vox--2020-10-09--“The woman in Michigan”: How Gretchen Whitmer became a target of right-wing hate

Earlier this year , a man named Adam Fox recorded a video in which he called Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer a “ tyrant bitch ” for closing the state ’ s gyms .
Now , he and five other men known as the “ Wolverine Watchmen ” have been arrested on conspiracy charges , accused of plotting to kidnap the governor in retribution for her actions to limit the spread of Covid-19 .
It ’ s an extreme , and frightening , version of the attacks Whitmer has experienced for months .
Though leaders from New York City to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions , Whitmer has been a particular target for right-wing protesters — and for President Trump , who dismissively referred to her as “ the woman in Michigan ” this spring before introducing the more colorful “ Gretchen ‘ Half ’ Whitmer.
” Whitmer became a lightning rod for protesters in part because , as the governor of a hard-hit state , she instituted restrictions early .
She ’ s also been highly visible in the media , especially when she was floated as a possible running mate for Democratic presidential nominee Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason Whitmer has been the recipient of a particular kind of hatred : her gender .
Whitmer isn ’ t just a Democrat or a governor telling people what to do — she ’ s also a woman telling people what to do .
That ’ s never been particularly popular with a certain subset of Americans , and it ’ s especially unpopular now that Trump and others have introduced a gendered element into the politics of Covid response , peddling the idea that it ’ s manly to ignore the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no accident that Whitmer is being called a tyrant and a bitch .
The attacks on her feed into age-old stereotypes about women in power — stereotypes that are especially dangerous now as they undermine some of the very leaders who are trying to stop the spread of Covid and keep Americans safe .
Whitmer has been the subject of right-wing ire for months The right-wing rage against Whitmer ’ s Covid restrictions started back in mid-March , when the governor said in a CNN interview that she had sought help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and testing equipment for her state — then the fourth hardest-hit in the country — but had not received it .
Trump fired back on Fox News , saying , “ I don ’ t know if she knows what ’ s going on , but all she does is sit there and blame the federal government.
” Then , in a White House briefing on March 27 , he claimed that he had instructed Vice President Mike Pence , then in charge of the country ’ s Covid response , not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same day , he called her “ Gretchen ‘ Half ’ Whitmer ” on Twitter .
Then , in April , Whitmer introduced new restrictions to battle the virus , including a requirement that large stores close off sections devoted to gardening supplies and furniture .
Conservatives in the state said the restrictions felt arbitrary , and on April 15 , some 3,000 protesters demonstrated in the state capital of Lansing in what they called “ Operation Gridlock.
” The language of many protesters , however , went beyond mere opposition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took on misogynistic overtones , as demonstrators carried signs comparing Whitmer to “ a tyrannical queen and an overbearing mother , ” according to MLive .
Some chanted “ lock her up !
” — Trump ’ s favorite rallying cry against Hillary Clinton .
Trump , meanwhile , cheered the protesters on , tweeting “ LIBERATE MICHIGAN ” on April 17 .
Perhaps not surprisingly , protests continued to escalate .
On April 30 , armed protesters , many not wearing masks , crowded into the state Capitol and tried to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox ’ s Katelyn Burns reported .
Some chanted “ lock her up ” and “ heil Whitmer.
” In May , the state had to close its Capitol and adjourn its legislative session due to a planned protest grimly titled “ Judgment Day ” as well as death threats against Whitmer .
And in the summer , according to an FBI affidavit released on Thursday , Fox and his associates began planning to kidnap the governor .
In a video streamed to a private Facebook group on June 25 , Fox referred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ complained about the judicial system and the State of Michigan controlling the opening of gyms , ” according to the affidavit .
On a July call recorded by the FBI , he discussed a plan to kidnap the governor when she was traveling to or from her vacation house or official summer residence .
“ Snatch and grab , man , ” Fox said , according to the affidavit .
“ Grab the fuckin ’ Governor .
Just grab the bitch.
” The repetitive language might resonate uncomfortably for some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boast on the Access Hollywood tape that he could grab women “ by the pussy.
” After the kidnapping , Fox said he and others would take Whitmer to a secure location in Wisconsin for a “ trial.
” Fox and five others were arrested this week , as Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop reports , before any plan could come to fruition .
But the comments recorded in the affidavit were the culmination of a months-long pattern of attacks on Whitmer , fueled in part by the president , that cast her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Michigan citizens .
Trump even added fuel to the fire on Thursday night , saying in a rambling interview with Fox ’ s Sean Hannity , “ I see Whitmer today , she ’ s complaining , but it was our Justice Department that arrested the people she was complaining about.
” “ She goes and does her little political act , and she keeps her state closed , ” Trump went on .
“ What she ’ s doing is a horrible thing to the people.
” The attacks on Whitmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it comes to women in power Whitmer isn ’ t the only governor Trump has criticized — back in April , he also fired off “ LIBERATE ” tweets about Minnesota and Virginia , other states with Democratic leadership .
She ’ s also not the only public official to face pushback from lockdown skeptics .
Indeed , Fox spoke at one point of the possibility that other states might overthrow their governors as well , according to the affidavit : “ Everybody takes their tyrants.
” But Whitmer has received a degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president and from opponents in her state , that her male counterparts haven ’ t necessarily experienced .
That may be because , in addition to opposition to lockdown measures , she ’ s running up against the still widely held belief that any woman seeking or holding power is treasonous , underhanded , or illegitimate .
“ She fucking goddamn loves the power she has right now , ” Fox said at one point .
“ She has no checks and balances at all.
” It was reminiscent of complaints against other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Fox News commentator Harlan Hill tweeted during the vice-presidential debate on Wednesday that Sen. Kamala Harris “ comes off as such an insufferable lying bitch ” ( Fox News later said he would no longer appear on the network ) .
Asked to comment on the tweet by Mediaite , he doubled down , saying , “ I stand by the statement that she ’ s an insufferable power-hungry smug bitch.
” Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms , meanwhile , has received intense criticism for imposing restrictions in the face of Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Brian Kemp , a Republican , that named her personally .
In an interview earlier this year , Bottoms wondered whether she was singled out in part because she is a Black woman and the mayor of a majority Black city .
“ There were other cities in our state who instituted mask mandates and he did not push back against them , ” Bottoms said .
“ I don ’ t know if it ’ s perhaps because they were led by men or if it ’ s perhaps because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Historically , female leaders and candidates around the world have often been portrayed as treacherous , two-faced , corrupt , or power-hungry — “ willing to do anything at all costs to win , ” as Farida Jalalzai , a political science professor who studies women leaders , put it to Vox in January .
Indeed , women seeking any political power at all , even the right to vote , have faced stigma — as Vox ’ s Li Zhou reports , the use of the word “ bitch ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 19th Amendment .
And now , women like Whitmer who attempt to use their power to get Covid under control may be running up against those stereotypes .
That ’ s especially true since Trump and his supporters have repeatedly sent the message that the correct — and manly — thing to do is to ignore the virus , refuse a mask , and carry on as normal , regardless of whether you infect yourself or anyone else .
When women like Whitmer try to restrict people ’ s ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to far-right protesters , they ’ re infringing on men ’ s freedom to be men .
Fox and his associates may be under arrest , but that messaging continues with Trump taking off his mask upon his return to the White House earlier this week and telling Whitmer she should be grateful that “ our Justice Department ” kept her from getting kidnapped .
As long as such rhetoric continues , it ’ s going to be hard for Whitmer and other female leaders to do their jobs — which may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Earlier this year, a man named Adam Fox recorded a video in which he called Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer a “tyrant bitch” for closing the state’s gyms.
Now, he and five other men known as the “Wolverine Watchmen” have been arrested on conspiracy charges, accused of plotting to kidnap the governor in retribution for her actions to limit the spread of Covid-19.
It’s an extreme, and frightening, version of the attacks Whitmer has experienced for months. Though leaders from New York City to London have seen protests and pushback against restrictions, Whitmer has been a particular target for right-wing protesters — and for President Donald Trump, who dismissively referred to her as “the woman in Michigan” this spring before introducing the more colorful “Gretchen ‘Half’ Whitmer.”
Whitmer became a lightning rod for protesters in part because, as the governor of a hard-hit state, she instituted restrictions early. She’s also been highly visible in the media, especially when she was floated as a possible running mate for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
Related 5 years of hate
But there’s another reason Whitmer has been the recipient of a particular kind of hatred: her gender. Whitmer isn’t just a Democrat or a governor telling people what to do — she’s also a woman telling people what to do. That’s never been particularly popular with a certain subset of Americans, and it’s especially unpopular now that Trump and others have introduced a gendered element into the politics of Covid-19 response, peddling the idea that it’s manly to ignore the risk of the virus.
Indeed, it’s no accident that Whitmer is being called a tyrant and a bitch. The attacks on her feed into age-old stereotypes about women in power — stereotypes that are especially dangerous now as they undermine some of the very leaders who are trying to stop the spread of Covid-19 and keep Americans safe.
Whitmer has been the subject of right-wing ire for months
The right-wing rage against Whitmer’s Covid-19 restrictions started back in mid-March, when the governor said in a CNN interview that she had sought help from the federal government in obtaining PPE and testing equipment for her state — then the fourth hardest-hit in the country — but had not received it. Trump fired back on Fox News, saying, “I don’t know if she knows what’s going on, but all she does is sit there and blame the federal government.” Then, in a White House briefing on March 27, he claimed that he had instructed Vice President Mike Pence, then in charge of the country’s coronavirus response, not to call “the woman in Michigan.”
The same day, he called her “Gretchen ‘Half’ Whitmer” on Twitter.
I love Michigan, one of the reasons we are doing such a GREAT job for them during this horrible Pandemic. Yet your Governor, Gretchen “Half” Whitmer is way in over her head, she doesn’t have a clue. Likes blaming everyone for her own ineptitude! #MAGA — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2020
Then, in April, Whitmer introduced new restrictions to battle the virus, including a requirement that large stores close off sections devoted to gardening supplies and furniture. Conservatives in the state said the restrictions felt arbitrary, and on April 15, some 3,000 protesters demonstrated in the state capital of Lansing in what they called “Operation Gridlock.”
The language of many protesters, however, went beyond mere opposition to restrictions on big-box stores. The messages took on misogynistic overtones, as demonstrators carried signs comparing Whitmer to “a tyrannical queen and an overbearing mother,” according to MLive. Some chanted “lock her up!” — Trump’s favorite rallying cry against Hillary Clinton.
Trump, meanwhile, cheered the protesters on, tweeting “LIBERATE MICHIGAN” on April 17. Perhaps not surprisingly, protests continued to escalate. On April 30, armed protesters, many not wearing masks, crowded into the state Capitol and tried to get access to the House floor, as Vox’s Katelyn Burns reported. Some chanted “lock her up” and “heil Whitmer.”
At the MI Capitol pic.twitter.com/IuYoBhstIg — Anna Liz Nichols (@annaliznichols) April 30, 2020
In May, the state had to close its Capitol and adjourn its legislative session due to a planned protest grimly titled “Judgment Day” as well as death threats against Whitmer.
And in the summer, according to an FBI affidavit released on Thursday, Fox and his associates began planning to kidnap the governor. In a video streamed to a private Facebook group on June 25, Fox referred to her as “this tyrant bitch” and “complained about the judicial system and the State of Michigan controlling the opening of gyms,” according to the affidavit.
On a July call recorded by the FBI, he discussed a plan to kidnap the governor when she was traveling to or from her vacation house or official summer residence.
“Snatch and grab, man,” Fox said, according to the affidavit. “Grab the fuckin’ Governor. Just grab the bitch.” The repetitive language might resonate uncomfortably for some Americans, who recall Trump’s boast on the Access Hollywood tape that he could grab women “by the pussy.”
After the kidnapping, Fox said he and others would take Whitmer to a secure location in Wisconsin for a “trial.”
Fox and five others were arrested this week, as Vox’s Andrew Prokop reports, before any plan could come to fruition. But the comments recorded in the affidavit were the culmination of a months-long pattern of attacks on Whitmer, fueled in part by the president, that cast her as a tyrannical leader illegitimately wielding power over Michigan citizens.
Trump even added fuel to the fire on Thursday night, saying in a rambling interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity, “I see Whitmer today, she’s complaining, but it was our Justice Department that arrested the people she was complaining about.”
“She goes and does her little political act, and she keeps her state closed,” Trump went on. “What she’s doing is a horrible thing to the people.”
The attacks on Whitmer are part of a longstanding pattern when it comes to women in power
Whitmer isn’t the only governor Trump has criticized — back in April, he also fired off “LIBERATE” tweets about Minnesota and Virginia, other states with Democratic leadership.
She’s also not the only public official to face pushback from lockdown skeptics. Indeed, Fox spoke at one point of the possibility that other states might overthrow their governors as well, according to the affidavit: “Everybody takes their tyrants.”
But Whitmer has received a degree of personal attention, both from the president and from opponents in her state, that her male counterparts haven’t necessarily experienced. That may be because, in addition to opposition to lockdown measures, she’s running up against the still widely held belief that any woman seeking or holding power is treasonous, underhanded, or illegitimate.
“She fucking goddamn loves the power she has right now,” Fox said at one point. “She has no checks and balances at all.”
It was reminiscent of complaints against other female leaders or candidates. For example, Fox News commentator Harlan Hill tweeted during the vice-presidential debate on Wednesday that Sen. Kamala Harris “comes off as such an insufferable lying bitch” (Fox News later said he would no longer appear on the network). Asked to comment on the tweet by Mediaite, he doubled down, saying, “I stand by the statement that she’s an insufferable power-hungry smug bitch.”
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, meanwhile, has received intense criticism for imposing restrictions in the face of Covid-19, including a lawsuit by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, that named her personally. In an interview earlier this year, Bottoms wondered whether she was singled out in part because she is a Black woman and the mayor of a majority-Black city. “There were other cities in our state who instituted mask mandates and he did not push back against them,” Bottoms said. “I don’t know if it’s perhaps because they were led by men or if it’s perhaps because of the demographic in the city of Atlanta.”
Historically, female leaders and candidates around the world have often been portrayed as treacherous, two-faced, corrupt, or power-hungry — “willing to do anything at all costs to win,” as Farida Jalalzai, a political science professor who studies women leaders, put it to Vox in January. Indeed, women seeking any political power at all, even the right to vote, have faced stigma — as Vox’s Li Zhou reports, the use of the word “bitch” in literature began to increase after the passage of the 19th Amendment.
And now, women like Whitmer who attempt to use their power to get Covid-19 under control may be running up against those stereotypes. That’s especially true since Trump and his supporters have repeatedly sent the message that the correct — and manly — thing to do is to ignore the virus, refuse a mask, and carry on as normal, regardless of whether you infect yourself or anyone else.
When women like Whitmer try to restrict people’s ability to spread a deadly virus, then, according to far-right protesters, they’re infringing on men’s freedom to be men.
Fox and his associates may be under arrest, but that messaging continues, with Trump taking off his mask upon his return to the White House earlier this week and telling Whitmer she should be grateful that “our Justice Department” kept her from getting kidnapped.
As long as such rhetoric continues, it’s going to be hard for Whitmer and other female leaders to do their jobs — which may be exactly what Trump wants.


vox--2020-10-09--Is it anti-Catholic to ask a Supreme Court nominee how her religion affects her decisions?

Twenty-two years ago Amy Coney Barrett , then a law clerk soon to enter the legal academy , co-authored an article called “ Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.
” The topics raised were intensely debated in 2017 when she was nominated to serve on the federal bench , and are now being debated again now that she has been nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court .
Barrett wrote the article with John Garvey , her soon-to-be colleague at Notre Dame ’ s law school ( he ’ s now the President of Catholic University ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic judges ( if they are faithful to the teaching of their church ) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.
” The article is a model of serious scholarship — analytically precise , willing to take clear positions on important and controversial questions .
It became the focus of some quite misleading discussion during Barrett ’ s 2017 confirmation hearings , and is what led Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-CA ) to make her now notorious comment , “ The dogma lives loudly within you.
” — a comment that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to characterize opposition to her nomination as religiously motivated .
That controversy aside , does the article raise questions that might fairly be explored in a nomination process — without lapsing into anti-Catholicism ?
I believe so .
Maybe Barrett ’ s views on the matters discussed in the article — which I first analyzed for Vox in 2018 — have changed since 1998 , but asking her whether she still agrees with the article ’ s analysis seems well within bounds .
There ’ s some underbrush to clear away before we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
First , the article deals with the obligations , in connection with capital punishment , of a person the authors describe as an “ orthodox Catholic.
” The authors equate “ orthodoxy ” with being “ faithful to the teaching of the church on the subject.
” A fair amount of the article deals with the church ’ s teaching on capital punishment , which is complex and not unequivocal .
To somewhat oversimplify their careful analysis : They agree with the view that the church ’ s teaching strongly implies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States is immoral .
On October 3 , Pope Francis issued an encyclical strengthening the teaching and making it clear that capital punishment in the United States today is a serious evil .
The matter of current interest is the obligation of an orthodox Catholic in connection with abortion , where the church ’ s teaching is clear and unequivocal ; that removes one layer of complexity .
Second , the article argues quite correctly that the mere fact that a judge is a Catholic is not the basis for reasonable concern about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , because the range of views among Catholics on the death penalty is rather wide , and even orthodox Catholics might not fully understand the church ’ s teaching .
The case is different , I suggest , when one knows — or has quite strong reasons to believe — that a particular judge has orthodox Catholic views on the matter of abortion .
And that certainly seems to be the case with Barrett , whose religious convictions appear to be one of the primary selling points in her favor .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong support among social conservatives , which in turn brought her to Trump ’ s attention .
She drew a distinction between two kinds of “ cooperation with evil , ” one worse than the other Now , to the law review article .
It draws upon long-standing Catholic moral teaching to distinguish between “ formal ” and “ material ” cooperation with evil .
The authors define formal cooperation ( the more direct kind ) this way : “ A person formally cooperates with another person ’ s immoral act when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other.
” In the article , the key example of formal cooperation is actually imposing a death sentence ( as a judge might when presiding over a criminal trial ) .
Material cooperation , in contrast , occurs when an act “ has the effect of helping a wrongdoer , where the cooperator does not share in the wrongdoer ’ s immoral intention.
” We ’ ve recently seen arguments based on the idea of material cooperation , when orthodox Catholics object to being forced to provide , or even subsidize , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care : In their view , doing so amounts to material cooperation with evil .
( What the law should do about that view is , of course , a different question , and I ’ m not concerned with it here . )
Barrett and Garvey ’ s article identifies some examples of formal cooperation in connection with the death penalty , such as actually administering the drugs at an execution and signing the document authorizing an execution — something a judge at a trial does .
But the article devotes most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation , the morally grayer type .
Catholic teaching holds that formal cooperation is always immoral , but an appellate judge will almost never be faced with the possibility of formally cooperating with abortion .
He or she will almost never have to sign a document authorizing an abortion for example .
At most , the judge would say that the woman can have an abortion if she wants to , and that ’ s material , not formal , cooperation .
The article asserts , again in a way that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morality of material cooperation depends upon the outcome of a “ moral balancing test — weighing the importance of doing the act against the gravity of the evil , its proximity , the certainty that one ’ s act will contribute to it , and ” — very important , I think — “ the danger of scandal to others.
” Barrett asked what conclusions ( moral and otherwise ) reasonable observers would draw from a judge ’ s action “ Scandal to others ” occurs when those “ others ” see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ wrongdoing is not so wrong , ” thereby “ provid [ ing ] material for rationalization and self-deception by people tempted to undertake the same sort of wrong.
” The authors are uncertain whether an appellate judge ’ s sitting on a capital case amounts to material cooperation with evil because at least sometimes that judge will have to say that the law required a death sentence be imposed .
But they conclude that sitting on a capital case concerning habeas corpus does not amount to material cooperation .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue is whether a trial judge did something that was within the range authorized by law — not whether the law required the death penalty .
So , for them , an orthodox Catholic judge should recuse himself or herself from imposing the death penalty but need not opt for recusal in habeas cases .
They leave open the question about participating in direct appeals , where formal cooperation will be rare and the balancing required by the standard for material cooperation might allow participation .
They then examine whether the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recusal of a Catholic judge , merely by virtue of his or her church membership .
They conclude that it does not .
The question of the “ appearance of impartiality ” So what are the implications of the analysis for a judge who one knows is or has strong reasons to believe is an orthodox Catholic on the issue of abortion ?
The relevant recusal statute includes a provision dealing with “ appearance of impartiality ” and requires recusal if the judge ’ s impartiality “ might reasonably be questioned.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection with a motion to recuse based solely on the judge ’ s general religious affiliation — identifying as Catholic , Jew , Mormon , or the like .
But , as I noted above , the case is different where the motion rests on assertions about a particular judge ’ s religious convictions rather than mere affiliations .
Is it reasonable to believe that an orthodox Catholic would be subject to reasonable concerns about his or her impartiality in connection with actions that constitute material cooperation with evil ?
We have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could conclude from his or her examination of the relevant purely legal materials that Roe v. Wade was mistaken as a matter of law and should be overruled .
After all , many non-Catholic conservatives — and indeed some quite nonreligious conservatives and even some people who identify as liberals — think exactly that .
An orthodox Catholic judge ’ s views about material cooperation with evil might therefore play no role in his or her decision .
The difficulty , though , is that someone observing the judge ’ s action — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ appearance of impartiality ” standard is applied — can ’ t tell the difference between a decision to overrule Roe because the decision was not firmly rooted in the relevant purely legal materials , and a decision to do so because any other course would amount to material cooperation with evil , from the judge ’ s perspective .
Barrett and Garvey say a judge who makes a decision based on religious views when he or she believes the purely legal materials dictate a different result is guilty of “ cheating.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that , rather than cheat , the judge should recuse himself or herself .
But , if an orthodox Catholic judge does not opt for recusal , could an observer take the possibility of cheating to indicate that the judge ’ s impartiality might reasonably be questioned ?
When an orthodox Catholic judge sits on such a case , he or she may have antecedently concluded that affirming Roe v. Wade based on the purely legal materials would not amount to giving material assistance to the evil of abortion .
But suppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have to think about in connection with the “ appearance of partiality ” statute — concludes that conscientious application of the moral balancing test does mean that reaffirming Roe v. Wade would constitute giving material assistance : The evil , from the orthodox Catholic ’ s point of view , is extremely evil ( maybe even the ultimate evil ) , and though the evil is not at all proximate to the judge ’ s decision , that it will occur is nearly certain .
And the issue of scandal may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an orthodox Catholic judge affirming Roe v. Wade might conclude that abortion is not all that wrong .
After all , if even such a judge can go along with a decision allowing abortions , how wrong could it be ?
Is all of that enough to support the observer ’ s inference that the judge can not be impartial on the relevant questions ( or at least that the judge ’ s participation raises reasonable questions about his or her impartiality ) ?
Barrett and Garvey ’ s article has a footnote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implications for today are not entirely clear .
The text to which it is attached reads , “ If one can not in conscience affirm a death sentence the proper response is to recuse oneself.
” Quoting another scholar , the footnote reads , “ ‘ Where there is no honest , legitimate alternative for deciding the case but to follow positive law supporting the right to commit an abortion , ’ the judge should recuse himself .
The abortion case is a bit easier.
” The implication seems clear but not entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recuse himself or herself if the legal materials required affirming Roe .
If an orthodox Catholic judge opts instead to cast a vote to overrule Roe , though , either the judge has decided that the purely legal materials support that vote or is willing to cheat .
And the problem again is that the observer concerned with impartiality can ’ t tell which inference to draw .
Sen. Feinstein handled the issue very clumsily , but that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s not a legitimate one The discussion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation hearing was execrable .
Either Sen. Feinstein ’ s staffers didn ’ t prepare her well or she disregarded or failed to understand their advice about what precise questions were raised by the article .
The article ’ s arguments are complex and subtle , and the confirmation process is ill-suited to addressing arguments of that sort — particularly when what ’ s at issue are the arguments ’ implications for highly charged matters not directly addressed in the original article .
Still , the article raises questions that can be asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Catholicism .
The questions should be about how an orthodox Catholic judge ’ s religious commitments interact with his or her legal ones — which are exactly the questions the article itself raises .
If it ’ s not anti-Catholic to have written the article , which it surely is not , it can ’ t be anti-Catholic to explore the implications of its arguments for other matters .
Yet , the issues are complex and delicate , and we should be skeptical about the possibility that a nomination hearing is a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to frame questions , Democratic Senators would probably be well-advised to avoid asking about recusal in abortion cases .
Mark Tushnet is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of law at Harvard Law School .
The Big Idea is Vox ’ s home for smart discussion of the most important issues and ideas in politics , science , and culture — typically by outside contributors .
If you have an idea for a piece , pitch us at thebigidea @ vox.com .

Twenty-two years ago Amy Coney Barrett, then a law clerk soon to enter the legal academy, co-authored an article called “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases.” The topics raised were intensely debated in 2017 when she was nominated to serve on the federal bench, and are being debated again now that she has been nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
Barrett wrote the article with John Garvey, her soon-to-be colleague at Notre Dame’s law school (he’s now the president of Catholic University), and in it they concluded that “Catholic judges (if they are faithful to the teaching of their church) are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty.” The article is a model of serious scholarship — analytically precise, willing to take clear positions on important and controversial questions.
It became the focus of some quite misleading discussion during Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearings, and is what led Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to make her now notorious comment, “The dogma lives loudly within you” — a comment that has led some of Barrett’s supporters to characterize opposition to her nomination as religiously motivated. That controversy aside, does the article raise questions that might fairly be explored in a nomination process — without lapsing into anti-Catholicism? I believe so.
Maybe Barrett’s views on the matters discussed in the article — which I first analyzed for Vox in 2018 — have changed since 1998, but asking her whether she still agrees with the article’s analysis seems well within bounds.
Barrett explored how Catholic judges should handle cases involving capital punishment
There’s some underbrush to clear away before we get to the heart of the question. First, the article deals with the obligations, in connection with capital punishment, of a person the authors describe as an “orthodox Catholic.” The authors equate “orthodoxy” with being “faithful to the teaching of the church on the subject.” A fair amount of the article deals with the church’s teaching on capital punishment, which is complex and not unequivocal. To somewhat oversimplify their careful analysis: They agree with the view that the church’s teaching strongly implies that administering the death penalty in the United States is immoral.
On October 3, Pope Francis issued an encyclical strengthening the teaching and making it clear that capital punishment in the United States today is a serious evil.
The matter of current interest is the obligation of an orthodox Catholic in connection with abortion, where the church’s teaching is clear and unequivocal; that removes one layer of complexity.
Second, the article argues quite correctly that the mere fact that a judge is a Catholic is not the basis for reasonable concern about his or her impartiality in death penalty cases, because the range of views among Catholics on the death penalty is rather wide, and even orthodox Catholics might not fully understand the church’s teaching. The case is different, I suggest, when one knows — or has quite strong reasons to believe — that a particular judge has orthodox Catholic views on the matter of abortion.
And that certainly seems to be the case with Barrett, whose religious convictions appear to be one of the primary selling points in her favor. They’re one reason she has such strong support among social conservatives, which in turn brought her to Trump’s attention.
She drew a distinction between two kinds of “cooperation with evil,” one worse than the other
Now, to the law review article. It draws upon long-standing Catholic moral teaching to distinguish between “formal” and “material” cooperation with evil. The authors define formal cooperation (the more direct kind) this way: “A person formally cooperates with another person’s immoral act when he shares in the immoral intention of the other.” In the article, the key example of formal cooperation is actually imposing a death sentence (as a judge might when presiding over a criminal trial).
Material cooperation, in contrast, occurs when an act “has the effect of helping a wrongdoer, where the cooperator does not share in the wrongdoer’s immoral intention.”
We’ve recently seen arguments based on the idea of material cooperation, when orthodox Catholics object to being forced to provide, or even subsidize, what they regard as abortion-related and contraception-related medical care: In their view, doing so amounts to material cooperation with evil. (What the law should do about that view is, of course, a different question, and I’m not concerned with it here.)
Barrett and Garvey’s article identifies some examples of formal cooperation in connection with the death penalty, such as actually administering the drugs at an execution and signing the document authorizing an execution — something a judge at a trial does. But the article devotes most of its analysis to questions about material cooperation, the morally grayer type.
Catholic teaching holds that formal cooperation is always immoral, but an appellate judge will almost never be faced with the possibility of formally cooperating with abortion. He or she will almost never have to sign a document authorizing an abortion for example. At most, the judge would say that the woman can have an abortion if she wants to, and that’s material, not formal, cooperation.
The article asserts, again in a way that’s consistent with Catholic teaching, that the morality of material cooperation depends upon the outcome of a “moral balancing test — weighing the importance of doing the act against the gravity of the evil, its proximity, the certainty that one’s act will contribute to it, and” — very important, I think — “the danger of scandal to others.”
Barrett asked what conclusions (moral and otherwise) reasonable observers would draw from a judge’s action
“Scandal to others” occurs when those “others” see the believer’s actions and infer that the “wrongdoing is not so wrong,” thereby “provid[ing] material for rationalization and self-deception by people tempted to undertake the same sort of wrong.”
The authors are uncertain whether an appellate judge’s sitting on a capital case amounts to material cooperation with evil because at least sometimes that judge will have to say that the law required a death sentence be imposed. But they conclude that sitting on a capital case concerning habeas corpus does not amount to material cooperation. That’s because in a habeas corpus case the issue is whether a trial judge did something that was within the range authorized by law — not whether the law required the death penalty.
So, for them, an orthodox Catholic judge should recuse himself or herself from imposing the death penalty but need not opt for recusal in habeas cases. They leave open the question about participating in direct appeals, where formal cooperation will be rare and the balancing required by the standard for material cooperation might allow participation.
They then examine whether the federal recusal statute requires in death penalty cases the recusal of a Catholic judge, merely by virtue of his or her church membership. They conclude that it does not.
The question of the “appearance of impartiality”
So what are the implications of the analysis for a judge who one knows is or has strong reasons to believe is an orthodox Catholic on the issue of abortion? The relevant recusal statute includes a provision dealing with “appearance of impartiality” and requires recusal if the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” The authors discuss this provision only in connection with a motion to recuse based solely on the judge’s general religious affiliation — identifying as Catholic, Jew, Mormon, or the like.
But, as I noted above, the case is different where the motion rests on assertions about a particular judge’s religious convictions rather than mere affiliations. Is it reasonable to believe that an orthodox Catholic would be subject to reasonable concerns about his or her impartiality in connection with actions that constitute material cooperation with evil?
We have to begin by observing that such a judge could conclude from his or her examination of the relevant purely legal materials that Roe v. Wade was mistaken as a matter of law and should be overruled. After all, many non-Catholic conservatives — and indeed some quite nonreligious conservatives and even some people who identify as liberals — think exactly that.
An orthodox Catholic judge’s views about material cooperation with evil might therefore play no role in his or her decision. The difficulty, though, is that someone observing the judge’s action — the reasonable person whose inferences matter when the “appearance of impartiality” standard is applied — can’t tell the difference between a decision to overrule Roe because the decision was not firmly rooted in the relevant purely legal materials, and a decision to do so because any other course would amount to material cooperation with evil, from the judge’s perspective.
Barrett and Garvey say a judge who makes a decision based on religious views when he or she believes the purely legal materials dictate a different result is guilty of “cheating.” They condemn cheating; their position is that, rather than cheat, the judge should recuse himself or herself. But, if an orthodox Catholic judge does not opt for recusal, could an observer take the possibility of cheating to indicate that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned?
When an orthodox Catholic judge sits on such a case, he or she may have antecedently concluded that affirming Roe v. Wade based on the purely legal materials would not amount to giving material assistance to the evil of abortion. But suppose the observer — again, the person we have to think about in connection with the “appearance of partiality” statute — concludes that conscientious application of the moral balancing test does mean that reaffirming Roe v. Wade would constitute giving material assistance:
The evil, from the orthodox Catholic’s point of view, is extremely evil (maybe even the ultimate evil), and though the evil is not at all proximate to the judge’s decision, that it will occur is nearly certain.
And the issue of scandal may be quite serious here: Others who see an orthodox Catholic judge affirming Roe v. Wade might conclude that abortion is not all that wrong. After all, if even such a judge can go along with a decision allowing abortions, how wrong could it be?
Is all of that enough to support the observer’s inference that the judge cannot be impartial on the relevant questions (or at least that the judge’s participation raises reasonable questions about his or her impartiality)?
Barrett and Garvey’s article has a footnote dealing explicitly with abortion, but its implications for today are not entirely clear. The text to which it is attached reads, “If one cannot in conscience affirm a death sentence the proper response is to recuse oneself.” Quoting another scholar, the footnote reads, “‘Where there is no honest, legitimate alternative for deciding the case but to follow positive law supporting the right to commit an abortion,’ the judge should recuse himself. The abortion case is a bit easier.”
The implication seems clear but not entirely helpful: An orthodox Catholic judge should recuse himself or herself if the legal materials required affirming Roe. If an orthodox Catholic judge opts instead to cast a vote to overrule Roe, though, either the judge has decided that the purely legal materials support that vote or is willing to cheat. And the problem again is that the observer concerned with impartiality can’t tell which inference to draw.
Sen. Feinstein handled the issue very clumsily, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate one
The discussion of the article during Judge Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing was execrable. Either Sen. Feinstein’s staffers didn’t prepare her well or she disregarded or failed to understand their advice about what precise questions were raised by the article. The article’s arguments are complex and subtle, and the confirmation process is ill-suited to addressing arguments of that sort — particularly when what’s at issue are the arguments’ implications for highly charged matters not directly addressed in the original article.
Still, the article raises questions that can be asked in a confirmation hearing without devolving into anti-Catholicism. The questions should be about how an orthodox Catholic judge’s religious commitments interact with his or her legal ones — which are exactly the questions the article itself raises. If it’s not anti-Catholic to have written the article, which it surely is not, it can’t be anti-Catholic to explore the implications of its arguments for other matters.
Yet, the issues are complex and delicate, and we should be skeptical about the possibility that a nomination hearing is a good place to explore them. With limited time to frame questions, Democratic senators would probably be well-advised to avoid asking about recusal in abortion cases.
Mark Tushnet is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of law at Harvard Law School.


vox--2020-10-09--QAnon: The conspiracy theory embraced by Trump, several politicians, and some American moms

The swath of QAnon followers may be too wide for social media companies to regulate .
Share All sharing options for : QAnon : The conspiracy theory embraced by Trump , several politicians , and some American moms QAnon has been named one of the largest extremism networks in the United States .
The conspiracy theory , which began as a claim that President Trump ( and Robert Mueller ) were saving the world from cannibal pedophiles , grew out of 4chan message boards .
Now it ’ s gone mainstream and it ’ s reaching moms and Instagram health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by “ Q , ” a so-called Trump insider who makes anonymous online postings .
Followers of QAnon believe a lot of things but it boils down to a central message : Trump controls everything .
It ’ s been embraced by the president and numerous politicians , but it has faced growing criticism about its presence online .
Boasting millions of devoted followers on Facebook , Twitter , and YouTube , there ’ s been little oversight by tech companies on regulating QAnon .
The theory is also a major driver in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Members of Congress have condemned the movement on Capitol Hill and in legislation , saying more needs to be done to address moderating its internet reach .
Facebook announced in October that it was banning the group from its platform , but it ’ s unclear how well the social networking site will enforce its new rules .
Some civil rights groups claim Facebook ’ s actions compromise free speech ; government agencies , meanwhile , have shown QAnon has been linked to real-world violence .
Social media algorithms , like Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accessible for people who are dedicated followers or just simply curious .
Before people know it , users can find themselves down a rabbit hole .
All it takes is one click .
Follow this storystream for all of Vox ’ s QAnon coverage and updates .

The swath of QAnon followers may be too wide for social media companies to regulate.
Share All sharing options for: QAnon: The conspiracy theory embraced by Trump, several politicians, and some American moms
QAnon has been named one of the largest extremism networks in the United States. The conspiracy theory, which began as a claim that President Trump (and Robert Mueller) were saving the world from cannibal pedophiles, grew out of 4chan message boards. Now it’s gone mainstream and it’s reaching moms and Instagram health gurus.
The group is reportedly led by “Q,” a so-called Trump insider who makes anonymous online postings. Followers of QAnon believe a lot of things but it boils down to a central message: Trump controls everything. It’s been embraced by the president and numerous politicians, but it has faced growing criticism about its presence online.
Boasting millions of devoted followers on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, there’s been little oversight by tech companies on regulating QAnon. The theory is also a major driver in misinformation, particularly about the 2020 election. Members of Congress have condemned the movement on Capitol Hill and in legislation, saying more needs to be done to address moderating its internet reach.
Facebook announced in October that it was banning the group from its platform, but it’s unclear how well the social networking site will enforce its new rules. Some civil rights groups claim Facebook’s actions compromise free speech; government agencies, meanwhile, have shown QAnon has been linked to real-world violence.
Social media algorithms, like Facebook’s, make QAnon-related content easily accessible for people who are dedicated followers or just simply curious. Before people know it, users can find themselves down a rabbit hole. All it takes is one click.
Follow this storystream for all of Vox’s QAnon coverage and updates.


vox--2020-10-09--Twitter’s answer to election misinformation: Make it harder to retweet

Twitter announced on Friday — less than 30 days ahead of the US election — that it ’ s enacting a series of significant changes in order to make it harder to spread election misinformation on its platform .
It ’ s one of the most aggressive series of actions any social media company has taken yet to stop the spread of misinformation on their platforms .
The changes include prompting people not to retweet without adding their own commentary , turning off automatic recommendations for other people ’ s tweets , and adding more context to its Trending section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning labels on misleading tweets by US politicians and accounts with more than 100,000 followers , and block users from “ liking ” or replying to those tweets .
And if a politician declares premature victory before it ’ s verified by independent sources , Twitter will label the tweet and direct users to its voter information page .
Taken as a whole , the moves represent the sort of significant systemic change that some misinformation experts say is necessary to slow the spread of viral lies on the platform , especially those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook has similarly tried to limit voting misinformation , but its most recent action to ban political ads following the election has received less praise than Twitter ’ s new policies .
But the true test will be whether Twitter and Facebook can execute on their promises , and if the changes rolled out just a few weeks ahead of the election will actually be effective .
“ As always , the big question for both platforms is around enforcement , ” wrote Evelyn Douek , a researcher at Harvard Law School studying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a message to Recode .
“ Will they be able to work quickly enough on November 3 and in the days following ?
So far , signs aren ’ t promising.
” Twitter already has a policy of adding labels to misleading content that “ may suppress participation or mislead people ” about how to vote .
But in recent cases when President Trump has tweeted misleading information about voting , it ’ s taken the platform several hours to add such labels .
Facebook has similarly been criticized for its response time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter for its new policy , with a campaign spokesperson calling it “ attempting to silence voters and elected officials to influence our election ” in a statement to the Washington Post .
And the move comes at a time when Trump and Republican lawmakers have threatened to repeal a critical law , Section 230 , that shields internet platforms like Twitter from legal liability over concerns of alleged , and unproven , anti-conservative bias .
Douek said that platforms “ need to be moving much quicker and more comprehensively on actually applying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if “ introducing more friction is the only way to keep up with the content , then that ’ s what they should do.
” The concept of “ friction ” to which Douek is referring is the idea of slowing down the spread of misinformation on social media to give fact-checkers more time to correct it .
It ’ s also an ideal that many misinformation experts have long advocated .
Overall , misinformation experts , including Douek , lauded Twitter for introducing friction by nudging users to think twice before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes also target its fact-checking efforts on users who have real influence : the “ blue checkmark ” public figures , politicians , and power users with more than 100,000 followers .
It ’ s a lot more effective to curb misinformation by concentrating on those users rather than ones with smaller audiences , experts say .
“ I think there are a lot of positive things in these policy changes , ” said Renee DiResta , a researcher on misinformation ecosystems at the Stanford Internet Observatory .
“ Of course , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online or get rid of it all — people have always been wrong on the internet since the internet appeared .
But this is more of a matter of , can you mitigate the directly harmful challenges associated with virality.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 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 little as $ 3 .

Twitter announced on Friday — less than 30 days ahead of the US election — that it’s enacting a series of significant changes in order to make it harder to spread election misinformation on its platform. It’s one of the most aggressive series of actions any social media company has taken yet to stop the spread of misinformation on their platforms.
The changes include prompting people not to retweet without adding their own commentary, turning off automatic recommendations for other people’s tweets, and adding more context to its Trending section. Twitter will also start putting more warning labels on misleading tweets by US politicians and accounts with more than 100,000 followers, and block users from “liking” or replying to those tweets. And if a politician declares premature victory before it’s verified by independent sources, Twitter will label the tweet and direct users to its voter information page.
Taken as a whole, the moves represent the sort of significant systemic change that some misinformation experts say is necessary to slow the spread of viral lies on the platform, especially those about the election process and results. Facebook has similarly tried to limit voting misinformation, but its most recent action to ban political ads following the election has received less praise than Twitter’s new policies. But the true test will be whether Twitter and Facebook can execute on their promises, and if the changes rolled out just a few weeks ahead of the election will actually be effective.
“As always, the big question for both platforms is around enforcement,” wrote Evelyn Douek, a researcher at Harvard Law School studying the regulation of online speech, in a message to Recode. “Will they be able to work quickly enough on November 3 and in the days following? So far, signs aren’t promising.”
Twitter already has a policy of adding labels to misleading content that “may suppress participation or mislead people” about how to vote. But in recent cases when President Trump has tweeted misleading information about voting, it’s taken the platform several hours to add such labels. Facebook has similarly been criticized for its response time.
Already, President Trump has criticized Twitter for its new policy, with a campaign spokesperson calling it “attempting to silence voters and elected officials to influence our election” in a statement to the Washington Post. And the move comes at a time when Trump and Republican lawmakers have threatened to repeal a critical law, Section 230, that shields internet platforms like Twitter from legal liability over concerns of alleged, and unproven, anti-conservative bias.
Douek said that platforms “need to be moving much quicker and more comprehensively on actually applying their rules.” But, she added, if “introducing more friction is the only way to keep up with the content, then that’s what they should do.”
The concept of “friction” to which Douek is referring is the idea of slowing down the spread of misinformation on social media to give fact-checkers more time to correct it. It’s also an ideal that many misinformation experts have long advocated. Overall, misinformation experts, including Douek, lauded Twitter for introducing friction by nudging users to think twice before sharing misleading content.
Twitter’s changes also target its fact-checking efforts on users who have real influence: the “blue checkmark” public figures, politicians, and power users with more than 100,000 followers. It’s a lot more effective to curb misinformation by concentrating on those users rather than ones with smaller audiences, experts say.
“I think there are a lot of positive things in these policy changes,” said Renee DiResta, a researcher on misinformation ecosystems at the Stanford Internet Observatory. “Of course, you’re never going to fix misinformation online or get rid of it all — people have always been wrong on the internet since the internet appeared. But this is more of a matter of, can you mitigate the directly harmful challenges associated with virality.”


vox--2020-10-09--Netflix’s Haunting of Bly Manor: The ending, explained

Viewers have been eagerly awaiting Netflix ’ s The Haunting of Bly Manor , the standalone follow-up series to Mike Flanagan ’ s popular 2018 show The Haunting of Hill House .
Many of them will likely devour each of its nine episodes .
But if they move through the season too quickly , they might not understand what ’ s going on in the show ’ s strange final moments , when the show veers into unfamiliar territory .
Bly Manor ’ s finale forces viewers to re-contextualize not only a few minor characters but also the entire storyline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ending seems to shift everything that came before it — a steady gothic romance that ’ s loosely based on the famed Henry James novel The Turn of the Screw — into a giant metaphor and away from reality .
If you were confused by the ending , don ’ t worry ; you ’ re not alone .
We ’ re here to walk you through it — so that you can decide yourself what to make of it .
Is the ending even relevant to the rest of the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn of the screw ?
Read on and make your choice !
The show ’ s final episode exorcises all its ghosts — and returns to the frame narrative we ’ ve been in all along Henry James ’ s original novel uses a frame narrative , which is when a storyteller in the novel sets up an entirely different story that they then proceed to narrate .
The show follows this same format , introducing us early on to an unknown woman ( Carla Gugino ) who ’ s attending a wedding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other guests the haunting ghost story that becomes the main narrative of the series .
Throughout the series , we return occasionally to the narrator , either through voiceovers or flash-forwards , reminding us that while all of the main action is taking place in a creepy gothic mansion in 1987 , the narrator is recounting it all from the year 2007 .
When the series opens , the unidentified woman tells us that this story isn ’ t hers to tell but rather belongs to someone she knew .
That detail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main character , Dani ( Victoria Pedretti ) , the governess who comes to stay at Bly Manor to look after two mysterious and retreating children , Miles and Flora .
From there , things get weird — Dani and the children all see the ghosts of past residents of the manor , some with more malevolent intent than others .
None of the residents and souls affiliated with Bly seem to be able to leave after they die , so the place is , to put it mildly , a bit crowded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveals that all of the malice that ’ s keeping souls affixed to the estate originates with one vengeful ghost , Viola ( Kate Siegel ) , who ’ s become known as the Lady of the Lake .
It ’ s not only Viola ’ s curse that ’ s murderous but also Viola herself : She has a bad habit of killing anyone who happens to cross her path when she ’ s on the prowl .
In the final episode , Viola mistakes Flora for her own long-lost daughter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to keep Flora ’ s spirit with her .
( It ’ s not exactly clear why this moment happens when it does , since Flora ’ s been seeing Viola ’ s ghost the entire time , but that ’ s the magic of a convenient plot climax ! )
In a last-ditch effort to save Flora ’ s life , Dani coaxes Viola ’ s ghost into her own body using a technique perfected by another ghost , Peter , in which a human can allow a ghost to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lesser degree .
Once Viola enters Dani ’ s body , her curse is instantly broken , and all of the ghosts of the manor abruptly vanish , apparently finally free to leave the manor .
This part is easy to miss , since the narrator tells us that ’ s what happened while Dani is busy saving Flora .
Once everything settles down , the characters go their separate ways : Dani starts a new life with her girlfriend Jamie , the manor gardener , who moves with her to America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he opens a restaurant .
The children ’ s distant uncle accepts his role as their caretaker .
And as for the children themselves , they can ’ t remember anything from their time at Bly Manor .
For five years , things are good — Dani and Jamie even exchange wedding rings — but then Dani begins to sense Viola ’ s ghost is taking over her body , ready to resume her violent tendencies .
To prevent this , she returns to Bly and drowns herself in the lake .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too , may now be a ghost of Bly Manor .
But because her peaceful soul is now entangled with Viola ’ s , Viola ’ s own spirit can no longer cause harm — or so our narrator reassures us .
The story could easily end here but for one obvious lingering question : Who is the narrator , and why is she telling this story ?
We ’ re given our first hint when the final episode fast-forwards to 2007 once more .
As the narrator concludes her tale , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is this story real ?
What about Bly Manor ?
She hedges , refusing to categorically confirm or deny whether Bly Manor ever existed .
Once left alone , she and the bride of the wedding party then have a short heart-to-heart about love and loss .
It ’ s then that the bride makes an odd remark — her middle name also happens to be Flora .
The final two scenes bring everything full circle The next thing we see is the wedding reception .
There , the bride dances first with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gentleman , while the mysterious narrator watches from a corner .
Through her eyes , we view two other members of the wedding party — only we suddenly get flashbacks to much younger versions of them .
Our narrator sees a much younger Owen and a 10-year-old Miles because the guests at the wedding are none other than Owen and an adult Miles , now 30 , watching his sister , “ Flora , ” dance with their uncle .
As for the narrator , we also get a brief glimpse of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Jamie , the gardener and Dani ’ s true love .
( To remove any ambiguity on this point , the final episode credits Gugino as playing “ Older Jamie ” and the other actors as playing “ Older Owen , ” etc . )
You might be confused by this .
If the characters in the wedding party are the characters from the story , why didn ’ t Flora recognize herself during the narration ?
But remember : Flora and Miles both lost their memories of everything that happened at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her reaction that she doesn ’ t even remember ever living at the manor to begin with .
After the wedding , we see Jamie going home to her apartment , where she sleeps with her outer door open , as if welcoming someone inside .
And someone does come — the ghost of Dani , who watches over Jamie in the final shot , still wearing her wedding ring .
This setup makes it clear that Jamie told the entire story to Flora as a kind of wedding gift , a story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to commemorate both Flora ’ s own relationship journey as well as Jamie ’ s own lost love .
Still , the gift is not without its ambiguity .
It remains possible , as Jamie cautions , that Bly Manor never existed , and that Flora , Miles , and their other story counterparts never lived there or experienced any ghostly activities at all .
Perhaps Jamie made up the entire story as an allegory for Dani ’ s ongoing struggle with mental illness , embodied by the ghosts in her head — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the psychological themes of the original James novel .
Perhaps Miles and Flora experienced childhood trauma of a different sort , from which their family and friends have since protected them .
Or perhaps the entire story is simply a straightforward tale of love , loss , and healing , with some fictional ghosts thrown in to liven things up .
The Haunting of Bly Manor ends without filling in any of these blanks .
That ’ s for you to do yourself as the credits roll .
But one thing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and that ’ s that love conquers all .
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 distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

Viewers have been eagerly awaiting Netflix’s The Haunting of Bly Manor, the standalone follow-up series to Mike Flanagan’s popular 2018 show The Haunting of Hill House. Many of them will likely devour each of its nine episodes. But if they move through the season too quickly, they might not understand what’s going on in the show’s strange final moments, when the show veers into unfamiliar territory.
Bly Manor’s finale forces viewers to re-contextualize not only a few minor characters but also the entire storyline thus far. That’s because the ending seems to shift everything that came before it — a steady gothic romance that’s loosely based on the famed Henry James novel The Turn of the Screw — into a giant metaphor and away from reality.
If you were confused by the ending, don’t worry; you’re not alone. We’re here to walk you through it — so that you can decide yourself what to make of it. Is the ending even relevant to the rest of the story? Or is the ending the final turn of the screw?
Read on and make your choice!
The show’s final episode exorcises all its ghosts — and returns to the frame narrative we’ve been in all along
Henry James’s original novel uses a frame narrative, which is when a storyteller in the novel sets up an entirely different story that they then proceed to narrate. The show follows this same format, introducing us early on to an unknown woman (Carla Gugino) who’s attending a wedding rehearsal dinner. Afterward, she tells the other guests the haunting ghost story that becomes the main narrative of the series.
Throughout the series, we return occasionally to the narrator, either through voiceovers or flash-forwards, reminding us that while all of the main action is taking place in a creepy gothic mansion in 1987, the narrator is recounting it all from the year 2007.
When the series opens, the unidentified woman tells us that this story isn’t hers to tell but rather belongs to someone she knew. That detail implies she must have personally known the main character, Dani (Victoria Pedretti), the governess who comes to stay at Bly Manor to look after two mysterious and retreating children, Miles and Flora. From there, things get weird — Dani and the children all see the ghosts of past residents of the manor, some with more malevolent intent than others. None of the residents and souls affiliated with Bly seem to be able to leave after they die, so the place is, to put it mildly, a bit crowded.
The penultimate episode of the series reveals that all of the malice that’s keeping souls affixed to the estate originates with one vengeful ghost, Viola (Kate Siegel), who’s become known as the Lady of the Lake. It’s not only Viola’s curse that’s murderous but also Viola herself: She has a bad habit of killing anyone who happens to cross her path when she’s on the prowl.
In the final episode, Viola mistakes Flora for her own long-lost daughter and attempts to take her into the lake in order to keep Flora’s spirit with her. (It’s not exactly clear why this moment happens when it does, since Flora’s been seeing Viola’s ghost the entire time, but that’s the magic of a convenient plot climax!)
In a last-ditch effort to save Flora’s life, Dani coaxes Viola’s ghost into her own body using a technique perfected by another ghost, Peter, in which a human can allow a ghost to share their body to a greater or lesser degree. Once Viola enters Dani’s body, her curse is instantly broken, and all of the ghosts of the manor abruptly vanish, apparently finally free to leave the manor. This part is easy to miss, since the narrator tells us that’s what happened while Dani is busy saving Flora.
Once everything settles down, the characters go their separate ways: Dani starts a new life with her girlfriend Jamie, the manor gardener, who moves with her to America. Owen the chef returns to Paris, where he opens a restaurant. The children’s distant uncle accepts his role as their caretaker. And as for the children themselves, they can’t remember anything from their time at Bly Manor.
For five years, things are good — Dani and Jamie even exchange wedding rings — but then Dani begins to sense Viola’s ghost is taking over her body, ready to resume her violent tendencies. To prevent this, she returns to Bly and drowns herself in the lake. Because Dani is now dead, she, too, may now be a ghost of Bly Manor. But because her peaceful soul is now entangled with Viola’s, Viola’s own spirit can no longer cause harm — or so our narrator reassures us.
The story could easily end here but for one obvious lingering question: Who is the narrator, and why is she telling this story?
We’re given our first hint when the final episode fast-forwards to 2007 once more. As the narrator concludes her tale, the guests press her for details: Is this story real? What about Bly Manor? She hedges, refusing to categorically confirm or deny whether Bly Manor ever existed.
Once left alone, she and the bride of the wedding party then have a short heart-to-heart about love and loss. It’s then that the bride makes an odd remark — her middle name also happens to be Flora.
The final two scenes bring everything full circle
The next thing we see is the wedding reception. There, the bride dances first with her groom, then with an older gentleman, while the mysterious narrator watches from a corner. Through her eyes, we view two other members of the wedding party — only we suddenly get flashbacks to much younger versions of them. Our narrator sees a much younger Owen and a 10-year-old Miles because the guests at the wedding are none other than Owen and an adult Miles, now 30, watching his sister, “Flora,” dance with their uncle.
As for the narrator, we also get a brief glimpse of her as she once was. It’s Jamie, the gardener and Dani’s true love. (To remove any ambiguity on this point, the final episode credits Gugino as playing “Older Jamie” and the other actors as playing “Older Owen,” etc.)
You might be confused by this. If the characters in the wedding party are the characters from the story, why didn’t Flora recognize herself during the narration? But remember: Flora and Miles both lost their memories of everything that happened at the manor. It seems based on her reaction that she doesn’t even remember ever living at the manor to begin with.
After the wedding, we see Jamie going home to her apartment, where she sleeps with her outer door open, as if welcoming someone inside. And someone does come — the ghost of Dani, who watches over Jamie in the final shot, still wearing her wedding ring.
This setup makes it clear that Jamie told the entire story to Flora as a kind of wedding gift, a story about love, devotion, and loss to commemorate both Flora’s own relationship journey as well as Jamie’s own lost love.
Still, the gift is not without its ambiguity. It remains possible, as Jamie cautions, that Bly Manor never existed, and that Flora, Miles, and their other story counterparts never lived there or experienced any ghostly activities at all. Perhaps Jamie made up the entire story as an allegory for Dani’s ongoing struggle with mental illness, embodied by the ghosts in her head — a reading that would be in keeping with the psychological themes of the original James novel. Perhaps Miles and Flora experienced childhood trauma of a different sort, from which their family and friends have since protected them. Or perhaps the entire story is simply a straightforward tale of love, loss, and healing, with some fictional ghosts thrown in to liven things up.
The Haunting of Bly Manor ends without filling in any of these blanks. That’s for you to do yourself as the credits roll. But one thing is consistent across all versions of the story — and that’s that love conquers all.


vox--2020-10-09--What Nancy Pelosi said about the 25th Amendment

The infamous 25th Amendment to the Constitution lays out how a sitting president can be temporarily stripped of his powers if the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries declare that he is unfit to serve .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference to discuss this topic Friday .
But it wasn ’ t to make any actual attempt to remove President Donald Trump ’ s powers .
Rather , Pelosi was promoting a bill sponsored by Rep. Jamie Raskin ( D-MD ) , which , if signed into law , would create a new bipartisan commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agrees , declare the president unable to serve .
Pelosi described this as a general good government reform proposal for the future , saying it is “ not about President Trump , ” whom she said will “ face the judgment of the voters.
” Indeed , there ’ s no chance this bill will be passed or signed into law this year .
For now , it ’ s just an idea .
But in the context of the Trump era , holding a press conference on the 25th Amendment is akin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a bull .
And indeed , Trump soon responded with a tweet baselessly accusing Pelosi of planning to invoke the amendment to replace an eventual President Biden with his vice president , Kamala Harris .
What would this bill actually do ?
As often discussed in the Trump era , Section 4 of the 25th Amendment lets the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries temporarily deprive the president of his powers , if they declare his inability to serve in office .
The amendment does not define what “ inability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been discussed in terms of physical incapacitation , dementia , or even just erraticism .
( If the president disagrees that he ’ s unfit and fights to reclaim his powers , it would take a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate to keep him sidelined . )
However , the 25th Amendment says it doesn ’ t necessarily have to be the Cabinet that makes the call on presidential inability .
It says that the vice president can also work with some “ other body as Congress may by law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and take over his powers .
But Congress never ended up creating this other body .
So that ’ s what this bill from Rep. Raskin would do : It would create the “ Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office.
” ( The bill isn ’ t new — Raskin first introduced it in 2017 . )
Per Raskin ’ s bill , this commission would have 17 members .
Nine of those members would have to be physicians , and at least four of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other eight members will be former high-ranking executive branch officials ( former presidents , vice presidents , top Cabinet secretaries , or surgeons general ) .
As for who picks them , Democratic congressional leaders get to fill eight of the seats , and Republican congressional leaders get to fill the other eight .
Then , somehow , a majority of those 16 appointees must pick the final appointee , who will be the commission ’ s chair .
This commission could then be empowered by Congress to conduct “ an examination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is incapacitated , either mentally or physically.
” Then they ’ d have to tell Congress their findings .
Finally , the vice president would have to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the commission ’ s findings .
If he agrees , then the president would temporarily lose his powers , and the vice president would become acting president .
If he disagrees , then the president stays on .
The point of all this would be to take away this decision-making power on presidential inability from the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defy him ( and who he could fire ) , to a group of mostly medical professionals .
Still , most of those medical professionals would be appointed by congressional leaders of both parties ( currently Mitch McConnell , Kevin McCarthy , Chuck Schumer , and Pelosi ) , so politics clearly would not be removed from the process .
That means the very high bar to deprive a sitting president of his powers would remain quite high .
Perhaps the most challenging thing about all this , though , would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sign a bill into law that would create a new way he could be stripped of his powers .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The infamous 25th Amendment to the Constitution lays out how a sitting president can be temporarily stripped of his powers if the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries declare that he is unfit to serve.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference to discuss this topic Friday. But it wasn’t to make any actual attempt to remove President Donald Trump’s powers.
Rather, Pelosi was promoting a bill sponsored by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), which, if signed into law, would create a new bipartisan commission that could, if the vice president agrees, declare the president unable to serve.
Pelosi described this as a general good government reform proposal for the future, saying it is “not about President Trump,” whom she said will “face the judgment of the voters.” Indeed, there’s no chance this bill will be passed or signed into law this year. For now, it’s just an idea.
But in the context of the Trump era, holding a press conference on the 25th Amendment is akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull. And indeed, Trump soon responded with a tweet baselessly accusing Pelosi of planning to invoke the amendment to replace an eventual President Biden with his vice president, Kamala Harris.
Crazy Nancy Pelosi is looking at the 25th Amendment in order to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris. The Dems want that to happen fast because Sleepy Joe is out of it!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2020
What would this bill actually do?
As often discussed in the Trump era, Section 4 of the 25th Amendment lets the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries temporarily deprive the president of his powers, if they declare his inability to serve in office. The amendment does not define what “inability” entails, but it has often been discussed in terms of physical incapacitation, dementia, or even just erraticism. (If the president disagrees that he’s unfit and fights to reclaim his powers, it would take a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate to keep him sidelined.)
However, the 25th Amendment says it doesn’t necessarily have to be the Cabinet that makes the call on presidential inability. It says that the vice president can also work with some “other body as Congress may by law provide” to deem the president unfit and take over his powers.
But Congress never ended up creating this other body. So that’s what this bill from Rep. Raskin would do: It would create the “Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office.” (The bill isn’t new — Raskin first introduced it in 2017.)
Per Raskin’s bill, this commission would have 17 members. Nine of those members would have to be physicians, and at least four of those nine must specialize in psychiatry. The other eight members will be former high-ranking executive branch officials (former presidents, vice presidents, top Cabinet secretaries, or surgeons general).
As for who picks them, Democratic congressional leaders get to fill eight of the seats, and Republican congressional leaders get to fill the other eight. Then, somehow, a majority of those 16 appointees must pick the final appointee, who will be the commission’s chair.
This commission could then be empowered by Congress to conduct “an examination of the President to determine whether the President is incapacitated, either mentally or physically.” Then they’d have to tell Congress their findings.
Finally, the vice president would have to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the commission’s findings. If he agrees, then the president would temporarily lose his powers, and the vice president would become acting president. If he disagrees, then the president stays on.
The point of all this would be to take away this decision-making power on presidential inability from the president’s own appointees, who may be hesitant to defy him (and who he could fire), to a group of mostly medical professionals.
Still, most of those medical professionals would be appointed by congressional leaders of both parties (currently Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Chuck Schumer, and Pelosi), so politics clearly would not be removed from the process. That means the very high bar to deprive a sitting president of his powers would remain quite high.
Perhaps the most challenging thing about all this, though, would be convincing a president of the United States to sign a bill into law that would create a new way he could be stripped of his powers.