workers and the owners are in just as much trouble as the pub owners and bartenders .
That ’ s not the full extend of BoJo ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All across Great Britain , people are fed up with the entire lockdown process , much the same as we ’ re seeing in the United States .
This “ pandemic exhaustion ” is taking a toll on people and they ’ re tired of remaining patient .
But the new plan that ’ s being discussed could make matters even worse .
It ’ s one thing if you tell the entire country to lock down and they ’ re all suffering together .
But it ’ s even worse if some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they watch their fellow countrymen in less-afflicted areas being allowed to go out and about in a mostly normal fashion .
The orders will be further complicated by the public ’ s knowledge that the WHO has just come out and said that lockdowns probably don ’ t work anyway .
That ’ s always the risk of creating different classes of people .
Some in the highest level of lockdown will be unhappy seeing others going out to the pub for a pint .
But Johnson doesn ’ t want to shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy has already taken too much of a battering as it is .
If some of the people begin to revolt and simply refuse to follow the orders , what will he do ?
The Brits threatened to start locking up non-compliant citizens during the original lockdowns , but most people went along with the program so it wasn ’ t that much of an issue .
This time may be different .
And if so , BoJo ’ s already tenuous hold on power might not survive the next wave .

BoJo had better hope that he hasn’t lost his mojo. There now appears to be little question that the United Kingdom (along with much of the rest of Europe) is in the midst of a second or third wave of COVID-19 infections, depending on how you count “waves.” While not fully spread across the entire nation, many new hotspots have cropped up and ICU beds are becoming scarce since this wave is happening simultaneously with the expected, seasonal arrival of the flu. With that in mind, Boris Johnson’s government is preparing to roll out yet another series of lockdown orders to “flatten the curve” before the situation spirals further out of control. But it won’t be a universal lockdown like they did in the spring and early summer. This one will have three different levels of restrictions based on the severity of the outbreak in each given area. The problem is, many of the Brits are fed up with all of this, and compliance with the new orders doesn’t appear to be a given. (Associated Press)
In response to the virus’ resurgence, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to announce a new three-tier local lockdown system Monday, which could temporarily close pubs and restaurants in the virus hot spots. The speculation is that those areas put under the tightest restrictions would forbid all household mixing, indoors or outside. He is briefing members of the Cabinet by conference call Sunday. Local leaders in northern England have vented their fury at the Conservative government over what they see as an “inadequate” wage support scheme that it announced Friday and for not properly telling them about the upcoming restrictions. The wage plan aims to help employees in companies that are forced to close because of virus restrictions, but mayors say it’s not generous enough in paying only two-thirds of employees’ wages and doesn’t compensate those indirectly hit by any business closures, such as drink suppliers to pubs. Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick on Sunday sought to assuage concerns that the government was being overly hierarchical in its approach.
There’s already a lot of pushback to Johnson’s proposals showing up in the press and at protests staged by angry Brits. One of their complaints is that the government isn’t handing out the “free money” fast enough or to the right people. Parliament is preparing yet another stimulus package to help those who lose their jobs when businesses – particularly restaurants and pubs – are forced to close. But the measure doesn’t do much, if anything to prevent those businesses from going under if they are closed for too long. Further, the proposal does nothing for the “secondary” businesses that wind up being indirectly crushed.
One example of that would be a company that provides beverages to pubs. With all of the gin joints shut down, nobody orders any fresh supplies so the company generates no revenue and has to cut its workers loose. But they aren’t covered in the stimulus package, even though both the workers and the owners are in just as much trouble as the pub owners and bartenders.
That’s not the full extend of BoJo’s woes in this matter, though. All across Great Britain, people are fed up with the entire lockdown process, much the same as we’re seeing in the United States. This “pandemic exhaustion” is taking a toll on people and they’re tired of remaining patient. But the new plan that’s being discussed could make matters even worse. It’s one thing if you tell the entire country to lock down and they’re all suffering together. But it’s even worse if some communities are put under full restrictions while they watch their fellow countrymen in less-afflicted areas being allowed to go out and about in a mostly normal fashion. The orders will be further complicated by the public’s knowledge that the WHO has just come out and said that lockdowns probably don’t work anyway.
That’s always the risk of creating different classes of people. Some in the highest level of lockdown will be unhappy seeing others going out to the pub for a pint. But Johnson doesn’t want to shut down the entire country again because their economy has already taken too much of a battering as it is. If some of the people begin to revolt and simply refuse to follow the orders, what will he do? The Brits threatened to start locking up non-compliant citizens during the original lockdowns, but most people went along with the program so it wasn’t that much of an issue. This time may be different. And if so, BoJo’s already tenuous hold on power might not survive the next wave.