vox--2020-02-04--What Trump has done to the courts, explained

Share All sharing options for : What Trump has done to the courts , explained In less than three years as president , President Trump has done nearly as much to shape the courts as President Obama did in eight years .
Trump hasn ’ t simply given lots of lifetime appointments to lots of lawyers .
He ’ s filled the bench with some of the smartest , and some of the most ideologically reliable , men and women to be found in the conservative movement .
Long after Trump leaves office , these judges will shape American law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right even if the voters soundly reject Trumpism in 2020 .
Let ’ s start with some raw numbers .
Both Obama and Trump appointed two justices to the Supreme Court but Trump ’ s impact on the highest Court far exceeds Obama ’ s , because Trump replaced the relatively moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy with the hardline conservative Brett Kavanaugh ( that was after appointing conservative Neil Gorsuch to fill Antonin Scalia ’ s vacant seat ) .
Obama ’ s appointees — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative Court , while Trump has shoved that Court even further to the right .
On the courts of appeal , the final word in the overwhelming majority of federal cases , more than one-quarter of active judges are Trump appointees .
In less than three years , Trump has named a total of 50 judges to these courts — compared to the 55 Obama appointed during his entire presidency .
At this point in the Obama presidency , Obama had appointed only 30 court of appeals judges , meaning that Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama .
At a similar point in their presidencies , President George W. Bush had filled only 34 seats on the federal appellate bench ; President Clinton , 30 ; President George H.W .
Bush , 35 ; and President Reagan , 25 .
On the district courts , the lowest level of federal courts , Trump ’ s impact has been less significant .
Obama appointed 268 federal trial judges in eight years , while Trump ’ s only appointed 112 so far .
But district judges deal far more often with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial schedules , and far less often with the kind of blockbuster cases that shape thousands of lives .
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a candid moment while she was still a lower court judge , “ the court of appeals is where policy is made.
” It ’ s tempting to assume that Trump ’ s judicial appointees share the goonish incompetence of the man who placed them on the bench , but this assumption could not be more wrong .
His picks include leading academics , Supreme Court litigators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more power within the judiciary .
Before he became president , Trump promised to delegate the judicial selection process to the Federalist Society , a powerful group of conservative lawyers that counts at least four Supreme Court justices among its members .
“ We ’ re going to have great judges , conservative , all picked by the Federalist Society , ” Trump told a radio show hosted by the right-wing site Breitbart while he was still a candidate .
The Federalist Society spent decades preparing for this moment , and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most talented conservative stalwarts in the entire legal profession to place on the bench .
There ’ s no completely objective way to measure legal ability , but a common metric used by legal employers to identify the most gifted lawyers is whether those lawyers secured a federal clerkship , including the most prestigious clerkships at the Supreme Court .
Approximately 40 percent of Trump ’ s appellate nominees clerked for a Supreme Court justice , and about 80 percent clerked on a federal court of appeals .
That compares to less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominees who clerked on the Supreme Court , and less than half with a federal appellate clerkship .
In other words , based solely on objective legal credentials , the average Trump appointee has a far more impressive résumé than any past president ’ s nominees .
And they ’ re young , too .
“ The average age of circuit judges appointed by President Trump is less than 50 years old , ” the Trump White House bragged in early November , “ a full 10 years younger than the average age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump ’ s nominees will serve for years or even decades after being appointed .
Even if Democrats crush the 2020 elections and win majorities in both houses of Congress , these judges will have broad authority to sabotage the new president ’ s agenda .
There is simply no recent precedent for one president having such a transformative impact on the courts .
In an age of legislative dysfunction , whoever controls the courts controls the country .
In the past decade or so — or more precisely , since Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress has been barely functional .
You can count on one hand — and possibly on just a few fingers — the major legislation it has enacted .
Judges , by contrast , have become the most consequential policymakers in the nation .
They have gutted America ’ s campaign finance law and dismantled much of the Voting Rights Act .
They have allowed states to deny health coverage to millions of Americans .
They ’ ve held that religion can be wielded as a sword to cut away the rights of others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal ban on sexual harassment .
And that barely scratches the surface .
The judiciary is where policy is made in the United States .
And that policy is likely to be made by Republican judges for the foreseeable future .
There are likely now five votes on the Supreme Court , for example , to effectively give the judiciary a veto power over all federal regulations .
Similarly , the Court ’ s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ( 2014 ) signals that religious conservatives may now ask the judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and courts are likely to become quite generous in passing out such exemptions in the coming years .
Republicans spent most of 2017 trying and failing to repeal Obamacare — but that failure means little to a federal appeals court that is expected to strike down the Affordable Care Act any day now .
And that ’ s not all .
In the coming months , the courts are poised to gut abortion rights , eviscerate gun control , and neuter landmark environmental laws .
Federal judges have already stripped workers of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against their employers , and this process is likely to accelerate in the near future .
Many of our voting rights lay in tatters , thanks to conservative judicial appointments , and this process is likely to accelerate as well .
When Congress has been unable to function , the executive branch has relied on existing federal laws that delegate some policymaking authority to federal agencies , in order to deal with many of the nation ’ s pressing needs .
But with the Supreme Court poised to give judges a veto power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts could in effect strike down any regulation they dislike .
In a Republican-controlled judiciary , this likely means that Republican administrations will retain broad discretionary authority , but Democratic administrations will be hobbled .
And here ’ s the thing : We probably will not fully understand just how much power Trump ’ s judges will wield until after Trump leaves office .
Right now , the executive branch is ideologically aligned with Trump ’ s judges , so those judges are less likely to object to the Trump administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a fairly safe bet that Trump ’ s judges would spend an Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden administration wreaking havoc on the new president ’ s agenda — and that any future Democratic president will face similar opposition .
Two reasons why Trump ’ s been able to stack the courts Broadly speaking , there are two reasons why Trump has had such an outsized influence on the federal courts .
The first reason is the effective blockade Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell imposed on appellate court confirmations the moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s effort to block Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland is well-known .
Less well-known are the many lower court nominees who received similar treatment .
Under Trump , McConnell ’ s turned the Senate into a machine that churns out judicial confirmations and does little else — he ’ s ignored literally hundreds of bills passed by the House .
Under Obama , by contrast , McConnell ’ s Senate was the place where judicial nominations went to die .
The numbers here speak for themselves .
In the final two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled the Senate , Obama successfully appointed only two federal appellate judges — and one of those judges , Kara Farnandez Stoll , was confirmed to a highly specialized court that primarily deals with patent law .
By contrast , 10 such judges were confirmed during the same period in the George W. Bush presidency — a period when Democrats controlled the Senate .
The second reason for Trump ’ s outsized impact on the judiciary is that , when Democrats last controlled the Senate , one especially important Democrat — Judiciary Chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unusually expansive view of the rights of the minority party .
An informal tradition known as the “ blue slip ” sometimes gives home-state senators an exaggerated influence over who gets confirmed to federal judgeships within their states ( the tradition gets its name from blue pieces of paper that home-state senators use to indicate whether they approve of a particular nominee ) .
Traditionally , the Senate Judiciary Committee showed some level of deference to senators who disapprove of their home-state nominees , although the level of deference given to these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committee and whether that committee chair was politically aligned with the incumbent president .
Leahy , who chaired the Committee for most of the Obama presidency , gave home-state senators a simply extraordinary power to block judicial nominees .
Under Leahy , a single senator of either party could veto any nominee to a federal judgeship in their state ( although federal appeals courts typically oversee multiple states , each individual seat on these courts is traditionally assigned to a particular state ) .
Before Leahy , just one committee chair imposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. James Eastland ( D-MS ) , an arch-segregationist who took over the committee not long after the Supreme Court ’ s school integration decision in Brown v. Board of Education ( 1954 ) .
A strict blue slip rule allowed Southern senators to block judges who might try to desegregate public schools .
Leahy , to be clear , is not a segregationist .
He ’ s a reliably liberal Democrat .
But he nonetheless reinstated the Eastland Rule during his tenure as chair of the Judiciary Committee .
Leahy says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights of the minority.
” And protect Republicans he did .
Red-state Republicans used the power Leahy gave them to hold many judicial seats open until Obama left office .
Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-WI ) effectively held a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit open for eight years until Trump could fill it .
It ’ s tough to estimate the full impact of Leahy ’ s adherence to the Eastland Rule .
The rule often stopped the Obama White House from nominating anyone to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the liberal Alliance for Justice , Obama “ did not even make a nomination ” to two seats on the Fifth Circuit because the blue slip would have doomed anyone he named ; those seats were eventually filled by Trump nominees .
In other cases , the blue slip allowed Republicans to drag out negotiations over a particular vacancy until McConnell took over the Senate in 2015 and imposed a blockade on nearly all of Obama ’ s appellate nominees .
The Eastland Rule also weakened Obama ’ s hand in negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to name relatively conservative judges in order to placate senators who could veto judicial nominees .
Sens .
Saxby Chambliss ( R-GA ) and Johnny Isakson ( R-GA ) , for example , effectively held one of Obama ’ s Eleventh Circuit nominees hostage until Obama agreed to also name Judge Julie Carnes — a George H.W .
Bush district court appointee — to a second vacancy on that same court .
Republicans did not reciprocate when they came to power .
Not long after Trump took office , then-Senate Judiciary Chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appellate court nominees over the objection of their home-state Democratic senators .
( Republicans , for what it ’ s worth , have largely honored the blue slip tradition when a home-state senator objects to a district court nominee . )
Leahy continued to defend the Eastland Rule well into the Trump administration .
In a 2018 Senate floor speech , he touted the fact that he was “ criticized by advocacy groups and even the editorial page of the New York Times ” for allowing Republicans to veto Obama ’ s nominees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hero who “ resisted such pressure.
” Leahy also warned in the 2018 speech that Republicans were “ failing to protect the fundamental rights of home-state senators.
” By that point , Leahy ’ s adherence to the Eastland Rule had denied Obama the opportunity to fill many seats forever .
Filibuster reform fundamentally changed who gets to be a judge In 2013 , in a preview of how they would later treat the Garland nomination , Senate Republicans filibustered three Obama nominees to the powerful DC Circuit in an effort to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
In response , Democrats fundamentally altered the filibuster to allow lower court judges to be confirmed by a simple majority .
Under the old rules , the minority party could block a vote on any nominee , and it took 60 votes to end that filibuster .
Now , only 51 votes are required to move forward to a confirmation vote .
One consequence of filibuster reform is that it enabled Democrats to fill seats that Republicans held open with a filibuster .
Democrats controlled the Senate for more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and January 2015 , when Republicans took control of the Senate .
So filibuster reform prevented Republicans from holding many judicial vacancies open until Trump could fill them .
It also fundamentally altered who gets to be a federal judge .
Democrats controlled the Senate for less than 14 months after filibuster reform .
Yet nearly half of the former Supreme Court clerks Obama appointed to federal appellate judgeships were confirmed during this brief period — nearly as many as Obama appointed in the almost five years before filibuster reform .
Similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointees to the federal appellate bench clerked for a court of appeals judge — as compared to less than 38 percent of Obama ’ s pre-reform judges .
One immediate impact of filibuster reform , in other words , is that it made it far easier for nominees with elite credentials to become federal judges .
Here ’ s why : In the pre-reform Senate , a sterling résumé was often a liability for a judicial nominee because it flagged the nominee as a potential candidate for a future Supreme Court appointment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ martyrs , like George W. Bush nominee Miguel Estrada or Obama nominee Goodwin Liu , whose immaculate résumés painted a target on their backs .
Both Estrada and Liu fell to filibusters .
By filibustering plausible Supreme Court nominees before they got on the bench in the first place , the opposition party could diminish the governing party ’ s pool of potential justices and make it harder for the governing party to find an ideologically reliable Supreme Court nominee when the time came .
But filibuster reform did not just improve the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also cleared the path for known ideologues to join the bench .
And it appears to be altering how many sitting judges behave .
As the 2016 election drew nigh , then-10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch looked like he was openly campaigning for a promotion .
During this period , the Federalist Society grew increasingly obsessed with limiting the power of federal agencies to create binding regulations — an agenda that could hobble government bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency .
Gorsuch signaled his loyalty to this anti-regulatory agenda by writing gratuitous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to impose on federal agencies .
In one case , Gorsuch even attached a separate concurring opinion to his own majority opinion .
As David Kaplan reports in The Most Dangerous Branch : Inside the Supreme Court ’ s Assault on the Constitution , one of these anti-regulatory opinions “ proved decisive in clinching ” the Trump White House ’ s decision to name Gorsuch to the Supreme Court .
Gorsuch ’ s opinions , according to Kaplan , were “ a way for Gorsuch to call attention to himself , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I often hear them use a derisive term to describe this kind of behavior : “ auditioning.
” In a world without the filibuster , ambitious judges have less to fear from the opposition party .
So they have every incentive to audition for the job that they want .
After all , the best way to win the prize that Gorsuch captured for himself is to catch the eye of the Federalist Society and its adherents .
The future of the judiciary favors Republicans While Trump ’ s been very successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisans , a Democratic president is unlikely to enjoy similar success .
A badly malapportioned Senate means that to get even a bare majority in the Senate , Democrats have to win commanding popular vote majorities — and if Democrats don ’ t control the Senate , Democratic nominees could face the Merrick Garland treatment .
Just look at the last two years of the Obama presidency if you want to know how a Republican Senate is likely to treat Democratic judicial nominees .
Even if Democrats do overcome the odds to capture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power is likely to be held by red-state Democrats who could be vulnerable to pressure from conservative interest groups hoping to keep Democratic nominees off the bench .
In other words , it ’ ll be a long , long time before Democrats can undo the work Trump and the Republicans have done to turn the judiciary rightward .
In the early months of the Trump presidency , so-called “ Never Trump ” Republicans often directed a derisive phrase against Trump supporters : “ But Gorsuch.
” It was a taunt that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selling your soul to a manifestly unfit TV celebrity who has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by more than a dozen women in order to keep control of the courts .
But , as conservative columnist Hugh Hewitt wrote in 2018 , “ this bit of childish taunting always struck me as an unknowing admission of ignorance about the role assumed by the Supreme Court in modern American governance.
” Certainly , Mitch McConnell understood this role .
It ’ s why he was willing to use any means necessary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The truth is , by worshipping at the altar of Trump , Republicans haven ’ t simply ensured conservative dominance of one branch of government .
They may have entrenched conservative governance for decades .

Share All sharing options for: What Trump has done to the courts, explained
In less than four years as president, President Trump has done nearly as much to shape the courts as President Obama did in eight years.
Trump hasn’t simply given lots of lifetime appointments to lots of lawyers. He’s filled the bench with some of the smartest, and most ideologically reliable, men and women to be found in the conservative movement. Long after Trump leaves office, these judges will shape American law — pushing it further and further to the right even if the voters soundly reject Trumpism in 2020.
Let’s start with some raw numbers. Both Obama and Trump appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, but Trump’s impact on the highest Court far exceeds Obama’s, because Trump replaced the relatively moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy with the hard-line conservative Brett Kavanaugh (after appointing conservative Neil Gorsuch to fill Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat). Obama’s appointees — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — largely maintained the balance of power on a conservative Court, while Trump has shoved that Court even further to the right.
And that’s not counting Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who is likely to be confirmed soon.
On the courts of appeal, the final word in the overwhelming majority of federal cases, more than one-quarter of active judges are Trump appointees. In less than four years, Trump has named a total of 53 judges to these courts, compared to the 55 Obama appointed during his entire presidency.
In their first terms, Obama appointed 30 appellate judges; President George W. Bush filled only 35 seats on the federal appellate bench; President Clinton, 30; President George H.W. Bush, 42; and President Reagan, 33.
On the district courts, the lowest level of federal courts, Trump’s impact has been less significant, although he’s still appointed judges far faster than Obama. Obama appointed 268 federal trial judges in eight years, while Trump has appointed 210 so far. But district judges deal far more often with routine matters like individual criminal sentences and trial schedules, and far less often with the kind of blockbuster cases that shape thousands of lives. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a candid moment while she was still a lower court judge, “the court of appeals is where policy is made.”
It’s tempting to assume that Trump’s judicial appointees share the goonish incompetence of the man who placed them on the bench, but this assumption could not be more wrong. His picks include leading academics, Supreme Court litigators, and already prominent judges who now enjoy even more power within the judiciary.
Before he became president, Trump promised to delegate the judicial selection process to the Federalist Society, a powerful group of conservative lawyers that counts at least four Supreme Court justices among its members. “We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society,” Trump told a radio show hosted by the right-wing site Breitbart while he was still a candidate.
The Federalist Society spent decades preparing for this moment, and they’ve helped Trump identify many of the most talented conservative stalwarts in the entire legal profession to place on the bench.
There’s no completely objective way to measure legal ability, but a common metric used by legal employers to identify the most gifted lawyers is whether those lawyers secured a federal clerkship, including the most prestigious clerkships at the Supreme Court. Approximately 40 percent of Trump’s appellate nominees clerked for a Supreme Court justice, and about 80 percent clerked on a federal court of appeals. That compares to less than a quarter of Obama’s nominees who clerked on the Supreme Court, and less than half with a federal appellate clerkship.
In other words, based solely on objective legal credentials, the average Trump appointee has a far more impressive résumé than any past president’s nominees.
They’re young, too. “The average age of circuit judges appointed by President Trump is less than 50 years old,” the Trump White House bragged in early November, “a full 10 years younger than the average age of President Obama’s circuit nominees.”
Trump’s nominees will serve for years or even decades after being appointed. Even if Democrats crush the 2020 elections and win majorities in both houses of Congress, these judges will have broad authority to sabotage the new president’s agenda.
There is simply no recent precedent for one president having such a transformative impact on the courts.
How Trump’s judges will change America
In an age of legislative dysfunction, whoever controls the courts controls the country. In the past decade or so — or more precisely, since Republicans took over the House in 2011 — Congress has been barely functional. You can count on one hand, and possibly on just a few fingers, the major legislation it has enacted.
Judges, by contrast, have become the most consequential policymakers in the nation. They have gutted America’s campaign finance law and dismantled much of the Voting Rights Act. They have allowed states to deny health coverage to millions of Americans. They’ve held that religion can be wielded as a sword to cut away the rights of others. They’ve drastically watered down the federal ban on sexual harassment. And that barely scratches the surface.
The judiciary is where policy is made in the United States. And that policy is likely to be made by Republican judges for the foreseeable future.
There are likely now five votes on the Supreme Court, for example, to effectively give the judiciary a veto power over all federal regulations. Similarly, the Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) signals that religious conservatives may now ask the judiciary for an exemption from any law — and courts are likely to become quite generous in passing out such exemptions in the coming years. Republicans spent most of 2017 trying and failing to repeal Obamacare — but that failure means little to a federal appeals court that is expected to strike down the Affordable Care Act any day now.
And that’s not all. In the coming months, the courts are poised to gut abortion rights, eviscerate gun control, and neuter landmark environmental laws. Federal judges have already stripped workers of their ability to assert many of their rights against their employers, and this process is likely to accelerate in the near future. Many of our voting rights lie in tatters, due to conservative judicial appointments, and this process is likely to accelerate as well.
When Congress has been unable to function, the executive branch has relied on existing federal laws that delegate some policymaking authority to federal agencies, in order to deal with many of the nation’s pressing needs. But with the Supreme Court poised to give judges a veto power over these agencies’ actions, the courts could in effect strike down any regulation they dislike. In a Republican-controlled judiciary, this likely means that Republican administrations will retain broad discretionary authority, but Democratic administrations will be hobbled.
And here’s the thing: We probably will not fully understand just how much power Trump’s judges will wield until after Trump leaves office. Right now, the executive branch is ideologically aligned with Trump’s judges, so those judges are less likely to object to the Trump administration’s actions than more liberal jurists. But it’s a fairly safe bet that Trump’s judges would spend an Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden administration wreaking havoc on the new president’s agenda — and that any future Democratic president will face similar opposition.
Two reasons Trump has been able to stack the courts
Broadly speaking, there are two reasons Trump has had such an outsize influence on the federal courts.
The first reason is the effective blockade Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell imposed on appellate court confirmations the moment Republicans took over the Senate. McConnell’s effort to block Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland is well-known. Less well-known are the many lower court nominees who received similar treatment. Under Trump, McConnell has turned the Senate into a machine that churns out judicial confirmations and does little else — he’s ignored literally hundreds of bills passed by the House. Under Obama, by contrast, McConnell’s Senate was the place where judicial nominations went to die.
The numbers here speak for themselves. In the final two years of the Obama presidency, when Republicans controlled the Senate, Obama successfully appointed only two federal appellate judges — and one of those judges, Kara Farnandez Stoll, was confirmed to a highly specialized court that primarily deals with patent law.
By contrast, 10 such judges were confirmed during the same period in the George W. Bush presidency, a period when Democrats controlled the Senate.
The second reason for Trump’s outsize impact on the judiciary is that when Democrats last controlled the Senate, one especially important Democrat — Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (VT) — took an unusually expansive view of the rights of the minority party.
An informal tradition known as the “blue slip” sometimes gives home-state senators an exaggerated influence over who gets confirmed to federal judgeships within their states (the tradition gets its name from blue pieces of paper that home-state senators use to indicate whether they approve of a particular nominee).
Traditionally, the Senate Judiciary Committee showed some level of deference to senators who disapprove of their home-state nominees, although the level of deference given to these senators varied wildly depending on who chaired the committee and whether that committee chair was politically aligned with the incumbent president.
Leahy, who chaired the Committee for most of the Obama presidency, gave home-state senators a simply extraordinary power to block judicial nominees. Under Leahy, a single senator of either party could veto any nominee to a federal judgeship in their state (although federal appeals courts typically oversee multiple states, each individual seat on these courts is traditionally assigned to a particular state).
Before Leahy, just one committee chair imposed such a rigid blue slip rule: Sen. James Eastland (D-MS), an arch-segregationist who took over the committee not long after the Supreme Court’s school integration decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). A strict blue slip rule allowed Southern senators to block judges who might try to desegregate public schools.
Leahy, to be clear, is not a segregationist. He’s a reliably liberal Democrat. But he nonetheless reinstated the Eastland Rule during his tenure as chair of the Judiciary Committee.
Leahy says that he did so to protect the “rights of the minority.” And protect Republicans he did. Red-state Republicans used the power Leahy gave them to hold many judicial seats open until Obama left office. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) effectively held a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit open for eight years until Trump could fill it.
It’s tough to estimate the full impact of Leahy’s adherence to the Eastland Rule. The rule often stopped the Obama White House from nominating anyone to a vacant judgeship. According to Daniel Goldberg of the liberal Alliance for Justice, Obama “did not even make a nomination” to two seats on the Fifth Circuit because the blue slip would have doomed anyone he named; those seats were eventually filled by Trump nominees.
In other cases, the blue slip allowed Republicans to drag out negotiations over a particular vacancy until McConnell took over the Senate in 2015 and imposed a blockade on nearly all of Obama’s appellate nominees.
The Eastland Rule also weakened Obama’s hand in negotiations with Senate Republicans, and sometimes forced him to name relatively conservative judges in order to placate senators who could veto judicial nominees. Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), for example, effectively held one of Obama’s Eleventh Circuit nominees hostage until Obama agreed to also name Judge Julie Carnes — a George H.W. Bush district court appointee — to a second vacancy on that same court.
Republicans did not reciprocate when they came to power. Not long after Trump took office, then-Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) started confirming appellate court nominees over the objection of their home-state Democratic senators. (Republicans, for what it’s worth, have largely honored the blue slip tradition when a home-state senator objects to a district court nominee.)
Leahy continued to defend the Eastland Rule well into the Trump administration. In a 2018 Senate floor speech, he touted the fact that he was “criticized by advocacy groups and even the editorial page of the New York Times” for allowing Republicans to veto Obama’s nominees, and he painted himself as a hero who “resisted such pressure.” Leahy also warned in the 2018 speech that Republicans were “failing to protect the fundamental rights of home-state senators.”
By that point, Leahy’s adherence to the Eastland Rule had denied Obama the opportunity to fill many seats forever.
Filibuster reform fundamentally changed who gets to be a judge
In 2013, in a preview of how they would later treat the Garland nomination, Senate Republicans filibustered three Obama nominees to the powerful DC Circuit in an effort to keep Democrats from gaining a majority on that court. In response, Democrats fundamentally altered the filibuster to allow lower court judges to be confirmed by a simple majority.
Under the old rules, the minority party could block a vote on any nominee, and it took 60 votes to end that filibuster. Now, only 51 votes are required to move forward to a confirmation vote.
One consequence of filibuster reform is that it enabled Democrats to fill seats that Republicans held open with a filibuster. Democrats controlled the Senate for more than a year between the November 2013 reform vote and January 2015, when Republicans took control of the Senate.
So filibuster reform prevented Republicans from holding many judicial vacancies open until Trump could fill them. It also fundamentally altered who gets to be a federal judge.
Democrats controlled the Senate for less than 14 months after filibuster reform. Yet nearly half of the former Supreme Court clerks Obama appointed to federal appellate judgeships were confirmed during this brief period — nearly as many as Obama appointed in the almost five years before filibuster reform.
Similarly, nearly three-quarters of Obama’s post-reform appointees to the federal appellate bench clerked for a court of appeals judge — as compared to less than 38 percent of Obama’s pre-reform judges. One immediate impact of filibuster reform, in other words, is that it made it far easier for nominees with elite credentials to become federal judges.
Here’s why: In the pre-reform Senate, a sterling résumé was often a liability for a judicial nominee because it flagged the nominee as a potential candidate for a future Supreme Court appointment. Both parties can tell stories of fallen martyrs, like George W. Bush nominee Miguel Estrada or Obama nominee Goodwin Liu, whose immaculate résumés painted a target on their backs. Both Estrada and Liu fell to filibusters.
By filibustering plausible Supreme Court nominees before they got on the bench in the first place, the opposition party could diminish the governing party’s pool of potential justices and make it harder for the governing party to find an ideologically reliable Supreme Court nominee when the time came.
But filibuster reform did not just improve the quality of nominees’ résumés. It also cleared the path for known ideologues to join the bench. And it appears to be altering how many sitting judges behave.
As the 2016 election drew nigh, then-10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch looked like he was openly campaigning for a promotion. During this period, the Federalist Society grew increasingly obsessed with limiting the power of federal agencies to create binding regulations — an agenda that could hobble government bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Gorsuch signaled his loyalty to this anti-regulatory agenda by writing gratuitous opinions laying out new limits he hoped to impose on federal agencies. In one case, Gorsuch even attached a separate concurring opinion to his own majority opinion.
As David Kaplan reports in The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court’s Assault on the Constitution, one of these anti-regulatory opinions “proved decisive in clinching” the Trump White House’s decision to name Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch’s opinions, according to Kaplan, were “a way for Gorsuch to call attention to himself, and it worked.”
When I speak to judges, I often hear them use a derisive term to describe this kind of behavior: “auditioning.” In a world without the filibuster, ambitious judges have less to fear from the opposition party. So they have every incentive to audition for the job that they want. After all, the best way to win the prize that Gorsuch captured for himself is to catch the eye of the Federalist Society and its adherents.
The future of the judiciary favors Republicans
While Trump has been very successful at filling the bench with brilliant Republican partisans, a Democratic president is unlikely to enjoy similar success.
A badly malapportioned Senate means that to get even a bare majority in the Senate, Democrats have to win commanding popular vote majorities — and if Democrats don’t control the Senate, Democratic nominees could face the Merrick Garland treatment. Just look at the last two years of the Obama presidency if you want to know how a Republican Senate is likely to treat Democratic judicial nominees.
Even if Democrats do overcome the odds to capture a majority, moreover, the balance of power is likely to be held by red-state Democrats who could be vulnerable to pressure from conservative interest groups hoping to keep Democratic nominees off the bench.
In other words, it’ll be a long, long time before Democrats can undo the work Trump and the Republicans have done to turn the judiciary rightward.
In the early months of the Trump presidency, so-called “Never Trump” Republicans often directed a derisive phrase against Trump supporters: “But Gorsuch.” It was a taunt that mocked the idea that it was worth selling your soul to a manifestly unfit TV celebrity who has been accused of sexual assault and misconduct by more than a dozen women in order to keep control of the courts.
But, as conservative columnist Hugh Hewitt wrote in 2018, “this bit of childish taunting always struck me as an unknowing admission of ignorance about the role assumed by the Supreme Court in modern American governance.” Certainly, McConnell understood this role. It’s why he was willing to use any means necessary to ensure Republican control of the judiciary.
The truth is, by worshipping at the altar of Trump, Republicans haven’t simply ensured conservative dominance of one branch of government. They may have entrenched conservative governance for decades.


vox--2020-02-04--Man arrested for threatening Adam Schiff was likely under the influence of Fox News

A 52-year-old Arizona resident accused of leaving a death threat on the voicemail of Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff was likely angry about something he had just seen on Fox News , according to a recent court document .
Jan Peter Meister allegedly called Schiff ’ s office on October 1 , the same day President Donald Trump had called for Schiff to be arrested for treason .
Schiff was one of the leading prosecutors in the impeachment proceedings against the president .
Court filings make clear that Meister has a lot of issues .
He ’ s a registered sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the threats in a drunken stupor .
And officers say that when they arrested him two days after the incident , “ he smelled of alcohol , cursed at agents , and stated , ‘ fuck [ Adam Schiff ] .
” Fox News isn ’ t the only variable at play in Meister ’ s alleged behavior .
Still , the episode illustrates how the network ’ s coverage of Trump ’ s remarks , including the most incendiary , has the potential for real-world consequences .
( Fox News didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment . )
Meister ’ s alleged threat came as Trump was upping his ugliness toward Schiff Meister allegedly placed the call to Schiff ’ s congressional office on October 1 and went on a profanity-filled tirade that included him threatening to “ blow your brains out.
” Following an investigation , Meister was arrested on October 3 .
He was indicted on October 23 on a host of charges , including illegal possession of a number of firearms .
Meister is pleading not guilty to all the charges .
Now , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers representing Meister say the threatening voicemail was likely influenced by something he saw on Fox News .
From the filing , which was first reported by the Informant : In short , Meister appears to have bought what Fox News has been selling .
As chair of the Intelligence Committee , Schiff played a leading role in Democratic efforts to start investigating the Ukraine scandal in earnest last September .
As he did so , Trump dramatically escalated his attacks , demeaning Schiff at various points as “ a sick man , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ lowlife , ” and calling on him to resign from Congress and “ be investigated.
” Trump escalated things even further on September 29 , saying Schiff should be “ questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason ” ( Schiff had paraphrased Trump ’ s comments to the Ukrainian president in an unflattering light during a congressional hearing ) .
Then , on both September 30 and October 1 , Trump came right up to the brink of calling for Schiff to be arrested — tweets that capped off a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his most bizarre tweets to date .
As I detailed back then , Fox News at that time was somewhat split between network personalities who seemed to be taking the Ukraine scandal seriously and those who continued to bash Trump ’ s opponents and push conspiracy theories aimed at exonerating him .
Top-rated primetime host Sean Hannity , for instance , amplified Trump ’ s authoritarian and extrajudicial threats .
Court filings don ’ t indicate which specific segment motivated Meister ’ s threat .
But the general approach Fox News has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his enemies gives you a sense of how they fan the flames of resentment .
At a rally last March , for instance , Trump debuted a new smear of Schiff , calling him “ Little pencil-neck Adam Schiff ” — comments that I noted at the time represented a new low for Trump .
Fox News covered Trump ’ s insult with an article that made it seem as though it was somehow justified by his frustrations over the Russia investigation , and even provided free promotion for shirts the Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile , Fox News ’ s on-air personalities had a laugh over Trump ’ s crude insults , with America ’ s Newsroom anchor Julie Banderas saying , “ I ’ m sorry , that was funny.
” The day before Meister ’ s arrest , Fox News published a piece about one of Trump ’ s baseless attacks on Schiff that framed it as though it were true .
“ Trump says Schiff ‘ helped write ’ whistleblower complaint , after House panel admits advance knowledge , ” the headline says — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff did any such thing .
Two days before Meister allegedly placed his threatening phone call to Schiff , Trump amplified commentary made on Fox News by Pastor Robert Jeffress that threatened the outbreak of civil war if Democrats succeeded in impeaching him .
And things haven ’ t improved much in the months since then .
Just last month , for instance , I wrote about how Trump ’ s first rally of 2020 featured insults of Schiff that were like a parody of a playground bully .
“ You little pencil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his audience in Toledo to break out in wild cheers .
“ He has the smallest shirt collar you can get , and it is loose.
” Trump ’ s comments were undeniably distasteful , but Fox News covered them online as though they were normal and glorified them on the air by following Trump ’ s lead and mocking Schiff ’ s physical appearance .
In a Politico report about Meister ’ s arrest , Kyle Cheney and Andrew Desiderio write that the situation serves as “ a harrowing example of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials ” amid the impeachment process .
This isn ’ t the first time Trump ’ s rhetoric has been connected with threats his fans have made against his enemies in politics or the media .
But the specific circumstances surrounding Meister ’ s arrest allude to the danger involved in the country ’ s top-rated cable network normalizing the president ’ s rhetorical excesses .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

A 52-year-old Arizona resident accused of leaving a death threat on the voicemail of Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff was likely angry about something he had just seen on Fox News, according to a recent court document.
Jan Peter Meister allegedly called Schiff’s office on October 1, the same day President Donald Trump had called for Schiff to be arrested for treason. Schiff was one of the leading prosecutors in the impeachment proceedings against the president.
Court filings make clear that Meister has a lot of issues. He’s a registered sex offender. His lawyers said he made the threats in a drunken stupor. And officers say that when they arrested him two days after the incident, “he smelled of alcohol, cursed at agents, and stated, ‘fuck [Adam Schiff].” Fox News isn’t the only variable at play in Meister’s alleged behavior.
Still, the episode illustrates how the network’s coverage of Trump’s remarks, including the most incendiary, has the potential for real-world consequences. (Fox News didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.)
Meister’s alleged threat came as Trump was upping his ugliness toward Schiff
Meister allegedly placed the call to Schiff’s congressional office on October 1 and went on a profanity-filled tirade that included him threatening to “blow your brains out.”
A court filing provides some details:
Following an investigation, Meister was arrested on October 3. He was indicted on October 23 on a host of charges, including illegal possession of a number of firearms.
Meister is pleading not guilty to all the charges. Now, in a court filing filed last Friday, lawyers representing Meister say the threatening voicemail was likely influenced by something he saw on Fox News.
From the filing, which was first reported by the Informant:
Agents explained [to investigators] that the call was to Congressman Adam Schiff. MEISTER responded that he watches Fox News and likely was upset at something that he saw on the news. He stated that he strongly dislikes the Democrats, and feels they are to blame for the country’s political issues.
In short, Meister appears to have bought what Fox News has been selling.
Fox News normalizes Trump’s abusive language
As chair of the Intelligence Committee, Schiff played a leading role in Democratic efforts to start investigating the Ukraine scandal in earnest last September. As he did so, Trump dramatically escalated his attacks, demeaning Schiff at various points as “a sick man,” “Liddle,’” and “lowlife,” and calling on him to resign from Congress and “be investigated.”
Trump escalated things even further on September 29, saying Schiff should be “questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason” (Schiff had paraphrased Trump’s comments to the Ukrainian president in an unflattering light during a congressional hearing). Then, on both September 30 and October 1, Trump came right up to the brink of calling for Schiff to be arrested — tweets that capped off a week in which Trump posted some of his most bizarre tweets to date.
Why isn’t Congressman Adam Schiff being brought up on charges for fraudulently making up a statement and reading it to Congress as if this statement, which was very dishonest and bad for me, was directly made by the President of the United States? This should never be allowed! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 1, 2019
As I detailed back then, Fox News at that time was somewhat split between network personalities who seemed to be taking the Ukraine scandal seriously and those who continued to bash Trump’s opponents and push conspiracy theories aimed at exonerating him. Top-rated primetime host Sean Hannity, for instance, amplified Trump’s authoritarian and extrajudicial threats.
TRUMP: “He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason...” https://t.co/pVMWzkiKx0 — Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) September 30, 2019
Court filings don’t indicate which specific segment motivated Meister’s threat. But the general approach Fox News has taken to covering Trump’s attacks on his enemies gives you a sense of how they fan the flames of resentment.
At a rally last March, for instance, Trump debuted a new smear of Schiff, calling him “Little pencil-neck Adam Schiff” — comments that I noted at the time represented a new low for Trump. Fox News covered Trump’s insult with an article that made it seem as though it was somehow justified by his frustrations over the Russia investigation, and even provided free promotion for shirts the Trump campaign was selling to profit on it.
Meanwhile, Fox News’s on-air personalities had a laugh over Trump’s crude insults, with America’s Newsroom anchor Julie Banderas saying, “I’m sorry, that was funny.”
The day before Meister’s arrest, Fox News published a piece about one of Trump’s baseless attacks on Schiff that framed it as though it were true.
“Trump says Schiff ‘helped write’ whistleblower complaint, after House panel admits advance knowledge,” the headline says — even though there’s no evidence Schiff did any such thing.
Two days before Meister allegedly placed his threatening phone call to Schiff, Trump amplified commentary made on Fox News by Pastor Robert Jeffress that threatened the outbreak of civil war if Democrats succeeded in impeaching him.
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019
And things haven’t improved much in the months since then. Just last month, for instance, I wrote about how Trump’s first rally of 2020 featured insults of Schiff that were like a parody of a playground bully.
“You little pencil neck,” Trump said, prompting his audience in Toledo to break out in wild cheers. “He has the smallest shirt collar you can get, and it is loose.”
"We've got him lined up Adam! You little pencil neck. He has the smallest shirt collar you can get, and it is loose." -- Trump heaps abuse on Adam Schiff while mocking him for demanding congressional oversight of military strikes pic.twitter.com/nXyrw13r2C — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020
Trump’s comments were undeniably distasteful, but Fox News covered them online as though they were normal and glorified them on the air by following Trump’s lead and mocking Schiff’s physical appearance.
Here's @greggutfeld turning Trump's crude insults of Adam Schiff into a punchline during an insanely distasteful segment of his Fox News show last month pic.twitter.com/8A0AJ7esU6 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 4, 2020
In a Politico report about Meister’s arrest, Kyle Cheney and Andrew Desiderio write that the situation serves as “a harrowing example of the routine threats facing high-profile lawmakers and other officials” amid the impeachment process.
Schiff, along with at least some of the other six House Democrats prosecuting the case against Trump, has been seen with permanent police details in recent months as he walks through the Capitol complex.
This isn’t the first time Trump’s rhetoric has been connected with threats his fans have made against his enemies in politics or the media. But the specific circumstances surrounding Meister’s arrest allude to the danger involved in the country’s top-rated cable network normalizing the president’s rhetorical excesses.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-02-04--Democratic women are once again wearing all white to the State of the Union

This year ’ s State of the Union comes at a particularly contentious time : in the midst of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
During this fraught political moment , Democratic women arrived to the event in all-white attire , continuing their streak of using color-coordinated outfits to send a striking visual message to the president .
This year ’ s suffragist white dress code is intended to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment , which was ratified in 1920 to grant white women the right to vote .
Like last year , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ERA Yes !
” button to endorse the renewed effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment , which would enshrine equality between men and women into the US Constitution .
While the State of the Union is essentially a speech , it ’ s also a form of political theater — something CNN described last year as “ irresistible prime-time drama.
” For Democrats , the event has been an opportunity to highlight their opposition to the administration without explicitly saying so .
For the previous three years , women lawmakers have made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the 2017 joint congressional address and 2019 State of the Union , legislators also wore white to highlight women ’ s issues .
The all-white attire was especially stark in 2019 , given the large number of first-time congresswomen present .
In 2018 , women wore black to demonstrate their solidarity with the Me Too movement , in addition to a red “ Recy ” pin to commemorate the life of civil rights activist Recy Taylor .
Taylor , who died in December 2017 , was kidnapped and raped in 1944 by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison for their crimes .
Despite the organized outfit campaign , some Democratic lawmakers decided to entirely boycott the speech this year .
Hours before the address , Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Ayanna Pressley , Maxine Waters , and several others announced they would not attend .
“ The State of the Union is as much a media event as it is a speech , ” said Suzanne Leonard , a Simmons College professor and director of the graduate program in gender and cultural studies , in an interview with Vox .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a national event , present their dissent without words .
I would argue that these coordinated colors and fashions are speaking back to the president ’ s verbal language in their own way , with a visual language.
” Trump ’ s dissenters , especially women , have adopted visual cues to express resistance to the administration ’ s policies , Leonard added .
They ’ ve often organized specific fashion moments for public events — from pussyhats to “ It ’ s Mueller time ” T-shirts to synchronized State of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the televised event .
Long before Trump ’ s presidency , television was a medium he dominated .
From acting cameos to his reality show The Apprentice , TV has fundamentally shaped Trump ’ s public persona and professional life ; he understands that certain elements of drama and outrage , even in a political setting , make for spectacular television .
In the lead-up to the Senate impeachment trial , Politico reported that Trump was fixated on how his defense team would perform not just in front of senators , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The State of the Union is Trump ’ s biggest televised speech of the year , where he ’ s in his element , front and center .
One of the few things out of his control is what other people are wearing .
For Democratic lawmakers to coordinate their dress is , as Leonard explains , “ a savvy way to signify dissent without words , ” made even more significant the fourth time around .

This year’s State of the Union comes at a particularly contentious time: in the midst of the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. During this fraught political moment, Democratic women arrived to the event in all-white attire, continuing their streak of using color-coordinated outfits to send a striking visual message to the president.
This year’s suffragist white dress code is intended to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which was ratified in 1920 to grant American women the right to vote. Like last year, some congresswomen have also donned a green “ERA Yes!” button to endorse the renewed effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, which would enshrine equality between men and women into the US Constitution.
We’re ready in our suffragette white for tonight’s State of the Union. #WomenUnited pic.twitter.com/prl9Gz1Nqs — Rep. Debbie Dingell (@RepDebDingell) February 4, 2020
While the State of the Union is essentially a speech, it’s also a form of political theater — something CNN described last year as “irresistible prime-time drama.” For Democrats, the event has been an opportunity to highlight their opposition to the administration without explicitly saying so.
For the previous three years, women lawmakers have made political statements with their outfits. During both the 2017 joint congressional address and 2019 State of the Union, legislators also wore white to highlight women’s issues. The all-white attire was especially stark in 2019, given the large number of first-time congresswomen present.
In 2018, women wore black to demonstrate their solidarity with the Me Too movement, in addition to a red “Recy” pin to commemorate the life of civil rights activist Recy Taylor. Taylor, who died in December 2017, was kidnapped and raped in 1944 by six white men who never went to prison for their crimes.
Despite the organized outfit campaign, some Democratic lawmakers decided to entirely boycott the speech this year. Hours before the address, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Maxine Waters, and several others announced they would not attend.
The State of the Union is hurting because of the occupant of the White House, who consistently demonstrates contempt for the American people, contempt for Congress & contempt for our constitution. I cannot in good conscience attend tonight's sham #SOTU → https://t.co/DTwG3Y7dK3 pic.twitter.com/Hres8eAFkK — Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) February 4, 2020
“The State of the Union is as much a media event as it is a speech,” said Suzanne Leonard, a Simmons College professor and director of the graduate program in gender and cultural studies, in an interview with Vox. “It’s the ability to, during a national event, present their dissent without words. I would argue that these coordinated colors and fashions are speaking back to the president’s verbal language in their own way, with a visual language.”
Trump’s dissenters, especially women, have adopted visual cues to express resistance to the administration’s policies, Leonard added. They’ve often organized specific fashion moments for public events — from pussyhats to “It’s Mueller time” T-shirts to synchronized State of the Union looks, which can be seen during the televised event.
Long before Trump’s presidency, television was a medium he dominated. From acting cameos to his reality show The Apprentice, TV has fundamentally shaped Trump’s public persona and professional life; he understands that certain elements of drama and outrage, even in a political setting, make for spectacular television. In the lead-up to the Senate impeachment trial, Politico reported that Trump was fixated on how his defense team would perform not just in front of senators, but to the American audience watching at home.
The State of the Union is Trump’s biggest televised speech of the year, where he’s in his element, front and center. One of the few things out of his control is what other people are wearing. For Democratic lawmakers to coordinate their dress is, as Leonard explains, “a savvy way to signify dissent without words,” made even more significant the fourth time around.
Correction: The article erroneously wrote that the 19th Amendment granted white women the right to vote. The amendment ensured that all American citizens, regardless of gender, could vote.


vox--2020-02-04--Neither Susan Collins nor Lisa Murkowski will be voting to convict Trump

Less that one day out from the final vote in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , we now know that almost every Republican is expected to acquit him .
It ’ s an outcome that ’ s long been a foregone conclusion , though House Democrats had hoped to sway at least one Republican to vote in favor of conviction on the two articles .
Sens .
Susan Collins ( R-ME ) and Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) announced this week that they would both be voting for acquittal , leaving Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t announced which way he ’ ll go .
Romney and Collins , previously , were the only two Republicans who voted to call more witnesses for the impeachment trial .
Collins and Murkowski both gave similar rationales for their decisions : They agreed that Trump had acted improperly by conditioning military aid to Ukraine on the announcement of political investigations , but they didn ’ t see these actions — or his attempt to obstruct Congress ’ s investigation into those actions — rising to the level of an impeachable offense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has met its burden of showing that the president ’ s conduct , however flawed , warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office , ” Collins said .
The two moderates are among several other Republicans — including Sens .
Lamar Alexander and Rob Portman — who ’ ve acknowledged Trump ’ s wrongdoing but stopped short of supporting his removal .
“ That both Republican senators such as myself and Democratic senators have criticized his conduct strikes me as a reprimand , ” Collins argued , suggesting that she thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Romney , who ’ s been a vocal critic of Trump ’ s behavior since the early news broke about his calls on Ukraine for political investigations , is now Democrats ’ only hope for a bipartisan impeachment vote on Wednesday afternoon .
The House vote on the articles last year didn ’ t include any Republicans , either .
And Senate Democrats may see some potential defections of their own .
Sens .
Joe Manchin , Kyrsten Sinema , and Doug Jones are the most closely watched swing votes on Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will cast their final votes on the two articles of impeachment at 4 pm Eastern on Wednesday afternoon .

Less that one day out from the final vote in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, we now know that almost every Republican is expected to acquit him.
It’s an outcome that’s long been a foregone conclusion, though House Democrats had hoped to sway at least one Republican to vote in favor of conviction on the two articles. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) announced this week that they would both be voting for acquittal, leaving Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) as the lone swing Republican who hasn’t announced which way he’ll go. Romney and Collins, previously, were the only two Republicans who voted to call more witnesses for the impeachment trial.
Collins and Murkowski both gave similar rationales for their decisions: They agreed that Trump had acted improperly by conditioning military aid to Ukraine on the announcement of political investigations, but they didn’t see these actions — or his attempt to obstruct Congress’s investigation into those actions — rising to the level of an impeachable offense.
“I do not believe the House has met its burden of showing that the president’s conduct, however flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office,” Collins said.
The two moderates are among several other Republicans — including Sens. Lamar Alexander and Rob Portman — who’ve acknowledged Trump’s wrongdoing but stopped short of supporting his removal. “That both Republican senators such as myself and Democratic senators have criticized his conduct strikes me as a reprimand,” Collins argued, suggesting that she thinks the president had learned from this experience.
Romney, who’s been a vocal critic of Trump’s behavior since the early news broke about his calls on Ukraine for political investigations, is now Democrats’ only hope for a bipartisan impeachment vote on Wednesday afternoon. The House vote on the articles last year didn’t include any Republicans, either. And Senate Democrats may see some potential defections of their own. Sens. Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Doug Jones are the most closely watched swing votes on Democrats’ side of the aisle.
Senators will cast their final votes on the two articles of impeachment at 4 pm Eastern on Wednesday afternoon.


vox--2020-02-04--Trump’s State of the Union address: How to watch and what to expect

President Trump will deliver his State of the Union address on Tuesday , February 4 , at 9 pm ET in the Capitol .
The speech comes just one day after the Iowa caucuses and in the midst of the president ’ s impeachment trial , promising to make it an especially fraught event .
Trump will likely use this occasion to focus on his reelection campaign , emphasizing his achievements — like low unemployment rates and a pair of new trade deals — rather than his grievances .
Senior officials in his administration say he plans to avoid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expected to end in acquittal .
Delivering a State of the Union amid impeachment drama is not without precedent : In 1999 , President Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union address within hours of his lawyers defending him at his impeachment trial .
Clinton didn ’ t talk about the trial hanging over his head ; instead , he rhapsodized about the booming economy and budget surplus .
If Trump can do the same , resisting the temptation to lash out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other impeachment-effort leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SOTU speech to appeal to millions of Americans watching from home as they prepare to cast their ballots in the primaries .
But Democrats have already got their response lined up .
Gretchen Whitmer , the first-term governor of Michigan , and Veronica Escobar , a freshman Congress member representing El Paso , Texas , will deliver a rebuttal .
Whitmer will speak in English , followed by Escobar in Spanish .
Expect them to lambast Trump ’ s policies on immigration , among other issues .
It ’ s the last SOTU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s got a lot to talk about .
Because SOTU falls the night after the Iowa caucuses , Trump was expected to go into this address with a slightly clearer sense of which Democratic candidates he ’ ll need to focus on beating in order to win a second term ( and maybe have a few choice words for the frontrunners ) .
Early on Tuesday , however , there were no official Iowa results to be had .
He will almost certainly boast about the health of the US economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Economic Forum in Davos , he credited himself with “ an economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen before.
” ( In truth , the economy grew at a 2.3 percent rate in 2019 , the slowest rate since 2016 . )
And he ’ ll want to talk about the United States Mexico Canada Agreement , the new trade deal he just signed as a replacement for NAFTA .
Getting that done was one of the promises of his 2016 presidential campaign , and he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achievement as he heads into the 2020 election .
Likewise , odds are he ’ ll hype the trade deal he signed with China in January , which he ’ s said will bring the US and China closer together in many ways .
Trump will also likely mention the Wuhan coronavirus , which has spread from China to nearly 20 countries , including the US .
The World Health Organization has declared the coronavirus a global health emergency , and it has sparked fears of a potential global pandemic .
Some senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year so it wouldn ’ t butt up against the impeachment proceedings .
“ I think it would be awkward to have the State of the Union in the midst of such a trial , ” said Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) .
But it ’ s happening anyway .
With so many issues coalescing around the president at once , and coming a day after the Iowa caucuses and in the wake of the impeachment drama , this year ’ s SOTU is bound to be more interesting , and potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or livestream : ABC , CBS , C-SPAN , NBC , and other major outlets

President Trump will deliver his State of the Union address on Tuesday, February 4, at 9 pm ET in the Capitol. The speech comes just one day after the Iowa caucuses and in the midst of the president’s impeachment trial, promising to make it an especially fraught event.
Trump will likely use this occasion to focus on his reelection campaign, emphasizing his achievements — like low unemployment rates and a pair of new trade deals — rather than his grievances. Senior officials in his administration say he plans to avoid the topic of his impeachment trial, which is expected to end in acquittal.
Delivering a State of the Union amid impeachment drama is not without precedent: In 1999, President Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union address within hours of his lawyers defending him at his impeachment trial. Clinton didn’t talk about the trial hanging over his head; instead, he rhapsodized about the booming economy and budget surplus.
If Trump can do the same, resisting the temptation to lash out at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other impeachment-effort leaders in attendance, he can leverage the SOTU speech to appeal to millions of Americans watching from home as they prepare to cast their ballots in the primaries.
But Democrats have already got their response lined up. Gretchen Whitmer, the first-term governor of Michigan, and Veronica Escobar, a freshman Congress member representing El Paso, Texas, will deliver a rebuttal. Whitmer will speak in English, followed by Escobar in Spanish. Expect them to lambast Trump’s policies on immigration, among other issues.
It’s the last SOTU address of Trump’s term. He’s got a lot to talk about.
Because SOTU falls the night after the Iowa caucuses, Trump was expected to go into this address with a slightly clearer sense of which Democratic candidates he’ll need to focus on beating in order to win a second term (and maybe have a few choice words for the frontrunners). Early on Tuesday, however, there were no official Iowa results to be had.
He will almost certainly boast about the health of the US economy under his leadership. At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, he credited himself with “an economic boom the likes of which the world has never seen before.” (In truth, the economy grew at a 2.3 percent rate in 2019, the slowest rate since 2016.)
And he’ll want to talk about the United States Mexico Canada Agreement, the new trade deal he just signed as a replacement for NAFTA. Getting that done was one of the promises of his 2016 presidential campaign, and he’ll probably point to it as a major achievement as he heads into the 2020 election.
Likewise, odds are he’ll hype the trade deal he signed with China in January, which he’s said will bring the US and China closer together in many ways.
Trump will also likely mention the Wuhan coronavirus, which has spread from China to nearly 20 countries, including the US. The World Health Organization has declared the coronavirus a global health emergency, and it has sparked fears of a potential global pandemic.
Some senators voiced a wish to reschedule SOTU this year so it wouldn’t butt up against the impeachment proceedings. “I think it would be awkward to have the State of the Union in the midst of such a trial,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).
But it’s happening anyway. With so many issues coalescing around the president at once, and coming a day after the Iowa caucuses and in the wake of the impeachment drama, this year’s SOTU is bound to be more interesting, and potentially raucous, than normal.
When to watch: 9 pm Eastern time
Where: The Capitol, Washington, DC
On TV or livestream: ABC, CBS, C-SPAN, NBC, and other major outlets


vox--2020-02-04--A brief guide to the State of the Union guests

For a preview of President Donald Trump ’ s message heading into his 2020 reelection campaign , just look at the guests he has invited to the State of the Union Tuesday .
From US Border Patrol Deputy Chief Raul Ortiz to contractor Paul Morrow , Trump ’ s invitees will allow him to tout some of his prized policy priorities — namely , border security , immigration , and economic growth .
The State of the Union guests have long been used to send a political message , and this year is certainly no different .
Democrats , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement : They are bringing more than 80 patients , physicians , and activists to illustrate their commitment to defending voters ’ health care .
Trump ’ s State of the Union speech comes the night before the Senate is scheduled to vote on his conviction or acquittal of two articles of impeachment , timing that has Republican lawmakers hoping he doesn ’ t use the opportunity to draw attention to the trial .
His guest list , thus far , doesn ’ t yet nod to these ongoing proceedings .
With this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return to some of the themes he ’ s hewed to ever since he declared his candidacy .
Several of the president ’ s guests underscore the recurring emphasis he ’ s put on border security and curbing unauthorized immigration .
Raul Ortiz : Ortiz is the recently promoted deputy chief of the US Border Patrol .
He now holds the second-highest role in the agency , which is tasked with enforcing Trump ’ s policies on apprehending immigrants at the border and separating families .
Ortiz is also a US Army veteran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Central Texas .
Jody Jones : Jones ’ s brother Rocky was killed by an unauthorized immigrant , who had previously been convicted of other criminal charges , in Tulare County , California .
Jones has called for greater accountability of unauthorized immigrants who have committed crimes in the past , a call that Trump has also repeatedly emphasized when he ’ s made the case for curbing immigration .
Stephanie and Janiyah Davis : Stephanie and Janiyah , the White House says , were negatively affected by Pennsylvania ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could receive when they contribute to scholarships for private schools .
Stephanie is an advocate for school choice , a priority the White House has championed as well .
Kelli and Gage Hake : Kelli ’ s husband and Gage ’ s father , Staff Sgt .
Christopher Hake , was killed by a roadside bomb while serving in Iraq .
The White House alleges that his death was tied to weapons provided by Iranian leader Qassem Soleimani , whom Trump had assassinated earlier this year via a drone strike .
Tony Rankins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who served in Afghanistan who has struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder .
He ’ s since received construction training and works in an Opportunity Zone in Cincinnati , Ohio .
In Opportunity Zones , first established by the 2017 Republican tax bill , businesses and individuals receive tax breaks in exchange for their investment in lower-income areas , a method that hasn ’ t exactly been found to improve economic growth .
Paul Morrow : Morrow is a contractor currently building a concrete plant in an Opportunity Zone in Montgomery , Alabama .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ born prematurely at 21 weeks and six days and is now 2 years old .
The White House is highlighting her health as an example of the efficacy of medical care in the US .
Ivan Simonovis : Simonovis is a formerly imprisoned Venezuelan law enforcement official .
The Trump administration has previously backed the Venezuela opposition led by Juan Guaidó .
In 2018 , Democrats campaigned on protecting people ’ s health care — and they won , taking back a majority in the House and flipping two Senate seats .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it appears they intend to focus on a similar message , particularly as a challenge to the Affordable Care Act winds its way through the courts .
Health care : More than 80 Democrats will be bringing guests that speak to different aspects of health care policy including Kim Cesarek , a breast cancer patient ; Bakari Burns , CEO of Health Care Center for the Homeless ; and California surgeon general Nadine Burke Harris .
Democrats are eager to highlight the legislation they ’ ve passed that would maintain protections for individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices .
Sexual assault : Courtney Wild , one of the women who have accused Jeffrey Epstein of abusing them as minors , will be the guest of Rep. Jackie Speier , who has long championed policies to combat sexual assault .
Speier has introduced a bill called the Courtney Wild Crime Victims ’ Rights Reform Act that would strengthen protections for victims as they use the judicial process to assert their case .
Gender equity : Virginia Del .
Jennifer Carroll Foy , a lawmaker who ’ s been integral in advancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Equal Rights Amendment , will be the guest of Rep. Carolyn Maloney .
Presently , it ’ s up to Congress to decide if it intends to extend the ratification deadline of the ERA , which had expired decades earlier .
Foreign policy : Hatice Cengiz , the fiancée of murdered Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi , will be the guest of Rep. Gerry Connolly .
“ Saudi Arabia must be held accountable for the murder of this loving father and fiancé , respected journalist , US resident , my constituent , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
Immigration : DACA recipient Maria Rocha will be the guest of Rep. Joaquín Castro , and Ismail Alghazali , a New York City resident who was separated from his family by the Trump travel ban , will be the guest of Rep. Judy Chu .
Gun control : Activist Andrea Chamblee , the widow of John McNamara , a Capital Gazette journalist who was killed in the Annapolis shooting in 2018 , will be the guest of Sen. Chris Van Hollen .

For a preview of President Donald Trump’s message heading into his 2020 reelection campaign, just look at the guests he has invited to the State of the Union Tuesday.
From US Border Patrol Deputy Chief Raul Ortiz to contractor Paul Morrow, Trump’s invitees will allow him to tout some of his prized policy priorities — namely, border security, immigration, and economic growth.
The State of the Union guests have long been used to send a political message, and this year is certainly no different. Democrats, too, will be focused on making a statement: They are bringing more than 80 patients, physicians, and activists to illustrate their commitment to defending voters’ health care.
Trump’s State of the Union speech comes the night before the Senate is scheduled to vote on his conviction or acquittal of two articles of impeachment, timing that has Republican lawmakers hoping he doesn’t use the opportunity to draw attention to the trial.
His guest list, thus far, doesn’t yet nod to these ongoing proceedings.
Trump’s guests hint at a heavy focus on immigration
With this annual platform, Trump is expected to return to some of the themes he’s hewed to ever since he declared his candidacy. Several of the president’s guests underscore the recurring emphasis he’s put on border security and curbing unauthorized immigration.
Raul Ortiz: Ortiz is the recently promoted deputy chief of the US Border Patrol. He now holds the second-highest role in the agency, which is tasked with enforcing Trump’s policies on apprehending immigrants at the border and separating families. Ortiz is also a US Army veteran and previously oversaw border patrol operations in South Central Texas.
Jody Jones: Jones’s brother Rocky was killed by an unauthorized immigrant, who had previously been convicted of other criminal charges, in Tulare County, California. Jones has called for greater accountability of unauthorized immigrants who have committed crimes in the past, a call that Trump has also repeatedly emphasized when he’s made the case for curbing immigration.
Stephanie and Janiyah Davis: Stephanie and Janiyah, the White House says, were negatively affected by Pennsylvania’s decision not to increase the tax credits donors could receive when they contribute to scholarships for private schools. Stephanie is an advocate for school choice, a priority the White House has championed as well.
Kelli and Gage Hake: Kelli’s husband and Gage’s father, Staff Sgt. Christopher Hake, was killed by a roadside bomb while serving in Iraq. The White House alleges that his death was tied to weapons provided by Iranian leader Qassem Soleimani, whom Trump had assassinated earlier this year via a drone strike.
Tony Rankins: Rankins is a US Army veteran who served in Afghanistan who has struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder. He’s since received construction training and works in an Opportunity Zone in Cincinnati, Ohio. In Opportunity Zones, first established by the 2017 Republican tax bill, businesses and individuals receive tax breaks in exchange for their investment in lower-income areas, a method that hasn’t exactly been found to improve economic growth.
Paul Morrow: Morrow is a contractor currently building a concrete plant in an Opportunity Zone in Montgomery, Alabama.
Robin and Ellie Schneider: Ellie was born prematurely at 21 weeks and six days and is now 2 years old. The White House is highlighting her health as an example of the efficacy of medical care in the US.
Ivan Simonovis: Simonovis is a formerly imprisoned Venezuelan law enforcement official. The Trump administration has previously backed the Venezuela opposition led by Juan Guaidó.
Democrats aim to send a strong message on health care
In 2018, Democrats campaigned on protecting people’s health care — and they won, taking back a majority in the House and flipping two Senate seats. With the presidential election looming this fall, it appears they intend to focus on a similar message, particularly as a challenge to the Affordable Care Act winds its way through the courts.
Health care: More than 80 Democrats will be bringing guests that speak to different aspects of health care policy including Kim Cesarek, a breast cancer patient; Bakari Burns, CEO of Health Care Center for the Homeless; and California surgeon general Nadine Burke Harris.
Democrats are eager to highlight the legislation they’ve passed that would maintain protections for individuals with preexisting conditions and reduce prescription drug prices.
Sexual assault: Courtney Wild, one of the women who have accused Jeffrey Epstein of abusing them as minors, will be the guest of Rep. Jackie Speier, who has long championed policies to combat sexual assault. Speier has introduced a bill called the Courtney Wild Crime Victims’ Rights Reform Act that would strengthen protections for victims as they use the judicial process to assert their case.
Gender equity: Virginia Del. Jennifer Carroll Foy, a lawmaker who’s been integral in advancing the state’s ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, will be the guest of Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Presently, it’s up to Congress to decide if it intends to extend the ratification deadline of the ERA, which had expired decades earlier.
Foreign policy: Hatice Cengiz, the fiancée of murdered Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, will be the guest of Rep. Gerry Connolly. “Saudi Arabia must be held accountable for the murder of this loving father and fiancé, respected journalist, US resident, my constituent, and reformer,” Connolly said in a statement.
Immigration: DACA recipient Maria Rocha will be the guest of Rep. Joaquín Castro, and Ismail Alghazali, a New York City resident who was separated from his family by the Trump travel ban, will be the guest of Rep. Judy Chu.
Gun control: Activist Andrea Chamblee, the widow of John McNamara, a Capital Gazette journalist who was killed in the Annapolis shooting in 2018, will be the guest of Sen. Chris Van Hollen.


vox--2020-02-04--Disney+ is up to 28.6 million subscribers

Baby Yoda + lots of Disney , Pixar , and Marvel movies = 28.6 million subscribers in three months .
That ’ s the headline from Disney ’ s newest earnings numbers , which highlighted the initial success of its Disney+ streaming service .
That ’ s the company ’ s very expensive bet that it can go head to head with the likes of Netflix , Apple , and HBO in the newly launched streaming wars .
So far , so good : Wall Street and analysts had expected Disney to report that it had signed up at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has a list price of $ 6 a month but is available at discounted rates , or for free , with different limited-time promotions .
( Disney ’ s earnings release , which came out Tuesday afternoon , reported that the company had signed up 26.5 million subscribers by the end of December 2019 ; in the company ’ s subsequent earnings call , Disney CEO Bob Iger updated those numbers and said the company had signed up 28.6 million people through Monday , February 3 . )
This is the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streaming service since the day after it launched , on November 12 ; Disney said then that it had signed up 10 million users for the service .
By contrast , Netflix has 167 million paying subscribers worldwide and 61 million in the US .
Apple , meanwhile , launched its Apple TV+ service a few days before Disney but has not disclosed any user numbers .
Disney+ has been primarily marketed to Americans , though it is also available in Canada , the Netherlands , Australia , and New Zealand .
Later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Netflix will be joined by AT & T ’ s WarnerMedia , which is launching HBO Max , and Comcast , which is launching Peacock .
Other entrants in the fight include Amazon and Quibi , an upcoming service from Hollywood veteran Jeffrey Katzenberg that will only be available on mobile phones .
All of the services differ in content and tactics .
Most want to sell themselves directly to consumers for a monthly fee .
Amazon , however , bundles its offering with its Prime shipping subscription service , and Peacock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to watch ads in exchange for free videos .
Still , all of these streaming video services are trying to compete for consumers ’ attention .
And all of them are also aimed at a land-grab their backers expect to find as consumers stop paying for cable TV — or those who never sign up at all .
That trend , which big media companies refused to acknowledge for years , is now undeniable .
In the last three months of 2019 , four companies representing two-thirds of the pay TV market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comcast , and Verizon — lost 1.67 million video subscribers , per analyst Michael Nathanson .
Nathanson estimates that the pay TV business will have seen its numbers drop by 6.8 percent by the time all the major companies report even more .
Disney , like most of its big competitors , says it expects to lose billions in the first few years of its streaming push , but predicts it will break even by 2024 .
By then , it expects to have 60 million to 90 million Disney+ subscribers , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US .
Update : This story has been updated to reflect Disney+ subscriber numbers released during the company ’ s earnings call .

Baby Yoda + lots of Disney, Pixar, and Marvel movies = 28.6 million subscribers in three months.
That’s the headline from Disney’s newest earnings numbers, which highlighted the initial success of its Disney+ streaming service. That’s the company’s very expensive bet that it can go head to head with the likes of Netflix, Apple, and HBO in the newly launched streaming wars.
So far, so good: Wall Street and analysts had expected Disney to report that it had signed up at least 25 million subscribers for the service, which has a list price of $6 a month but is available at discounted rates, or for free, with different limited-time promotions. (Disney’s earnings release, which came out Tuesday afternoon, reported that the company had signed up 26.5 million subscribers by the end of December 2019; in the company’s subsequent earnings call, Disney CEO Bob Iger updated those numbers and said the company had signed up 28.6 million people through Monday, February 3.)
This is the first time Disney has provided numbers on its streaming service since the day after it launched, on November 12; Disney said then that it had signed up 10 million users for the service.
By contrast, Netflix has 167 million paying subscribers worldwide and 61 million in the US. Apple, meanwhile, launched its Apple TV+ service a few days before Disney but has not disclosed any user numbers.
Disney+ has been primarily marketed to Americans, though it is also available in Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand.
Later this spring, Disney, Apple, and Netflix will be joined by AT&T’s WarnerMedia, which is launching HBO Max, and Comcast, which is launching Peacock. Other entrants in the fight include Amazon and Quibi, an upcoming service from Hollywood veteran Jeffrey Katzenberg that will only be available on mobile phones.
All of the services differ in content and tactics. Most want to sell themselves directly to consumers for a monthly fee. Amazon, however, bundles its offering with its Prime shipping subscription service, and Peacock is meant to attract consumers who are willing to watch ads in exchange for free videos. Still, all of these streaming video services are trying to compete for consumers’ attention.
And all of them are also aimed at a land-grab their backers expect to find as consumers stop paying for cable TV — or those who never sign up at all. That trend, which big media companies refused to acknowledge for years, is now undeniable. In the last three months of 2019, four companies representing two-thirds of the pay TV market — AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon — lost 1.67 million video subscribers, per analyst Michael Nathanson. Nathanson estimates that the pay TV business will have seen its numbers drop by 6.8 percent by the time all the major companies report even more.
Disney, like most of its big competitors, says it expects to lose billions in the first few years of its streaming push, but predicts it will break even by 2024. By then, it expects to have 60 million to 90 million Disney+ subscribers, with two-thirds of that total coming from outside the US.
Update: This story has been updated to reflect Disney+ subscriber numbers released during the company’s earnings call.