vox--2020-09-18--How #SaveTheChildren is pulling American moms into QAnon

The posts often beg followers to speak out , “ get loud , ” or wake up .
Some feature bold text on a colorful background , matching the aesthetic of many Instagram slideshows this year .
Others show photos of beloved children , laughing with their parents .
Some are posted by small accounts with few followers , while others have gotten more than 100,000 likes .
But all share the same message : Child sex trafficking is out of control in the US and around the world , and no one is paying attention .
And they end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hashtag , which started to gain popularity this summer , seems hard to argue with .
Ending human trafficking and protecting children , after all , are uncontroversial goals , barely even political .
But in reality , many say , QAnon adherents are trying , via the hashtag , to use the real issue of trafficking to spread their ideology — which includes the bizarre , untrue claim that liberals like Hillary Clinton , Barack Obama , and Chrissy Teigen are all part of a vast pedophile ring .
While such outlandish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more general fears about child sex trafficking are easier to get behind .
And so social media posts about saving the children have , for some , become a way “ to launder QAnon into the mainstream , ” as Whitney Phillips , a professor of communication and rhetorical studies and co-author of the book You Are Here : A Field Guide for Navigating Polarized Speech , Conspiracy Theories , and Our Polluted Media Landscape , put it to Vox .
The QAnon movement — a growing network of conspiracy theories involving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shadowy cabal of powerful liberals sometimes known as the “ deep state ” — got its start on message boards in 2017 .
It then gained followers on mainstream social networks like Facebook , and eventually garnered the support of far-right congressional candidates , and even Trump himself .
And in the past year , the network has amplified and promoted the seemingly innocuous # SaveTheChildren to gain greater reach , and spread fear and suspicion around Democrats as well as support for Trump , as the election approaches .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread far beyond the traditional reaches of QAnon , catching the attention of celebrities including Kelly Dodd of The Real Housewives of Orange County and sparking in-person rallies like one in August in Chattanooga , Tennessee , where marchers held signs with slogans like “ Real men don ’ t buy kids.
” The celebrities and influencers using # SaveTheChildren may not even be aware of the QAnon connection ; many have posted uncontroversial content about the problems of child abuse in the US and the world .
But their posts have helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulling in people — like younger women and those who aren ’ t particularly politically engaged — who may be far outside QAnon ’ s orbit .
And once those people start searching for # SaveTheChildren content , they may encounter more and more QAnon theories , perhaps eventually becoming believers themselves .
But the possible consequences go beyond outlandish beliefs about Hillary Clinton or Chrissy Teigen .
By broadening the reach of QAnon , # SaveTheChildren could also broaden distrust of Democrats and the supposed “ deep state , ” giving Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he should lose the election in November .
And even the most innocent uses of the hashtag could compromise the country ’ s ability to fight actual trafficking .
“ When we dive into these conspiracy theories , we really miss and misunderstand that we can actually address this problem , ” Kate D ’ Adamo , a consultant with the group Reframe Health and Justice , told Vox .
QAnon helped fuel the rise of the # SaveTheChildren hashtag To understand the rise of # SaveTheChildren , it helps to know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child molestation from the very beginning .
It goes back to Pizzagate , a completely false theory that emerged in 2016 that Hillary Clinton and her former campaign chair , John Podesta , operated a child sexual abuse ring in the basement of the DC pizzeria Comet Ping Pong ( which does not have a basement ) .
QAnon didn ’ t gain traction until the following year , when someone eventually nicknamed “ Q ” started posting ominous , cryptic messages on 4chan about President Trump and a coming reckoning with high-level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coaston explains .
But one of QAnon ’ s strengths has always been its ability to absorb a variety of conspiracy theories , and it soon incorporated Pizzagate into its network of beliefs .
“ Suddenly , central to QAnon was this idea of these pedophiles and Satanists and child sacrifice , and that ’ s been basically at the core of it ever since , ” Phillips said .
Today , the QAnon conspiracy landscape includes the idea that “ a vast child trafficking ring ” around the US and the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to harvest a drug called adrenochrome , ” which they claim has both psychedelic and healing properties , Annie Kelly , a PhD student who studies the far right and is the Britain correspondent for the podcast QAnon Anonymous , told Vox .
Adrenochrome is a real chemical , but the QAnon idea that it could be used as a psychedelic drug comes largely from the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and is not supported by scientific evidence .
Another key tenet for many QAnon adherents is support for President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ideology , is engaged in a battle with the liberal “ deep state.
” And while QAnon may have started as a fringe group of conspiracy theorists , it ’ s now been endorsed by 20 current congressional candidates , and by Trump himself , who said in an August interview , “ I understand they like me very much , which I appreciate.
” It ’ s hard to know exactly how many people buy into QAnon ideology , since the conspiracy theories are so various and shifting .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together , some of the most popular QAnon groups and pages have more than 3 million members ( though there may be some overlap between groups ) .
And 47 percent of respondents in a recent Pew poll said they had at least heard of QAnon , compared with just 23 percent in March .
Still , QAnon has encountered problems as it grows , including social media platforms ’ efforts to combat misinformation .
Amid worldwide lockdowns earlier this year due to the Covid-19 pandemic , Facebook and other companies began cracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Adherents had to find new code words and ways of spreading their message .
That ’ s where # SaveTheChildren ( and a related hashtag # SaveOurChildren ) came in .
Since QAnon is so decentralized , it can be hard to track exactly when and where a certain term or trend emerged .
But the hashtags started to spike on Facebook in late July , according to the Tampa Bay Times .
They gained popularity in QAnon groups before migrating outward to more mainstream conservative circles , and then going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aided by the popularity of # Wayfairgate , another conspiracy theory-oriented hashtag making false allegations that the online furniture company Wayfair was involved in child trafficking .
Over the summer , Dodd and several other celebrities and influencers with large Instagram followings have posted about # SaveTheChildren .
And the hashtag has , to some degree , become a real-world movement , with in-person rallies in cities from Los Angeles to Idaho Falls , Idaho .
That movement may be feeding on the anxiety parents are experiencing in a time when families are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or operating on a hybrid model , leaving parents ( disproportionately moms ) to balance work , child care , and the ever-present risk of Covid-19 .
“ A lot of moms are freaked out about what might happen with their kids , and their kids not doing so great with the pandemic , ” conspiracy theory researcher Mike Rothschild told Rolling Stone .
“ They ’ re too worried , too online , and have a lot of time on their hands.
” The hashtag could pull new people into the QAnon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and signs at the rallies — explicitly reference QAnon slogans like “ dark to light ” or “ wwg1wga ” ( which stands for “ where we go one , we go all ” ) .
But others are more generic calls to save children from sex trafficking .
Many people using the hashtag or attending events may have no idea of the links between # SaveTheChildren and QAnon .
That ’ s one thing that makes # SaveTheChildren so concerning , conspiracy experts say .
“ Because it sounds so innocuous , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valiant goal to aspire to , people who otherwise wouldn ’ t be looking for QAnon-related material could be exposed to those materials , ” Phillips said .
From there , because of the sheer volume of QAnon posts out there , and the way algorithms like those used by Google tend to direct people to more and more related content online , “ people could get sucked into a rabbit hole before they even realize that that ’ s what ’ s happening , ” she said .
In particular , # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ QAnon fold .
Women have always been involved with QAnon to some degree , as Kelly wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed — several of the congressional candidates who have expressed support for the ideology are female , for instance .
But recently , # SaveTheChildren appears to have attracted a new demographic .
At an August rally in London , Kelly noticed “ lots more young women , ” many of them dressed in a stylish , Instagram-ready aesthetic , she told Vox .
Indeed , Instagram influencers have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s spread , as E.J .
Dickson reports at Rolling Stone .
For example , model Helen Owen posted a picture of herself and her boyfriend in July with their mouths covered , holding a sign that read “ Speak for those who can not speak for themselves.
” Accompanying the picture were statistics about trafficking and the hashtag # SaveTheChildren .
There ’ s also been significant overlap between the rise of # SaveTheChildren and the growth during lockdown of anti-vaccination communities online , Kelly said — communities that are also often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s unlikely that everyone who shares an influencer ’ s post about saving kids is going to become a full-fledged QAnon devotee .
But in addition to younger women , # SaveTheChildren seems to be pulling in people who weren ’ t previously active in politics .
At the London rally , “ lots and lots of people said to me , this is the first protest I ’ ve ever been to , ” Kelly said .
In the US , people who go to # SaveTheChildren rallies aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But a broadening reach for QAnon could benefit him .
“ You can see that Trump is leaning more and more explicitly on these narratives ” in recent weeks , Phillips said .
He ’ s started to use the phrase “ deep state ” specifically , tweeting that “ the deep state , or whoever , over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics ” for Covid-19 .
And during the Republican National Convention , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting human trafficking , with Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes calling him a “ warrior ” against the practice .
Intentionally or not , such comments may have served as a dog whistle to QAnon and # SaveTheChildren adherents .
Trump ’ s embrace of a QAnon narrative “ lays the groundwork for contesting the election , ” Phillips said — if he loses , “ he ’ s going to blame the deep state.
” And among his supporters , “ that ’ s going to activate a reluctance or refusal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So while calls to # SaveTheChildren may seem apolitical , they could actually help Trump construct a rationale — however irrational — to stay in power past November and incite more division .
It could hamper real efforts to fight trafficking These calls could also hurt real-life efforts to help children — and adults — escape trafficking situations .
Obviously , conspiracy theories like Pizzagate paint a false picture of trafficking in America — Hillary Clinton is not using a DC pizza restaurant to traffic kids .
But even more innocuous # SaveTheChildren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that “ 300,000 American children are lured into the commercial sex trade every year , ” that there are more missing children in the US than there have been deaths from Covid-19 worldwide , or that wearing a mask as a coronavirus precaution makes children more vulnerable to trafficking .
All these claims are false .
There is actually no reliable data on how many people are trafficked in the US each year , D ’ Adamo , the Reframe Health and Justice consultant , said .
And although the narrative of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most attention , trafficking often takes the form of forced labor or wage theft .
At the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking , a Los Angeles-based organization , for example , the most common industry for reports of trafficking is agriculture , followed by domestic work , D ’ Adamo said .
Sex work comes in third .
And contrary to the idea of a shadowy cabal plucking children from their families — or targeting children who are wearing masks — those at the greatest risk of being trafficked are “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are already experiencing different forms of social violence or state violence , ” D ’ Adamo said .
That can include people who are homeless or in unstable housing , youth in foster care , and LGBTQ+ youth who have been kicked out of their homes or otherwise neglected or abused by family .
It can also include migrant young people who may be “ dependent on someone acting as a caregiver ” and who “ don ’ t have a lot of other resources to go to , ” she explained .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; it is not rich kids in the suburbs , ” she said .
And spreading misinformation about trafficking can hamper real efforts to prevent it .
“ We treat it as this irrational stranger danger , there ’ s someone lurking around every corner , when that ’ s just not the case , and it means that we no longer pay attention to the very obvious things that lead to trafficking , ” D ’ Adamo said .
Most of those factors — from threats to the safety of LGBTQ+ youth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migrants — have grown worse , not better , under the Trump administration , despite claims that the president has been “ a warrior against human trafficking.
” “ Every single population that was vulnerable to trafficking has gotten worse over the last four years , ” D ’ Adamo said .
In fact , the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking , a coalition of anti-trafficking groups with a variety of ideologies , issued a statement in June raising a host of concerns about the US government ’ s approach , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to complicity by the Department of Homeland Security in labor trafficking inside immigration detention facilities .
The Trump administration disputes this view .
“ Immediately upon taking office , President Trump made combating the scourge of human trafficking one of his Administration ’ s top priorities , ” assistant White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Vox in an email .
“ Over the last four years , the Trump Administration has provided unprecedented federal support to help human trafficking survivors and prosecute perpetrators of this heinous crime.
” But what people vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a pandemic that has driven many further into poverty — is economic stability , D ’ Adamo said .
Access to housing is crucial , as are labor protections , unemployment insurance , and other programs to make sure people ’ s needs are taken care of .
And none of that will happen if too many Americans buy into the narratives pushed by # SaveTheChildren and QAnon , D ’ Adamo said .
“ If we completely misunderstand how trafficking works , then we ’ re never actually going to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The posts often beg followers to speak out, “get loud,” or wake up. Some feature bold text on a colorful background, matching the aesthetic of many Instagram slideshows this year. Others show photos of beloved children, laughing with their parents.
Some are posted by small accounts with few followers, while others have gotten more than 100,000 likes. But all share the same message: Child sex trafficking is out of control in the US and around the world, and no one is paying attention. And they end with the hashtag #SaveTheChildren.
The hashtag, which started to gain popularity this summer, seems hard to argue with. Ending human trafficking and protecting children, after all, are uncontroversial goals, barely even political.
But in reality, many say, QAnon adherents are trying, via the hashtag, to use the real issue of trafficking to spread their ideology — which includes the bizarre, untrue claim that liberals like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chrissy Teigen are all part of a vast pedophile ring. While such outlandish theories may not be palatable for many, more general fears about child sex trafficking are easier to get behind. And so social media posts about saving the children have, for some, become a way “to launder QAnon into the mainstream,” as Whitney Phillips, a professor of communication and rhetorical studies and co-author of the book You Are Here: A Field Guide for Navigating Polarized Speech, Conspiracy Theories, and Our Polluted Media Landscape, put it to Vox.
The QAnon movement — a growing network of conspiracy theories involving a supposed war between President Trump and a shadowy cabal of powerful liberals sometimes known as the “deep state” — got its start on message boards in 2017. It then gained followers on mainstream social networks like Facebook, and eventually garnered the support of far-right congressional candidates, and even Trump himself. And in the past year, the network has amplified and promoted the seemingly innocuous #SaveTheChildren to gain greater reach, and spread fear and suspicion around Democrats as well as support for Trump, as the election approaches.
And it might be working. The hashtag has spread far beyond the traditional reaches of QAnon, catching the attention of celebrities including Kelly Dodd of The Real Housewives of Orange County and sparking in-person rallies like one in August in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where marchers held signs with slogans like “Real men don’t buy kids.”
The celebrities and influencers using #SaveTheChildren may not even be aware of the QAnon connection; many have posted uncontroversial content about the problems of child abuse in the US and the world. But their posts have helped drive the popularity of the hashtag, pulling in people — like younger women and those who aren’t particularly politically engaged — who may be far outside QAnon’s orbit. And once those people start searching for #SaveTheChildren content, they may encounter more and more QAnon theories, perhaps eventually becoming believers themselves.
But the possible consequences go beyond outlandish beliefs about Hillary Clinton or Chrissy Teigen. By broadening the reach of QAnon, #SaveTheChildren could also broaden distrust of Democrats and the supposed “deep state,” giving Trump an excuse to challenge the results if he should lose the election in November. And even the most innocent uses of the hashtag could compromise the country’s ability to fight actual trafficking.
“When we dive into these conspiracy theories, we really miss and misunderstand that we can actually address this problem,” Kate D’Adamo, a consultant with the group Reframe Health and Justice, told Vox.
QAnon helped fuel the rise of the #SaveTheChildren hashtag
To understand the rise of #SaveTheChildren, it helps to know that QAnon has traded in conspiracy theories about child molestation from the very beginning. It goes back to Pizzagate, a completely false theory that emerged in 2016 that Hillary Clinton and her former campaign chair, John Podesta, operated a child sexual abuse ring in the basement of the DC pizzeria Comet Ping Pong (which does not have a basement).
QAnon didn’t gain traction until the following year, when someone eventually nicknamed “Q” started posting ominous, cryptic messages on 4chan about President Trump and a coming reckoning with high-level Democrats, as Vox’s Jane Coaston explains. But one of QAnon’s strengths has always been its ability to absorb a variety of conspiracy theories, and it soon incorporated Pizzagate into its network of beliefs.
“Suddenly, central to QAnon was this idea of these pedophiles and Satanists and child sacrifice, and that’s been basically at the core of it ever since,” Phillips said.
Today, the QAnon conspiracy landscape includes the idea that “a vast child trafficking ring” around the US and the world is “kidnapping children and torturing them to harvest a drug called adrenochrome,” which they claim has both psychedelic and healing properties, Annie Kelly, a PhD student who studies the far right and is the Britain correspondent for the podcast QAnon Anonymous, told Vox. Adrenochrome is a real chemical, but the QAnon idea that it could be used as a psychedelic drug comes largely from the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and is not supported by scientific evidence.
Another key tenet for many QAnon adherents is support for President Trump, who, according to the network’s ideology, is engaged in a battle with the liberal “deep state.” And while QAnon may have started as a fringe group of conspiracy theorists, it’s now been endorsed by 20 current congressional candidates, and by Trump himself, who said in an August interview, “I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate.”
It’s hard to know exactly how many people buy into QAnon ideology, since the conspiracy theories are so various and shifting. But a recent analysis by Facebook found that together, some of the most popular QAnon groups and pages have more than 3 million members (though there may be some overlap between groups). And 47 percent of respondents in a recent Pew poll said they had at least heard of QAnon, compared with just 23 percent in March.
Still, QAnon has encountered problems as it grows, including social media platforms’ efforts to combat misinformation. Amid worldwide lockdowns earlier this year due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Facebook and other companies began cracking down on QAnon conspiracy theories, Kelly said. Adherents had to find new code words and ways of spreading their message.
That’s where #SaveTheChildren (and a related hashtag #SaveOurChildren) came in. Since QAnon is so decentralized, it can be hard to track exactly when and where a certain term or trend emerged. But the hashtags started to spike on Facebook in late July, according to the Tampa Bay Times. They gained popularity in QAnon groups before migrating outward to more mainstream conservative circles, and then going global. The spread may have been aided by the popularity of #Wayfairgate, another conspiracy theory-oriented hashtag making false allegations that the online furniture company Wayfair was involved in child trafficking.
Over the summer, Dodd and several other celebrities and influencers with large Instagram followings have posted about #SaveTheChildren. And the hashtag has, to some degree, become a real-world movement, with in-person rallies in cities from Los Angeles to Idaho Falls, Idaho.
That movement may be feeding on the anxiety parents are experiencing in a time when families are stuck at home with many schools remote or operating on a hybrid model, leaving parents (disproportionately moms) to balance work, child care, and the ever-present risk of Covid-19. “A lot of moms are freaked out about what might happen with their kids, and their kids not doing so great with the pandemic,” conspiracy theory researcher Mike Rothschild told Rolling Stone. “They’re too worried, too online, and have a lot of time on their hands.”
The hashtag could pull new people into the QAnon orbit
Some posts on the hashtags — and signs at the rallies — explicitly reference QAnon slogans like “dark to light” or “wwg1wga” (which stands for “where we go one, we go all”). But others are more generic calls to save children from sex trafficking. Many people using the hashtag or attending events may have no idea of the links between #SaveTheChildren and QAnon.
That’s one thing that makes #SaveTheChildren so concerning, conspiracy experts say. “Because it sounds so innocuous, and in fact it sounds like a valiant goal to aspire to, people who otherwise wouldn’t be looking for QAnon-related material could be exposed to those materials,” Phillips said. From there, because of the sheer volume of QAnon posts out there, and the way algorithms like those used by Google tend to direct people to more and more related content online, “people could get sucked into a rabbit hole before they even realize that that’s what’s happening,” she said.
In particular, #SaveTheChildren could pull more women into the QAnon fold. Women have always been involved with QAnon to some degree, as Kelly wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed — several of the congressional candidates who have expressed support for the ideology are female, for instance. But recently, #SaveTheChildren appears to have attracted a new demographic. At an August rally in London, Kelly noticed “lots more young women,” many of them dressed in a stylish, Instagram-ready aesthetic, she told Vox.
Indeed, Instagram influencers have been a big part of the hashtag’s spread, as E.J. Dickson reports at Rolling Stone. For example, model Helen Owen posted a picture of herself and her boyfriend in July with their mouths covered, holding a sign that read “Speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.” Accompanying the picture were statistics about trafficking and the hashtag #SaveTheChildren.
There’s also been significant overlap between the rise of #SaveTheChildren and the growth during lockdown of anti-vaccination communities online, Kelly said — communities that are also often dominated by mothers. Of course, it’s unlikely that everyone who shares an influencer’s post about saving kids is going to become a full-fledged QAnon devotee. But in addition to younger women, #SaveTheChildren seems to be pulling in people who weren’t previously active in politics. At the London rally, “lots and lots of people said to me, this is the first protest I’ve ever been to,” Kelly said.
In the US, people who go to #SaveTheChildren rallies aren’t necessarily going to vote for Trump. But a broadening reach for QAnon could benefit him.
“You can see that Trump is leaning more and more explicitly on these narratives” in recent weeks, Phillips said. He’s started to use the phrase “deep state” specifically, tweeting that “the deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics” for Covid-19. And during the Republican National Convention, he and his surrogates referenced his supposed work fighting human trafficking, with Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes calling him a “warrior” against the practice. Intentionally or not, such comments may have served as a dog whistle to QAnon and #SaveTheChildren adherents.
Trump’s embrace of a QAnon narrative “lays the groundwork for contesting the election,” Phillips said — if he loses, “he’s going to blame the deep state.” And among his supporters, “that’s going to activate a reluctance or refusal to accept the outcome of the election.”
So while calls to #SaveTheChildren may seem apolitical, they could actually help Trump construct a rationale — however irrational — to stay in power past November and incite more division.
It could hamper real efforts to fight trafficking
These calls could also hurt real-life efforts to help children — and adults — escape trafficking situations.
Obviously, conspiracy theories like Pizzagate paint a false picture of trafficking in America — Hillary Clinton is not using a DC pizza restaurant to traffic kids. But even more innocuous #SaveTheChildren posts can contain misinformation, like the idea that “300,000 American children are lured into the commercial sex trade every year,” that there are more missing children in the US than there have been deaths from Covid-19 worldwide, or that wearing a mask as a coronavirus precaution makes children more vulnerable to trafficking. All these claims are false.
There is actually no reliable data on how many people are trafficked in the US each year, D’Adamo, the Reframe Health and Justice consultant, said. And although the narrative of children being trafficked into sexual abuse gets the most attention, trafficking often takes the form of forced labor or wage theft. At the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, a Los Angeles-based organization, for example, the most common industry for reports of trafficking is agriculture, followed by domestic work, D’Adamo said. Sex work comes in third.
And contrary to the idea of a shadowy cabal plucking children from their families — or targeting children who are wearing masks — those at the greatest risk of being trafficked are “people who are already vulnerable, who are already experiencing different forms of social violence or state violence,” D’Adamo said. That can include people who are homeless or in unstable housing, youth in foster care, and LGBTQ+ youth who have been kicked out of their homes or otherwise neglected or abused by family. It can also include migrant young people who may be “dependent on someone acting as a caregiver” and who “don’t have a lot of other resources to go to,” she explained.
“We know exactly who gets exploited; it is not rich kids in the suburbs,” she said.
And spreading misinformation about trafficking can hamper real efforts to prevent it. “We treat it as this irrational stranger danger, there’s someone lurking around every corner, when that’s just not the case, and it means that we no longer pay attention to the very obvious things that lead to trafficking,” D’Adamo said.
Most of those factors — from threats to the safety of LGBTQ+ youth to anti-immigrant policies that threaten refugees and migrants — have grown worse, not better, under the Trump administration, despite claims that the president has been “a warrior against human trafficking.”
“Every single population that was vulnerable to trafficking has gotten worse over the last four years,” D’Adamo said. In fact, the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, a coalition of anti-trafficking groups with a variety of ideologies, issued a statement in June raising a host of concerns about the US government’s approach, from increased barriers to obtaining visas for survivors to complicity by the Department of Homeland Security in labor trafficking inside immigration detention facilities.
The Trump administration disputes this view. “Immediately upon taking office, President Trump made combating the scourge of human trafficking one of his Administration’s top priorities,” assistant White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Vox in an email. “Over the last four years, the Trump Administration has provided unprecedented federal support to help human trafficking survivors and prosecute perpetrators of this heinous crime.”
But what people vulnerable to trafficking need right now — especially in a pandemic that has driven many further into poverty — is economic stability, D’Adamo said. Access to housing is crucial, as are labor protections, unemployment insurance, and other programs to make sure people’s needs are taken care of.
And none of that will happen if too many Americans buy into the narratives pushed by #SaveTheChildren and QAnon, D’Adamo said. “If we completely misunderstand how trafficking works, then we’re never actually going to address what could prevent it.”


vox--2020-09-18--How the pandemic is affecting liquor stores, according to one shop owner

The Austin Shaker is a specialty liquor store .
At its two locations around the Texas capital , customers can expect to find copper jiggers , jammy grenadine , and perfumy , highly limited liqueurs .
But Kiki Litchfield , 41 , who owns the store with her partner David Maguire , 42 , says that in March and April , the thick glass jugs of Smirnoff and Jack Daniels were their biggest sellers .
At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic , when Texans weren ’ t sure how much longer their favorite booze emporiums would be open during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their old college favorites .
There is no use for the top shelf in the age of Covid-19 .
So Litchfield was relieved when the state of Texas deemed its liquor stores to be essential operations , and the Austin Shaker was allowed to serve customers — through curbside pickup and heavily masked store visits — throughout 2020 .
Instead of one big catastrophe , the store has navigated smaller hurdles common to the small businesses that remained open during the pandemic .
For instance , Litchfield ’ s wholesale service has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t open to buy their product .
Only now , she says , are things getting back to normal .
Litchfield and Maguire both worked as bartenders long before they managed liquor stores , and because of that , they are each still reeling from the sheer number of friends and former coworkers who ’ ve been laid off , furloughed , or simply haven ’ t been able to pick up a shift .
Even as America gets back on its feet , the country has yet to fully calculate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has left behind .
We talked about that , as well as the instructions they passed down to their employees to enforce social distancing measures , and what it was like to be caught between dueling policies from the Texas governor and the Austin mayor .
When did the pandemic start affecting your business ?
It was when they canceled South by Southwest [ on March 6 , ] and then it was on St. Patrick ’ s Day when they closed the bars .
We didn ’ t know if they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We were looking at each other thinking , “ We ’ re going to have to sleep in our stores to protect our business because if you take away the liquor stores and the bars there ’ s gon na be riots.
” But the state gave us essential status , so the security of our business wasn ’ t as much of an issue .
Then the question became , “ How do we make our employees feel comfortable ?
How are we going to be able to deal with Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear a mask ?
” Every one of our employees has ups and downs , from feeling totally fine to being really worried because they ’ re in front of the public .
Once the financial stability was determined , all of our questions became really emotional and personal .
What was it like to suddenly have to enforce some fairly stringent public health measures ?
The people who came into the shops were understanding enough and wanted to follow the guidelines .
For us it was like , “ Okay , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We need to have bleach wipes and do the counters all day .
And the handles to all the coolers.
” It was a lot more about us cleaning , and not as much about enforcing the rules , because everyone who came in has been really good about it .
The city as a whole wanted to do the right thing .
Our biggest challenge was pivoting to curbside delivery , because it ’ s not secure to take a credit card over the phone .
We don ’ t have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that .
That ’ s not something we could build quickly .
What were the questions your staff was asking you at the beginning of all this ?
Right when it first started , there was so much [ conflicting ] information about how Covid spread .
“ It ’ s airborne , ” “ You can get it from a surface , ” all that stuff .
The internet was telling you a thousand different things about the virus .
So our staff was like , “ Can I get it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touched a bottle ?
” We were trying to figure out the facts from the fiction .
And also , are we able to tell people , “ No , sorry , you can ’ t come in because you don ’ t have a mask on ” ?
We were like , “ Of course we can.
” This is a liquor store , we have the right of refusal .
In non-Covid times , we ’ re still able to tell people , “ You don ’ t have an ID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinking , you can ’ t buy this booze.
” If you ’ re coming into a liquor store , you already understand that .
[ Currently , the scientific consensus is that Covid-19 is seldom spread through surfaces . ]
Texas famously opened up long before other states did .
Austin , though , is known for being a more progressive city in the state .
Was there any tension between the two governments ?
Was the city of Austin and the state of Texas telling you contradictory things about how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just confusing .
It ’ s disheartening to look at the mayor of Austin and the governor of Texas and see the animosity between the two .
It was like , “ Well , the mayor is saying this , the governor is saying this , so what exactly are we supposed to do ?
” You ’ d want them to come together and make a plan and be very clear and concise , but that absolutely didn ’ t happen , and it still isn ’ t happening .
We were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just try to do what ’ s best for society ” — regardless of the bickering going on in the government .
How did your clientele change while bars were closed ?
“ We were trying to be , ‘ Let ’ s just try to do what ’ s best for society ’ — regardless of the bickering going on in the government ” The couple weeks before liquor stores were deemed essential , it was a mad rush .
We ’ re a specialty liquor store , and we saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
People were like , “ I like Maker ’ s Mark , and I ’ m going to buy a half gallon .
Because I know I ’ m going to be in my house for at least the next month.
” But once everyone knew that liquor stores were going to stay open , then it went back to almost normal .
Also , our bar tool sales were substantially higher than usual .
Customers were like , “ If I ’ m going to be home , I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cocktail.
” You also supply bars with a wholesale service , how did that change when bars closed ?
We made the decision to sell everything we had for wholesale because nobody was buying wholesale when everything was closed .
But now , it ’ s getting weird financially .
All the bars are reopened in some capacity , and we ’ ve sold all of their supply .
Now it ’ s like , “ Oh shit , we need to get all of these liters back.
” We ’ re getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to get that back up to speed .
You and your partner are both former bartenders .
When everything was shut down , do you think that gave you an added sympathy for the Austin bartending community ?
David and I both worked at bars for a lot longer than we owned liquor stores .
I still consider the service industry as my industry .
To see all of my friends lose their jobs , and seeing bars being villainized as the place where Covid is spread , it ’ s heartbreaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case that service workers didn ’ t deserve any help , you couldn ’ t print any of the words I want to say about it .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Austin Shaker is a specialty liquor store. At its two locations around the Texas capital, customers can expect to find copper jiggers, jammy grenadine, and perfumy, highly limited liqueurs. But Kiki Litchfield, 41, who owns the store with her partner David Maguire, 42, says that in March and April, the thick glass jugs of Smirnoff and Jack Daniels were their biggest sellers. At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, when Texans weren’t sure how much longer their favorite booze emporiums would be open during a stay-at-home order, they regressed back to their old college favorites. There is no use for the top shelf in the age of Covid-19.
So Litchfield was relieved when the state of Texas deemed its liquor stores to be essential operations, and the Austin Shaker was allowed to serve customers — through curbside pickup and heavily masked store visits — throughout 2020. Instead of one big catastrophe, the store has navigated smaller hurdles common to the small businesses that remained open during the pandemic. For instance, Litchfield’s wholesale service has been decimated, simply because bars weren’t open to buy their product. Only now, she says, are things getting back to normal.
Litchfield and Maguire both worked as bartenders long before they managed liquor stores, and because of that, they are each still reeling from the sheer number of friends and former coworkers who’ve been laid off, furloughed, or simply haven’t been able to pick up a shift. Even as America gets back on its feet, the country has yet to fully calculate the magnitude of the economic carnage that Covid-19 has left behind. We talked about that, as well as the instructions they passed down to their employees to enforce social distancing measures, and what it was like to be caught between dueling policies from the Texas governor and the Austin mayor.
When did the pandemic start affecting your business?
It was when they canceled South by Southwest [on March 6,] and then it was on St. Patrick’s Day when they closed the bars. We didn’t know if they were going to deem us an essential business. We were looking at each other thinking, “We’re going to have to sleep in our stores to protect our business because if you take away the liquor stores and the bars there’s gonna be riots.” But the state gave us essential status, so the security of our business wasn’t as much of an issue.
Then the question became, “How do we make our employees feel comfortable? How are we going to be able to deal with Covid deniers who don’t want to wear a mask?” Every one of our employees has ups and downs, from feeling totally fine to being really worried because they’re in front of the public. Once the financial stability was determined, all of our questions became really emotional and personal.
What was it like to suddenly have to enforce some fairly stringent public health measures?
The people who came into the shops were understanding enough and wanted to follow the guidelines. For us it was like, “Okay, we need to have hand sanitizer everywhere. We need to have bleach wipes and do the counters all day. And the handles to all the coolers.” It was a lot more about us cleaning, and not as much about enforcing the rules, because everyone who came in has been really good about it. The city as a whole wanted to do the right thing.
Our biggest challenge was pivoting to curbside delivery, because it’s not secure to take a credit card over the phone. We don’t have an online store set up where people could do that. That’s not something we could build quickly.
What were the questions your staff was asking you at the beginning of all this?
Right when it first started, there was so much [conflicting] information about how Covid spread. “It’s airborne,” “You can get it from a surface,” all that stuff. The internet was telling you a thousand different things about the virus. So our staff was like, “Can I get it from touching a bottle after someone else touched a bottle?”
We were trying to figure out the facts from the fiction. And also, are we able to tell people, “No, sorry, you can’t come in because you don’t have a mask on”? We were like, “Of course we can.” This is a liquor store, we have the right of refusal. In non-Covid times, we’re still able to tell people, “You don’t have an ID, or you’ve already been drinking, you can’t buy this booze.” If you’re coming into a liquor store, you already understand that. [Currently, the scientific consensus is that Covid-19 is seldom spread through surfaces.]
Texas famously opened up long before other states did. Austin, though, is known for being a more progressive city in the state. Was there any tension between the two governments? Was the city of Austin and the state of Texas telling you contradictory things about how to deal with the coronavirus?
It was just confusing. It’s disheartening to look at the mayor of Austin and the governor of Texas and see the animosity between the two. It was like, “Well, the mayor is saying this, the governor is saying this, so what exactly are we supposed to do?” You’d want them to come together and make a plan and be very clear and concise, but that absolutely didn’t happen, and it still isn’t happening. We were trying to be, “Let’s just try to do what’s best for society” — regardless of the bickering going on in the government.
How did your clientele change while bars were closed?
“We were trying to be, ‘Let’s just try to do what’s best for society’ — regardless of the bickering going on in the government”
The couple weeks before liquor stores were deemed essential, it was a mad rush. We’re a specialty liquor store, and we saw people drop off from the fancy stuff. People were like, “I like Maker’s Mark, and I’m going to buy a half gallon. Because I know I’m going to be in my house for at least the next month.”
But once everyone knew that liquor stores were going to stay open, then it went back to almost normal. Also, our bar tool sales were substantially higher than usual. Customers were like, “If I’m going to be home, I’ll need a jigger to pour a balanced cocktail.”
You also supply bars with a wholesale service, how did that change when bars closed?
We made the decision to sell everything we had for wholesale because nobody was buying wholesale when everything was closed. But now, it’s getting weird financially. All the bars are reopened in some capacity, and we’ve sold all of their supply. Now it’s like, “Oh shit, we need to get all of these liters back.” We’re getting these huge wholesale orders, and we need to get that back up to speed.
You and your partner are both former bartenders. When everything was shut down, do you think that gave you an added sympathy for the Austin bartending community?
David and I both worked at bars for a lot longer than we owned liquor stores. I still consider the service industry as my industry. To see all of my friends lose their jobs, and seeing bars being villainized as the place where Covid is spread, it’s heartbreaking. And to see elected officials make the case that service workers didn’t deserve any help, you couldn’t print any of the words I want to say about it.


vox--2020-09-18--Joe Biden thinks whoever is sworn in this January should pick Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden told reporters Friday night that he thinks a new Supreme Court justice should not be confirmed to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg until after the November presidential election is held and the president inaugurated .
“ There is no doubt — let me be clear : The voters should pick the president , and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider , ” Biden told reporters following news of Ginsburg ’ s death .
“ This was the position the Republican Senate took in 2016 when there were almost 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the position the United States Senate must take today , and the election is only 46 days off.
” Biden , the former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee who oversaw numerous confirmation hearings for US Supreme Court justices — including Ginsburg ’ s — said that the average confirmation process for a justice takes around 70 days .
With the November election fast approaching , Biden said he thinks the Senate must take a pause .
“ They should do this with full consideration , and that is my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Biden said .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already made it clear he does not plan to pause , and that whoever President Trump picks to replace Ginsburg will get a Senate floor vote .
“ President Trump ’ s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate , ” he said in a statement , though he did not specify when this potential vote is expected to take place .
Given how close the election currently is , it ’ s possible Republicans could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November or conduct the vote during the lame-duck session that Congress will hold later in the year .
Even if Trump loses the election in November , or Republicans lose their Senate majority , Biden and a new Congress wouldn ’ t take over until January , leaving the GOP a window of time when they could act on the vacancy .
McConnell ’ s position in 2020 is opposite from his stance when President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March 2016 .
During Garland ’ s confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Supreme Court justice should not be confirmed during a presidential election year .
Biden added he learned of Justice Ginsburg ’ s death aboard a flight from a campaign event in Minnesota .
“ It was my honor to preside over her confirmation hearings , and to strongly support her accession to the Supreme Court , ” Biden said .
“ In the decades since , she was consistently and reliably the voice that pierced to the heart of every issue , protected the constitutional rights of every American , and never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of liberty and freedom .
Her opinions , and her dissents , will continue to shape the basis of our law for future generations.
” Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden told reporters Friday night that he thinks a new Supreme Court justice should not be confirmed to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg until after the November presidential election is held and the president inaugurated.
“There is no doubt — let me be clear: The voters should pick the president, and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider,” Biden told reporters following news of Ginsburg’s death. “This was the position the Republican Senate took in 2016 when there were almost 10 months to go before the election. That’s the position the United States Senate must take today, and the election is only 46 days off.”
.@JoeBiden: "She practiced the highest American ideals as a Justice. Equality and justice under the law. Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for all of us."
On #SCOTUS process: "The voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider." pic.twitter.com/fg4czmmObE — CSPAN (@cspan) September 19, 2020
Biden, the former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee who oversaw numerous confirmation hearings for US Supreme Court justices — including Ginsburg’s — said that the average confirmation process for a justice takes around 70 days. With the November election fast approaching, Biden said he thinks the Senate must take a pause.
“They should do this with full consideration, and that is my hope and expectation of what will happen,” Biden said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already made it clear he does not plan to pause, and that whoever President Trump picks to replace Ginsburg will get a Senate floor vote.
“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he said in a statement, though he did not specify when this potential vote is expected to take place.
Given how close the election currently is, it’s possible Republicans could attempt to confirm a new justice before November or conduct the vote during the lame-duck session that Congress will hold later in the year. Even if Trump loses the election in November, or Republicans lose their Senate majority, Biden and a new Congress wouldn’t take over until January, leaving the GOP a window of time when they could act on the vacancy.
McConnell’s position in 2020 is opposite from his stance when President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March 2016. During Garland’s confirmation process, McConnell took the position that a Supreme Court justice should not be confirmed during a presidential election year.
Biden added he learned of Justice Ginsburg’s death aboard a flight from a campaign event in Minnesota.
“It was my honor to preside over her confirmation hearings, and to strongly support her accession to the Supreme Court,” Biden said. “In the decades since, she was consistently and reliably the voice that pierced to the heart of every issue, protected the constitutional rights of every American, and never failed in the fierce and unflinching defense of liberty and freedom. Her opinions, and her dissents, will continue to shape the basis of our law for future generations.”


vox--2020-09-18--What Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death means for the Supreme Court’s Obamacare case

The Affordable Care Act is coming before the Supreme Court in November — and this time , with no Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg there to protect the law .
Ginsburg , who was appointed to the Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and served until her death on Friday , voted to uphold the law in 2012 .
Along with the three other liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts , she saved Obamacare then from a legal challenge that would have invalidated the law entirely .
But now another challenge , a sequel of sorts to that 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court without Ginsburg on it .
A consortium of Republican-led states have sued again to overturn the ACA completely .
In 2012 , Roberts sided with the liberal justices including Ginsburg and ruled that the law ’ s individual mandate penalty could stand because it was a legitimate use of Congress ’ s taxing power .
Now , because a GOP-controlled Congress repealed the penalty in their 2017 tax law , the Republican states argue Roberts ’ s rationale from 2012 no longer applies and the ACA must fall .
It was assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Obamacare would probably be safe because the same five votes that preserved it in 2012 were still on the bench .
But now , with Ginsburg ’ s death , that is no longer true .
There is a lot of uncertainty about what happens next , but the bottom line is this : The ACA is much more at risk of being overturned today than it was the day before .
“ It ’ s a much more significant possibility than it was , ” Nicholas Bagley , a University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration , told me .
“ I ’ m much more worried about the ACA than I was two hours ago.
” The consequences of the Court overturning Obamacare would be severe : The Medicaid expansion and the insurance marketplaces that cover 25 million people would be nullified , the protections for people with preexisting conditions would be voided .
Overnight , the US health care system would be thrown into chaos .
However , that worst-case scenario is not a given even after Ginsburg ’ s passing .
There are matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case that could still save the ACA .
First , the procedure : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is promising to hold a vote on President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to replace Ginsburg , but he hasn ’ t set a timeline for that vote .
Bagley told me that convention dictates justices should not rule on cases they did not hear the oral arguments for .
The Senate holding its hearings and voting on a Court nominee before November 10 , the scheduled date for the ACA arguments , seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new justice won ’ t be confirmed before oral arguments , the current Court has two choices .
One , they could choose to postpone oral arguments .
But that would require five votes , and such a consensus could be difficult to come by on a closely divided Court , with nobody certain how the incoming justice will rule .
The other option is to hear the case as scheduled and have eight justices decide the outcome .
If there was a 4-4 tie , the decision of the lower courts would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means a federal district court judge would be asked to decide what other parts of the law must also fall if the mandate is overturned .
Those could include the law ’ s rules banning insurers from denying people coverage or charging them higher premiums because of their medical history .
So the litigation would , in a certain sense , start over , and the same case would likely end up back before the Supreme Court in another year or two .
However , some of the legal experts I spoke with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November and Obamacare ultimately upheld even without Ginsburg on the bench .
Why ?
As Bagley put it : “ This lawsuit is profoundly dumb , and that matters a lot.
” That is not a partisan position either .
Jonathan Adler , a libertarian law professor at Case Western Reserve University , told me in 2018 he thought the Republican states ’ argument was “ absurd.
” The case turns on the complicated legal concept of “ severability ” : If one provision in a law is invalidated by a court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without it ?
Texas is arguing that the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare that if it is unconstitutional , then the rest of the law is too .
Courts usually decide that question by looking at Congress ’ s intent — and that ’ s where the conservative case falls apart .
It is actually quite simple , legal scholars say : Congress passed a law , the tax legislation , repealing the individual mandate and leaving the insurance protections in place .
So , clearly , Congress intended in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while keeping the ACA ’ s insurance reforms .
That is exactly what the tax law they just passed does .
Adler told me Friday night that he thought there were still five or six votes on the Supreme Court who would rule that even if the mandate is now unconstitutional , the rest of the law is severable from it and should therefore be upheld .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh is believed to be sympathetic to that argument , based on some recent decisions , though that remains to be seen .
Nevertheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Supreme Court “ shouldn ’ t affect the outcome ” of the ACA case .
That could very well end up being true .
Legal experts have long been dubious about the merits of the lawsuit .
But right now , in the hours after the world learned Ginsburg had died , the future looks a little less certain .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as @ @ @ @ @

The Affordable Care Act is coming before the Supreme Court in November — and this time, with no Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg there to protect the law.
Ginsburg, who was appointed to the Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and served until her death on Friday, voted to uphold the law in 2012. Along with the three other liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts, she saved Obamacare then from a legal challenge that would have invalidated the law entirely.
But now another challenge, a sequel of sorts to that 2012 case, will be heard by a Court without Ginsburg on it. A consortium of Republican-led states have sued again to overturn the ACA completely. In 2012, Roberts sided with the liberal justices including Ginsburg and ruled that the law’s individual mandate penalty could stand because it was a legitimate use of Congress’s taxing power. Now, because a GOP-controlled Congress repealed the penalty in their 2017 tax law, the Republican states argue Roberts’s rationale from 2012 no longer applies and the ACA must fall.
It was assumed in Washington, up until Friday, that Obamacare would probably be safe because the same five votes that preserved it in 2012 were still on the bench. But now, with Ginsburg’s death, that is no longer true. There is a lot of uncertainty about what happens next, but the bottom line is this: The ACA is much more at risk of being overturned today than it was the day before.
“It’s a much more significant possibility than it was,” Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor who worked in the Obama administration, told me. “I’m much more worried about the ACA than I was two hours ago.”
The consequences of the Court overturning Obamacare would be severe: The Medicaid expansion and the insurance marketplaces that cover 25 million people would be nullified, the protections for people with preexisting conditions would be voided. Overnight, the US health care system would be thrown into chaos.
However, that worst-case scenario is not a given even after Ginsburg’s passing. There are matters of court procedure and the substance of the case that could still save the ACA.
First, the procedure: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is promising to hold a vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg, but he hasn’t set a timeline for that vote. Bagley told me that convention dictates justices should not rule on cases they did not hear the oral arguments for. The Senate holding its hearings and voting on a Court nominee before November 10, the scheduled date for the ACA arguments, seems unlikely if not impossible.
If a new justice won’t be confirmed before oral arguments, the current Court has two choices. One, they could choose to postpone oral arguments. But that would require five votes, and such a consensus could be difficult to come by on a closely divided Court, with nobody certain how the incoming justice will rule.
The other option is to hear the case as scheduled and have eight justices decide the outcome. If there was a 4-4 tie, the decision of the lower courts would hold. In this case, that means a federal district court judge would be asked to decide what other parts of the law must also fall if the mandate is overturned. Those could include the law’s rules banning insurers from denying people coverage or charging them higher premiums because of their medical history.
So the litigation would, in a certain sense, start over, and the same case would likely end up back before the Supreme Court in another year or two.
However, some of the legal experts I spoke with believe the lawsuit will still be heard in November and Obamacare ultimately upheld even without Ginsburg on the bench.
Why? As Bagley put it: “This lawsuit is profoundly dumb, and that matters a lot.”
That is not a partisan position either. Jonathan Adler, a libertarian law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told me in 2018 he thought the Republican states’ argument was “absurd.”
The case turns on the complicated legal concept of “severability”: If one provision in a law is invalidated by a court, can the rest of it stand without it? Texas is arguing that the individual mandate is so central to Obamacare that if it is unconstitutional, then the rest of the law is too.
Courts usually decide that question by looking at Congress’s intent — and that’s where the conservative case falls apart.
It is actually quite simple, legal scholars say: Congress passed a law, the tax legislation, repealing the individual mandate and leaving the insurance protections in place. So, clearly, Congress intended in the tax bill to eliminate the mandate penalty while keeping the ACA’s insurance reforms. That is exactly what the tax law they just passed does.
Adler told me Friday night that he thought there were still five or six votes on the Supreme Court who would rule that even if the mandate is now unconstitutional, the rest of the law is severable from it and should therefore be upheld. Justice Brett Kavanaugh is believed to be sympathetic to that argument, based on some recent decisions, though that remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, Adler said, a new vacancy on the Supreme Court “shouldn’t affect the outcome” of the ACA case.
That could very well end up being true. Legal experts have long been dubious about the merits of the lawsuit. But right now, in the hours after the world learned Ginsburg had died, the future looks a little less certain.


vox--2020-09-18--McConnell says he’ll make sure Trump’s replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg gets a vote

In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death on Friday , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made clear that whoever President Donald Trump picks to replace her will get a Senate floor vote .
“ President Trump ’ s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate , ” he said in a statement , though he did not specify when this potential vote is expected to take place .
Given how close the election currently is , it ’ s possible Republicans could attempt to confirm a new justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lame-duck session that Congress will hold later in the year .
Even if Trump loses the election in November , or Republicans lose their Senate majority , former Vice President Joe Biden and a new Congress wouldn ’ t take over until January , leaving the GOP a window of time when they could act on the vacancy .
McConnell also emphasized that he viewed this vote as central to Republicans ’ following through on their promise to remake the federal judiciary .
“ Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work with President Trump and support his agenda , particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary , ” he said .
McConnell ’ s position in 2020 is opposite from his stance when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March of 2016 .
During Garland ’ s confirmation process , McConnell took the position that a Supreme Court Justice should not be confirmed during a presidential election year .
The election is just 46 days away .
For his part , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s death .
“ The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice , ” Schumer said in a statement , using the same words McConnell used in 2016 .
“ Therefore , this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.
” As of Friday night , it ’ s unclear whether McConnell will have the votes to move ahead with the confirmation of a new justice .
Since Senate Republicans pushed a rules change in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seated with a simple majority of Senate votes , which would require 51 lawmakers to support the nominee .
If there were a 50-50 tie , Vice President Mike Pence could also cast a vote to break it .
Currently , Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate , meaning the decision , like Justice Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation , will likely rest heavily on a group of moderate Republicans including Sens .
Lisa Murkowski ( AK ) , Susan Collins ( ME ) , and Mitt Romney ( UT ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not comfortable confirming a nominee so close to the election , and Collins has indicated that she would not support seating a new justice in October .
Both those statements were made before Ginsburg ’ s death on Friday , however , and neither lawmaker has expressed a position on the timing of the vote — or the vote itself — since .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from @ @ @ @ @ @

In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made clear that whoever President Donald Trump picks to replace her will get a Senate floor vote.
“President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he said in a statement, though he did not specify when this potential vote is expected to take place.
Given how close the election is, Republicans could attempt to confirm a new justice before November or conduct the vote during the lame-duck session that Congress will hold later in the year. Even if Trump loses the election in November, or Republicans lose their Senate majority, former Vice President Joe Biden and a new Congress wouldn’t take over until January, leaving the GOP a window to act on the vacancy.
McConnell emphasized that he viewed this vote as central to Republicans following through on their promise to remake the federal judiciary. “Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary,” he said.
Related What we know about a possible Senate vote to replace Justice Ginsburg
McConnell’s position in 2020 is opposite from his stance when President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March of 2016. During Garland’s confirmation process, McConnell took the position that a Supreme Court justice should not be confirmed during a presidential election year. The election is just 46 days away.
For his part, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has taken the position that McConnell did after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” Schumer said in a statement, using the same words McConnell used in 2016. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
It’s unclear whether McConnell will have the votes to move ahead with the confirmation of a new justice. Since Senate Republicans pushed a rules change in 2017, Supreme Court justices can now be seated with a simple majority of Senate votes, which would require 51 lawmakers to support the nominee. If there were a 50-50 tie, Vice President Mike Pence could also cast a vote to break it.
Currently, Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning the decision, like Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, will likely rest heavily on a group of moderate Republicans, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME), and Mitt Romney (UT).
Collins previously indicated she would not support seating a new justice in October, but Saturday, she released a statement walking a finer line. She voiced support for starting the process to consider a Trump nominee, but said no floor vote should be held until after a new Congress is in session.
“I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s beginning the process of reviewing [Trump’s] nominee’s credentials,” Collins wrote in the statement. “In fairness to the American people ... the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd.”
Murkowski has said she was not comfortable confirming a nominee close to the election. That statement was made before Ginsburg’s death was announced on Friday, however, and neither she nor Romney has expressed a position on the timing of the vote — or the vote itself — since.


vox--2020-09-18--“This is an opportunity”: Fox News reacts to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death

Less than one hour after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was announced , speculation began on Fox News about her replacement .
On Tucker Carlson Tonight Friday , Ned Ryun — the CEO of American Majority , an advocacy group that trains conservatives who aspire to political office — said he would advise President Donald Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett , who he said , “ I ’ m a big fan of ; in fact , I prefer her over Kavanaugh ...
I think she ’ d be a solid choice , she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s on the Seventh Circuit right now , has proven her conservative credentials.
” The comments , while arguably answering a question looming large for many of Fox ’ s viewers in the wake of Ginsburg ’ s death , serve as a reminder of all that is at stake in nominating a new justice .
And they are also a reminder of the hypocrisy of Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , who infamously held the late Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s seat open in an election year .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would allow voters a chance to influence who was chosen .
Following Ginsburg ’ s death , McConnell said this time around : “ President Trump ’ s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
” ( He declined to disclose the timing of the vote . )
Whoever is nominated would have an outsize role in deciding policy for decades to come .
As Vox ’ s Ian Millhiser has written , judges — particularly those on the Supreme Court — have been responsible for most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy changes in recent years : Adding a conservative justice to the Supreme Court would create a conservative majority on the Supreme Court , allowing the Republican Party to advance its objectives regardless of what happens in November ’ s election , or in elections for decades after that .
As the White House , Trump , and his campaign have pointed out , the president has been incredibly successful at appointing young judges — most are below age 50 .
Barrett follows this pattern , meaning were she to be appointed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for at least a generation .
And in that service , she could perhaps confirm suspicions that she would be willing to overturn precedent in a manner pleasing to conservatives .
Barrett has been a favorite of conservative Christian Americans for some time .
As Vox ’ s Jane Coaston noted following Trump ’ s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court , many religious conservatives lamented that Trump didn ’ t choose Barrett instead , believing she would be more willing to end abortion protections by voting to overturn Roe v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox ’ s Dylan Matthews explained on The Weeds in 2018 : Barrett [ has ] also argued that the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act impinges on religious liberty , argues that cases like Roe v. Wade might not need to stand as precedents if future courts judge them to be wrongly decided , and has explicitly asserted that the “ original public meaning ” of the Constitution must be upheld , even though that “ adherence to originalism arguably requires , for example , the dismantling of the administrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education.
” Trump ’ s likely appointment of a third Supreme Court justice is exactly what Democrat voters fear — and why Democratic leaders are calling on Trump and McConnell to allow the victor of the next election decide who will fill Ginsburg ’ s seat .
And for many Democrats , comments like Ryun ’ s and McConnell ’ s Friday are a painful reminder that Republicans refused to allow a vote on President Obama ’ s Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a strategy that resulted in the advancement of Kavanaugh , who has routinely voted with conservative justices during his brief time on the Court .
One thing is clear : Republicans and Democrats both see the election as the highest of stakes for the future of the Supreme Court .
“ This is an opportunity , ” Ryun said .
“ And I say they seize the moment .
”

Less than one hour after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was announced, speculation began on Fox News about her replacement.
On Tucker Carlson Tonight Friday, Ned Ryun — the CEO of American Majority, an advocacy group that trains conservatives who aspire to political office — said he would advise President Donald Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who, he said, “I’m a big fan of; in fact, I prefer her over Kavanaugh ... I think she’d be a solid choice, she’s still in her 40s. She’s on the Seventh Circuit right now, has proven her conservative credentials.”
Fox News is already talking about possible replacements for RBG pic.twitter.com/cqmpJCJuvj — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) September 19, 2020
The comments, while arguably answering a question looming large for many of Fox’s viewers in the wake of Ginsburg’s death, serve as a reminder of all that is at stake in nominating a new justice. And they are also a reminder of the hypocrisy of Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who infamously held the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat open in an election year. At the time, he argued doing so would allow voters a chance to influence who was chosen. Following Ginsburg’s death, McConnell said this time around: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” (He declined to disclose the timing of the vote.)
Whoever is nominated would have an outsize role in deciding policy for decades to come. As Vox’s Ian Millhiser has written, judges — particularly those on the Supreme Court — have been responsible for most of the US’s significant policy changes in recent years:
Adding a conservative justice to the Supreme Court would create a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, allowing the Republican Party to advance its objectives regardless of what happens in November’s election, or in elections for decades after that.
As the White House, Trump, and his campaign have pointed out, the president has been incredibly successful at appointing young judges — most are below age 50. Barrett follows this pattern, meaning were she to be appointed, she would likely be able to serve for at least a generation. And in that service, she could perhaps confirm suspicions that she would be willing to overturn precedent in a manner pleasing to conservatives.
Barrett has been a favorite of conservative Christian Americans for some time. As Vox’s Jane Coaston noted following Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, many religious conservatives lamented that Trump didn’t choose Barrett instead, believing she would be more willing to end abortion protections by voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
And as Dara Lind and Vox’s Dylan Matthews explained on The Weeds in 2018:
Barrett also argued that the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act impinges on religious liberty and that cases like Roe v. Wade might not need to stand as precedents if future courts judge them to be wrongly decided, and has mused in her academic work that “adherence to originalism arguably requires, for example, the dismantling of the administrative state, the invalidation of paper money, and the reversal of Brown v. Board of Education.”
Trump’s likely appointment of a third Supreme Court justice is exactly what Democratic voters fear — and why Democratic leaders are calling on Trump and McConnell to allow the victor of the next election to decide who will fill Ginsburg’s seat.
And for many Democrats, comments like Ryun’s and McConnell’s Friday are a painful reminder that Republicans refused to allow a vote on President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland during the last weeks of his presidency, a strategy that resulted in the advancement of Neil Gorsuch, who has routinely voted with conservative justices during his brief time on the Court.
One thing is clear: Republicans and Democrats both see the election as the highest of stakes for the future of the Supreme Court.
“This is an opportunity,” Ryun said. “And I say they seize the moment.”
Correction, September 19: Due to an editing error, this article originally misidentified President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee; it was Merrick Garland.


vox--2020-09-18--What we know about a possible Senate vote to replace Justice Ginsburg

The question of whether President Donald Trump will get to fill the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat this year — either before the election or even after it , if he should lose — is entirely up to Senate Republicans .
There are 53 Republican senators .
Confirmation of a nominee would take 50 Senate votes , plus a tiebreaker vote from Vice President Mike Pence .
Democrats are likely to remain united in opposition to any Trump effort to fill the seat , but they can ’ t stop the GOP by themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ least four Republican senators join them — to agree to let the winner of the next election fill Ginsburg ’ s seat .
Justice Ginsburg said days before her death that her “ most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed , ” according to NPR .
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday that President Trump ’ s nominee to replace Ginsburg “ will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
” There are two main possibilities for when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — before the election or in the lame-duck period after it stretching from November to January .
Either option would be controversial , but the latter would be particularly so if Biden wins and if Republicans lose their Senate majority ; Republicans would effectively be thumbing their noses at the election results .
As it so happens , a few GOP senators are on the record saying they would oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy this year .
( The question has often been posed given McConnell ’ s refusal to hold a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he died in 2016 , while Barack Obama was still president . )
But , of course , those assurances were given when the question was hypothetical , and it ’ s far from clear whether these senators will stick to them in the face of what ’ s certain to be intense pressure from the right .
Most recently , earlier Friday ( before the news broke ) , Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) reportedly told Alaska Public Media that she wouldn ’ t vote to confirm any new justice until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be .
Last month , Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) told the New York Times ’ s Jonathan Martin that she would not vote to confirm a new justice in October because that would be “ too close ” to November ’ s election .
She added that , should Trump lose , she wouldn ’ t vote to confirm a new justice in the lame-duck session , either .
Both Murkowski and Collins are known for defecting from their party on certain key votes ( though not others , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together with the late Sen. John McCain , they derailed President Trump ’ s effort to repeal Obamacare in 2017 .
Next on the list of possible GOP defections would likely be Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) , who has clashed with President Trump and expressed concern about political norms .
But Romney does not appear to have said what he ’ ll do in this situation .
His office told CNN he wouldn ’ t comment on the timing of a vote Friday .
Even if Collins , Murkowski , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winner of the election pick the nominee ( a scenario that is far from a sure thing ) , that wouldn ’ t be enough — Democrats need a fourth vote , and finding one could be very difficult indeed .
In 2018 , Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) said , “ If an opening comes in the last year of president Trump ’ s term and the primary process has started , we ’ ll wait to the next election.
” But this May , Graham changed his tune , suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be “ a different situation ” from the Scalia vacancy .
Graham is the chair of the Judiciary Committee and will have a major role in determining how this plays out .
Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) has said that , if he was still Judiciary Committee chair , he wouldn ’ t hold a hearing on a nominee this year .
But that statement is meaningless , because Graham has succeeded him as the committee chair .
Grassley has not committed to vote against any nominee .
Another possibility would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , but he is a close McConnell ally .
For another high-profile vote this year — whether to call witnesses at President Trump ’ s impeachment trial — he ended up siding with McConnell .
The possible timeline of a vote to fill Justice Ginsburg ’ s seat There are also a few wrinkles with the timeline for when such a vote would be held .
The simplest possibility would be for McConnell to hold a vote before the November 3 election .
However , in his statement promising a floor vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not commit to that timeline .
There ’ s much speculation that McConnell might prefer to keep the seat open to boost Republican turnout in key Senate races , or to avoid putting his endangered senators on the spot .
If Trump wins the election and Republicans hold on to their Senate majority , then , they would be able to vote on Ginsburg ’ s replacement whenever they like .
But if Biden wins , or if Democrats take the Senate , that means the clock would be ticking for Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lame-duck period before those changes take place , amid what ’ s sure to be enormous public outcry .
The new Senate will be sworn in on January 3 , and the president ’ s inauguration day is on January 20 .
So if Democrats win the Senate , McConnell would have until January 3 to hold his vote .
If the GOP holds on to the Senate but Biden wins , they ’ d have till the 20th .
There are some further complications , though .
One wrinkle is the Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Republican Sen. Martha McSally currently holds the seat .
But if the Democratic nominee , Mark Kelly , defeats her , he will likely be seated before the other new senators — once the results of the election are certified , which could be in late November or December .
That means Republicans would lose a vote .
However , if McConnell is hell-bent on getting a nominee confirmed anyway , this probably wouldn ’ t be an obstacle — he can just make sure to hold the vote before Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a possible runoff for the Georgia Senate contest pitting Sen. David Perdue ( R ) against Jon Ossoff ( D ) .
If no candidate tops 50 percent of the vote on election day , the runoff would be on January 5 , meaning that seat would become vacant at the start of the new Senate on January 3 .
Of course , it ’ s also possible that one or more very close Senate race could be contested — recall that the 2008 Minnesota Senate election wasn ’ t decided until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and court decisions .
So the safest bet for McConnell , if he doesn ’ t hold a vote before the election , would be to hold the vote in November or December .
Many would be outraged if Republicans are seen as defying the election results , particularly after Republicans stressed the importance of abiding by those results in 2016 .
Some Democratic pundits are already musing about threatening to abolish the legislative filibuster or pack the courts in response , if Republicans push a nominee through .
But practically , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to do what it wants in the lame-duck period — if they want to burn down institutional norms on their way out , no one can stop them .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The question of whether President Donald Trump will get to fill the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat this year — either before the election or even after it, if he should lose — is entirely up to Senate Republicans.
There are 53 Republican senators. Confirmation of a nominee would take 50 Senate votes, plus a tiebreaker vote from Vice President Mike Pence. Democrats are likely to remain united in opposition to any Trump effort to fill the seat, but they can’t stop the GOP by themselves. They’d need to convince at least four Republican senators to join them — to agree to let the winner of the next election fill Ginsburg’s seat.
Justice Ginsburg said days before her death that her “most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” according to NPR. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday that President Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
There are two main possibilities for when he’d hold such a vote — before the election or in the lame-duck period after it stretching from November to January. Either option would be controversial, but the latter would be particularly so if Biden wins and if Republicans lose their Senate majority; Republicans would effectively be thumbing their noses at the election results.
As it so happens, a few GOP senators are on the record saying they would oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy this year. (The question has often been posed given McConnell’s refusal to hold a vote to replace Justice Antonin Scalia after he died in 2016, while Barack Obama was still president.) But, of course, those assurances were given when the question was hypothetical, and it’s far from clear whether these senators will stick to them in the face of what’s certain to be intense pressure from the right.
The Senate math
On Friday, before news of Ginsburg’s death broke, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) reportedly told Alaska Public Media that she wouldn’t vote to confirm any new justice until after Americans decide who the next president will be.
Sunday, Murkowski said she stands by her previous statements: “Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.”
Last month, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told the New York Times’s Jonathan Martin that she would not vote to confirm a new justice in October because that would be “too close” to November’s election. She added that, should Trump lose, she wouldn’t vote to confirm a new justice in the lame-duck session, either. And on Saturday, Collins said the confirmation process should go forward, but the Senate shouldn’t vote on a nominee until after the election. “The decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd,” she said in a statement.
Both Murkowski and Collins are known for defecting from their party on certain key votes (though not others, like on impeachment) — for instance, together with the late Sen. John McCain, they derailed President Trump’s effort to repeal Obamacare in 2017.
Next on the list of possible GOP defections would likely be Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who has clashed with President Trump and expressed concern about political norms. But Romney does not appear to have said what he’ll do in this situation. His office told CNN he wouldn’t comment on the timing of a vote Friday.
Even if Collins, Murkowski, and Romney all firmly committed to let the winner of the election pick the nominee (a scenario that is far from a sure thing), that wouldn’t be enough — Democrats need a fourth vote, and finding one could be very difficult indeed.
In 2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, “If an opening comes in the last year of president Trump’s term and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.” But this May, Graham changed his tune, suggesting that a hypothetical vacancy this year would be “a different situation” from the Scalia vacancy. And on Saturday, Graham tweeted that he “will support” Trump “in any effort” to fill Ginsburg’s seat. Graham is the chair of the Judiciary Committee and will have a major role in determining how this plays out.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has said that, if he was still Judiciary Committee chair, he wouldn’t hold a hearing on a nominee this year. But that statement is meaningless, because Graham has succeeded him as the committee chair. Grassley has not committed to vote against any nominee.
Another possibility was the retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), but he confirmed Sunday he would support the effort to hold a vote this year, saying, “The Constitution gives senators the power to do it.”
The possible timeline of a vote to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat
There are also a few wrinkles with the timeline for when such a vote would be held.
The simplest possibility would be for McConnell to hold a vote before the November 3 election. However, in his statement promising a floor vote on Trump’s nominee, he did not commit to that timeline. There’s much speculation that McConnell might prefer to keep the seat open to boost Republican turnout in key Senate races, or to avoid putting his endangered senators on the spot.
If Trump wins the election and Republicans hold on to their Senate majority, then, they would be able to vote on Ginsburg’s replacement whenever they like. But if Biden wins, or if Democrats take the Senate, that means the clock would be ticking for Republicans to ram through a nomination in the lame-duck period before those changes take place, amid what’s sure to be enormous public outcry.
The new Senate will be sworn in on January 3, and the president’s inauguration day is on January 20. So if Democrats win the Senate, McConnell would have until January 3 to hold his vote. If the GOP holds on to the Senate but Biden wins, they’d have till the 20th. There are some further complications, though.
One wrinkle is the Arizona Senate contest, which is a special election. Republican Sen. Martha McSally currently holds the seat. But if the Democratic nominee, Mark Kelly, defeats her, he will likely be seated before the other new senators — once the results of the election are certified, which could be in late November or December. That means Republicans would lose a vote. However, if McConnell is hell-bent on getting a nominee confirmed anyway, this probably wouldn’t be an obstacle — he can just make sure to hold the vote before Kelly is sworn in.
Another complication is a possible runoff for the Georgia Senate contest pitting Sen. David Perdue (R) against Jon Ossoff (D). If no candidate tops 50 percent of the vote on election day, the runoff would be on January 5, meaning that seat would become vacant at the start of the new Senate on January 3.
Of course, it’s also possible that one or more very close Senate races could be contested — the 2008 Minnesota Senate election wasn’t decided until the summer of 2009, after a recount and court decisions.
So the safest bet for McConnell, if he doesn’t hold a vote before the election, would be to hold the vote in November or December. Many would be outraged if Republicans are seen as defying the election results, particularly after Republicans stressed the importance of abiding by those results in 2016. Some Democratic pundits are already musing about threatening to abolish the legislative filibuster or pack the courts in response, if Republicans push a nominee through.
But practically, even an outgoing Senate Republican majority would be able to do what it wants in the lame-duck period — if they want to burn down institutional norms on their way out, no one can stop them.