democracynow--2020-10-13--"Let the People Decide!" Protests at Amy Coney Barrett Hearing Decry GOP Power Grab, Attack on ACA

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re beginning today ’ s show in Washington , D.C. , in front of the Supreme Court , where hundreds protested outside the Senate Monday against the confirmation hearing for President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee , Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
At least 21 people were arrested after staging a sit-in to oppose the Senate pushing through Barrett ’ s nomination in the middle of the presidential election .
Some held signs reading “ No COVID test , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off with pro-Amy Coney Barrett protesters who had also gathered outside the Senate .
Chants of “ Let the people decide ” rang out from the Senate steps .
Meanwhile , inside the hearing , as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee made their opening statements , Democrats argued Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination poses a threat to the Affordable Care Act , which will be considered by the Supreme Court on November 10th .
In a united front , many Democrats spoke alongside large posters showing the faces of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage , arguing Barrett ’ s confirmation could mean the end of healthcare for millions during the pandemic .
Barrett ’ s four-day hearing is taking place in person , even after the White House ceremony where her nomination , announced less than two weeks ago , was labeled a coronavirus superspreader event .
Republican Senator Mike Lee , who recently tested positive for COVID-19 after attending the White House celebration , spoke at the hearing without wearing a mask .
And the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham , who refused to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , presided .
For more , we go to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington , D.C. , where we ’ re joined by Ana María Archila .
She is co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy .
She joined Monday ’ s protest and will be protesting again today .
Welcome back to Democracy Now !
, Ana María .
One of the times we had you on was when you weighed in heavily in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings , as you stuck your foot in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the time , Flake was traveling in , to demand that a man who was accused of sexual assault would not move forward until that was investigated .
But you ’ re out there again .
Can you explain why ?
ANA MARÍA ARCHILA : Thank you so much for having me , Amy .
Good morning .
Well , we are here again because Trump and the Republicans are trying to execute a power grab .
They are rushing to confirm a Supreme Court justice now even though people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people have already voted , and millions more are voting every single day .
And even though we are less than a month away from the end of election season , Trump is trying to install a Supreme Court justice .
And he has told us why .
He has said that he wants a majority in the Supreme Court when he challenges the ballots , when he challenges the results of the elections .
And he ’ s trying to also finish — complete the promise that he made to his donors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his administration .
He said he wanted to end the ACA , Obamacare .
And guess what .
Having a majority , a conservative majority , on the Supreme Court will allow him to do that .
In fact , the Supreme Court is scheduled to do hearings or to hear oral arguments on the ACA on November 10th .
So , this is an incredible power grab that has terrible consequences for people across this country , especially people who rely on the ACA and who need access to healthcare in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Well , Ana María , what about , though , the argument of the Republicans that , one , that the president is in office until the end of the year , and the Senate can still legally act on a nomination to Supreme Court ?
It ’ s true it is , as you say , a naked power grab .
But what do you say to their argument and also to the issue that , so far at least , both Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have dodged in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if this moves forward , that the Democrats should , if they seize control of both the White House and the Congress , expand or democratize the Supreme Court by adding more seats ?
ANA MARÍA ARCHILA : Well , the Republicans are not concerned at all with their hypocrisy , because in 2016 they themselves staged a very fierce opposition to Obama ’ s effort to fill an empty Supreme Court seat and prevented him from doing so and said that they weren ’ t going to allow that confirmation because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was many , many months before Election Day .
And , in fact , Amy Coney Barrett has some clips where she appears and she ’ s herself presenting that argument to the American people .
So , they act with incredible hypocrisy , but that is not surprising .
They have enabled a president who lies to people every day , who lied to people about the dangers of the COVID virus , who lies about his own healthcare , who lies about what he does every single day .
So the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loyalty to truth .
And they also don ’ t have a strong loyalty to people .
What they should be doing right now is doing everything they can to make sure that the millions of unemployed people across the country get relief .
They should do everything they can to make sure that cities and state budgets don ’ t collapse .
They should do everything they can to provide urgent relief for millions of people in the middle of this global pandemic and economic catastrophe .
They ’ re not doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single day is nominating judges and confirming conservative judges .
And they have taken over the courts , up and down the federal bench , in an effort that has been incredibly steady and incredibly aggressive .
And , of course , like , the courts are an essential part of our democracy .
They need to be places where people can bring their quarrels and they can be resolved in favor of people .
With courts — the kind of takeover of the courts that the Republicans have maneuvered and achieved over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the rights of women to control what we do with our bodies and to decide our destiny .
It ’ s dangerous for workers .
It ’ s dangerous for people who want government to be a source of support .
And so , we think that it is actually absolutely necessary for Democrats to be thinking about how to rebalance the courts , how to democratize the courts and how to make them a place where people can bring their demands and where they can find justice , which right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal bench will be extremely hard .
AMY GOODMAN : The Affordable Care Act is up for oral arguments at the Supreme Court on November 10th .
If the schedule for this vote goes forward , the Senate Judiciary Committee will be — the Senate Judiciary is on September 22nd , and then , on September 29th , the full Senate , supposedly with people pulled back .
It looks like it could move forward at that point , barring any surprises .
I think we ’ ve actually just lost Ana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to put that question to our next guest when we come back from break .
Ana María Archila is co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy .
She ’ s standing on the steps of the Supreme Court .
Also , there have been protests in front of the Senate .
We ’ ll be back with Lisa Graves in a moment .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re beginning today’s show in Washington, D.C., in front of the Supreme Court, where hundreds protested outside the Senate Monday against the confirmation hearing for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. At least 21 people were arrested after staging a sit-in to oppose the Senate pushing through Barrett’s nomination in the middle of the presidential election. Some held signs reading “No COVID test, no hearing,” as they faced off with pro-Amy Coney Barrett protesters who had also gathered outside the Senate. Chants of “Let the people decide” rang out from the Senate steps.
PROTESTERS: Let the people decide! Let the people decide! Let the people decide! Let the people decide!
AMY GOODMAN: “Let the people decide!” they chanted.
Meanwhile, inside the hearing, as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee made their opening statements, Democrats argued Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination poses a threat to the Affordable Care Act, which will be considered by the Supreme Court on November 10th. In a united front, many Democrats spoke alongside large posters showing the faces of people who rely on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, arguing Barrett’s confirmation could mean the end of healthcare for millions during the pandemic.
Barrett’s four-day hearing is taking place in person, even after the White House ceremony where her nomination, announced less than two weeks ago, was labeled a coronavirus superspreader event. Republican Senator Mike Lee, who recently tested positive for COVID-19 after attending the White House celebration, spoke at the hearing without wearing a mask. And the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, who refused to take a test right before this hearing, presided.
For more, we go to the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by Ana María Archila. She is co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy. She joined Monday’s protest and will be protesting again today.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Ana María. One of the times we had you on was when you weighed in heavily in the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings, as you stuck your foot in that door of the elevator that Senator, at the time, Flake was traveling in, to demand that a man who was accused of sexual assault would not move forward until that was investigated. But you’re out there again. Can you explain why?
ANA MARÍA ARCHILA: Thank you so much for having me, Amy. Good morning.
Well, we are here again because Trump and the Republicans are trying to execute a power grab. They are rushing to confirm a Supreme Court justice now even though people are voting right now. Over 10 million people have already voted, and millions more are voting every single day. And even though we are less than a month away from the end of election season, Trump is trying to install a Supreme Court justice.
And he has told us why. He has said that he wants a majority in the Supreme Court when he challenges the ballots, when he challenges the results of the elections. And he’s trying to also finish — complete the promise that he made to his donors and his base at the beginning of his administration. He said he wanted to end the ACA, Obamacare. And guess what. Having a majority, a conservative majority, on the Supreme Court will allow him to do that. In fact, the Supreme Court is scheduled to do hearings or to hear oral arguments on the ACA on November 10th.
So, this is an incredible power grab that has terrible consequences for people across this country, especially people who rely on the ACA and who need access to healthcare in the middle of a pandemic.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Ana María, what about, though, the argument of the Republicans that, one, that the president is in office until the end of the year, and the Senate can still legally act on a nomination to Supreme Court? It’s true it is, as you say, a naked power grab. But what do you say to their argument and also to the issue that, so far at least, both Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have dodged in the debate questions? Do you believe, if this moves forward, that the Democrats should, if they seize control of both the White House and the Congress, expand or democratize the Supreme Court by adding more seats?
ANA MARÍA ARCHILA: Well, the Republicans are not concerned at all with their hypocrisy, because in 2016 they themselves staged a very fierce opposition to Obama’s effort to fill an empty Supreme Court seat and prevented him from doing so and said that they weren’t going to allow that confirmation because it was election year, even though it was many, many months before Election Day. And, in fact, Amy Coney Barrett has some clips where she appears and she’s herself presenting that argument to the American people.
So, they act with incredible hypocrisy, but that is not surprising. They have enabled a president who lies to people every day, who lied to people about the dangers of the COVID virus, who lies about his own healthcare, who lies about what he does every single day. So the Republicans don’t have a strong loyalty to truth. And they also don’t have a strong loyalty to people.
What they should be doing right now is doing everything they can to make sure that the millions of unemployed people across the country get relief. They should do everything they can to make sure that cities and state budgets don’t collapse. They should do everything they can to provide urgent relief for millions of people in the middle of this global pandemic and economic catastrophe. They’re not doing that.
What they are doing every single day is nominating judges and confirming conservative judges. And they have taken over the courts, up and down the federal bench, in an effort that has been incredibly steady and incredibly aggressive. And, of course, like, the courts are an essential part of our democracy. They need to be places where people can bring their quarrels and they can be resolved in favor of people. With courts — the kind of takeover of the courts that the Republicans have maneuvered and achieved over the last four years is incredibly dangerous for the rights of women to control what we do with our bodies and to decide our destiny. It’s dangerous for workers. It’s dangerous for people who want government to be a source of support.
And so, we think that it is actually absolutely necessary for Democrats to be thinking about how to rebalance the courts, how to democratize the courts and how to make them a place where people can bring their demands and where they can find justice, which right now with a conservative majority up and down the federal bench will be extremely hard.
AMY GOODMAN: The Affordable Care Act is up for oral arguments at the Supreme Court on November 10th. If the schedule for this vote goes forward, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be — the Senate Judiciary is on September 22nd, and then, on September 29th, the full Senate, supposedly with people pulled back. It looks like it could move forward at that point, barring any surprises.
I think we’ve actually just lost Ana María Archila, so we’re going to put that question to our next guest when we come back from break. Ana María Archila is co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy. She’s standing on the steps of the Supreme Court. Also, there have been protests in front of the Senate. We’ll be back with Lisa Graves in a moment.


democracynow--2020-10-13--Headlines for October 13, 2020

Headlines for October 13, 2020

As the U.S. death toll from COVID-19 tops 215,000 , President Trump returned to the campaign trail Monday , just a week after he was released from the hospital , where he was treated for COVID-19 .
Trump spoke in front of thousands of people — many maskless — who were packed together in defiance of social distancing guidelines .
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was seen maskless giving people high fives , just a day after the state recorded over 5,500 new coronavirus cases .
During the rally , Trump again falsely claimed he is now immune to COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ through it .
Now they say I ’ m immune .
I can feel — I feel so powerful .
I ’ ll walk into that audience .
I ’ ll walk in there .
I ’ ll kiss everyone in that audience .
I ’ ll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and the — everybody .
I ’ ll just give you a big , fat kiss.
” Prior to Trump ’ s trip to Florida , White House physician Sean Conley announced the president had tested negative for COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t say what days — based on two rapid antigen tests .
Many doctors questioned why the White House would have used a rapid test when the Centers for Disease Control recommends only a PCR test be used to make decisions about discontinuing isolation of infected patients .
Dr. Megan Ranney , an emergency physician and researcher at Brown University , told BuzzFeed News , “ They ’ re selectively reporting testing to somehow make the case he ’ s not infectious .
”

As the U.S. death toll from COVID-19 tops 215,000, President Trump returned to the campaign trail Monday, just a week after he was released from the hospital, where he was treated for COVID-19. Trump spoke in front of thousands of people — many maskless — who were packed together in defiance of social distancing guidelines. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was seen maskless giving people high fives, just a day after the state recorded over 5,500 new coronavirus cases. During the rally, Trump again falsely claimed he is now immune to COVID-19.
President Donald Trump: “I went through it. Now they say I’m immune. I can feel — I feel so powerful. I’ll walk into that audience. I’ll walk in there. I’ll kiss everyone in that audience. I’ll kiss the guys and the beautiful women and the — everybody. I’ll just give you a big, fat kiss.”
Prior to Trump’s trip to Florida, White House physician Sean Conley announced the president had tested negative for COVID-19 on two consecutive days — didn’t say what days — based on two rapid antigen tests. Many doctors questioned why the White House would have used a rapid test when the Centers for Disease Control recommends only a PCR test be used to make decisions about discontinuing isolation of infected patients. Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency physician and researcher at Brown University, told BuzzFeed News, “They’re selectively reporting testing to somehow make the case he’s not infectious.”


democracynow--2020-10-14--Making the Supreme Court Safe for Democracy: Samuel Moyn on Reforming an Undemocratic Institution

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González , as we continue to look at the Republican race to confirm President Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett prior to Election Day .
If confirmed to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat , Barrett will give conservatives a 6-to-3 advantage on the court .
It would also mean the majority of the justices on the court were selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular vote .
We ’ re joined now by legal scholar Samuel Moyn , who has a new piece in The New Republic headlined “ Making the Supreme Court Safe for Democracy : Beyond packing schemes , we need to diminish the high court ’ s power.
” He ’ s a professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law School , a professor of history at Yale University , as well .
Well , if you can talk about the history of the Supreme Court — you talk about it as a reactionary one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be done , Professor Moyn ?
SAMUEL MOYN : It ’ s nice to be with you .
You know , this country was founded on majority — on minority rule and the rejection of democracy , and the Supreme Court has long been a part of that picture .
And now that the right is on the brink of establishing control , it ’ s a dangerous institution .
And that ’ s long been the case .
We ’ re seeing the charade , the familiar drill in Washington .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because immense power to control the future of the country has been placed in the hands of nine elected justices in the first place .
And so , no wonder there ’ s Armageddon every time someone dies or retires .
Maybe that ’ s what we ought to think about changing .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , Professor , I wanted to ask you — in terms of this history , there is a series of court decisions that involved basically sanctioning conquest and the imperial — the grabbing of imperial territories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cases in the early 1900s or the — under the Justice John Marshall court , a series of decisions , the Marshall Trilogy , on the relationship of Native Americans to the federal government , as wards , essentially , of the federal government .
None of this , however , is ever really discussed in these hearings in terms — this is settled , supposedly , decisions that are clearly unjust but have never really been raised to new Supreme Court nominees .
Could you expound a little bit more about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SAMUEL MOYN : So , really , from the beginning of the republic , the court has been on board with the expulsion or extermination of Native peoples , as you pointed out , with American Empire at the end of the 19th and the early 20th century .
The striking legacy , even after the abolition of slavery — which , of course , the Supreme Court also supported before the Civil War — was the court ’ s complicity with the rule of the wealthy , especially in the first Gilded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early 20th century .
And Franklin Roosevelt had to face down the court , confront it , precisely for the reason that it was an institution of minority rule .
Thomas Jefferson actually warned at the very beginning of our republic that his enemies were fleeing into the judiciary and treating it as a stronghold from which they could rule , no matter what the people wanted .
And now in our second Gilded Age , we ’ ve been seeing that same phenomenon for a decade .
Even before the current confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hijinks , even when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a justice , the court was the most business-friendly court in a century .
And so , we have to understand that , as you point out , long-term role of this court in our history .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : So , in essence , what you ’ re saying is that period , let ’ s say , of the Warren Court was really an anomaly in terms of at least liberalism on social and racial issues , but that the court essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate elite of America in terms of maintaining its power .
SAMUEL MOYN : That ’ s largely right .
Earl Warren ’ s court was anomalous and brief , and , sadly , it didn ’ t get a lot done , especially after decades of pushback and reaction .
We should also remember that some of the basic work that cases like Brown v. Board did was sort of undoing the Supreme Court ’ s collusion with the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the unholy deal to let the South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it did do some valuable work .
It ’ s not clear we should be depending on a high court to do our democratic work for us .
And so , the basic rights we care about , we ultimately need to depend on convincing fellow citizens and entrenching our progressive ideals .
And for that , only a mass movement suffices , not getting our friends in high places .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And when the Republicans talk now , they ’ ve already created the narrative that if Democrats come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate , they will seek to pack the court , when , in reality , I guess what you ’ re saying is that the court is already packed .
The question is — and under Mitch McConnell , it ’ s become even more packed .
The question is : How can it be unpacked or democratized ?
And I ’ m wondering if you could talk about what you would see as the most achievable — not necessarily the reforms that you would prefer the most , but which would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats themselves , if they do come to power , will be fighting among themselves about the best type of reform .
SAMUEL MOYN : So , progressives have a menu of options , and they can order lots of things off the menu to press the Democrats , especially if Joe Biden wins and the Senate changes hands .
Court packing isn ’ t out of the question .
It depends on , you know , what ’ s done .
If you put two new liberal justices up there , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status quo ante-Neil Gorsuch , which was already intolerable .
So , our proposal is that you think about ways of limiting the court ’ s power to interfere with Democratic legislation , as is happening with the Affordable Care Act once again .
We shouldn ’ t allow an institution that can mess , over a decade , in cooperation with the dark money-funded conservative litigants , with some of our most progressive laws .
So , if an H.R .
1 is passed , if a Green New Deal statute is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insulate those laws from scrutiny by the federal judiciary .
You know , if we dream big , we can do things like insist that judges can only invalidate federal legislation by supermajorities , so that it ’ s not up to five conservatives , now six , to invalidate laws that millions support at very high levels of popularity .
So , what if we required a 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 or unanimous decision from the Supreme Court , which would make sure it ’ s only finding values in the Constitution that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Samuel Moyn , if you could talk about the solution that Harvard Law School professor James Bradley Thayer offered to the problems posed by the Supreme Court , how he attempted to make judicial powers safe for democratic self-rule ?
SAMUEL MOYN : So , Thayer was responding to the end of Reconstruction , when the Supreme Court gutted the attempt after the Civil War to help African Americans , not just release them from chattel slavery but give them equal citizenship .
And he saw the court , in a case called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Congress ’ s attempts to create freedom and equality in this country .
And when he saw that , he said that the justices should not be allowed to invalidate legislation unless it ’ s really clear that it violates the Constitution .
And so he called for self-restraint .
And in particular , he said that there has to be a clear error .
It ’ s not that the judges get to second-guess the Legislature , because the Legislature also has a view about what the Constitution allows and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s that judges should only invalidate laws when they ’ re just crazy .
Now , for a while , once FDR faced down the court in 1937 , the Supreme Court adopted Thayer ’ s rule and engaged in self-restraint .
But that ’ s eroded over time , actually in part because of liberal justices , but also , in more recent times , conservative justices .
So , I think we need to retrieve Thayer ’ s idea that the court has to be made safe for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-restraint , the judges ’ promises never to interfere again .
And so , if we do have to confront the court once again , we should be inspired by the old example that Thayer provides , but make sure and learn from his mistakes .
We have to change the institution so that it ’ s not up to judges to engage in self-restraint .
We should restrain the judges so that they can ’ t act .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And one of the things that you ’ ve noted is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today than they did back in the 19th or early 20th century , and the justices that get on the court stay longer — what about this issue of limiting the terms of Supreme Court justices ?
SAMUEL MOYN : Term limitation is a great idea .
It ’ s a kind of basic reform that a lot of people agree about .
Ro Khanna introduced a bill .
The trouble with most of the forms of term limitation that we ’ ve seen are that they ’ re prospective , so the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Barrett ’ s case , grandmothered in .
And I just don ’ t think we can wait that long .
The country is on fire .
And the best hope for progressive change is from the Congress , not from the judiciary , which will not save us .
And so , just limiting terms is an obvious fix , but it ’ s not enough of a fix , not least because , in the end , the problem is not who is serving on the court or how long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the power they have .
And we need to curtail it .
AMY GOODMAN : We want to thank you so much , Samuel Moyn , professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law School and professor of history at Yale University .
We ’ ll link to your piece in The New Republic , “ Making the Supreme Court Safe for Democracy.
” And that does it for our show .
Juan , I wanted to wish you a very happy early birthday .
I don ’ t know if we can use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in these dire times , but have a good one — AMY GOODMAN : — and a safe one .
Oh , and , of course , wear a mask .
Stay safe .
Save lives .
That does it for our show .
Democracy Now !
is produced with Renée Feltz , Mike Burke , Deena Guzder , Libby Rainey , Nermeen Shaikh , María Taracena , Carla Wills , Tami Woronoff , Charina Nadura , Sam Alcoff , Tey-Marie Astudillo , John Hamilton , Robby Karran , Hany Massoud , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general manager Julie Crosby , Becca Staley , Miriam Barnard , Denis Moynihan , Paul Powell .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
Thanks for joining us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we continue to look at the Republican race to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett prior to Election Day. If confirmed to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat, Barrett will give conservatives a 6-to-3 advantage on the court. It would also mean the majority of the justices on the court were selected by presidents that did not win the popular vote.
We’re joined now by legal scholar Samuel Moyn, who has a new piece in The New Republic headlined “Making the Supreme Court Safe for Democracy: Beyond packing schemes, we need to diminish the high court’s power.” He’s a professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law School, a professor of history at Yale University, as well.
Well, if you can talk about the history of the Supreme Court — you talk about it as a reactionary one in U.S. history — and what needs to be done, Professor Moyn?
SAMUEL MOYN: It’s nice to be with you.
You know, this country was founded on majority — on minority rule and the rejection of democracy, and the Supreme Court has long been a part of that picture. And now that the right is on the brink of establishing control, it’s a dangerous institution. And that’s long been the case. We’re seeing the charade, the familiar drill in Washington. The reason it’s happening is because immense power to control the future of the country has been placed in the hands of nine elected justices in the first place. And so, no wonder there’s Armageddon every time someone dies or retires. Maybe that’s what we ought to think about changing.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Professor, I wanted to ask you — in terms of this history, there is a series of court decisions that involved basically sanctioning conquest and the imperial — the grabbing of imperial territories, whether it’s the Insular Cases in the early 1900s or the — under the Justice John Marshall court, a series of decisions, the Marshall Trilogy, on the relationship of Native Americans to the federal government, as wards, essentially, of the federal government. None of this, however, is ever really discussed in these hearings in terms — this is settled, supposedly, decisions that are clearly unjust but have never really been raised to new Supreme Court nominees. Could you expound a little bit more about this historic reactionary nature of the court?
SAMUEL MOYN: So, really, from the beginning of the republic, the court has been on board with the expulsion or extermination of Native peoples, as you pointed out, with American Empire at the end of the 19th and the early 20th century. The striking legacy, even after the abolition of slavery — which, of course, the Supreme Court also supported before the Civil War — was the court’s complicity with the rule of the wealthy, especially in the first Gilded Age during that same later 19th and early 20th century. And Franklin Roosevelt had to face down the court, confront it, precisely for the reason that it was an institution of minority rule. Thomas Jefferson actually warned at the very beginning of our republic that his enemies were fleeing into the judiciary and treating it as a stronghold from which they could rule, no matter what the people wanted.
And now in our second Gilded Age, we’ve been seeing that same phenomenon for a decade. Even before the current confirmation battle, even before Mitch McConnell’s hijinks, even when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a justice, the court was the most business-friendly court in a century. And so, we have to understand that, as you point out, long-term role of this court in our history.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, in essence, what you’re saying is that period, let’s say, of the Warren Court was really an anomaly in terms of at least liberalism on social and racial issues, but that the court essentially has been the trump card of the corporate elite of America in terms of maintaining its power.
SAMUEL MOYN: That’s largely right. Earl Warren’s court was anomalous and brief, and, sadly, it didn’t get a lot done, especially after decades of pushback and reaction. We should also remember that some of the basic work that cases like Brown v. Board did was sort of undoing the Supreme Court’s collusion with the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the unholy deal to let the South return to apartheid. And so, it did do some valuable work.
It’s not clear we should be depending on a high court to do our democratic work for us. And so, the basic rights we care about, we ultimately need to depend on convincing fellow citizens and entrenching our progressive ideals. And for that, only a mass movement suffices, not getting our friends in high places.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when the Republicans talk now, they’ve already created the narrative that if Democrats come to power in the White House and the Senate, they will seek to pack the court, when, in reality, I guess what you’re saying is that the court is already packed. The question is — and under Mitch McConnell, it’s become even more packed. The question is: How can it be unpacked or democratized? And I’m wondering if you could talk about what you would see as the most achievable — not necessarily the reforms that you would prefer the most, but which would be the ones most achievable — given that Democrats themselves, if they do come to power, will be fighting among themselves about the best type of reform.
SAMUEL MOYN: So, progressives have a menu of options, and they can order lots of things off the menu to press the Democrats, especially if Joe Biden wins and the Senate changes hands. Court packing isn’t out of the question. It depends on, you know, what’s done. If you put two new liberal justices up there, though, you’re just restoring the status quo ante-Neil Gorsuch, which was already intolerable.
So, our proposal is that you think about ways of limiting the court’s power to interfere with Democratic legislation, as is happening with the Affordable Care Act once again. We shouldn’t allow an institution that can mess, over a decade, in cooperation with the dark money-funded conservative litigants, with some of our most progressive laws. So, if an H.R. 1 is passed, if a Green New Deal statute is passed, we can do things like insulate those laws from scrutiny by the federal judiciary. You know, if we dream big, we can do things like insist that judges can only invalidate federal legislation by supermajorities, so that it’s not up to five conservatives, now six, to invalidate laws that millions support at very high levels of popularity. So, what if we required a 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 or unanimous decision from the Supreme Court, which would make sure it’s only finding values in the Constitution that everyone agrees about?
AMY GOODMAN: Samuel Moyn, if you could talk about the solution that Harvard Law School professor James Bradley Thayer offered to the problems posed by the Supreme Court, how he attempted to make judicial powers safe for democratic self-rule?
SAMUEL MOYN: So, Thayer was responding to the end of Reconstruction, when the Supreme Court gutted the attempt after the Civil War to help African Americans, not just release them from chattel slavery but give them equal citizenship. And he saw the court, in a case called the Civil Rights Cases, destroy some of Congress’s attempts to create freedom and equality in this country. And when he saw that, he said that the justices should not be allowed to invalidate legislation unless it’s really clear that it violates the Constitution. And so he called for self-restraint. And in particular, he said that there has to be a clear error. It’s not that the judges get to second-guess the Legislature, because the Legislature also has a view about what the Constitution allows and what’s compatible with it. Rather, it’s that judges should only invalidate laws when they’re just crazy.
Now, for a while, once FDR faced down the court in 1937, the Supreme Court adopted Thayer’s rule and engaged in self-restraint. But that’s eroded over time, actually in part because of liberal justices, but also, in more recent times, conservative justices. So, I think we need to retrieve Thayer’s idea that the court has to be made safe for democracy, but not just rely on self-restraint, the judges’ promises never to interfere again. And so, if we do have to confront the court once again, we should be inspired by the old example that Thayer provides, but make sure and learn from his mistakes. We have to change the institution so that it’s not up to judges to engage in self-restraint. We should restrain the judges so that they can’t act.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And one of the things that you’ve noted is, obviously, as people live longer today than they did back in the 19th or early 20th century, and the justices that get on the court stay longer — what about this issue of limiting the terms of Supreme Court justices?
SAMUEL MOYN: Term limitation is a great idea. It’s a kind of basic reform that a lot of people agree about. Ro Khanna introduced a bill. The trouble with most of the forms of term limitation that we’ve seen are that they’re prospective, so the current justices will be grandfathered or, in Barrett’s case, grandmothered in. And I just don’t think we can wait that long. The country is on fire. And the best hope for progressive change is from the Congress, not from the judiciary, which will not save us.
And so, just limiting terms is an obvious fix, but it’s not enough of a fix, not least because, in the end, the problem is not who is serving on the court or how long they get to stay; it’s the power they have. And we need to curtail it.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you so much, Samuel Moyn, professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law School and professor of history at Yale University. We’ll link to your piece in The New Republic, “Making the Supreme Court Safe for Democracy.”
And that does it for our show. Juan, I wanted to wish you a very happy early birthday. I don’t know if we can use —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Thank you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: — “happy” in these dire times, but have a good one —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: — and a safe one. Oh, and, of course, wear a mask. Stay safe. Save lives.
That does it for our show. Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Libby Rainey, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Carla Wills, Tami Woronoff, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud, Adriano Contreras. Special thanks to our general manager Julie Crosby, Becca Staley, Miriam Barnard, Denis Moynihan, Paul Powell. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Thanks for joining us.


democracynow--2020-10-14--Dahlia Lithwick: Amy Coney Barrett May Claim Neutrality, But Her Record Is "Extremely Conservative"

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González , as we continue our look at how Supreme Court justice nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett faced questions for about 11 hours on Tuesday as Republicans race to confirm her before Election Day .
She repeatedly refused to address numerous issues , from abortion to Affordable Care Act to voting rights .
For more , we ’ re joined by Dahlia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court reporter for Slate.com , where her latest piece is headlined “ Don ’ t Expect a 'Gotcha ' Moment in the Barrett Hearings.
” So , Dahlia , I was wondering if you could start off by talking about a lot of what was said — there may not have been a “ gotcha ” moment — but from everything to refusing to comment on a president delaying the elections , refusing to talk about the transfer of power peacefully .
Explain what stood out for you most .
DAHLIA LITHWICK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was really striking to me .
It seemed a costless concession for her to simply say , “ Of course every president has to accede to a transfer of power .
Of course poll watchers intimidating voters , minority voters , in minority precincts , is a crime.
” I mean , those all seemed easy answers for her .
And I think that she did herself no favors .
She ’ s trying , you know , as you just outlined , to present herself as neutral ; you know , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was before , whatever she ruled on the bench , is immaterial ; every issue will be approached with an open mind .
But I think you ’ re exactly right .
There are some issues that don ’ t need to be approached with an open mind .
And a president who is hell-bent on suppressing the vote and who has already said he wants her on the court in order to , quote , “ count ballots ” because he thinks mail-in ballots are all fraudulent — she could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying , “ None of those things that he is doing to disturb democracy itself , to undermine the integrity of the election itself — none of those are in question .
There aren ’ t reasonable arguments to talk about with my clerks.
” And so , I think that she made the call to try to look as though every issue could come before her so she ’ s not going to opine .
I think what she ended up doing was terrifying a lot of people who don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Dahlia Lithwick , specifically , she refused to say whether she would abstain from taking part in any presidential election dispute if it ended up in the Supreme Court .
Your take on that , on that exchange ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : I think she ’ s got it exactly wrong .
And she , I think , tried to flick at this when she said “ actual bias ” as opposed to the appearance of impropriety .
The legal standard , the standard in the canons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are you actually biased ?
” It ’ s “ Do you presumptively give an appearance of impropriety ?
And if that is the case , you don ’ t do it.
” And so , I think that she kept going back to the well of , “ Look , I didn ’ t make any promises to the president .
Nobody from the White House asked me to put a thumb on the scale for the president.
” That ’ s not the standard .
The standard is : Does this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the majority of Americans don ’ t even want this hearing to happen while voting is taking place tells you that there is some sense that this is improper , that she should not be handpicked by the president who says he wants her to throw the election to him .
Whether or not she ’ s had that conversation with him is immaterial .
And I guess , in some ways , Juan , it goes back to Amy ’ s question , which is , she has these simple things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impression that this is improper , that her sitting on a case like this would be improper , and at every turn , instead of allaying the fears , she throws herself into this guise of neutrality that just further pollutes the conversation .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And I wanted to ask you — several of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee kept talking about the great record of Judge Barrett .
Lindsey Graham at one point said that she was , quote , “ one of the greatest picks President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But could you talk — your assessment of , actually , her record ?
She ’ s been on the appellate court for three years , but she — in terms of her actual experience with the federal courts , I compare it , let ’ s say , to a Sonia Sotomayor , who had decades of experience as a lower court judge , or even Thurgood Marshall or Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who had a long record as lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court .
Could you put her credentials in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Sure .
I mean , I think that Republicans on the committee , when faced with the fact that she ’ s only had three years of judicial experience and , before that , chiefly academic experience , went back to , “ Oh , you know , Elena Kagan didn ’ t have that much more experience.
” And so , I think it ’ s a valid critique , and I think that the Framers had intended that judges amass a real professional career .
But I think it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices , and Kagan is one of them , who didn ’ t have decades-long careers on the bench the way , say , Justice Sotomayor has .
The issue isn ’ t so much that it ’ s just a very brief record .
It ’ s also that that record is incredibly revealing , that in case after case , in her very short time on the 3rd Circuit , she has reached unbelievably conservative results , in cases that have to do with asylum seekers ; cases that have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to do with workers ’ rights ; certainly , as Kamala Harris suggested in her questioning , two questions that — two cases that had to do with abortion rights .
So I think she has a very , very , very consistent extremely conservative record on the federal bench .
And so , when you hear her being lauded as , you know , she ’ s neutral , this is balls and strikes , she ’ s another John Roberts , open-minded about everything , never mind what she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocacy and her speeches — even if you only confine your scrutiny to the three years she spent on the federal bench , this is a consistent anti-worker , anti-reproductive-rights , anti-immigrant — I could go on .
This is not a neutral record .
And that ’ s why I think they ’ re feting her as a legal prodigy and a giant , is that she is — boom , boom , boom , right down the books — very , very much more akin to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neutrally with an open mind .
AMY GOODMAN : In fact , some say that when she was the appellate — when she became the appellate court judge , she was actually taking a stolen seat of a woman , Myra Selby , who was an Indiana state Supreme Court judge , nominated by President Obama to be the first African American appellate judge in that area .
But at the time , Senator Coats denied her that , and then the Democratic senator allowed Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no , I think that what we are seeing in the aggregate , Amy , is just decades of , quote-unquote , “ constitutional hardball.
” We are seeing Mitch McConnell ’ s view of the federal bench as his plaything , his football , and a maximalist use of parliamentary techniques .
What you ’ re describing is the blue slip , that allowed home state senators to keep seats open in some cases for years and years , rather than let Obama fill them .
That ’ s why all these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They got rid of the blue slips , so that people were mashed onto the courts over objecting home state senators ’ blue slips .
That ’ s why there was a seat that was in fact intended by Obama to go to the first — what would have been the first African American woman to serve in that seat .
She wasn ’ t even given the courtesy of hearings .
She wasn ’ t given the courtesy of a vote .
That seat was held open and eventually filled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to go to — AMY GOODMAN : — back to the hearing , to Illinois Senator Dick Durbin , who questioned Judge Barrett about the implications of her dissent from the majority opinion on a Second Amendment challenge from Rickey Kanter , a Wisconsin man barred from possessing a firearm because he was found guilty of a felony .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Dick Durbin , the Democratic senator from Illinois , questioning Judge Barrett .
Dahlia Lithwick , the significance of this ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : Again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment case , in the bucket of cases where I describe Judge Barrett going way beyond what settled law is .
And that ’ s a good example .
In the Heller case that she describes , Justice Scalia , first of all , found for the first time an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment .
That ’ s not a thing that ’ s been understood to be the case for centuries .
As she has suggested , that ’ s something that was kind of invented on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , she locates that as this fundamental individual right .
And as you say , then she downgrades the right to vote as something that is lesser , a kind of civic right .
The other thing that ’ s really important is that Justice Scalia had no problem with taking away guns from felons in Heller itself .
Many , many states have those laws .
So she went beyond even what her mentor , Justice Scalia , would have done in the Heller case , and starts to call into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former felons to have weapons if they ’ re , in her view , nonviolent .
So , it ’ s just an example of this long practice she had , in a short time on the 7th Circuit , of nudging , nudging , nudging the law even further than it existed , and then kind of dressing it up as some kind of clear , originalist , obvious step , where , in fact , it ’ s very , very much what I think conservatives would call judicial activism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this issue of her being an originalist or a textualist , isn ’ t this the argument of the Scalia followers of originalism that the language of the Constitution is key , but irrespective of the fact that at the time the Constitution was written , there was , in essence , minority rule in the United States ?
There was not a clear democracy .
So , your sense of the importance of originalism or textualism as the basis of supposedly nonpartisan judicial decisions ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : I think that originalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Justice Scalia described it , are all constitutional modes of interpretation that are dressed up as humble , neutral , mechanical , right ?
This is John Roberts ’ balls and strikes .
We just input it into the machine , we look in a dictionary , a contemporaneous definition of what the Framers meant , and that ’ s the answer .
But I think you ’ re right : Undergirding that , there is a presumption , particularly with the original drafters of the original Constitution , that they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dignity for everyone .
And , of course , we know , presumptively , that was a document that was privileging white , male , wealthy land owners .
That ’ s what the intention was .
And so , I think it ’ s a little bit fatuous to pretend , A , that they had the answers to things like in vitro fertilization and marriage equality .
But more urgently , there ’ s a lot of language , even in the original document , that was deliberately vague .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” mean ?
What is “ due process ” ?
What does “ cruel and unusual punishment ” mean ?
Those were deliberately left open by the Framers so the future generations could pour contemporaneous meaning into it .
And so I think it ’ s a bit of a shell game .
It ’ s a way of pretending to be neutral and to be fair and to be judicially modest .
But , in fact , there ’ s always going to be a heavy , heavy thumb on the scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the greatest voice .
It ’ s the antithesis of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did .
She devoted her career to looking out for the voiceless and the powerless .
This is a way of reifying the powerful and the very much represented , often at the expense of vast majorities of people who do not have a voice .
AMY GOODMAN : And very quickly , on the issue of her signing a petition saying that abortion is — talking about the “ barbaric legacy ” of abortion , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the group whose letter she signed , talking about IVF as tantamount — that ’ s in vitro fertilization — tantamount to manslaughter ?
DAHLIA LITHWICK : This is a worry .
And it ’ s something that , again , I think she wanted to hold herself out as somebody who will come to this with an open mind regardless of her activism .
But I think it ’ s a very , very good way to make the point that a lot of Trump appointees don ’ t stop at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contraception , to IVF , even to surrogacy , Amy , and that the line that we think is the Roe v. Wade line is not at all the line .
It starts a lot earlier .
And I think we need to be mindful of these , of the ways that this is slipped into the discourse , that possibly surrogacy and IVF are on the chopping block , too .
AMY GOODMAN : Finally , let ’ s follow the money trail .
Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett — he says he ’ ll do that today — but to discuss the role of dark money in politics .
It was essentially a half-hour tutorial .
This is just an excerpt .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island , who will be joining us later in the week .
He ’ ll be questioning Judge Barrett today .
But he really talked about the issues of same-sex marriage , Affordable Care Act , abortion , that while they may be cared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power that the corporations want to preserve .
Dahlia Lithwick , we have 30 seconds .
DAHLIA LITHWICK : I thought he put on a master class .
Everybody should watch that 30-minute discussion .
None of it is new .
He ’ s been saying it for a long time .
Jane Mayer chronicled it in her book .
And I think that it answers the question why a tiny minority of views are so outsize represented at the court .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to thank you so much , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lithwick , senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter for Slate.com .
Her latest piece , “ Don ’ t Expect a 'Gotcha ' Moment in the Barrett Hearings.
” To hear all of and watch these hearings , you can go to democracynow.org .
We are running them gavel to gavel .
Next up , we speak with Yale law professor Samuel Moyn about his proposal to make the Supreme Court safe for democracy .
Thirty seconds , next .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we continue our look at how Supreme Court justice nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett faced questions for about 11 hours on Tuesday as Republicans race to confirm her before Election Day. She repeatedly refused to address numerous issues, from abortion to Affordable Care Act to voting rights.
For more, we’re joined by Dahlia Lithwick, the senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter for Slate.com, where her latest piece is headlined “Don’t Expect a 'Gotcha' Moment in the Barrett Hearings.”
So, Dahlia, I was wondering if you could start off by talking about a lot of what was said — there may not have been a “gotcha” moment — but from everything to refusing to comment on a president delaying the elections, refusing to talk about the transfer of power peacefully. Explain what stood out for you most.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Hi, Amy. That actually was really striking to me. It seemed a costless concession for her to simply say, “Of course every president has to accede to a transfer of power. Of course poll watchers intimidating voters, minority voters, in minority precincts, is a crime.” I mean, those all seemed easy answers for her. And I think that she did herself no favors. She’s trying, you know, as you just outlined, to present herself as neutral; you know, she’s an open book; whatever she was before, whatever she ruled on the bench, is immaterial; every issue will be approached with an open mind.
But I think you’re exactly right. There are some issues that don’t need to be approached with an open mind. And a president who is hell-bent on suppressing the vote and who has already said he wants her on the court in order to, quote, “count ballots” because he thinks mail-in ballots are all fraudulent — she could have allayed a lot of fears by simply saying, “None of those things that he is doing to disturb democracy itself, to undermine the integrity of the election itself — none of those are in question. There aren’t reasonable arguments to talk about with my clerks.” And so, I think that she made the call to try to look as though every issue could come before her so she’s not going to opine. I think what she ended up doing was terrifying a lot of people who don’t think that these are open questions.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dahlia Lithwick, specifically, she refused to say whether she would abstain from taking part in any presidential election dispute if it ended up in the Supreme Court. Your take on that, on that exchange?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: I think she’s got it exactly wrong. And she, I think, tried to flick at this when she said “actual bias” as opposed to the appearance of impropriety. The legal standard, the standard in the canons, the ethic rules, is not “Are you actually biased?” It’s “Do you presumptively give an appearance of impropriety? And if that is the case, you don’t do it.” And so, I think that she kept going back to the well of, “Look, I didn’t make any promises to the president. Nobody from the White House asked me to put a thumb on the scale for the president.” That’s not the standard. The standard is: Does this look improper?
The fact that I think the majority of Americans don’t even want this hearing to happen while voting is taking place tells you that there is some sense that this is improper, that she should not be handpicked by the president who says he wants her to throw the election to him. Whether or not she’s had that conversation with him is immaterial.
And I guess, in some ways, Juan, it goes back to Amy’s question, which is, she has these simple things she can do to simply allay the impression that this is improper, that her sitting on a case like this would be improper, and at every turn, instead of allaying the fears, she throws herself into this guise of neutrality that just further pollutes the conversation.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask you — several of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee kept talking about the great record of Judge Barrett. Lindsey Graham at one point said that she was, quote, “one of the greatest picks President Trump could make for the Supreme Court.” But could you talk — your assessment of, actually, her record? She’s been on the appellate court for three years, but she — in terms of her actual experience with the federal courts, I compare it, let’s say, to a Sonia Sotomayor, who had decades of experience as a lower court judge, or even Thurgood Marshall or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had a long record as lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court. Could you put her credentials in context to other nominees?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Sure. I mean, I think that Republicans on the committee, when faced with the fact that she’s only had three years of judicial experience and, before that, chiefly academic experience, went back to, “Oh, you know, Elena Kagan didn’t have that much more experience.” And so, I think it’s a valid critique, and I think that the framers had intended that judges amass a real professional career. But I think it’s fair to say there have been justices, and Kagan is one of them, who didn’t have decades-long careers on the bench the way, say, Justice Sotomayor has.
The issue isn’t so much that it’s just a very brief record. It’s also that that record is incredibly revealing, that in case after case, in her very short time on the 3rd Circuit, she has reached unbelievably conservative results, in cases that have to do with asylum seekers; cases that have to do with prisoner abuse; cases that have to do with workers’ rights; certainly, as Kamala Harris suggested in her questioning, two questions that — two cases that had to do with abortion rights. So I think she has a very, very, very consistent extremely conservative record on the federal bench.
And so, when you hear her being lauded as, you know, she’s neutral, this is balls and strikes, she’s another John Roberts, open-minded about everything, never mind what she said in all the years before, her advocacy and her speeches — even if you only confine your scrutiny to the three years she spent on the federal bench, this is a consistent anti-worker, anti-reproductive-rights, anti-immigrant — I could go on. This is not a neutral record. And that’s why I think they’re feting her as a legal prodigy and a giant, is that she is — boom, boom, boom, right down the books — very, very much more akin to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito than to anybody that approaches things utterly neutrally with an open mind.
AMY GOODMAN: In fact, some say that when she was the appellate — when she became the appellate court judge, she was actually taking a stolen seat of a woman, Myra Selby, who was an Indiana state Supreme Court judge, nominated by President Obama to be the first African American appellate judge in that area. But at the time, Senator Coats denied her that, and then the Democratic senator allowed Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to move forward.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Yeah, no, I think that what we are seeing in the aggregate, Amy, is just decades of, quote-unquote, “constitutional hardball.” We are seeing Mitch McConnell’s view of the federal bench as his plaything, his football, and a maximalist use of parliamentary techniques.
What you’re describing is the blue slip, that allowed home state senators to keep seats open in some cases for years and years, rather than let Obama fill them. That’s why all these vacancies existed when Donald Trump took over. They got rid of the blue slips, so that people were mashed onto the courts over objecting home state senators’ blue slips. That’s why there was a seat that was in fact intended by Obama to go to the first — what would have been the first African American woman to serve in that seat. She wasn’t even given the courtesy of hearings. She wasn’t given the courtesy of a vote. That seat was held open and eventually filled by Judge Barrett.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to —
DAHLIA LITHWICK: I don’t know —
AMY GOODMAN: — back to the hearing, to Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who questioned Judge Barrett about the implications of her dissent from the majority opinion on a Second Amendment challenge from Rickey Kanter, a Wisconsin man barred from possessing a firearm because he was found guilty of a felony.
SEN. DICK DURBIN: There’s also a question as to whether the commission of a felony disqualifies you from voting in America. … The Sentencing Project today has found that more than 6 million Americans can’t vote because of a felony conviction, and one of out of every 13 Black Americans have lost their voting rights.
The reason I raise that is that in your dissent you said disqualifying a person from voting because of a simple — simple — because of a felony is OK, but when it comes to the possession of firearms, wait a minute, we’re talking about the individual right of a Second Amendment. What we’re talking about in voting is a civic right, a community right, however you defined it. I don’t get it. So, you’re saying that a felony should not disqualify Rickey from buying an AK-47, but using a felony conviction in someone’s past to deny them the right to vote is all right?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator, what I said was that the Constitution contemplates that states have the freedom to deprive felons of the right to vote. It’s expressed in the constitutional text. But I expressed no view on whether that was a good idea, whether states should do that.
SEN. DICK DURBIN: Did you not distinguish the Second Amendment right from the right to vote, calling one an individual right under the Constitution and the other a civic right?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: That’s consistent with the language and the historical context, the way the briefs described it, and it was part of the dispute in Heller of whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a civic one that was possessed collectively for the sake of the common good. And everybody was treating voting as one of the civic rights.
SEN. DICK DURBIN: Well, I will just tell you that the conclusion of this is hard to swallow, the notion that Mr. Kanter, after all that he did, should not be even slowed down when he’s on his way to buy a firearm.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Dick Durbin, the Democratic senator from Illinois, questioning Judge Barrett. Dahlia Lithwick, the significance of this?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Again, I put Kanter, that Second Amendment case, in the bucket of cases where I describe Judge Barrett going way beyond what settled law is. And that’s a good example. In the Heller case that she describes, Justice Scalia, first of all, found for the first time an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. That’s not a thing that’s been understood to be the case for centuries. As she has suggested, that’s something that was kind of invented on the fly in the Heller case. So, she locates that as this fundamental individual right. And as you say, then she downgrades the right to vote as something that is lesser, a kind of civic right.
The other thing that’s really important is that Justice Scalia had no problem with taking away guns from felons in Heller itself. Many, many states have those laws. So she went beyond even what her mentor, Justice Scalia, would have done in the Heller case, and starts to call into question state laws that do not allow former felons to have weapons if they’re, in her view, nonviolent. So, it’s just an example of this long practice she had, in a short time on the 7th Circuit, of nudging, nudging, nudging the law even further than it existed, and then kind of dressing it up as some kind of clear, originalist, obvious step, where, in fact, it’s very, very much what I think conservatives would call judicial activism.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, and on this issue of her being an originalist or a textualist, isn’t this the argument of the Scalia followers of originalism that the language of the Constitution is key, but irrespective of the fact that at the time the Constitution was written, there was, in essence, minority rule in the United States? There was not a clear democracy. So, your sense of the importance of originalism or textualism as the basis of supposedly nonpartisan judicial decisions?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: I think that originalism and textualism, original public meaning, as Justice Scalia described it, are all constitutional modes of interpretation that are dressed up as humble, neutral, mechanical, right? This is John Roberts’ balls and strikes. We just input it into the machine, we look in a dictionary, a contemporaneous definition of what the framers meant, and that’s the answer.
But I think you’re right: Undergirding that, there is a presumption, particularly with the original drafters of the original Constitution, that they were really thinking in terms of equality and dignity for everyone. And, of course, we know, presumptively, that was a document that was privileging white, male, wealthy land owners. That’s what the intention was. And so, I think it’s a little bit fatuous to pretend, A, that they had the answers to things like in vitro fertilization and marriage equality. But more urgently, there’s a lot of language, even in the original document, that was deliberately vague. What does “equal protection of the law” mean? What is “due process”? What does “cruel and unusual punishment” mean? Those were deliberately left open by the framers so the future generations could pour contemporaneous meaning into it. And so I think it’s a bit of a shell game. It’s a way of pretending to be neutral and to be fair and to be judicially modest. But, in fact, there’s always going to be a heavy, heavy thumb on the scale in favor of powerful and those who have the greatest voice. It’s the antithesis of what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did. She devoted her career to looking out for the voiceless and the powerless. This is a way of reifying the powerful and the very much represented, often at the expense of vast majorities of people who do not have a voice.
AMY GOODMAN: And very quickly, on the issue of her signing a petition saying that abortion is — talking about the “barbaric legacy” of abortion,” and also, as Senator Leahy pointed out, the group whose letter she signed, talking about IVF as tantamount — that’s in vitro fertilization — tantamount to manslaughter?
DAHLIA LITHWICK: This is a worry. And it’s something that, again, I think she wanted to hold herself out as somebody who will come to this with an open mind regardless of her activism. But I think it’s a very, very good way to make the point that a lot of Trump appointees don’t stop at abortion. There’s an objection to contraception, to IVF, even to surrogacy, Amy, and that the line that we think is the Roe v. Wade line is not at all the line. It starts a lot earlier. And I think we need to be mindful of these, of the ways that this is slipped into the discourse, that possibly surrogacy and IVF are on the chopping block, too.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, let’s follow the money trail. Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island did not use his time to question Barrett — he says he’ll do that today — but to discuss the role of dark money in politics. It was essentially a half-hour tutorial. This is just an excerpt.
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: In all cases, there’s big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity. One lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society. It’s managed by a guy — was managed by a guy named Leonard Leo, and it’s taken over the selection of judicial nominees. How do we know that to be the case? Because Trump has said so over and over again. His White House counsel said so. So we have an anonymously funded group controlling judicial selection, run by this guy Leonard Leo.
Then, in another lane, we have, again, anonymous funders running through something called the Judicial Crisis Network, which is run by Carrie Severino, and it’s doing PR and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees. It got $17 million — a single $17 million donation in the Garland-Gorsuch contest. It got another single $17 million donation to support Kavanaugh. Somebody, perhaps the same person, spent $35 million to influence the makeup of the United States Supreme Court. Tell me that’s good.
And then, over here, you have a whole array of legal groups, also funded by dark money, which have a different role. They bring cases to the court. They don’t wind their way to the court, Your Honor; they get shoved to the court by these legal groups, many of which ask to lose below so they can get quickly to the court to get their business done there. And then they turn up in a chorus, an orchestrated chorus of amici. …
This is a, to me, pretty big deal. I’ve never seen this around any court that I’ve ever been involved with, where there’s this much dark money and this much influence being used. Here’s how The Washington Post summed it up: This is “A conservative activist’s behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nation’s courts.” And it’s a $250 million dark money operation.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who will be joining us later in the week. He’ll be questioning Judge Barrett today. But he really talked about the issues of same-sex marriage, Affordable Care Act, abortion, that while they may be cared out, it’s really corporate power that the corporations want to preserve. Dahlia Lithwick, we have 30 seconds.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: I thought he put on a master class. Everybody should watch that 30-minute discussion. None of it is new. He’s been saying it for a long time. Jane Mayer chronicled it in her book. And I think that it answers the question why a tiny minority of views are so outsize represented at the court.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you so much, Dahlia, for joining us. Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter for Slate.com. Her latest piece, “Don’t Expect a 'Gotcha' Moment in the Barrett Hearings.”
To hear all of and watch these hearings, you can go to democracynow.org. We are running them gavel to gavel.
Next up, we speak with Yale law professor Samuel Moyn about his proposal to make the Supreme Court safe for democracy. Thirty seconds, next.


democracynow--2020-10-14--Can Trump Delay Election or Reject Peaceful Transition of Power? Amy Coney Barrett Refuses to Say

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett faced questions for about 11 hours on Tuesday as Republicans race to confirm her to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court prior to Election Day , which could give her a chance to take part in oral arguments in a critical case on the Affordable Care Act scheduled for November 10th .
If Barrett is confirmed in time , she could also be a deciding vote if the Supreme Court is asked to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats say the Supreme Court seat left open by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be filled by whoever wins the presidential election , since early voting has already begun and over 10 million people have voted .
In 2016 , Senate Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings for President Obama ’ s pick to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the court since it was an election year .
Amy Coney Barrett is a conservative judge who once clerked for Scalia , who she has described as her mentor .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives a 6-to-3 majority .
On Tuesday , Barrett refused to pledge to recuse herself in an election case , when questioned by Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware .
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT : I would consider it — let ’ s see , I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people .
So that would be on the question of actual bias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to every member of this committee , to the rest of the Senate and to the American people is that I will consider all factors that are relevant to that question , relevant to that question that requires recusal when there ’ s an appearance of bias .
AMY GOODMAN : Amy Coney Barrett also refused to say whether a president should commit to a peaceful transfer of power .
Her comment came during a series of questions from Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey .
AMY GOODMAN : Before Senator Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing Senator Dianne Feinstein of California asked her if Trump could legally delay the election .
AMY GOODMAN : Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota asked Barrett about the legality of voter intimidation .
AMY GOODMAN : Senator Amy Klobuchar questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
After a dinner break , Democratic vice-presidential nominee Senator Kamala Harris focused part of her time on Barrett ’ s past comments attacking the Supreme Court ’ s decision on Roe v. Wade .
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS : In 2006 , you signed your name to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It described Roe v. Wade as , quote , “ an exercise of raw judicial power.
” It called for putting , quote , “ an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.
” You signed a similar ad in 2013 that described Roe as , quote , “ infamous , ” and expressed opposition to abortion .
Also in 2013 , you wrote an article about Supreme Court precedent in which you excluded Roe from a list of well-settled cases that you said , quote , “ no justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” suggesting , of course , that you believe Roe is susceptible to being overturned .
On the 40th anniversary of Roe , you delivered a speech in which you said that the court ’ s recognition of the right to choose was , quote , “ created through judicial fiat ” rather than grounded in the Constitution .
And during your tenure on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals , you have been willing to reconsider abortion restrictions that other Republican-appointed judges found unconstitutional .
AMY GOODMAN : Vice-presidential nominee Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett from her Senate office , projected into the Senate Judiciary Committee Supreme Court confirmation hearings , due to COVID concerns .
Earlier in the hearing , Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy asked Barrett about her view on in vitro fertilization .
AMY GOODMAN : Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse opted not to ask Judge Barrett any questions on Tuesday .
Instead , he gave a 30-minute presentation on how right-wing groups , including the Federalist Society and Judicial Crisis Network , have used dark money to reshape the nation ’ s judiciary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ ll speak to Dahlia Lithwick , the Supreme Court reporter for Slate.com .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett faced questions for about 11 hours on Tuesday as Republicans race to confirm her to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court prior to Election Day, which could give her a chance to take part in oral arguments in a critical case on the Affordable Care Act scheduled for November 10th. If Barrett is confirmed in time, she could also be a deciding vote if the Supreme Court is asked to hear a dispute over the presidential election.
Democrats say the Supreme Court seat left open by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be filled by whoever wins the presidential election, since early voting has already begun and over 10 million people have voted. In 2016, Senate Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings for President Obama’s pick to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the court since it was an election year. Amy Coney Barrett is a conservative judge who once clerked for Scalia, who she has described as her mentor. If confirmed, the 48-year-old Barrett would give conservatives a 6-to-3 majority.
On Tuesday, Barrett refused to pledge to recuse herself in an election case, when questioned by Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware.
SEN. CHRIS COONS: Given what President Trump said, given the rushed context of this confirmation, will you commit to recusing yourself from any case arising from a dispute in the presidential election results three weeks from now?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: I would consider it — let’s see, I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people. So that would be on the question of actual bias. … And what I will commit to every member of this committee, to the rest of the Senate and to the American people is that I will consider all factors that are relevant to that question, relevant to that question that requires recusal when there’s an appearance of bias.
AMY GOODMAN: Amy Coney Barrett also refused to say whether a president should commit to a peaceful transfer of power. Her comment came during a series of questions from Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.
SEN. CORY BOOKER: I want to just ask you very simply, and I imagine you’ll give me a very short, resolute answer. But you condemn white supremacy, correct?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Yes.
SEN. CORY BOOKER: Here’s another one. Do you believe that every president should make a commitment, unequivocally and resolutely, to the peaceful transfer of power?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Senator, that seems to me to be pulling me in a little bit into this question of whether the president has said that he would not peacefully leave office. And so, to the extent that this is a political controversy right now, as a judge, I want to stay out of it, and I don’t want to express a view on —
SEN. CORY BOOKER: Do you think that the president has the power to pardon himself for any past of future crimes he may have committed against the United States of America?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Senator Booker, that would be a legal question. That would be a constitutional question. And so, in keeping with my obligation not to give hints, previews or forecasts of how I’d resolve the case, that’s not one that I can answer.
AMY GOODMAN: Before Senator Booker questioned Judge Barrett, earlier in the hearing Senator Dianne Feinstein of California asked her if Trump could legally delay the election.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN: On July 30th, 2020, President Trump made claims of voter fraud and suggested he wanted to delay the upcoming election. Does the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances? Does federal law?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants and read briefs and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion writing process. So, you know, if I give off-the-cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit. And I don’t think we want judges to be legal pundits. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.
AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota asked Barrett about the legality of voter intimidation.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: Last week, a contractor from outside of my state of Minnesota started recruiting “poll watchers” with Special Forces experience, mm-hmm, to protect polling locations in my state. This was clear voter intimidation. Similar efforts are going on around the country, solicited by President Trump’s false claims of massive voter fraud. … So, as a result of his claims, people are trying to get “poll watchers,” Special Forces people, to go to the polls. Judge Barrett, under federal law, is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, I can’t characterize the facts in a hypothetical situation, and I can’t apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts. I can only decide cases as they come to me litigated by parties, on a full record, after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing an opinion. And so, I can’t answer questions like that.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: OK, well, I’ll make — I’ll make it easier. 18 U.S.C. 594 outlaws anyone who intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote. This is a law that has been on the books for decades. Do you think a reasonable person would feel intimidated by the presence of armed civilian groups at the polls?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Senator Klobuchar, you know, that is eliciting — I’m not sure whether to say it’s eliciting a legal opinion from me, because the reasonable person standard, as you know, is one common in the law, or just an opinion as a citizen. But it’s not something, really, that’s appropriate for me to comment on.
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Amy Klobuchar questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett. After a dinner break, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Senator Kamala Harris focused part of her time on Barrett’s past comments attacking the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: In 2006, you signed your name to an advertisement published in the South Bend Tribune. It described Roe v. Wade as, quote, “an exercise of raw judicial power.” It called for putting, quote, “an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.” You signed a similar ad in 2013 that described Roe as, quote, “infamous,” and expressed opposition to abortion. Also in 2013, you wrote an article about Supreme Court precedent in which you excluded Roe from a list of well-settled cases that you said, quote, “no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees,” suggesting, of course, that you believe Roe is susceptible to being overturned. On the 40th anniversary of Roe, you delivered a speech in which you said that the court’s recognition of the right to choose was, quote, “created through judicial fiat” rather than grounded in the Constitution. And during your tenure on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, you have been willing to reconsider abortion restrictions that other Republican-appointed judges found unconstitutional.
As the Senate considers filling the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was straightforward enough in her confirmation hearing to say that the right to choose is, quote, “essential to women’s equality,” unquote, I would suggest that we not pretend that we don’t know how this nominee views a woman’s right to choose and make her own healthcare decisions.
AMY GOODMAN: Vice-presidential nominee Senator Kamala Harris was questioning Judge Amy Coney Barrett from her Senate office, projected into the Senate Judiciary Committee Supreme Court confirmation hearings, due to COVID concerns. Earlier in the hearing, Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy asked Barrett about her view on in vitro fertilization.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Do you agree with the St. Joseph County Right to Life, that sponsored the ad, that IVF is tantamount to manslaughter?
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: Well, Senator, I signed the statement that you and I have just discussed, and you’re right that the St. Joseph County Right to Life ran an ad on the next page, but I didn’t — I don’t even think the IVF view that you’re expressing was on that page. But regardless, I’ve never expressed a view on it.
AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse opted not to ask Judge Barrett any questions on Tuesday. Instead, he gave a 30-minute presentation on how right-wing groups, including the Federalist Society and Judicial Crisis Network, have used dark money to reshape the nation’s judiciary.
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: This is a, to me, pretty big deal. I’ve never seen this around any court that I’ve ever been involved with, where there’s this much dark money and this much influence being used. Here’s how The Washington Post summed it up: This is “A conservative activist’s behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nation’s courts.” And it’s a $250 million dark money operation.
AMY GOODMAN: When we come back, we’ll speak to Dahlia Lithwick, the Supreme Court reporter for Slate.com. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-10-14--Headlines for October 14, 2020

Headlines for October 14, 2020

Coronavirus cases are surging to new highs in communities across the United States as fall weather sets in , with over 54,000 new infections reported Tuesday and 20 states reaching record highs for the disease .
Oklahoma City officials say they ’ ve run out of intensive care beds .
Bismarck , North Dakota , reported it has just a single ICU bed remaining .
And six major hospitals in Mississippi have no ICU capacity .
Officially there have been nearly 216,000 deaths from COVID-19 this year , but a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 .
This comes as The Washington Post and The New York Times report that Trump administration officials say they ’ ve adopted a policy of deliberately letting the virus infect much of the U.S. population in order to attain “ herd immunity.
” Health experts warn the strategy might not even be possible and could lead to more than 2 million U.S. deaths .
In Geneva , Switzerland , the head of the World Health Organization , Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , said Monday that herd immunity should only be reached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus : “ Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus , not by exposing them to it .
Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak , let alone a pandemic .
It ’ s scientifically and ethically problematic .
”

Coronavirus cases are surging to new highs in communities across the United States as fall weather sets in, with over 54,000 new infections reported Tuesday and 20 states reaching record highs for the disease. Oklahoma City officials say they’ve run out of intensive care beds. Bismarck, North Dakota, reported it has just a single ICU bed remaining. And six major hospitals in Mississippi have no ICU capacity. Officially there have been nearly 216,000 deaths from COVID-19 this year, but a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association predicts up to 400,000 pandemic-related U.S. deaths in 2020. This comes as The Washington Post and The New York Times report that Trump administration officials say they’ve adopted a policy of deliberately letting the virus infect much of the U.S. population in order to attain “herd immunity.” Health experts warn the strategy might not even be possible and could lead to more than 2 million U.S. deaths. In Geneva, Switzerland, the head of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said Monday that herd immunity should only be reached through vaccination — not natural infection.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it. Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It’s scientifically and ethically problematic.”