hotair--2020-09-29--Dems: We'll get back to you about packing the Court after the election

The partisan temptation is to read their caginess about Court-packing as evidence that they secretly plan to do it .
They don ’ t want independents to know before the election that they ’ re about to blow up SCOTUS !
If that ’ s their intention , they have good reason to hide it .
Voters aren ’ t keen to expand the Court .
But I think the likely truth is more mundane .
They know they don ’ t have the votes right now and won ’ t know if they ’ ll have the votes next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make promises about Court-packing when it might not even be possible ?
It might scare away some voters who are leaning towards them at the moment as the “ normal ” alternative to Trump and the GOP .
Democrats are neck-and-neck with Republican incumbents in half a dozen battleground races ; even Lindsey Graham ’ s seat isn ’ t safe at the moment .
Suddenly they ’ re going to pull the pin on Court-packing and toss that at the center-right swing contingent ?
C ’ mon .
Besides , making pledges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pissed-off progressives next spring .
Promise the left now that you ’ ll pack the Court in January if your majority ’ s big enough and you ’ d damned well better do it if they hand you that majority .
Before voters go to the polls , should they get to know whether court-packing is likely or even on the table ?
“ There are so many reasons to vote for Democrats now — that we need to focus on the pandemic , ” replied [ Richard ] Blumenthal , a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know , we just passed 200,000 deaths .
The president ’ s failure to deal with the pandemic and the public-health and economic crises and his cruel and reckless indifference [ are ] costing lives.
” “ I think we ’ ve got to wait to get through the election , ” Pennsylvania Democratic senator Bob Casey said when asked about court-packing .
“ The key thing right now is people have to understand what ’ s at stake , especially on ACA and preexisting conditions.
” “ No thoughts at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin Heinrich replied when asked about adding justices to the Court .
“ We have a job to do before we have that conversation.
” Kamala Harris was asked yesterday about Court-packing and responded with a string of evasive gibberish that made me wonder if she ’ s the one on the ticket with actual dementia .
If you ’ re considering doing something that was considered too far beyond the pale for Franklin Roosevelt to do even at the height of his popularity , you have an obligation to mention it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big reason why they don ’ t want to talk about it right now .
Joe Manchin has already ruled it out , which means they ’ re starting with just 46 votes .
Kyrsten Sinema will probably follow Manchin , which leaves them at 45 .
Doug Jones is about to lose a Senate seat in Alabama , so actually it ’ s 44 .
They need to pick up a half-dozen seats this fall just to have a shot at making this happen .
And those half-dozen seats , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from purple or reddish battlegrounds , where the new senators will be reluctant to antagonize their Republican constituents with a move like Court-packing right off the bat .
I think there ’ s another reason they ’ re keeping their powder dry on Court-packing .
If Biden ( or Trump ) wins convincingly and the risk of a legal battle over ballots evaporates , I doubt we ’ ll hear much from Schumer and Pelosi about the Court after the election .
They ’ ll be on to other things , starting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is the next president .
That will mollify the left to some degree .
In light of the poor polling on expanding the Court and the political risk to swing-state Dem senators , the issue will probably just peter out .
But if there *is* a battle over ballots , with Democrats suddenly panicked that a conservative Court is about to hand a second term to Trump , then I think they ’ ll start rattling this saber in earnest during the lame duck .
Things *could* get so tense amid a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election that even Manchin and Sinema will feel heavy pressure to stick with the team and endorse Court-packing .
The point would be to send a message to the Court ’ s conservative majority : If you connive to keep Trump in office unjustly , we ’ ll eventually take your majority away .
Democrats wouldn ’ t be in a position to act on that threat immediately if the Court ’ s ruling ensures a second Trump term , obviously , but they will be at some point in the future .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts think twice about siding with Trump .
Whether it ’ s enough to make Thomas , Alito , Gorsuch , Kavanaugh , and Barrett do so is a separate question .
By the way , two new polls of Georgia out today show Democrat Raphael Warnock the new leader in the state ’ s “ jungle primary.
” That ’ s not overly concerning , as Warnock appears to be consolidating the Democratic vote while Republicans remain split between Kelly Loeffler and Doug Collins .
One of them will emerge as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-election runoff with Warnock in early January .
It ’ s hard to game out a race like that with so much uncertainty right now — who will the president-elect be , what will the incoming Senate look like ?
— but note that one of today ’ s polls ( Civiqs ) has Warnock polling ahead of both Republicans in runoff match-ups , leading Collins 49/44 and Loeffler 49/39 .
He remains an underdog , but a true blue wave this fall could sweep up Senate seats even in states as red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 52-53 seats in a worst-case scenario for the GOP .
And if they do , Court-packing becomes somewhat more plausible .

The partisan temptation is to read their caginess about Court-packing as evidence that they secretly plan to do it. They don’t want independents to know before the election that they’re about to blow up SCOTUS!
If that’s their intention, they have good reason to hide it. Voters aren’t keen to expand the Court.
But I think the likely truth is more mundane. They know they don’t have the votes right now and won’t know if they’ll have the votes next year until after November 3. Why make promises about Court-packing when it might not even be possible? It might scare away some voters who are leaning towards them at the moment as the “normal” alternative to Trump and the GOP. Democrats are neck-and-neck with Republican incumbents in half a dozen battleground races; even Lindsey Graham’s seat isn’t safe at the moment. Suddenly they’re going to pull the pin on Court-packing and toss that at the center-right swing contingent? C’mon.
Besides, making pledges about Court-packing might lead to some seriously pissed-off progressives next spring. Promise the left now that you’ll pack the Court in January if your majority’s big enough and you’d damned well better do it if they hand you that majority.
John McCormack reports:
Before voters go to the polls, should they get to know whether court-packing is likely or even on the table? “There are so many reasons to vote for Democrats now — that we need to focus on the pandemic,” replied [Richard] Blumenthal, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “You know, we just passed 200,000 deaths. The president’s failure to deal with the pandemic and the public-health and economic crises and his cruel and reckless indifference [are] costing lives.” “I think we’ve got to wait to get through the election,” Pennsylvania Democratic senator Bob Casey said when asked about court-packing. “The key thing right now is people have to understand what’s at stake, especially on ACA and preexisting conditions.” “No thoughts at the moment,” New Mexico Democratic senator Martin Heinrich replied when asked about adding justices to the Court. “We have a job to do before we have that conversation.”
Kamala Harris was asked yesterday about Court-packing and responded with a string of evasive gibberish that made me wonder if she’s the one on the ticket with actual dementia.
WATCH: Kamala Harris refuses to answer a question about whether she supports expanding the size of the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/0bXYoHRsuv — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 29, 2020
If you’re considering doing something that was considered too far beyond the pale for Franklin Roosevelt to do even at the height of his popularity, you have an obligation to mention it to voters, no?
Here’s a big reason why they don’t want to talk about it right now. Joe Manchin has already ruled it out, which means they’re starting with just 46 votes. Kyrsten Sinema will probably follow Manchin, which leaves them at 45. Doug Jones is about to lose a Senate seat in Alabama, so actually it’s 44. They need to pick up a half-dozen seats this fall just to have a shot at making this happen. And those half-dozen seats, if they arrive at all, will come from purple or reddish battlegrounds, where the new senators will be reluctant to antagonize their Republican constituents with a move like Court-packing right off the bat.
“That is not something that I would support. I can't support that” Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin says when asked about expanding the Supreme Court https://t.co/9mkizWHrUu #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/VWbRGhsFvu — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) September 27, 2020
I think there’s another reason they’re keeping their powder dry on Court-packing. If Biden (or Trump) wins convincingly and the risk of a legal battle over ballots evaporates, I doubt we’ll hear much from Schumer and Pelosi about the Court after the election. They’ll be on to other things, starting with expanding voting rights in the event that Biden is the next president. That will mollify the left to some degree. In light of the poor polling on expanding the Court and the political risk to swing-state Dem senators, the issue will probably just peter out.
But if there *is* a battle over ballots, with Democrats suddenly panicked that a conservative Court is about to hand a second term to Trump, then I think they’ll start rattling this saber in earnest during the lame duck. Things *could* get so tense amid a legal standoff over the outcome of the election that even Manchin and Sinema will feel heavy pressure to stick with the team and endorse Court-packing. The point would be to send a message to the Court’s conservative majority: If you connive to keep Trump in office unjustly, we’ll eventually take your majority away. Democrats wouldn’t be in a position to act on that threat immediately if the Court’s ruling ensures a second Trump term, obviously, but they will be at some point in the future. That may be enough to make John Roberts think twice about siding with Trump. Whether it’s enough to make Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett do so is a separate question.
By the way, two new polls of Georgia out today show Democrat Raphael Warnock the new leader in the state’s “jungle primary.” That’s not overly concerning, as Warnock appears to be consolidating the Democratic vote while Republicans remain split between Kelly Loeffler and Doug Collins. One of them will emerge as the top Republican finisher and advance to a post-election runoff with Warnock in early January. It’s hard to game out a race like that with so much uncertainty right now — who will the president-elect be, what will the incoming Senate look like? — but note that one of today’s polls (Civiqs) has Warnock polling ahead of both Republicans in runoff match-ups, leading Collins 49/44 and Loeffler 49/39. He remains an underdog, but a true blue wave this fall could sweep up Senate seats even in states as red as Georgia. Dems could end up with 52-53 seats in a worst-case scenario for the GOP. And if they do, Court-packing becomes somewhat more plausible.


hotair--2020-09-29--Jonathan Turley: Judge Sullivan should dismiss the Flynn case

This morning law professor Jonathan Turley wrote a piece arguing that it was time for Judge Sullivan to stop playing games and drop the case against Michael Flynn .
As you ’ ll see in a moment that ’ s not at all how things worked out .
But let ’ s start with Turley ’ s argument that Sullivan has been given a chance by the Appeals Court to do the right thing : The appellate panel held that time was up for Sullivan in the case of Flynn because “ we need not guess if this irregular and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it already has.
” After that opinion , many predicted the full appellate court would reverse , not because of any discord on the law but because Sullivan must be given the chance to do the right thing .
He had not made a final ruling and , while making note of the clear law in this issue , the panel should not have taken that decision away from him .
There remains no doubt as to the outcome of this case .
Sullivan either will dismiss this charge or be reversed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to him for a final ruling… …the reputation of Sullivan instead of Flynn is at stake in this hearing .
He can follow the law dispassionately and dismiss this charge without gratuitous commentary .
Or he can use the hearing to lash out at the administration and the defendant just before an election .
With that in mind , here ’ s what happened today at Flynn ’ s sentencing hearing today : U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ’ s grilling of Flynn attorney Sidney Powell , during a highly anticipated hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the effort by Flynn and the Justice Department — with Trump ’ s active and public support — to drop a criminal case against Flynn that has been pending since 2017 .
After initially resisting and citing potential executive privilege concerns , Powell revealed that she briefed Trump on the case within the last two weeks and requested that he not issue a pardon .
But she denied asking the president to take any other actions related to the case .
“ I can tell you I spoke one time to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the general status of this litigation , ” Powell said .
“ Did you ever ask the president of the United States or request his attorney general to appoint new attorneys in this case ?
” Sullivan wondered .
So not only did Judge Sullivan not dispassionately dismiss the case , he pressed Flynn ’ s attorney on the theory that the President was involved in doing her bidding in the case .
Also present today was Kenneth Kohl from the U.S. Attorney ’ s office who argued that , contrary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was no case the government could win here given that several people involved were fired by the FBI and have serious credibility problems : Kohl said the case would be all but impossible for the government to take to trial because of credibility problems related to both of the FBI agents present during Flynn ’ s alleged lies during the January 24 , 2017 interview that gave rise to the case , as well as the deputy director of the FBI at the time , Andrew McCabe .
“ Who are we going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Kohl asked , saying that each of the men had their “ credibility ” challenged by the Justice Department ’ s internal watchdog , the Office of Inspector General .
Meanwhile , John Gleeson , the attorney Sullivan picked to argue against dismissing the case is pushing the idea that the DOJ is heeding President Trump ’ s tweets .
Gleeson urged Sullivan to deny the motion , calling it “ a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.
” He disputed the government ’ s explanation for its reversal and noted Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times about Flynn ’ s case .
The government moved to close the case , Gleeson said , because the president “ wants Flynn off the hook , and doesn ’ t want to use the pardon power to do it.
” Later on in the hearing , Flynn ’ s attorney asked the judge to recuse himself because of his bias in the case .
Judge Sulllivan didn ’ t like that : Flynn ’ s lawyers have already put in writing their feelings about the ongoing case .
In a brief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ hideous abuse of power and travesty of justice.
” After five hours spent on this today , Sullivan said he had not made up his mind about whether or not to dismiss the case .
He did say he was aware the appeals court was looking for a quick decision from him .
Does that mean he ’ s going to finally reach a conclusion this week or is he trying to drag this out until the election ?
I ’ m not sure what the strategy is here but both he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behaving like aggrieved partisan looking for a pound of flesh .

This morning law professor Jonathan Turley wrote a piece arguing that it was time for Judge Sullivan to stop playing games and drop the case against Michael Flynn. As you’ll see in a moment that’s not at all how things worked out. But let’s start with Turley’s argument that Sullivan has been given a chance by the Appeals Court to do the right thing:
The appellate panel held that time was up for Sullivan in the case of Flynn because “we need not guess if this irregular and searching scrutiny will continue” as “it already has.” After that opinion, many predicted the full appellate court would reverse, not because of any discord on the law but because Sullivan must be given the chance to do the right thing. He had not made a final ruling and, while making note of the clear law in this issue, the panel should not have taken that decision away from him. There remains no doubt as to the outcome of this case. Sullivan either will dismiss this charge or be reversed by the same court that sent it back to him for a final ruling… …the reputation of Sullivan instead of Flynn is at stake in this hearing. He can follow the law dispassionately and dismiss this charge without gratuitous commentary. Or he can use the hearing to lash out at the administration and the defendant just before an election.
With that in mind, here’s what happened today at Flynn’s sentencing hearing today:
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan’s grilling of Flynn attorney Sidney Powell, during a highly anticipated hearing, underscored Sullivan’s deep concerns about the effort by Flynn and the Justice Department — with Trump’s active and public support — to drop a criminal case against Flynn that has been pending since 2017. After initially resisting and citing potential executive privilege concerns, Powell revealed that she briefed Trump on the case within the last two weeks and requested that he not issue a pardon. But she denied asking the president to take any other actions related to the case. “I can tell you I spoke one time to the president about this case to inform him about the general status of this litigation,” Powell said. “Did you ever ask the president of the United States or request his attorney general to appoint new attorneys in this case?” Sullivan wondered. “Oh, heavens no,” Powell said.
So not only did Judge Sullivan not dispassionately dismiss the case, he pressed Flynn’s attorney on the theory that the President was involved in doing her bidding in the case.
Also present today was Kenneth Kohl from the U.S. Attorney’s office who argued that, contrary to Judge Sullivan’s claims, there was no case the government could win here given that several people involved were fired by the FBI and have serious credibility problems:
Kohl said the case would be all but impossible for the government to take to trial because of credibility problems related to both of the FBI agents present during Flynn’s alleged lies during the January 24, 2017 interview that gave rise to the case, as well as the deputy director of the FBI at the time, Andrew McCabe. “Who are we going to call as witnesses in this case?” Kohl asked, saying that each of the men had their “credibility” challenged by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, the Office of Inspector General.
Meanwhile, John Gleeson, the attorney Sullivan picked to argue against dismissing the case is pushing the idea that the DOJ is heeding President Trump’s tweets.
Gleeson urged Sullivan to deny the motion, calling it “a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.” He disputed the government’s explanation for its reversal and noted Trump has tweeted or retweeted more than 100 times about Flynn’s case. The government moved to close the case, Gleeson said, because the president “wants Flynn off the hook, and doesn’t want to use the pardon power to do it.”
Later on in the hearing, Flynn’s attorney asked the judge to recuse himself because of his bias in the case. Judge Sulllivan didn’t like that:
Powell later during the hearing asked Sullivan to recuse himself from the case, on the grounds of purported bias against Flynn, which included the judge appealing a higher court’s order that Flynn’s case be promptly dismissed. Sullivan, seeming annoyed, waved aside her request, telling her to put it in writing in a court filing.
Flynn’s lawyers have already put in writing their feelings about the ongoing case. In a brief submitted last week they called it a “hideous abuse of power and travesty of justice.”
After five hours spent on this today, Sullivan said he had not made up his mind about whether or not to dismiss the case. He did say he was aware the appeals court was looking for a quick decision from him. Does that mean he’s going to finally reach a conclusion this week or is he trying to drag this out until the election? I’m not sure what the strategy is here but both he and his hand-picked attorney John Gleeson are behaving like aggrieved partisan looking for a pound of flesh.


hotair--2020-09-29--Were Pennsylvania Republicans trying to "circumvent the popular vote?"

A recent article in The Atlantic caused quite a stir in the Keystone State this week after they insinuated that Pennsylvania Republicans were preparing plans to short-sheet the popular vote on November 3rd and have the legislature install Trump electors in the event that the outcome in Pennsylvania is contested or significantly delayed .
That report had plenty of tongues wagging with rumors of various bits of GOP skullduggery making the rounds .
Eventually , the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader , Jake Corman , had to put out a public statement saying that this was all vaporware from liberals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stagger along as best as it ’ s able under the circumstances .
But what we ’ re seeing here is probably a microcosm of similar flaps that are going to be cropping up all over the place if the race is as tight as many observers expect .
( Fox News ) Top Republicans in Pennsylvania are pushing back after a report by The Atlantic alleged that they are planning to potentially have the state legislature disregard the popular vote and appoint electors for the state in the case that election returns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report took their comments out of context .
“ What they wanted to do I guess is to get people excited and fire people up to fit their narrative that Trump ’ s trying to steal the election , which couldn ’ t be further from the truth , ” Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman , a Republican , who was one people quoted by The Atlantic , said .
“ But there ’ s no role for the legislature in this process so how they got to this premise is beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accomplish.
” The Atlantic story largely discusses President Trump , his comments on mail-in voting , potential litigation stemming from delays in counting mail-in ballots and predicts that Trump will not leave office if he loses the election — despite being asked repeatedly , Trump still has not unequivocally stated he will accept the result of the election .
What the piece from The Atlantic was suggesting ( or perhaps rumormongering would be a better word ) is not something that is allowable under the state constitution .
Corman took to Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you read the article all the way through , it seems rather obvious what was happening here .
The Atlantic , as is their usual practice , was looking for a salacious quote to generate some clicks and make the GOP look bad .
Their reporter kept badgering the Republicans , asking if they might be able to find a way to appoint the electors themselves and “ steal ” the state ’ s electors on Trump ’ s behalf .
Then they cherry-picked the answers that sounded most sensational .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ place all the way back in July , but it ’ s just being resurfaced now that we ’ re on the eve of the debates and the final stretch before election day .
The reality is that this election may well wind up being very messy in a number of closely contested states to begin with .
When you add in the massive number of mail-in ballots , particularly in states like Pennsylvania where they can ’ t even begin certifying and counting them until very late in the process , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begins to grow .
But if we get too close to the Safe Harbor date on December 8th and the counting is still going on , the final remedy will likely be found through the courts .
They still have until December 18th to seat the electors , so the court could come up with a way to do that .
( That ’ s how the 2000 election was finally settled on December 12th via Bush v .
Gore . )
There are also additional safeguards and fallback plans in the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of this shakes out .
If some of the states simply can ’ t finish and come up with a court resolution , it ’ s possible that neither candidate will wrangle 270 electors .
If so , the election will get tossed to the House and the Senate .
And if all else fails , we ’ ll have an Acting President and Acting Vice President in the persons of the Speaker of the House ( yikes ! )
and the president pro tempore of the Senate .
Fear not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a resolution .
And no matter who “ wins ” in those scenarios , there will probably be riots in the streets .
But we ’ ve all pretty much grown used to that by now , haven ’ t we ?

A recent article in The Atlantic caused quite a stir in the Keystone State this week after they insinuated that Pennsylvania Republicans were preparing plans to short-sheet the popular vote on November 3rd and have the legislature install Trump electors in the event that the outcome in Pennsylvania is contested or significantly delayed. That report had plenty of tongues wagging with rumors of various bits of GOP skullduggery making the rounds. Eventually, the Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader, Jake Corman, had to put out a public statement saying that this was all vaporware from liberals and that the election process was going to stagger along as best as it’s able under the circumstances. But what we’re seeing here is probably a microcosm of similar flaps that are going to be cropping up all over the place if the race is as tight as many observers expect. (Fox News)
Top Republicans in Pennsylvania are pushing back after a report by The Atlantic alleged that they are planning to potentially have the state legislature disregard the popular vote and appoint electors for the state in the case that election returns are disputed or delayed, saying the report took their comments out of context. “What they wanted to do I guess is to get people excited and fire people up to fit their narrative that Trump’s trying to steal the election, which couldn’t be further from the truth,” Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, a Republican, who was one people quoted by The Atlantic, said. “But there’s no role for the legislature in this process so how they got to this premise is beyond me other this is what they wanted to accomplish.” The Atlantic story largely discusses President Trump, his comments on mail-in voting, potential litigation stemming from delays in counting mail-in ballots and predicts that Trump will not leave office if he loses the election — despite being asked repeatedly, Trump still has not unequivocally stated he will accept the result of the election.
What the piece from The Atlantic was suggesting (or perhaps rumormongering would be a better word) is not something that is allowable under the state constitution. Corman took to Twitter in an effort to make this clear.
I have had ZERO contact with the Trump campaign or others about how PA chooses electors. The PA process as outlined in the Election Code DOES NOT involve the legislature. pic.twitter.com/DI2vsO7Z1E — Senator Jake Corman (@JakeCorman) September 25, 2020
If you read the article all the way through, it seems rather obvious what was happening here. The Atlantic, as is their usual practice, was looking for a salacious quote to generate some clicks and make the GOP look bad. Their reporter kept badgering the Republicans, asking if they might be able to find a way to appoint the electors themselves and “steal” the state’s electors on Trump’s behalf. Then they cherry-picked the answers that sounded most sensational. Also, the original interview actually took place all the way back in July, but it’s just being resurfaced now that we’re on the eve of the debates and the final stretch before election day.
The reality is that this election may well wind up being very messy in a number of closely contested states to begin with. When you add in the massive number of mail-in ballots, particularly in states like Pennsylvania where they can’t even begin certifying and counting them until very late in the process, the potential for some sort of worst-case scenario begins to grow. But if we get too close to the Safe Harbor date on December 8th and the counting is still going on, the final remedy will likely be found through the courts. They still have until December 18th to seat the electors, so the court could come up with a way to do that. (That’s how the 2000 election was finally settled on December 12th via Bush v. Gore.)
There are also additional safeguards and fallback plans in the Constitution that would be invoked no matter how all of this shakes out. If some of the states simply can’t finish and come up with a court resolution, it’s possible that neither candidate will wrangle 270 electors. If so, the election will get tossed to the House and the Senate. And if all else fails, we’ll have an Acting President and Acting Vice President in the persons of the Speaker of the House (yikes!) and the president pro tempore of the Senate. Fear not. One way or another we’ll have a resolution. And no matter who “wins” in those scenarios, there will probably be riots in the streets. But we’ve all pretty much grown used to that by now, haven’t we?


hotair--2020-09-29--Cruz after meeting with Barrett: We can't afford to have the Court deadlocked 4-4 on election cases

He ’ s been making this point since the news of Ginsburg ’ s death broke .
And I can ’ t understand why .
It ’ s the worst possible argument in defense of what the GOP is doing .
We all know why they ’ re filling the seat .
They have the votes to do it , they may no longer have the votes three months from now , and this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a six-justice conservative majority .
It ’ s raw power politics , no more complicated than that .
Does it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held Scalia ’ s seat open four years ago ?
Sure .
Is that hypocrisy hurting them in swing states ?
Maybe .
The two new polls of Pennsylvania that I wrote about this morning found majorities there prefer to have Biden or the next president fill the seat , with many more Biden supporters saying the vacancy makes it more important that their guy win the election ( 61 percent ) than Trump supporters who say so ( 41 percent ) .
Republicans are filling the seat because they can .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blunt as that in their messaging , which is why Cruz and others are left grasping for “ neutral ” rationales .
Their best option is probably just the “ McConnell rule ” from 2016 .
Americans elected a Democrat president in 2012 and a Republican Senate majority in 2014 ; when Scalia ’ s seat opened up in 2016 , it was only fair to let voters resolve that deadlock by choosing which party should fill the seat .
Then Americans elected a Republican president in 2016 and increased the Republican Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s seat opened up , there was no deadlock to resolve .
Voters had already decided that they wanted Republicans to fill it .
Is that logic strong enough to convince people that Trump and the Senate GOP should go ahead and ram Barrett ’ s nomination through in late October after millions Americans have already voted on who should be the next president ?
Not all people , no .
But it ’ s the strongest “ neutral ” fig leaf they have for their power play .
Joni Ernst used it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic opponent in Iowa when asked why Republicans would insist on filling the seat so close to Election Day .
“ Because we can , bro , ” wouldn ’ t cut it as an answer .
So instead she cited the difference between divided government in 2016 and unified government now .
She even noted that it was Joe Biden himself who had once supported that standard , a nice touch .
Why isn ’ t Cruz making that same point instead of sticking with this pitiful argument that we can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Watch the clip ( and turn up your sound , as the audio ’ s poor ) , then read on .
The painfully obvious question : Why didn ’ t Cruz care about having a 4-4 Court in 2016 , when the GOP roadblocked Merrick Garland ?
A Politico reporter remembered this afternoon that not only did he support blocking Garland , knowing that would leave the Court deadlocked after Election Day , he suggested holding the seat open even longer in case Hillary Clinton won and the GOP retained a Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve had a 4-4 Court since 2017 because a critical mass of Republican senators led by Cruz refused to confirm any of President Clinton ’ s nominee .
Now here he is , four years after he helped ensure that SCOTUS would have eight justices to resolve any post-election disputes between Trump and Clinton , insisting that it would be unthinkable to allow eight justices to make that call in 2020 .
At what point does hypocrisy become so egregious that it amounts to insulting the intelligence of your constituents ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4-4 , as it was after Scalia ’ s seat went vacant .
It ’ s 5-3 .
You may not like John Roberts but he ’ s still more likely to vote with the other conservatives than to vote against them .
Two other points to bear in mind here .
One : If , God forbid , we really did end up with another Bush v. Gore scenario and an eight-person Court this time , one would hope that the Supremes would recognize that a 4-4 decision punting the matter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hack it .
Americans would need clarity .
The decision would need to be 5-3 or even more lopsided .
The Court has managed unanimous majorities before in fraught cases ( Brown v. Board of Ed , U.S. v. Nixon ) precisely because they knew that a divided bench would weaken respect for the outcome and the Court ’ s institutional legitimacy .
I doubt we ’ d see a unanimous majority in an election case , but I have just enough faith left in SCOTUS to believe they ’ d manage a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two : It does Amy Coney Barrett no favors to frame the urgency of confirming her in terms of her potential role in deciding election cases .
Cruz pays some lip service in the clip to the fact that of course we wouldn ’ t expect her to rule in a particular way due to partisan considerations , but Barrett certainly understands that if she casts a vote in an election dispute that favors Trump , half the country will never look at her the same way again .
A 5-4 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s favor would wreck whatever ’ s left of the Court ’ s legitimacy for all but diehard righty partisans , especially in light of the hardball bizarro-Garland tactics used to confirm her .
By accepting the nomination under these circumstances , as Trump screams that the vote is rigged but that he ’ s counting on his new nine-justice Court to be “ fair ” to him , wink wink , she may soon find herself in the eye of a political storm unlike anything the country has seen in ages .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to stop talking about election cases that are destined to call her integrity into question and start talking her up as a nominee .
“ We ’ re confirming her because she ’ s a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who ’ ll do good for the people of this country for decades to come , ” he might say .
Period , the end .

He’s been making this point since the news of Ginsburg’s death broke. And I can’t understand why. It’s the worst possible argument in defense of what the GOP is doing.
We all know why they’re filling the seat. They have the votes to do it, they may no longer have the votes three months from now, and this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a six-justice conservative majority. It’s raw power politics, no more complicated than that. Does it make them look like hypocrites after they held Scalia’s seat open four years ago? Sure. Is that hypocrisy hurting them in swing states? Maybe. The two new polls of Pennsylvania that I wrote about this morning found majorities there prefer to have Biden or the next president fill the seat, with many more Biden supporters saying the vacancy makes it more important that their guy win the election (61 percent) than Trump supporters who say so (41 percent).
Republicans are filling the seat because they can. But they can’t be quite so blunt as that in their messaging, which is why Cruz and others are left grasping for “neutral” rationales. Their best option is probably just the “McConnell rule” from 2016. Americans elected a Democrat president in 2012 and a Republican Senate majority in 2014; when Scalia’s seat opened up in 2016, it was only fair to let voters resolve that deadlock by choosing which party should fill the seat. Then Americans elected a Republican president in 2016 and increased the Republican Senate majority in 2018; when Ginsburg’s seat opened up, there was no deadlock to resolve. Voters had already decided that they wanted Republicans to fill it.
Is that logic strong enough to convince people that Trump and the Senate GOP should go ahead and ram Barrett’s nomination through in late October after millions Americans have already voted on who should be the next president? Not all people, no. But it’s the strongest “neutral” fig leaf they have for their power play. Joni Ernst used it last night in a debate with her Democratic opponent in Iowa when asked why Republicans would insist on filling the seat so close to Election Day. “Because we can, bro,” wouldn’t cut it as an answer. So instead she cited the difference between divided government in 2016 and unified government now. She even noted that it was Joe Biden himself who had once supported that standard, a nice touch.
Why isn’t Cruz making that same point instead of sticking with this pitiful argument that we can’t afford a 4-4 Court post-election? Watch the clip (and turn up your sound, as the audio’s poor), then read on.
Sen. @TedCruz: "The entire reason the Senate should act and should act promptly to confirm a ninth justice is so that the Supreme Court can resolve any cases that arise in the wake of the election." pic.twitter.com/jYYd83E8KH — The Hill (@thehill) September 29, 2020
The painfully obvious question: Why didn’t Cruz care about having a 4-4 Court in 2016, when the GOP roadblocked Merrick Garland? A Politico reporter remembered this afternoon that not only did he support blocking Garland, knowing that would leave the Court deadlocked after Election Day, he suggested holding the seat open even longer in case Hillary Clinton won and the GOP retained a Senate majority.
On Wednesday, speaking to reporters in Colorado, Cruz offered perhaps his boldest gambit yet by suggesting it’s in line with historical precedent for Republicans to keep the Supreme Court vacancy unfilled under a new president, despite the GOP’s vow that it would block a nominee only until after Obama leaves office. “There is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. Just recently Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job,” Cruz said while campaigning for underdog Senate candidate Darryl Glenn, according to a transcript provided by his office.
On Earth 2, we’ve had a 4-4 Court since 2017 because a critical mass of Republican senators led by Cruz refused to confirm any of President Clinton’s nominee. Now here he is, four years after he helped ensure that SCOTUS would have eight justices to resolve any post-election disputes between Trump and Clinton, insisting that it would be unthinkable to allow eight justices to make that call in 2020.
At what point does hypocrisy become so egregious that it amounts to insulting the intelligence of your constituents?
The current Court isn’t even really 4-4, as it was after Scalia’s seat went vacant. It’s 5-3. You may not like John Roberts but he’s still more likely to vote with the other conservatives than to vote against them.
Two other points to bear in mind here. One: If, God forbid, we really did end up with another Bush v. Gore scenario and an eight-person Court this time, one would hope that the Supremes would recognize that a 4-4 decision punting the matter to the appellate courts just wouldn’t hack it. Americans would need clarity. The decision would need to be 5-3 or even more lopsided. The Court has managed unanimous majorities before in fraught cases (Brown v. Board of Ed, U.S. v. Nixon) precisely because they knew that a divided bench would weaken respect for the outcome and the Court’s institutional legitimacy. I doubt we’d see a unanimous majority in an election case, but I have just enough faith left in SCOTUS to believe they’d manage a clear majority for whatever the ruling was.
Two: It does Amy Coney Barrett no favors to frame the urgency of confirming her in terms of her potential role in deciding election cases. Cruz pays some lip service in the clip to the fact that of course we wouldn’t expect her to rule in a particular way due to partisan considerations, but Barrett certainly understands that if she casts a vote in an election dispute that favors Trump, half the country will never look at her the same way again. A 5-4 or 6-3 party-line conservative majority in Trump’s favor would wreck whatever’s left of the Court’s legitimacy for all but diehard righty partisans, especially in light of the hardball bizarro-Garland tactics used to confirm her. By accepting the nomination under these circumstances, as Trump screams that the vote is rigged but that he’s counting on his new nine-justice Court to be “fair” to him, wink wink, she may soon find herself in the eye of a political storm unlike anything the country has seen in ages. The least Cruz could do for her is to stop talking about election cases that are destined to call her integrity into question and start talking her up as a nominee. “We’re confirming her because she’s a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who’ll do good for the people of this country for decades to come,” he might say. Period, the end.


hotair--2020-09-29--EPA chief to Newsom: You don't have the power to ban gas-powered vehicles, champ

Get it ?
Power ?
EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler rebuked California governor Gavin Newsom yesterday for his executive order barring sales of gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 .
California no longer has the authority to impose such regulations , Wheeler reminded Newsom , and it also lacks the power , literally : Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) Administrator Andrew Wheeler wrote to California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) on Monday , saying he believes California would need to request a waiver from his agency for the order to be implemented and implying that the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shift toward electric vehicles .
“ While the [ executive order ] seems to be mostly aspirational and on its own would accomplish very little , any attempt by the California Air Resources Board to implement sections of it may require California to request a waiver to U.S. EPA , ” Wheeler wrote .
The EPA last year revoked a waiver that allowed California to set its own vehicle tailpipe emissions standards , so it appears unlikely that the agency would grant one on car sales under the current administration .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another chapter of Wickard v Filburn irony theater .
California ( along with a number of other states ) are challenging the revocation of that waiver in federal court .
However , the waiver isn ’ t an entitlement , and demanding a return of state control as a right contradicts how Democrats have routinely used the EPA to encroach more and more on state jurisdiction on environmental matters .
Trump basically wants to use the expanded definition of interstate commerce on which EPA and other federal jurisdiction is based to force an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes from the White House ’ s perspectives .
If Newsom doesn ’ t like that , he can demand a return to a much stricter interpretation of the Commerce Clause by overturning Wickard , among other precedents .
Irony theater ?
Perhaps we should call it Briar Patch Theater instead .
Wheeler ’ s point about power goes well beyond authority , though .
Wheeler points out that Newsom can ’ t keep the lights on reliably as it is .
What happens when the state requires all its vehicles to charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions of legality and the fact that consumer demand for the type of vehicle you would mandate has never met the aspirations of California ’ s political leadership , your state is already struggling to maintain reliable electricity for today ’ s demands .
California ’ s record of rolling blackouts – unprecedented in size and scope – coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand , when you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .
And that has already had serious impacts on environmental health , Wheeler points out in his next paragraph : The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today , the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences .
For example , in August , after the East Bay Municipal Utility District wastewater treatment plant experienced a power outage for nearly two hours , a pump station failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be spilled into California ’ s Oakland Estuary .
Also , just this month , the inability to maintain a reliable energy system led the California Independent System Operator ( CAISO ) to seek an emergency exemption from federal air quality standards in an attempt to maintain power .
This request was granted but comes at the cost of increased pollutants such as fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxide in California ’ s air .
As noted in CAISO ’ s letter to the U.S. Secretary of Energy , “ … in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power to homes and local businesses in the areas affected by curtailments present a greater risk to public health and safety than the limited departures from those permit limits the CAISO requests here.
” Ouch .
CAISO has also extended the deadline for retiring fossil-fuel-based power generation after the last series of rolling blackouts made it clear that the state has no backups for it .
Everyone seems to grasp California ’ s lack of power except Newsom .
Still , if California wants to become a third-world state , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsom should absolutely fight for his state ’ s rights to regulate itself , and for other states to do the same without interference from Washington .
The only rational jurisdiction the federal government has on commercial transactions in California are those that specifically cross state lines , they can argue while demanding that courts return to the proper constitutional order .
What was that called again ?
Was that … federalism ?
Go for it , progressives !

Get it? Power? EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler rebuked California governor Gavin Newsom yesterday for his executive order barring sales of gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035. California no longer has the authority to impose such regulations, Wheeler reminded Newsom, and it also lacks the power, literally:
In a letter, the U.S. EPA administrator tells Newsom that his executive order mandating only new electric car sales in California by 2035 may be illegal and questions the feasibility of the increase demand in electricity "when you can't even keep the lights on today." pic.twitter.com/f3piV4UtZe — Alexei Koseff (@akoseff) September 28, 2020
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler wrote to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday, saying he believes California would need to request a waiver from his agency for the order to be implemented and implying that the state’s electricity infrastructure is insufficient for a shift toward electric vehicles. “While the [executive order] seems to be mostly aspirational and on its own would accomplish very little, any attempt by the California Air Resources Board to implement sections of it may require California to request a waiver to U.S. EPA,” Wheeler wrote. The EPA last year revoked a waiver that allowed California to set its own vehicle tailpipe emissions standards, so it appears unlikely that the agency would grant one on car sales under the current administration.
The revocation and the reaction to it are another chapter of Wickard v Filburn irony theater. California (along with a number of other states) are challenging the revocation of that waiver in federal court. However, the waiver isn’t an entitlement, and demanding a return of state control as a right contradicts how Democrats have routinely used the EPA to encroach more and more on state jurisdiction on environmental matters. Trump basically wants to use the expanded definition of interstate commerce on which EPA and other federal jurisdiction is based to force an end to state actions that produce disfavorable outcomes from the White House’s perspectives. If Newsom doesn’t like that, he can demand a return to a much stricter interpretation of the Commerce Clause by overturning Wickard, among other precedents.
Irony theater? Perhaps we should call it Briar Patch Theater instead.
Wheeler’s point about power goes well beyond authority, though. Wheeler points out that Newsom can’t keep the lights on reliably as it is. What happens when the state requires all its vehicles to charge off the grid?
Beyond the significant questions of legality and the fact that consumer demand for the type of vehicle you would mandate has never met the aspirations of California’s political leadership, your state is already struggling to maintain reliable electricity for today’s demands. California’s record of rolling blackouts – unprecedented in size and scope – coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today.
And that has already had serious impacts on environmental health, Wheeler points out in his next paragraph:
The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences. For example, in August, after the East Bay Municipal Utility District wastewater treatment plant experienced a power outage for nearly two hours, a pump station failure caused 50,000 gallons of raw sewage to be spilled into California’s Oakland Estuary. Also, just this month, the inability to maintain a reliable energy system led the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) to seek an emergency exemption from federal air quality standards in an attempt to maintain power. This request was granted but comes at the cost of increased pollutants such as fine particulate matter and nitrogen oxide in California’s air. As noted in CAISO’s letter to the U.S. Secretary of Energy, “… in the CAISO’s judgment, the loss of power to homes and local businesses in the areas affected by curtailments present a greater risk to public health and safety than the limited departures from those permit limits the CAISO requests here.”
Ouch. CAISO has also extended the deadline for retiring fossil-fuel-based power generation after the last series of rolling blackouts made it clear that the state has no backups for it. Everyone seems to grasp California’s lack of power except Newsom.
Still, if California wants to become a third-world state, that’s really California’s business. Newsom should absolutely fight for his state’s rights to regulate itself, and for other states to do the same without interference from Washington. The only rational jurisdiction the federal government has on commercial transactions in California are those that specifically cross state lines, they can argue while demanding that courts return to the proper constitutional order.
What was that called again? Was that … federalism? Go for it, progressives!


hotair--2020-09-29--History professor's take on the 'model minority myth' seems a bit self-contradictory

This opinion piece at the Hill caught my attention both because of the subject matter and because the author grew up in my adopted hometown of Huntington Beach , CA .
Young R. Kim writes in opposition to what has become known as the “ model minority myth , ” which opponents see as a stereotype about Asian people .
I want to be fair to his argument but I can ’ t say I really understand it apart from a certain strain of left-wing politics that seems eager to discount the possibility of any link between hard work and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States to pursue graduate studies , he had plans for an academic career that never came to be .
Instead , with the proverbial sweat of his brow ( and my mother ’ s ) , he pulled himself up by his metaphorical bootstraps to build a small business — an SAT prep school geared toward Korean immigrant families — that arguably became the most successful one in Orange County in the 1980s .
Their hard work translated into the material signs of the American Dream : two cars , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a quiet neighborhood , with highly-rated schools .
So his family worked hard and became a success .
And the author admits that for a time that was the lesson he took from it : But at some point on his own path to success as a professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago , Kim decided that was all wrong : The lawsuit he ’ s referring to involved unfair admissions practices at Harvard .
The allegation made by the plaintiffs was that Asian applicants were being held back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attributes rated lower than individuals of other races .
This itself played into a stereotype about Asian-Americans as hard working drones with little personality , i.e .
as docile exactly as he mentioned in that first sentence .
Rather than being offended by this , Kim is offended that the lawsuit was brought at all , apparently .
And was anyone involved in the case “ conscripted ” as he claims ?
In any case , I don ’ t see how arguing that more Asian-Americans deserve to get into Harvard makes Asians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ Kung-flu ” comment , that understandably upset some Asian-Americans when Trump repeated it at a rally .
But it ’ s worth noting that Trump had previously said that his criticisms of the “ Chinese virus ” ( a phrase he used several times ) was not intended to reflect on Asian-Americans .
“ They ’ re amazing people and the spreading of the virus is not their fault in any way , shape or form .
They ’ re working closely with us to get rid of it – we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you follow that link to the 1966 NY Times story headlined , “ Success Story , Japanese-American style ” you ’ ll see that it ’ s entirely sympathetic to Japanese Americans and their ability to achieve some success despite obvious mistreatment during World War II .
The article notes that the secret of Japanese American ’ s success is that they had made education a priority and , on average , finished more schooling than white or black Americans .
The piece also argued that one reason Japanese-Americans may had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest barriers our racists were able to fashion ” because they still had a recent memory of being part of a distinct culture in which they had pride .
It ’ s certainly possible to disagree with that 54 year-old NY Times piece , but I don ’ t think you can argue that the intent was anything other than to praise Japanese Americans for their ability to overcome obstacles including racism .
Here ’ s Kim ’ s conclusion : We are steadily approaching a time when the majority will no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yes , some of us have been given a few seats at the table , and to be sure , many of us must reckon with our complicity in perpetuating the structures of systemic racism .
And we must remember that we are only useful as the “ model minority , ” as long as it serves the interests of those who perpetuate the myth .
The model minority myth may be misleading or only partly true in all of the ways people claim .
And yet , it remains true that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his father , have been able to succeed in America despite obstacles .
He may regret that Asian Americans , or some subset of them , have that “ model minority ” reputation but the fact that he decries it from a successful perch at a major university says more than his essay does about what works in America .

This opinion piece at the Hill caught my attention both because of the subject matter and because the author grew up in my adopted hometown of Huntington Beach, CA. Young R. Kim writes in opposition to what has become known as the “model minority myth,” which opponents see as a stereotype about Asian people. I want to be fair to his argument but I can’t say I really understand it apart from a certain strain of left-wing politics that seems eager to discount the possibility of any link between hard work and success:
When my father came to the United States to pursue graduate studies, he had plans for an academic career that never came to be. Instead, with the proverbial sweat of his brow (and my mother’s), he pulled himself up by his metaphorical bootstraps to build a small business — an SAT prep school geared toward Korean immigrant families — that arguably became the most successful one in Orange County in the 1980s. Their hard work translated into the material signs of the American Dream: two cars, as many dogs, a suburban home in a quiet neighborhood, with highly-rated schools.
So his family worked hard and became a success. And the author admits that for a time that was the lesson he took from it:
Every family has its own story, and every Asian and Asian-American community is different. I admit, though, growing up in southern California, in a home infused with a cultural conservatism borne from the homeland, I bought into the myth. We certainly were not like those people — lazy, freeloading, uneducated, unmotivated — or so we believed. Living in the OC and seeing the LA Riots unfold from a safe distance did not help either.
But at some point on his own path to success as a professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Kim decided that was all wrong:
Those I represent are extolled for our work ethic and docility, admired for achieving the “Dream,” and occasionally welcomed into the exclusive clubs. Still, we are simultaneously ridiculed for the shape of our eyes, conscripted to join lawsuits against allegedly unfair college admissions, and blamed for the “Kung-flu,” the new yellow peril. So which is it? Are we a model or a mockery?
The lawsuit he’s referring to involved unfair admissions practices at Harvard. The allegation made by the plaintiffs was that Asian applicants were being held back by routinely having their scores on personal attributes rated lower than individuals of other races. This itself played into a stereotype about Asian-Americans as hard working drones with little personality, i.e. as docile exactly as he mentioned in that first sentence. Rather than being offended by this, Kim is offended that the lawsuit was brought at all, apparently. And was anyone involved in the case “conscripted” as he claims? In any case, I don’t see how arguing that more Asian-Americans deserve to get into Harvard makes Asians the object of ridicule.
As for the “Kung-flu” comment, that understandably upset some Asian-Americans when Trump repeated it at a rally. But it’s worth noting that Trump had previously said that his criticisms of the “Chinese virus” (a phrase he used several times) was not intended to reflect on Asian-Americans. “They’re amazing people and the spreading of the virus is not their fault in any way, shape or form. They’re working closely with us to get rid of it – we will prevail together,” he said.
The origins of the myth are almost laughable, if not so tragic: Japanese-Americans were idealized as a model to compare with Black Americans. But who put the former into internment camps during World War II? Who created the old Jim Crow, and the new?
If you follow that link to the 1966 NY Times story headlined, “Success Story, Japanese-American style” you’ll see that it’s entirely sympathetic to Japanese Americans and their ability to achieve some success despite obvious mistreatment during World War II. The article notes that the secret of Japanese American’s success is that they had made education a priority and, on average, finished more schooling than white or black Americans.
The piece also argued that one reason Japanese-Americans may had been able to succeed “over the highest barriers our racists were able to fashion” because they still had a recent memory of being part of a distinct culture in which they had pride.
It’s certainly possible to disagree with that 54 year-old NY Times piece, but I don’t think you can argue that the intent was anything other than to praise Japanese Americans for their ability to overcome obstacles including racism. Here’s Kim’s conclusion:
We are steadily approaching a time when the majority will no longer be so in terms of sheer numbers. Yes, some of us have been given a few seats at the table, and to be sure, many of us must reckon with our complicity in perpetuating the structures of systemic racism. And we must remember that we are only useful as the “model minority,” as long as it serves the interests of those who perpetuate the myth.
The model minority myth may be misleading or only partly true in all of the ways people claim. And yet, it remains true that some minorities, like the author and his father, have been able to succeed in America despite obstacles. He may regret that Asian Americans, or some subset of them, have that “model minority” reputation but the fact that he decries it from a successful perch at a major university says more than his essay does about what works in America.


hotair--2020-09-29--Seriously? Two NFL teams shut down after COVID outbreak

I don ’ t know if this was inevitable or if somebody just screwed up .
Either way , the NFL has joined the list of businesses with some decisions to make .
Only three weeks into the season and despite all of the precautions that were put in place across the league , the Tennessee Titans reported an outbreak of the novel coronavirus among their ranks .
The list of those infected includes both players and supporting staff .
The Titans have shut down “ all in-person operations ” for the time being , as have the Minnesota Vikings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question now is if they can move forward with the regular season .
And if not , what happens to the rest of the league ?
( NBC News ) Three players and five staffers with the Tennessee Titans tested positive for coronavirus , forcing two NFL teams off the practice field on Tuesday , the league and players union announced .
Both the Titans and Minnesota Vikings , who played host this past Sunday in Minneapolis , “ will suspend in-person club activities starting today , ” according to the joint statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Tuesday morning , it had received no positive tests results for anyone with their club .
How it happened will likely remain a mystery .
The Vikings had previously announced that there would be no fans allowed at their first two home games , including the one against the Titans .
Tennessee had similarly announced that their stadium would be empty for home games in the month of September .
As of this moment , Pittsburgh is being told to be ready for their trip to Tennessee this weekend “ until informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this news over the rest of the week should give us some idea of whether or not there will be a full season .
The reality is that people get injured or sick all the time in the NFL and some of them miss some games .
If the Titans have three players in quarantine , that ’ s why they have a bench of second-string players .
But since we ’ re talking about the plague everyone is predictably freaking out .
Now , however , we have two teams that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Steelers aren ’ t being kept off the practice field , so doesn ’ t that give them an unfair advantage ?
I realize that the league has always prided itself on its “ monsters of the midway ” reputation and the teams are expected to just suck it up and soldier on .
But there ’ s only so much of this that can go on before the season begins to have an asterisk next to it in the record books .
One thing that ’ s been exposed here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have any firm metrics in place in terms of how they ’ re handling the COVID-19 situation .
When Roger Goodell ’ s office was asked , they said that there is no firm number of positive cases that would trigger a game cancellation .
It kind of sounds as if they ’ re leaving it up to the teams to make those decisions .
But what happens if that magical trigger point is reached ?
Does that mean that some teams could end up taking automatic losses and others would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a free win ?
That doesn ’ t seem very fair to everyone else .
The only other option would be to reschedule the games for later in the year , but the normal bye weeks have already been canceled .
I ’ m not understanding how they manage this unless they just stretch the season out further than they already have .
If the NFL has too many teams go down with outbreaks of the virus they will eventually just have to cancel the season .
And that will mean that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting on the big show will have been wasted and we ’ ll have a year without a Super Bowl .
That ’ s never happened since the league was organized in its current form .
I ’ m not sure how I feel about this quite yet .
But given the way the Jets have been playing thus far , perhaps it ’ s for the best .
( Sorry… not sorry . )

I don’t know if this was inevitable or if somebody just screwed up. Either way, the NFL has joined the list of businesses with some decisions to make. Only three weeks into the season and despite all of the precautions that were put in place across the league, the Tennessee Titans reported an outbreak of the novel coronavirus among their ranks. The list of those infected includes both players and supporting staff. The Titans have shut down “all in-person operations” for the time being, as have the Minnesota Vikings who they played this week. The question now is if they can move forward with the regular season. And if not, what happens to the rest of the league? (NBC News)
Three players and five staffers with the Tennessee Titans tested positive for coronavirus, forcing two NFL teams off the practice field on Tuesday, the league and players union announced. Both the Titans and Minnesota Vikings, who played host this past Sunday in Minneapolis, “will suspend in-person club activities starting today,” according to the joint statement. The Vikings said that, as of Tuesday morning, it had received no positive tests results for anyone with their club.
How it happened will likely remain a mystery. The Vikings had previously announced that there would be no fans allowed at their first two home games, including the one against the Titans. Tennessee had similarly announced that their stadium would be empty for home games in the month of September.
As of this moment, Pittsburgh is being told to be ready for their trip to Tennessee this weekend “until informed otherwise.” How the league reacts to this news over the rest of the week should give us some idea of whether or not there will be a full season. The reality is that people get injured or sick all the time in the NFL and some of them miss some games. If the Titans have three players in quarantine, that’s why they have a bench of second-string players. But since we’re talking about the plague everyone is predictably freaking out.
Now, however, we have two teams that are not practicing in preparation for week four. The Steelers aren’t being kept off the practice field, so doesn’t that give them an unfair advantage? I realize that the league has always prided itself on its “monsters of the midway” reputation and the teams are expected to just suck it up and soldier on. But there’s only so much of this that can go on before the season begins to have an asterisk next to it in the record books.
One thing that’s been exposed here is the fact that the league doesn’t have any firm metrics in place in terms of how they’re handling the COVID-19 situation. When Roger Goodell’s office was asked, they said that there is no firm number of positive cases that would trigger a game cancellation. It kind of sounds as if they’re leaving it up to the teams to make those decisions. But what happens if that magical trigger point is reached? Does that mean that some teams could end up taking automatic losses and others would essentially get an extra bye week and a free win? That doesn’t seem very fair to everyone else. The only other option would be to reschedule the games for later in the year, but the normal bye weeks have already been canceled. I’m not understanding how they manage this unless they just stretch the season out further than they already have.
If the NFL has too many teams go down with outbreaks of the virus they will eventually just have to cancel the season. And that will mean that all of the time and money put into putting on the big show will have been wasted and we’ll have a year without a Super Bowl. That’s never happened since the league was organized in its current form. I’m not sure how I feel about this quite yet. But given the way the Jets have been playing thus far, perhaps it’s for the best. (Sorry… not sorry.)


hotair--2020-09-29--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Debate preview, Pelosi-Mnuchin pas de deux, Newsom's purview, SCOTUS co

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Debate preview, Pelosi-Mnuchin pas de deux, Newsom's purview, SCOTUS corkscrew, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
We ’ ll get a preview of tonight ’ s debate from both distinguished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate confirmation hearing will put Kamala Harris front and center in the media spotlight .
We ’ ll also visit media coverage of the campaigns and the issues , and the all-important need to fact-check satire .
• Peter Grandich returns today with his perspective on tonight ’ s debate , especially from an economic/fiscal point of view .
We ’ ll also look at the latest economic indicators , and whether a Phase 4 package is needed — and what it should and shouldn ’ t contain .
The Ed Morrissey Show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. We’ll get a preview of tonight’s debate from both distinguished guests, and discuss how the upcoming Senate confirmation hearing will put Kamala Harris front and center in the media spotlight. We’ll also visit media coverage of the campaigns and the issues, and the all-important need to fact-check satire.
Peter Grandich returns today with his perspective on tonight’s debate, especially from an economic/fiscal point of view. We’ll also look at the latest economic indicators, and whether a Phase 4 package is needed — and what it should and shouldn’t contain.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-09-29--Washington Post: China is becoming more like North Korea (more communism, less freedom)

It was the start of four days of intense surveillance and nuisance checkpoints designed to obstruct our reporting and ensure that local people were too afraid to talk to us .
There were the cars that tailed us everywhere — “ Honda 25 , ” “ VW 35 , ” we would chime as we spotted their license plates — and the Keystone Kops , men who would jump behind bushes or pretend to talk on their phones while obviously following us .
Fifield describes wanting to interview people on the street about their experiences .
Many of the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the re-education camps in the region .
But anyone she spoke to would be marked by her minders and could wind up in those camps themselves for speaking to a foreign reporter .
So she kept her distance and just observed .
And what she saw reminded her a lot of North Korea : There is still a level of latitude and commerce and vibrancy here that is unimaginable across the northeastern border , but some days China really feels like North Korea .
Like the day the People ’ s Daily featured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dozen headlines on its front page .
Or any of the days I ’ ve walked into a bookstore and seen nothing but the three volumes of Xi ’ s “ The Governance of China ” on display .
Or on Oct. 1 last year , when I watched as a huge portrait of Xi rolled through Beijing on top of a black car for National Day celebrations .
The cult of personality around Xi can ’ t tolerate much dissent .
Back in March , a Chinese business tycoon named Ren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media and President Xi in particular .
He was arrested and simply disappeared for several months .
Last week China announced that the 69-year-old had been sentenced to 18 years in prison for graft , taking bribes and a few other made up charges .
But it ’ s clear to everyone what his real crime was .
Mr. Ren ’ s supporters and sympathizers said that his real crime was criticizing the Communist Party and calling the country ’ s hard-line leader , Xi Jinping , a “ clown.
” “ Very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s going to be obvious to everyone , ” Guo Yuhua , a sociologist in Beijing , said by telephone .
“ Those economic problems — this one , that one — can be concocted whenever you want.
” … “ Cracking down on Ren Zhiqiang , using economic crimes to punish him , is a warning to others — killing one to warn a hundred , ” said Cai Xia , an acquaintance of Mr. Ren ’ s who formerly taught at the Central Party School , which trains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warning to the whole party and especially to red offspring , ” Ms. Cai said , referring to the children of party officials .
She spoke before the court ’ s judgment in a telephone interview from the United States , where she now lives .
President Xi hasn ’ t limited himself to expanding his social control of China .
Recently he ’ s been trying to exert greater control over private enterprise as well .
Financial Times reports that Xi ’ s government is using COVID-19 as a justification for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of private enterprises : In a series of policy announcements and meetings , they have emphasised that private companies have an important role to play in “ United Front work ” — a euphemism for efforts aimed at ensuring that non-party organisations and entities support the party ’ s top policy objectives as well as its iron grip on power… Under the new guidelines , party committees that previously wielded little power at private companies are supposed to play a role in personnel appointments and other important decisions… “ What Xi really wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled by state-owned enterprises , ” said one government adviser .
China under Xi Jinping is heading toward more communism and less freedom for individuals and businesses .
That will certainly be a disaster for the country over time , just as it is in North Korea but there ’ s no reason to think Xi is anything but deadly serious about being the world ’ s leading dictator .

Anna Fifield is a Washington Post reporter who covered Japan and both North and South Korea for the paper from 2014 to 2018. Last year she published a book about North Korea titled, “The Great Successor: The Divinely Perfect Destiny of Brilliant Comrade Kim Jong Un.” All of that to say, she definitely knows something about the region. Yesterday the Post published Fifield’s take on her most recent trip to China’s Xinjiang region. It opens with her account of the “enforcers” and undercover cops both on foot and in cars who followed her everywhere she went:
The first pair of enforcers were waiting at the temperature check before baggage claim at the airport in China’s western Xinjiang region. “Passports,” they said as the three foreign journalists came off a domestic flight from Beijing this month. Asked why we were being pulled aside, they said we needed to know to wear masks because there had been a coronavirus outbreak in Xinjiang in July. We were wearing masks. They photographed our information pages and journalist visas.
It was the start of four days of intense surveillance and nuisance checkpoints designed to obstruct our reporting and ensure that local people were too afraid to talk to us. There were the cars that tailed us everywhere — “Honda 25,” “VW 35,” we would chime as we spotted their license plates — and the Keystone Kops, men who would jump behind bushes or pretend to talk on their phones while obviously following us.
Fifield describes wanting to interview people on the street about their experiences. Many of the people on the street probably know something about the re-education camps in the region. But anyone she spoke to would be marked by her minders and could wind up in those camps themselves for speaking to a foreign reporter. So she kept her distance and just observed. And what she saw reminded her a lot of North Korea:
There is still a level of latitude and commerce and vibrancy here that is unimaginable across the northeastern border, but some days China really feels like North Korea. Like the day the People’s Daily featured Xi’s name in more than a dozen headlines on its front page. Or any of the days I’ve walked into a bookstore and seen nothing but the three volumes of Xi’s “The Governance of China” on display. Or on Oct. 1 last year, when I watched as a huge portrait of Xi rolled through Beijing on top of a black car for National Day celebrations.
The cult of personality around Xi can’t tolerate much dissent. Back in March, a Chinese business tycoon named Ren Zhiqiang wrote an essay criticizing Chinese state media and President Xi in particular. He was arrested and simply disappeared for several months. Last week China announced that the 69-year-old had been sentenced to 18 years in prison for graft, taking bribes and a few other made up charges. But it’s clear to everyone what his real crime was.
Mr. Ren’s supporters and sympathizers said that his real crime was criticizing the Communist Party and calling the country’s hard-line leader, Xi Jinping, a “clown.” “Very clearly this was punishment for his words, that’s going to be obvious to everyone,” Guo Yuhua, a sociologist in Beijing, said by telephone. “Those economic problems — this one, that one — can be concocted whenever you want.”… “Cracking down on Ren Zhiqiang, using economic crimes to punish him, is a warning to others — killing one to warn a hundred,” said Cai Xia, an acquaintance of Mr. Ren’s who formerly taught at the Central Party School, which trains rising officials. “It’s a warning to the whole party and especially to red offspring,” Ms. Cai said, referring to the children of party officials. She spoke before the court’s judgment in a telephone interview from the United States, where she now lives.
President Xi hasn’t limited himself to expanding his social control of China. Recently he’s been trying to exert greater control over private enterprise as well. Financial Times reports that Xi’s government is using COVID-19 as a justification for new guidelines giving the government more control of private enterprises:
In a series of policy announcements and meetings, they have emphasised that private companies have an important role to play in “United Front work” — a euphemism for efforts aimed at ensuring that non-party organisations and entities support the party’s top policy objectives as well as its iron grip on power… Under the new guidelines, party committees that previously wielded little power at private companies are supposed to play a role in personnel appointments and other important decisions… “What Xi really wants is an increasing share of the economy controlled by state-owned enterprises,” said one government adviser.
China under Xi Jinping is heading toward more communism and less freedom for individuals and businesses. That will certainly be a disaster for the country over time, just as it is in North Korea but there’s no reason to think Xi is anything but deadly serious about being the world’s leading dictator.


hotair--2020-09-29--Great moments in journalism: USA Today fact-checks satire site, declares it "satirical"

Too goofy to let pass , in part because it encapsulates the sanctimony and condescension that permeates much of the news media ’ s fact-checking efforts .
Last week , conservative satire site The Babylon Bee ran an article claiming that the Ninth Circuit had overturned the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , declaring it “ unconstitutional.
” Anyone with a passing familiarity with conservative thought would have instantly recognized the targets of this skewering — judicial activism in general and the Ninth Circuit in particular : Kim McLane Wardlaw , the judge who issued the ruling , said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s death was an affront to the constitution as well as our God-given right to abort as many babies as possible and sell their body parts for research .
Death , at its core , is a construct designed to subvert the rule of law by taking pro-choice liberal judges away from us too soon .
We can not allow Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death to stand .
By law , she will now be considered to be still alive.
” Trump slammed the ruling as “ idiotic ” and called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Republicans pounced on this ruling like tigers that pounce on their prey before ruthlessly tearing it to pieces with their razor-sharp claws .
“ This is a terrible ruling because we ’ re racist and we hate women , ” said a bunch of Republicans , according to anonymous sources .
Judge Wardlaw followed up on her ruling , saying : “ We hereby rule any attempt by President Trump to appoint a replacement to be unconstitutional .
We will block any attempt until we figure out a way to resurrect her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to her already ‘ legally alive ’ state .
We ’ re still figuring that part out.
” Amusing stuff , especially to conservatives , but clearly a joke .
The fact of the joke should be obvious to non-conservatives as well , even if they don ’ t find it humorous .
Not only does the site proclaim explicitly that they publish satire , not news , the headlines on the site at any one time are clearly fronting humor .
For instance , here are a few from today : • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ceremony Where She Ate Flesh , Drank Blood of Jewish Guy • “ What Is Thy Bidding , My Master ?
” Asks Amy Coney Barrett to Cloaked , Holographic Pope • Thousands Of California Inmates Experience Sudden-Onset Gender Dysphoria After Learning They Can Get Transferred To Women ’ s Prison • Winning Debate Strategy : Trump Announces He Will Simply Let Joe Biden Talk For The Full 90 Minutes Would that the last one were true , but alas .
Trump won ’ t keep his mouth shut for ninety seconds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a reader finds this humorous , any reader with two brain cells operating simultaneously would recognize it as satire , even if they didn ’ t know that was the Babylon Bee ’ s genre .
However , USA Today ’ s fact checkers decided to weigh in on the claim anyway , even though they know it ’ s satirical : Readers then get presented with a number of sub-topics , such as “ Who is Judge Kim Wardlaw ?
” She ’ s a real judge on the Ninth Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Babylon Bee must be crushed to discover that .
After having to read through a number of other such nonsensical and irrelevant factoids ( not to mention links to other fact-checks , such as “ No guarantee Obama would ’ ve replaced Ginsburg with a progressive justice “ ) , we get to the conclusion : Wow !
After spending several hundred words on its “ research , ” USA Today helpfully informs us that a satire website does indeed publish satire .
How helpful this will be to thousands of readers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a satire website might be serious about a court overturning an actual death .
It does , however , accomplish one beneficial achievement .
It proves that USA Today thinks their readers are idiots , just as other outlets who attempt to fact-check the Babylon Bee and other explicitly and intentionally satirical websites and publications .
By the way , there is room to fact-check the basis of the Right ’ s specific hostility to the Ninth Circuit .
Too bad USA Today didn ’ t choose its target more carefully .

Too goofy to let pass, in part because it encapsulates the sanctimony and condescension that permeates much of the news media’s fact-checking efforts. Last week, conservative satire site The Babylon Bee ran an article claiming that the Ninth Circuit had overturned the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, declaring it “unconstitutional.” Anyone with a passing familiarity with conservative thought would have instantly recognized the targets of this skewering — judicial activism in general and the Ninth Circuit in particular:
Kim McLane Wardlaw, the judge who issued the ruling, said in a statement: “Justice Ginsburg’s death was an affront to the constitution as well as our God-given right to abort as many babies as possible and sell their body parts for research. Death, at its core, is a construct designed to subvert the rule of law by taking pro-choice liberal judges away from us too soon. We cannot allow Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death to stand. By law, she will now be considered to be still alive.” Trump slammed the ruling as “idiotic” and called the court judges “a bunch of morons.” Republicans pounced on this ruling like tigers that pounce on their prey before ruthlessly tearing it to pieces with their razor-sharp claws. “This is a terrible ruling because we’re racist and we hate women,” said a bunch of Republicans, according to anonymous sources. Judge Wardlaw followed up on her ruling, saying: “We hereby rule any attempt by President Trump to appoint a replacement to be unconstitutional. We will block any attempt until we figure out a way to resurrect her or maybe clone her and restore her to her already ‘legally alive’ state. We’re still figuring that part out.”
Amusing stuff, especially to conservatives, but clearly a joke. The fact of the joke should be obvious to non-conservatives as well, even if they don’t find it humorous. Not only does the site proclaim explicitly that they publish satire, not news, the headlines on the site at any one time are clearly fronting humor. For instance, here are a few from today:
CNN Reports Amy Coney Barrett Attended Bizarre Ceremony Where She Ate Flesh, Drank Blood of Jewish Guy
“What Is Thy Bidding, My Master?” Asks Amy Coney Barrett to Cloaked, Holographic Pope
Thousands Of California Inmates Experience Sudden-Onset Gender Dysphoria After Learning They Can Get Transferred To Women’s Prison
Winning Debate Strategy: Trump Announces He Will Simply Let Joe Biden Talk For The Full 90 Minutes
Would that the last one were true, but alas. Trump won’t keep his mouth shut for ninety seconds, let alone ninety minutes.
Whether or not a reader finds this humorous, any reader with two brain cells operating simultaneously would recognize it as satire, even if they didn’t know that was the Babylon Bee’s genre. However, USA Today’s fact checkers decided to weigh in on the claim anyway, even though they know it’s satirical:
The claim: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg The headline of an article published by satire website The Babylon Bee is a nod to the contentious history between the Trump administration and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Babylon Bee is “the world’s best satire site,” according to its website.
Readers then get presented with a number of sub-topics, such as “Who is Judge Kim Wardlaw?” She’s a real judge on the Ninth Circuit, but …
There is no record of any Wardlaw opinion on Ginsburg’s death on the website for the 9th Circuit, but she participated in a panel discussion Friday about Ginsburg’s life produced by the UCLA School of Law. There was no mention of “reviving” Ginsburg during the discussion.
No kidding? The Babylon Bee must be crushed to discover that. After having to read through a number of other such nonsensical and irrelevant factoids (not to mention links to other fact-checks, such as “No guarantee Obama would’ve replaced Ginsburg with a progressive justice“), we get to the conclusion:
Our rating: Satire We rate this claim SATIRE, based on our research. A satirical article about the 9th Circuit “overturning” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has no basis in fact. It is true that the 9th Circuit has ruled against many Trump-era policies.
Wow! After spending several hundred words on its “research,” USA Today helpfully informs us that a satire website does indeed publish satire. How helpful this will be to thousands of readers who might have labored under the false impression that a satire website might be serious about a court overturning an actual death.
It does, however, accomplish one beneficial achievement. It proves that USA Today thinks their readers are idiots, just as other outlets who attempt to fact-check the Babylon Bee and other explicitly and intentionally satirical websites and publications.
By the way, there is room to fact-check the basis of the Right’s specific hostility to the Ninth Circuit. Too bad USA Today didn’t choose its target more carefully.