democracynow--2020-09-25--"The Election That Could Break America": Inside How Trump & GOP Could Steal the Vote

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 .
For the second day in a row , President Trump refused to commit to accepting the results of the upcoming election if his rival Joe Biden wins .
Trump was asked about the election as he left the White House to campaign in North Carolina .
AMY GOODMAN : Trump ’ s remarks have been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans .
On Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792 , ” unquote .
But at the same time , McConnell is vowing to rapidly confirm Trump ’ s soon-to-be-announced nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court .
Earlier this week , Trump admitted he wants the Senate to rapidly confirm his nominee because the election could end up before the Supreme Court .
Meanwhile , The Atlantic magazine has revealed Republican Party officials are looking at multiple ways to subvert the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
One option would be to have Republican-led state legislatures claim the results of the election to be fraudulent , then choose a slate of Republican electors to vote in the Electoral College regardless of the outcome of the actual vote .
We ’ re joined right now by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Barton Gellman , staff writer at The Atlantic .
His new piece is headlined “ The Election That Could Break America.
” Barton Gellman is the author of several books , including Dark Mirror : Edward Snowden and the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much for joining us on Democracy Now !
Can you lay out in detail — no soundbites , please — exactly what you found are the plans not only being talked about , but are actually being laid out all over the country , and also what , then , surprised you most ?
BARTON GELLMAN : The president is running a campaign that is premised on the idea that he may not win or will not win if all the votes are counted , and he ’ s looking for insurance policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suppress the vote on Election Day and extends to this long campaign he ’ s been running against mail-in ballots as a way of delegitimating them and laying the groundwork for a post-election or mid-count challenge that would be intended to stop the count , to lock in whatever results there are on election night , when , because of the way he has divided the vote along partisan lines , there will be more Republicans , he forecasts , voting in person on Election Day and more Democrats voting by mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past election night .
And so , delegitimating the mail-in vote is a way of stopping the overtime count that everyone is expecting now , because we ’ re not going to have an election night , we ’ re going to have an election week , perhaps , or longer , during which the provisional ballots and the mail-in ballots , the absentee ballots , will be counted .
Now , among the things that some Trump people are talking about is a maneuver that would start by saying that the count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been rigged , is hopelessly mired in unacceptable conduct , and , therefore , that the count can ’ t be relied upon .
And we are all accustomed to the idea that electoral votes are distributed based on the way the popular vote goes in a given state .
If somebody gets the most votes in my state , then that candidate gets that state ’ s electoral votes .
The Constitution does not actually guarantee that result .
That ’ s a decision that ’ s made by each state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given in the Constitution to state legislatures .
The idea circulating in the Trump campaign and among some of its allies is that under some circumstances they could ask state legislatures to take back that power and simply appoint Trump electors regardless of the vote count in the state .
BARTON GELLMAN : Well , electors are pledged to one candidate or the other .
Which electors are appointed depends usually on the outcome of the election .
When I say “ usually , ” I mean for the past 150 , 175 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depending on state law and all kinds of other complexities , the Republican legislature of a state like Pennsylvania could choose to simply appoint electors who are pledged already to Trump , based on their assessment that the vote count in that state is fraudulent or marred by fraud , and therefore that they are going to protect the will of the people by appointing Trump electors .
In the 2000 recount between Bush and Gore , the Republicans actually started down this road .
The recount was still under litigation and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approaching in December , when the Republican House in Florida passed a resolution to appoint electors in Bush ’ s name , and the Senate was going to vote on the same day that Gore conceded the election .
And since I mentioned concession , it ’ s the premise of my article — and I try to explain why — that Trump ’ s strategy is never to concede , that he may win , he may lose , but under no circumstances will he concede this election .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t actually have a mechanism for forcing a candidate to concede .
And concession is the way we have ended elections .
There is no grand umpire who has jurisdiction over the whole election , who can blow a whistle and say , “ The election is over .
You won .
You lost , ” and make that stick .
We have relied instead on the loser to accept reality when the time comes .
AMY GOODMAN : So , you mention in your article that this will be the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without a federal judge requiring the Republican National Committee to seek approval in advance for any ballot security operations at the polls .
Why is this oversight so crucial , Barton ?
BARTON GELLMAN : Well , let me just give a back story that helps explain that .
In the 1981 gubernatorial election in New Jersey , the Republican National Committee organized what it called a Ballot Security Task Force — that was the euphemism — and it composed of a lot of off-duty law enforcement officers , sheriffs and so forth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wearing ballot security armbands , who went to polling places in neighborhoods , predominantly people of color , in Trenton and Newark , and , just bluntly , to suppress the vote .
They challenged people ’ s credentials .
They gave stern warnings against — about penalties for unlawful voting .
They , generally speaking , intimidated the voters and some poll workers , barging into closed areas , giving instructions to poll workers , in some cases physically preventing poll workers from assisting voters who needed help physically filling out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ function .
And the Democratic National Committee sued and , after introducing evidence , quickly won a consent decree , in which the judge forbade a whole long list of intimidation techniques and required that the RNC would submit any plans it had for Election Day operations to the judge for prior approval .
And that lasted almost 40 years .
The RNC persuaded the judge in 2018 to lift this consent decree , to lift the preclearance order , because there had been no recent violations by the RNC of the consent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the logic was that this consent decree is no longer needed , because it worked .
So the RNC is now free to choose its own forms of Election Day operations , its own ballot security .
And we ’ ll have to see what happens .
But the Trump campaign and the Republicans are recruiting what they ’ re calling an “ Army for Trump ” of 15,000 or so volunteers who will monitor security of the polls , and that means going into Democratic areas and looking for suspicious people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has — Donald Trump Jr. has taken to social media to call , quote , “ able-bodied ” people to join an election security army for his father .
AMY GOODMAN : “ Every able-bodied man and woman.
” And then Trump calls into Fox News to Sean Hannity saying , “ We ’ re going to have sheriffs , and we ’ re going to have law enforcement , and we ’ re going to have , hopefully , U.S. attorneys ” to keep close watch on these polls in states more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Florida and Texas .
When you say you ’ re going have sheriffs there , you ’ re going to have attorneys there , people are going to be afraid .
BARTON GELLMAN : Well , you are forecasting a physical confrontation , talking about law enforcement officers , talking about “ able-bodied ” people .
Why did they need to be able-bodied ?
What are they facing here ?
What kind of atmosphere are they trying to create ?
AMY GOODMAN : So , when you started this piece to now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change your attitude ?
I mean , when people were saying , “ Oh , if President Trump were to lose , he ’ ll never leave the White House , ” others weren ’ t that deeply concerned , you know , whether he could be taken out of the White House .
But this is a whole different story , when you have an army of something like a thousand Republican lawyers around the country who are going to challenge votes at every level , particularly focusing on mail-in votes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not quite sure if he ’ s being too discouraging of mail-in voting for Republican voters , so at the same time he ’ s telling Republican voters , “ You can mail in your votes.
” BARTON GELLMAN : He is .
Republican organizers were distressed , and some of them still are very much distressed , by the campaign against mail-in ballots , because they have relied for years on mail-in ballots to lock in votes before Election Day .
If you ’ re trying to get out your own vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if , in the days and weeks leading up to the election , you can induce people to send in their ballots , tell you they ’ ve done so , and therefore you ’ re very confident .
You ’ ve already got now , let ’ s say , 25 % of your vote ; you can focus all your efforts on Election Day on the rest .
And there are many senior voters who have relied on mail-in balloting for years .
You don ’ t want to tell your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Republican , that this method is now forbidden .
So , there ’ s been a bit of a mixed message , where they ’ ve prevailed upon Trump to say , well , these mail-in ballots are good , the other kind are bad .
He ’ s leaving himself lots of room to challenge the ballots as fraudulent .
And the way his son described it in the clip you played is that Trump will be winning on election night , and then sort of thousands and millions of fraudulent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results in order to steal the election from his father .
He ’ s referring to a phenomenon , that ’ s beginning to become fairly well known , known as the “ blue shift , ” in which you have one vote count , let ’ s say , on the morning after the election , that is provisional , that is up to that point , and then you have an overtime count , which is counting all the latest reporting precincts , the provisional ballots , which come from people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re eligible to vote — perhaps they ’ ve recently changed address or there was a name discrepancy that needs to be resolved — and then there ’ s all the mail-in ballots .
And they ’ re slower to count because they ’ re more elaborate .
They are sealed in outer envelopes .
The election authorities have to review the envelope , check the signature , scan a barcode , authenticate other details so that they know it ’ s a valid ballot , before they even open it .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot , remove an inner security envelope , which is sealed , you know , discard the outer shell , put the security envelope in a pile to be opened again so that the ballots can be scanned .
That ’ s just a whole process that doesn ’ t exist for in-person ballots .
And most states forbid election authorities to start doing this review and opening the outer envelope until Election Day itself .
And so there ’ s no way that they can handle the anticipated volume of mail-in ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come in overtime , in the days following the election .
For some reason , that ’ s not fully explained , these overtime counts have trended Democratic in recent years , since about the past 20 years .
And so , it is known and predictable that the overtime count is going to shift blue .
And that ’ s why Trump is trying to delegitimate the idea of mail-in ballots at all .
And by doing so , he is actually skewing the blue shift even more .
He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail-in ballots , because they believe him .
And let ’ s just emphasize that what he ’ s saying about mail ballots is fabricated .
It ’ s made up out of whole cloth .
Mail ballots have been used successfully and with vanishingly rare attempts at fraud for decades .
So , he ’ s just making that up .
He is — AMY GOODMAN : And especially Democrats voting more mail-in at this point during the pandemic because they see COVID as real , and more Republicans see it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s right .
That ’ s right .
But the advantage for Trump of dividing the electorate in this particular way is that he can challenge mail votes without worrying very much that he is invalidating his own voters ’ ballots , that just by the odds , if you manage to squelch a mail-in ballot , every single one that you manage to invalidate is much more likely to be a Democratic vote than a Republican vote .
AMY GOODMAN : We just have a minute to go , but what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply alarmed about this , and independents and Greens doing to counter this ?
BARTON GELLMAN : Well , they ’ re trying to win the battle for public opinion about the validity of mail-in ballots .
And it ’ s not clear how well that works .
The president is extremely good at creating impressions of chaos .
They are fighting a 41-state legal battle , that ’ s been going on all year , to ensure that mail-in ballots are counted , to try to get them counted early , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beneath-the-surface struggle over the rules , to make sure that every ballot is counted .
And they are trying to imagine what Trump will do , that is out of the norm , on Election Day and afterward , during this interregnum between Election Day and Inauguration Day .
And that ’ s the crucial 79-day period that I focus on in my piece for The Atlantic .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Barton Gellman , we thank you so much for being with us , staff writer at The Atlantic .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece there , called “ The Election That Could Break America.
” And congratulations on your new book , Dark Mirror : Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State .

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.
For the second day in a row, President Trump refused to commit to accepting the results of the upcoming election if his rival Joe Biden wins. Trump was asked about the election as he left the White House to campaign in North Carolina.
REPORTER: Mr. President, are the election results only legitimate if you win?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: So, we have to be very careful with the ballots. The ballots, that’s a whole big scam. .... We want to make sure the election is honest, and I’m not sure that it can be. I don’t — I don’t know that it can be with this whole situation — unsolicited ballots. They’re unsolicited, millions being sent to everybody. And we’ll see.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump made a similar comment Wednesday when questioned at a White House press briefing.
BRIAN KAREM: Will you commit here today for a peaceful transferral of power after the election?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, we’re going to have to see what happens. You know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster. And — and —
BRIAN KAREM: I understand that. But people are rioting.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I know. I know.
BRIAN KAREM: Do you commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferral of power?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We want to — we want to have — get rid of the ballots, and you’ll have a very — we’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation. The ballots are out of control. You know it. And you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.
AMY GOODMAN: Trump’s remarks have been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted, “There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792,” unquote. But at the same time, McConnell is vowing to rapidly confirm Trump’s soon-to-be-announced nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Earlier this week, Trump admitted he wants the Senate to rapidly confirm his nominee because the election could end up before the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, The Atlantic magazine has revealed Republican Party officials are looking at multiple ways to subvert the election process to ensure Trump stays in power. One option would be to have Republican-led state legislatures claim the results of the election to be fraudulent, then choose a slate of Republican electors to vote in the Electoral College regardless of the outcome of the actual vote.
We’re joined right now by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Barton Gellman, staff writer at The Atlantic. His new piece is headlined “The Election That Could Break America.” Barton Gellman is the author of several books, including Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State.
Barton, thanks so much for joining us on Democracy Now! Can you lay out in detail — no soundbites, please — exactly what you found are the plans not only being talked about, but are actually being laid out all over the country, and also what, then, surprised you most?
BARTON GELLMAN: The president is running a campaign that is premised on the idea that he may not win or will not win if all the votes are counted, and he’s looking for insurance policies. It begins with traditional Republican efforts to suppress the vote on Election Day and extends to this long campaign he’s been running against mail-in ballots as a way of delegitimating them and laying the groundwork for a post-election or mid-count challenge that would be intended to stop the count, to lock in whatever results there are on election night, when, because of the way he has divided the vote along partisan lines, there will be more Republicans, he forecasts, voting in person on Election Day and more Democrats voting by mail, with counts that will continue on past election night. And so, delegitimating the mail-in vote is a way of stopping the overtime count that everyone is expecting now, because we’re not going to have an election night, we’re going to have an election week, perhaps, or longer, during which the provisional ballots and the mail-in ballots, the absentee ballots, will be counted.
Now, among the things that some Trump people are talking about is a maneuver that would start by saying that the count has been poisoned by fraud, has been rigged, is hopelessly mired in unacceptable conduct, and, therefore, that the count can’t be relied upon. And we are all accustomed to the idea that electoral votes are distributed based on the way the popular vote goes in a given state. If somebody gets the most votes in my state, then that candidate gets that state’s electoral votes. The Constitution does not actually guarantee that result. That’s a decision that’s made by each state, because the power to appoint electors is given in the Constitution to state legislatures. The idea circulating in the Trump campaign and among some of its allies is that under some circumstances they could ask state legislatures to take back that power and simply appoint Trump electors regardless of the vote count in the state.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what loyal electors are, Barton.
BARTON GELLMAN: Well, electors are pledged to one candidate or the other. Which electors are appointed depends usually on the outcome of the election. When I say “usually,” I mean for the past 150, 175 years. But in theory, and depending on state law and all kinds of other complexities, the Republican legislature of a state like Pennsylvania could choose to simply appoint electors who are pledged already to Trump, based on their assessment that the vote count in that state is fraudulent or marred by fraud, and therefore that they are going to protect the will of the people by appointing Trump electors.
In the 2000 recount between Bush and Gore, the Republicans actually started down this road. The recount was still under litigation and the date for the Electoral College vote was approaching in December, when the Republican House in Florida passed a resolution to appoint electors in Bush’s name, and the Senate was going to vote on the same day that Gore conceded the election.
And since I mentioned concession, it’s the premise of my article — and I try to explain why — that Trump’s strategy is never to concede, that he may win, he may lose, but under no circumstances will he concede this election. That’s a big problem, because we don’t actually have a mechanism for forcing a candidate to concede. And concession is the way we have ended elections. There is no grand umpire who has jurisdiction over the whole election, who can blow a whistle and say, “The election is over. You won. You lost,” and make that stick. We have relied instead on the loser to accept reality when the time comes.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you mention in your article that this will be the first election in 40 years to take place without a federal judge requiring the Republican National Committee to seek approval in advance for any ballot security operations at the polls. Why is this oversight so crucial, Barton?
BARTON GELLMAN: Well, let me just give a back story that helps explain that. In the 1981 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, the Republican National Committee organized what it called a Ballot Security Task Force — that was the euphemism — and it composed of a lot of off-duty law enforcement officers, sheriffs and so forth, wearing guns, talking into radios, wearing ballot security armbands, who went to polling places in neighborhoods, predominantly people of color, in Trenton and Newark, and, just bluntly, to suppress the vote. They challenged people’s credentials. They gave stern warnings against — about penalties for unlawful voting. They, generally speaking, intimidated the voters and some poll workers, barging into closed areas, giving instructions to poll workers, in some cases physically preventing poll workers from assisting voters who needed help physically filling out their ballots, which is a normal function.
And the Democratic National Committee sued and, after introducing evidence, quickly won a consent decree, in which the judge forbade a whole long list of intimidation techniques and required that the RNC would submit any plans it had for Election Day operations to the judge for prior approval. And that lasted almost 40 years.
The RNC persuaded the judge in 2018 to lift this consent decree, to lift the preclearance order, because there had been no recent violations by the RNC of the consent decree. So, it was — the logic was that this consent decree is no longer needed, because it worked. So the RNC is now free to choose its own forms of Election Day operations, its own ballot security. And we’ll have to see what happens. But the Trump campaign and the Republicans are recruiting what they’re calling an “Army for Trump” of 15,000 or so volunteers who will monitor security of the polls, and that means going into Democratic areas and looking for suspicious people.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, Donald Trump has — Donald Trump Jr. has taken to social media to call, quote, “able-bodied” people to join an election security army for his father.
DONALD TRUMP JR.: [The radical left] are laying the groundwork to steal this election from my father, President Donald Trump. They are planting stories that President Trump will have a landslide lead on election night, but will lose when they finish counting the mail-in ballots. Their plan is to add millions of fraudulent ballots that can cancel your vote and overturn the election. We cannot let that happen. We need every able-bodied man, woman to join Army for Trump’s election security operation.
AMY GOODMAN: “Every able-bodied man and woman.” And then Trump calls into Fox News to Sean Hannity saying, “We’re going to have sheriffs, and we’re going to have law enforcement, and we’re going to have, hopefully, U.S. attorneys” to keep close watch on these polls in states more likely to vote Democrat or contested states like Florida and Texas. When you say you’re going have sheriffs there, you’re going to have attorneys there, people are going to be afraid.
BARTON GELLMAN: Well, you are forecasting a physical confrontation, talking about law enforcement officers, talking about “able-bodied” people. Why did they need to be able-bodied? What are they facing here? What kind of atmosphere are they trying to create?
AMY GOODMAN: So, when you started this piece to now when you published it, did you change your attitude? I mean, when people were saying, “Oh, if President Trump were to lose, he’ll never leave the White House,” others weren’t that deeply concerned, you know, whether he could be taken out of the White House. But this is a whole different story, when you have an army of something like a thousand Republican lawyers around the country who are going to challenge votes at every level, particularly focusing on mail-in votes. Yet at the same time Trump is not quite sure if he’s being too discouraging of mail-in voting for Republican voters, so at the same time he’s telling Republican voters, “You can mail in your votes.”
BARTON GELLMAN: He is. Republican organizers were distressed, and some of them still are very much distressed, by the campaign against mail-in ballots, because they have relied for years on mail-in ballots to lock in votes before Election Day. If you’re trying to get out your own vote, it’s a big advantage if, in the days and weeks leading up to the election, you can induce people to send in their ballots, tell you they’ve done so, and therefore you’re very confident. You’ve already got now, let’s say, 25% of your vote; you can focus all your efforts on Election Day on the rest. And there are many senior voters who have relied on mail-in balloting for years. You don’t want to tell your own voters, if you’re a Republican, that this method is now forbidden. So, there’s been a bit of a mixed message, where they’ve prevailed upon Trump to say, well, these mail-in ballots are good, the other kind are bad. He’s leaving himself lots of room to challenge the ballots as fraudulent.
And the way his son described it in the clip you played is that Trump will be winning on election night, and then sort of thousands and millions of fraudulent votes will be added fraudulently to the results in order to steal the election from his father. He’s referring to a phenomenon, that’s beginning to become fairly well known, known as the “blue shift,” in which you have one vote count, let’s say, on the morning after the election, that is provisional, that is up to that point, and then you have an overtime count, which is counting all the latest reporting precincts, the provisional ballots, which come from people who need to prove that they’re eligible to vote — perhaps they’ve recently changed address or there was a name discrepancy that needs to be resolved — and then there’s all the mail-in ballots.
And they’re slower to count because they’re more elaborate. They are sealed in outer envelopes. The election authorities have to review the envelope, check the signature, scan a barcode, authenticate other details so that they know it’s a valid ballot, before they even open it. Then they have to physically open up the ballot, remove an inner security envelope, which is sealed, you know, discard the outer shell, put the security envelope in a pile to be opened again so that the ballots can be scanned. That’s just a whole process that doesn’t exist for in-person ballots. And most states forbid election authorities to start doing this review and opening the outer envelope until Election Day itself. And so there’s no way that they can handle the anticipated volume of mail-in ballots now. And so those are going to come in overtime, in the days following the election.
For some reason, that’s not fully explained, these overtime counts have trended Democratic in recent years, since about the past 20 years. And so, it is known and predictable that the overtime count is going to shift blue. And that’s why Trump is trying to delegitimate the idea of mail-in ballots at all. And by doing so, he is actually skewing the blue shift even more. He is guaranteeing that his own voters will avoid mail-in ballots, because they believe him.
And let’s just emphasize that what he’s saying about mail ballots is fabricated. It’s made up out of whole cloth. Mail ballots have been used successfully and with vanishingly rare attempts at fraud for decades. So, he’s just making that up. He is —
AMY GOODMAN: And especially Democrats voting more mail-in at this point during the pandemic because they see COVID as real, and more Republicans see it as a conspiracy.
BARTON GELLMAN: That’s right. That’s right. But the advantage for Trump of dividing the electorate in this particular way is that he can challenge mail votes without worrying very much that he is invalidating his own voters’ ballots, that just by the odds, if you manage to squelch a mail-in ballot, every single one that you manage to invalidate is much more likely to be a Democratic vote than a Republican vote.
AMY GOODMAN: We just have a minute to go, but what are Democrats, and Republicans who are deeply alarmed about this, and independents and Greens doing to counter this?
BARTON GELLMAN: Well, they’re trying to win the battle for public opinion about the validity of mail-in ballots. And it’s not clear how well that works. The president is extremely good at creating impressions of chaos. They are fighting a 41-state legal battle, that’s been going on all year, to ensure that mail-in ballots are counted, to try to get them counted early, to — there’s this sort of beneath-the-surface struggle over the rules, to make sure that every ballot is counted. And they are trying to imagine what Trump will do, that is out of the norm, on Election Day and afterward, during this interregnum between Election Day and Inauguration Day. And that’s the crucial 79-day period that I focus on in my piece for The Atlantic.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Barton Gellman, we thank you so much for being with us, staff writer at The Atlantic. We’re going to link to your piece there, called “The Election That Could Break America.” And congratulations on your new book, Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State.


democracynow--2020-09-25--Headlines for September 25, 2020

Headlines for September 25, 2020

Donald Trump visited the Supreme Court Thursday , where the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lay in repose following her death last week at the age of 87 .
Trump wore a mask as he and first lady Melania Trump posed next to Ginsburg ’ s casket on the steps of the court — one of the few times Trump has worn a mask publicly since the start of the pandemic .
Members of the public who spotted Trump on the steps of the High Court erupted in a chorus of boos and chants of “ Vote him out !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
Vote him out !
Vote him out !
Vote him out !
Vote him out !
” As the protests grew louder , Trump walked back inside the Supreme Court ; the protesters then switched their chant to “ Honor her wish.
” Ginsburg ’ s final statement , dictated to her granddaughter days before her death , read , “ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.
” Trump has said he ’ ll name his new nominee to replace Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pledged to rush confirmation proceedings for Trump ’ s pick ahead of Election Day .
Today Ruth Bader Ginsburg will lie in state at the U.S. Capitol , becoming the first woman and the first Jewish person to receive the honor .

On Capitol Hill, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Homeland Security Committee Thursday he’s seen no evidence of the widespread voter fraud claimed by President Trump among mail-in ballots.
Christopher Wray: “We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.”
The FBI director’s testimony came as a U.S. attorney and an FBI field office in Pennsylvania issued an unusual statement claiming they’re investigating reports of tampering with nine military ballots. The U.S. attorney says the ballots were “improperly opened,” with votes cast for Donald Trump “discarded” by elections officials. The Trump campaign then seized on the announcement, saying, “Democrats are trying to steal the election.”
Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt questioned the timing of the announcement, telling NPR, “It is the vital duty of government not to announce partial facts and 'potential issues' in pending investigations. Indeed, it’s quite improper to announce the fact of an inquiry. And grotesquely improper to announce whom the ballots were cast for, as if that mattered in the investigation.”


democracynow--2020-09-28--A Police Cover-Up? New Bodycam Video from Night of Breonna Taylor's Killing Undermines State Account

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
After nearly 200 days of protests calling for justice for Breonna Taylor , the 26-year-old African American woman shot to death in her own apartment by plainclothes Louisville officers serving a no-knock warrant , new evidence is raising troubling questions about the integrity of the crime scene after the raid , and the investigation that followed .
On Thursday , a grand jury failed to charge any of the three white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Breonna Taylor with her death .
Kentucky ’ s governor , Louisville ’ s mayor have joined calls to release the grand jury transcripts .
Vice News has obtained body camera footage from Louisville Metro Police Department officers and SWAT team members from the night of the raid that raises questions about the investigation .
On Saturday , Vice posted a clip that shows former detective Brett Hankison , one of the three officers who fired their guns and the only one now facing charges — he ’ s facing charges of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that hit Breonna Taylor ’ s apartment or her , but that hit a neighboring apartment .
In the footage , Hankison can be seen entering Taylor ’ s apartment while investigators are there examining the crime scene .
At one point in the footage , Hankison asks about a shell casing on the ground , saying , “ That ’ s theirs ?
” before an unidentified officer tells him to leave until the PIU , the Public Integrity Unit , arrives .
This is the clip .
AMY GOODMAN : Video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor ’ s apartment , even after he ’ s told to leave the scene of the active investigation of an officer-involved shooting , in which he is one of the officers .
It also shows that none of the officers who were part of the raid got separated or paired with an escort .
This comes as a ballistics report from the Kentucky State Police was unable to determine that Taylor ’ s boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , shot officer Jonathan Mattingly , as he has been claimed to have done by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mattingly was hit by friendly fire .
During the raid , Walker fired a warning shot at the front door , and said he believed it was a home invasion .
He didn ’ t know who was raiding his apartment .
He even called the police to ask for help .
He has a license to carry firearms .
Meanwhile , the footage from the body cameras appears to corroborate several parts of Walker ’ s testimony .
Walker says when officers arrested him , they threatened to set a dog on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend the rest of his life in jail .
This is a clip from the body camera footage of his arrest .
AMY GOODMAN : For more , we ’ re joined by part of the team that obtained this footage .
Roberto Ferdman is a Vice News correspondent , his latest co-authored piece headlined “ New Body-Cam Footage Raises Questions About Breonna Taylor Death Investigation.
” He ’ s just back from Louisville , joining us from New York .
Welcome , Roberto , to Democracy Now !
Tell us who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the significance of this footage .
I think most people listening or watching right now are saying , “ Wait a second , I thought there was no footage , that the officers who engaged in this no-knock raid did not have bodycam cameras.
” ROBERTO FERDMAN : So , you ’ re right .
From the very beginning , the police department and the city have maintained that none of the officers who executed the search warrant were wearing body cameras , because they ’ re part of a unit called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often perform their duties in plainclothes , as they were that night , and up until then — because since , the policy has been changed — they didn ’ t have to wear body cameras .
That being said , there are many officers and SWAT team members who arrived on scene immediately afterward .
And all of those officers — most of them are uniformed — have to wear body cameras , had to at the time , and were wearing body cameras .
So , we acquired about 45 different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s many , many hours of footage .
Some of these are 30 minutes long , or many of them are .
And we sifted through those .
The video of where you see Kenneth Walker being arrested , walking backwards , that ’ s the body camera of a K-9 officer , who comes over to kind of rush Walker to walk backwards faster .
The other body camera is from one of the SWAT team members .
There are probably about 10 others .
And we ’ re working toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks show what can be gleaned from those videos , and from other documents , as well .
AMY GOODMAN : And explain who ’ s screaming at him .
And who also is captured on camera saying to him , Kenny Walker — this is Breonna ’ s boyfriend — screaming at him , “ You ’ re going to spend the rest of your life in jail , ” and threatening to sic the dog on him ?
ROBERTO FERDMAN : So , the officer who ’ s threatening to sic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer whose last name , I believe , is Nomono [ phon. ]
.
The person who tells Kenny that he ’ s going to spend the rest of his life in jail is Brett Hankison , one of the three officers LMPD says fired their weapon that night , and who was fired over the summer — I believe it was at the beginning of July .
But Hankison is not just the officer who tells Kenny that he ’ s going to spend the rest of his life in jail .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as you pointed out , who can be seen inside of the apartment .
He walks up to the front door immediately after SWAT clears the apartment , leaves and then comes back and steps into the apartment .
None of this is supposed to happen .
In fact , what is supposed to happen is very far from it .
All the officers who were involved in any critical incident , especially officer-involved shootings , are supposed to be separated immediately and paired with what ’ s called a peer support officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puts them , for instance , like in the back of a car , so that they don ’ t speak to other people , so that they don ’ t involve themselves in the crime scene .
But , you know , these things don ’ t seem to have been enforced , these policies .
And it is so flagrant in some instances , that one of the officers , Mike Campbell — he ’ s one of the seven who executed the raid — actually ends up interviewing neighbors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen on video walking down the stairs , having come from upstairs in that unit to speak to the neighbors there , he tells investigators , in an interview , that he does it , and they don ’ t — they don ’ t say anything of it .
They don ’ t flinch .
We haven ’ t heard back from the department on what they make of that or why they haven ’ t pointed that out or why the officer hasn ’ t been punished .
AMY GOODMAN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point about the witnesses .
When Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced that no charges would be brought in direct connection with Breonna Taylor ’ s death , he emphasized the officers who carried out the search warrant did identify themselves at Taylor ’ s door , and noted there was a witness who corroborated the officers ’ version of events .
This is Cameron .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s the Kentucky attorney general .
But according to audio and documents obtained by your news organization , Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story in the months following the raid .
In this clip Vice published this weekend , we hear the original answer , given by the only witness who claims to have heard the police identify themselves that night .
AMY GOODMAN : “ No , nobody identified himself.
” This is the witness — is that right ?
— that the attorney general identified as the one who said the police did identify themselves as police , Roberto ?
ROBERTO FERDMAN : This is the witness , yes .
This is the key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations have pointed out — us as early as July — we spoke to over a dozen neighbors , including neighbors within that unit .
We didn ’ t speak to Mr. Sarpee at the time .
We tried , but failed in reaching him .
None of the neighbors that we spoke to , including one who lived in the unit , say that they heard police announce themselves .
And the attorney general hangs quite a bit on them announcing themselves .
The importance of this , even if they did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that when you execute a no-knock warrant , it ’ s important that you immediately breach the door and go in , because if you ’ re knocking loudly on someone ’ s door and you ’ re not announcing yourself , that creates a very dangerous scenario , where someone is alerted to people being at the door .
They don ’ t know whom it is .
I think that anyone can agree that it ’ s fair to assume it could be an intruder , as Kenneth Walker says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney general only presents what Mr. Sarpee says in the second interview that ’ s recorded with the Public Integrity Unit at LMPD .
He does not share that the first time they speak with Mr. Sarpee , which is on March 21st , a little over a week after the raid that killed Breonna Taylor , he has a different story .
He says that he did not hear anyone — he says he did not hear anyone announce themselves .
The only way he could tell that they were police was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” on the vests , the bullet-proof vests that they were wearing .
And this is significant , I mean , especially given how little information has been shared with the public , before we started releasing stories , and the way in which all of this was represented or presented to the public by the Attorney General ’ s Office last Wednesday , when he shared the result of the long-awaited investigation .
AMY GOODMAN : You also wrote a piece headlined “ Initial Police Report Didn ’ t Conclude Breonna Taylor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Leg.
” And this is key .
I mean , even if he did , you have this situation where he didn ’ t know it was cops .
He was calling the police , saying , “ Help us.
” But what about this ?
ROBERTO FERDMAN : So , this is important because it ’ s a theme that the attorney general brings up himself in explaining that they don ’ t know for sure whether or not Brett Hankison — any of Brett Hankison ’ s bullets hit Breonna @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports .
And he says that , therefore , it is inconclusive .
That ’ s part of why they were not able to charge Brett Hankison with wanton endangerment for bullets into Breonna Taylor ’ s apartment , for endangering Breonna Taylor .
It is unclear to us — and we broke this story on Friday — why then he also did not present — why he presented Kenneth Walker hitting — or , firing the shot that hit Mattingly as inconclusive , as well .
He said in the press conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was recovered was a 9-millimeter .
But the difference between a 9-millimeter and what is normally shot with a .40-caliber weapon is very , very small .
AMY GOODMAN : We have five seconds .
ROBERTO FERDMAN : And the bullet was — and the bullet was mangled .
So , we believe that it ’ s inconclusive and that the public deserves more information to understand what we know for sure and what we don ’ t and why things have been presented the way they have been .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say thank you so much .
We ’ re going to continue to follow this .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Thanks for joining us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. After nearly 200 days of protests calling for justice for Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old African American woman shot to death in her own apartment by plainclothes Louisville officers serving a no-knock warrant, new evidence is raising troubling questions about the integrity of the crime scene after the raid, and the investigation that followed.
On Thursday, a grand jury failed to charge any of the three white Louisville police officers involved in the killing of Breonna Taylor with her death. Kentucky’s governor, Louisville’s mayor have joined calls to release the grand jury transcripts.
Vice News has obtained body camera footage from Louisville Metro Police Department officers and SWAT team members from the night of the raid that raises questions about the investigation. On Saturday, Vice posted a clip that shows former detective Brett Hankison, one of the three officers who fired their guns and the only one now facing charges — he’s facing charges of first-degree wanton endangerment for gunshots, not that hit Breonna Taylor’s apartment or her, but that hit a neighboring apartment. In the footage, Hankison can be seen entering Taylor’s apartment while investigators are there examining the crime scene. At one point in the footage, Hankison asks about a shell casing on the ground, saying, “That’s theirs?” before an unidentified officer tells him to leave until the PIU, the Public Integrity Unit, arrives. This is the clip.
BRETT HANKISON: Is that theirs?
SGT. BRANDON HOGAN: No, it’s ours, looks like. There it is, in there. But I’d back out until they get PIU in here. So…
BRETT HANKISON: Isn’t — are there any guns visible?
SGT. BRANDON HOGAN: We did not see any.
AMY GOODMAN: Video footage also shows Detective Hankison lingers in Taylor’s apartment, even after he’s told to leave the scene of the active investigation of an officer-involved shooting, in which he is one of the officers. It also shows that none of the officers who were part of the raid got separated or paired with an escort.
This comes as a ballistics report from the Kentucky State Police was unable to determine that Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, shot officer Jonathan Mattingly, as he has been claimed to have done by the Kentucky attorney general, or if Mattingly was hit by friendly fire. During the raid, Walker fired a warning shot at the front door, and said he believed it was a home invasion. He didn’t know who was raiding his apartment. He even called the police to ask for help. He has a license to carry firearms.
Meanwhile, the footage from the body cameras appears to corroborate several parts of Walker’s testimony. Walker says when officers arrested him, they threatened to set a dog on him and told him he’d spend the rest of his life in jail. This is a clip from the body camera footage of his arrest.
NARCOTICS OFFICER: Walk straight back, or I will send this dog on you! Walk back to my voice! Walk back, or I will send this dog! Walk back to me! Keep on walking! Walk down! Walk! Walk back to me!
KENNETH WALKER: I’m trying.
NARCOTICS OFFICER: Watch out! Walk back to me now! Now! Take your hands in the air! Get down on your knees! Watch that, man! Get down on your knees!
OFFICER 2: Don’t look back! Don’t look back!
OFFICER 3: Put you hands on your head!
AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by part of the team that obtained this footage. Roberto Ferdman is a Vice News correspondent, his latest co-authored piece headlined “New Body-Cam Footage Raises Questions About Breonna Taylor Death Investigation.” He’s just back from Louisville, joining us from New York.
Welcome, Roberto, to Democracy Now! Tell us who is shouting this right now, and talk about the significance of this footage. I think most people listening or watching right now are saying, “Wait a second, I thought there was no footage, that the officers who engaged in this no-knock raid did not have bodycam cameras.”
ROBERTO FERDMAN: So, you’re right. From the very beginning, the police department and the city have maintained that none of the officers who executed the search warrant were wearing body cameras, because they’re part of a unit called the Criminal Interdiction Division, and they often perform their duties in plainclothes, as they were that night, and up until then — because since, the policy has been changed — they didn’t have to wear body cameras.
That being said, there are many officers and SWAT team members who arrived on scene immediately afterward. And all of those officers — most of them are uniformed — have to wear body cameras, had to at the time, and were wearing body cameras.
So, we acquired about 45 different body cameras. I mean, it’s many, many hours of footage. Some of these are 30 minutes long, or many of them are. And we sifted through those.
The video of where you see Kenneth Walker being arrested, walking backwards, that’s the body camera of a K-9 officer, who comes over to kind of rush Walker to walk backwards faster. The other body camera is from one of the SWAT team members. There are probably about 10 others. And we’re working toward more stories at the moment to help folks show what can be gleaned from those videos, and from other documents, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain who’s screaming at him. And who also is captured on camera saying to him, Kenny Walker — this is Breonna’s boyfriend — screaming at him, “You’re going to spend the rest of your life in jail,” and threatening to sic the dog on him?
ROBERTO FERDMAN: So, the officer who’s threatening to sic the dog on him is an LMPD officer whose last name, I believe, is Nomono [phon.]. The person who tells Kenny that he’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail is Brett Hankison, one of the three officers LMPD says fired their weapon that night, and who was fired over the summer — I believe it was at the beginning of July. But Hankison is not just the officer who tells Kenny that he’s going to spend the rest of his life in jail. He’s also the officer, as you pointed out, who can be seen inside of the apartment. He walks up to the front door immediately after SWAT clears the apartment, leaves and then comes back and steps into the apartment.
None of this is supposed to happen. In fact, what is supposed to happen is very far from it. All the officers who were involved in any critical incident, especially officer-involved shootings, are supposed to be separated immediately and paired with what’s called a peer support officer, someone who brings them over, puts them, for instance, like in the back of a car, so that they don’t speak to other people, so that they don’t involve themselves in the crime scene. But, you know, these things don’t seem to have been enforced, these policies.
And it is so flagrant in some instances, that one of the officers, Mike Campbell — he’s one of the seven who executed the raid — actually ends up interviewing neighbors, witnesses, and not only can be seen on video walking down the stairs, having come from upstairs in that unit to speak to the neighbors there, he tells investigators, in an interview, that he does it, and they don’t — they don’t say anything of it. They don’t flinch. We haven’t heard back from the department on what they make of that or why they haven’t pointed that out or why the officer hasn’t been punished.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to go to this point about the witnesses. When Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced that no charges would be brought in direct connection with Breonna Taylor’s death, he emphasized the officers who carried out the search warrant did identify themselves at Taylor’s door, and noted there was a witness who corroborated the officers’ version of events. This is Cameron.
ATTORNEY GENERAL DANIEL CAMERON: Evidence shows that officers both knocked and announced their presence at the apartment. The officers’ statements about their announcement are corroborated by an independent witness who was near, in a proximity to apartment 4. In other words, the warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant. When officers were unable to get anyone to answer or open the door to apartment 4, the decision was made to breach the door.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s the Kentucky attorney general. But according to audio and documents obtained by your news organization, Vice News, that same witness changed his story in the months following the raid. In this clip Vice published this weekend, we hear the original answer, given by the only witness who claims to have heard the police identify themselves that night.
SGT. JASON VANCE: Did you ever hear anyone identify themself as police?
AARIN SARPEE: No, nobody identified himself.
AMY GOODMAN: “No, nobody identified himself.” This is the witness — is that right? — that the attorney general identified as the one who said the police did identify themselves as police, Roberto?
ROBERTO FERDMAN: This is the witness, yes. This is the key witness. As we and other news organizations have pointed out — us as early as July — we spoke to over a dozen neighbors, including neighbors within that unit. We didn’t speak to Mr. Sarpee at the time. We tried, but failed in reaching him. None of the neighbors that we spoke to, including one who lived in the unit, say that they heard police announce themselves.
And the attorney general hangs quite a bit on them announcing themselves. The importance of this, even if they did have permission for a no-knock warrant, is that when you execute a no-knock warrant, it’s important that you immediately breach the door and go in, because if you’re knocking loudly on someone’s door and you’re not announcing yourself, that creates a very dangerous scenario, where someone is alerted to people being at the door. They don’t know whom it is. I think that anyone can agree that it’s fair to assume it could be an intruder, as Kenneth Walker says he believed it was.
But the attorney general only presents what Mr. Sarpee says in the second interview that’s recorded with the Public Integrity Unit at LMPD. He does not share that the first time they speak with Mr. Sarpee, which is on March 21st, a little over a week after the raid that killed Breonna Taylor, he has a different story. He says that he did not hear anyone — he says he did not hear anyone announce themselves. The only way he could tell that they were police was because he saw the word “police” on the vests, the bullet-proof vests that they were wearing.
And this is significant, I mean, especially given how little information has been shared with the public, before we started releasing stories, and the way in which all of this was represented or presented to the public by the Attorney General’s Office last Wednesday, when he shared the result of the long-awaited investigation.
AMY GOODMAN: You also wrote a piece headlined “Initial Police Report Didn’t Conclude Breonna Taylor’s Boyfriend Shot a Cop in the Leg.” And this is key. I mean, even if he did, you have this situation where he didn’t know it was cops. He was calling the police, saying, “Help us.” But what about this?
ROBERTO FERDMAN: So, this is important because it’s a theme that the attorney general brings up himself in explaining that they don’t know for sure whether or not Brett Hankison — any of Brett Hankison’s bullets hit Breonna Taylor. There were differences in ballistics reports. And he says that, therefore, it is inconclusive. That’s part of why they were not able to charge Brett Hankison with wanton endangerment for bullets into Breonna Taylor’s apartment, for endangering Breonna Taylor.
It is unclear to us — and we broke this story on Friday — why then he also did not present — why he presented Kenneth Walker hitting — or, firing the shot that hit Mattingly as inconclusive, as well. He said in the press conference that it’s because the bullet that was recovered was a 9-millimeter. But the difference between a 9-millimeter and what is normally shot with a .40-caliber weapon is very, very small.
AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.
ROBERTO FERDMAN: And the bullet was — and the bullet was mangled. So, we believe that it’s inconclusive and that the public deserves more information to understand what we know for sure and what we don’t and why things have been presented the way they have been.
AMY GOODMAN: Roberto Ferdman, I want to say thank you so much. We’re going to continue to follow this. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks for joining us.


democracynow--2020-09-28--Planned Parenthood CEO: Trump's SCOTUS Pick Could Overturn Roe v. Wade & Kill Obamacare

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : As we continue our coverage of President Trump ’ s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , we turn now to look at how her confirmation poses a threat to reproductive rights .
On Sunday , President Trump appeared on Fox & Friends and was asked about the future of Roe v. Wade .
AMY GOODMAN : “ Maybe they ’ d give it back to the states .
You just don ’ t know what ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Alexis McGill Johnson , president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America , Planned Parenthood Action Fund , as well , her recent op-ed in USA Today headlined “ Amy Coney Barrett won ’ t stand up for women the way Ruth Bader Ginsburg did.
” Welcome back to Democracy Now !
, Alexis McGill Johnson .
Can you respond to what Trump just said — to throw it back to the states ?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Yeah .
I mean , look , we certainly know that Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge threat to reproductive rights .
She ’ s been an active and vocal critic of Roe v. Wade and suggested that it would not be — it was settled wrongly .
And we also know that there are 17 cases that are a case away from the Supreme Court , that could overturn , if not irrevocably create restrictions around access to abortion .
So , what it would mean is that if Roe were overturned , that there would be some states where if you decided you wanted to start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be within your domain of decisions that you would be making with your partner , with your — you know , and with your medical provider , and in other states you would essentially be forced into pregnancy if you didn ’ t have the resources to access abortion .
So , I think that those are the challenges that we are facing here .
And I also think that , you know , just to tie it back to the other conversation you were having around healthcare , reproductive healthcare is healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are facing in the time of a pandemic is the fact that the ACA , which has been one of the biggest advancements for women ’ s health across the board , is also under attack .
And the threat of that , I think , in combination with the impact it could have on abortion access , is really significant with this judge .
AMY GOODMAN : I mean , this is absolutely critical , because the ACA is going to the Supreme Court on November 10th — not clear whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at that point .
But talk about the issues at stake , if Obamacare was struck down .
We have just passed two crisis numbers : 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 and 7 million — over 7 million infections .
We ’ re talking about how many more millions of people will be suffering from preexisting conditions alone .
Can you talk about all of this ?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Yeah .
First of all , we don ’ t even know enough about coronavirus , right ?
We ’ re just trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get it .
But , I mean , we don ’ t know the long-term impact of that .
So , coronavirus itself is a preexisting condition .
And , you know , the other things that ACA afforded us were Medicaid expansion ; for women , it guaranteed birth control coverage ; it guaranteed that there wouldn ’ t be discrimination , that women wouldn ’ t have to pay more for our healthcare than men ; and for many of us , you know , who have been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to stay on our health plans until age 26 .
There have been lots of ways in which that has actually created an expanded access to healthcare for many Americans .
And what ’ s at stake is that almost 30 million Americans could lose health insurance , at a time , again , when we ’ re in a pandemic .
And so , I think when you look at the conversations that Americans are having right now , first of all , they ’ re saying this confirmation should wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re also saying , like , if you have this time to rush through a confirmation of a justice and hold these hearings as the Senate , why don ’ t you have the same amount of time to rush through COVID relief , to think about comprehensive COVID testing so that we can all actually restore a little bit more of a new normalcy around getting back to work and our schools ?
AMY GOODMAN : And the issue of Roe v. Wade , exactly what is Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Yeah , again , I think that Justice Barrett — Judge Barrett , rather , has been very critical of how Roe v. Wade was decided .
She believes that abortion is always immoral .
She has suggested that she would — from the bench , she would judge based on the Constitution and the law , but yet she writes one thing and says the other .
We know that in her writings , particularly about the impact of what it means to be a Catholic judge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t believe in the law because of their personal beliefs , that they should not uphold the law .
So , the real threat that we are seeing is the impact that she could actually use her personal beliefs to undermine rights for millions of people seeking abortion .
And if Roe is overturned , we know that there will be 25 million women of reproductive age in states that would have to travel outside of their own states to access basic reproductive healthcare , to access healthcare .
We already saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You know , that , I think , was an important precursor for what could possibly happen , when a lot of these same states that have trigger laws would — you know , essentially , those governors created executive orders banning access to abortion , saying it wasn ’ t time-sensitive procedure .
And so we saw people getting in their cars .
We saw them driving upwards of 16 hours , from Texas to Colorado to California , just to get access , in some cases , just to medication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it looks like , right ?
We know that people will not stop having abortions , that we ’ re just putting a much more significant burden on their ability to access one .
AMY GOODMAN : Alexis McGill Johnson , what do you think Democrats should do right now ?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Look , I agree with the previous guest .
I think that , you know , we need to put it all on the line for this judge .
We have to ensure that we are pushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is what the majority of Americans want .
And I think that the Senate Democrats should do exactly that , that they should not participate in the process .
They should not give this legitimacy .
And to the extent that we can push this to where the American people want this nomination to happen , I think that would be the most important thing right now .
AMY GOODMAN : And I know there ’ s a whole battle within the community , the pro-choice community — and we should say — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this — the vast majority of people in this country are pro-choice .
And that includes Catholics .
But the Supreme Court and a number of legislatures around the country , to say the least , are not .
What about this division ?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON : Look , I think this is about , essentially , a power grab that has happened over the last decade , that really does thwart the will of the people , right ?
Since the 2010 Congress and the gerrymandering that happened subsequently , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country where a vocal minority has the levers of power .
And there is no state — it ’ s not just the national numbers that 77 % of Americans support Roe as the law of the land .
You know , there is no state in the country where people don ’ t believe that Roe should be the law of the land .
So , you know , the idea that we have all of these states that are not reflecting the will of the people , we now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Mitch McConnell , where over 200 justices have been placed onto the court , and , you know , in incredibly conservative ways , some of them who don ’ t even believe in IVF , much less in access to abortion .
And I think those are the things that we are very concerned about .
So , I think it ’ s really important to think about the kind of ultimate power grab of now trying to seat a justice on the Supreme Court who also does not believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that abortion is immoral , and how that will tilt the balance of the court completely out of sync with where the American people are .
AMY GOODMAN : Alexis McGill Johnson , we want to thank you for being with us , president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund .
Next up , we look at new bodycam footage raising questions about the investigation into the police killing of Breonna Taylor .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: As we continue our coverage of President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, we turn now to look at how her confirmation poses a threat to reproductive rights. On Sunday, President Trump appeared on Fox & Friends and was asked about the future of Roe v. Wade.
PETE HEGSETH: Do you think a 6-to-3 court with three of your picks on there, Mr. President, would potentially rule on a life issue, on a Roe issued?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It’s certainly possible, and maybe they’d do it in a different way. Maybe they’d give it back to the states. You just don’t know what’s going to happen.
AMY GOODMAN: “Maybe they’d give it back to the states. You just don’t know what’s going to happen.”
Let’s go to Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, as well, her recent op-ed in USA Today headlined “Amy Coney Barrett won’t stand up for women the way Ruth Bader Ginsburg did.”
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Alexis McGill Johnson. Can you respond to what Trump just said — to throw it back to the states?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Yeah. I mean, look, we certainly know that Judge Barrett — a Justice Barrett would be a huge threat to reproductive rights. She’s been an active and vocal critic of Roe v. Wade and suggested that it would not be — it was settled wrongly. And we also know that there are 17 cases that are a case away from the Supreme Court, that could overturn, if not irrevocably create restrictions around access to abortion.
So, what it would mean is that if Roe were overturned, that there would be some states where if you decided you wanted to start or expand your family, those would be within your domain of decisions that you would be making with your partner, with your — you know, and with your medical provider, and in other states you would essentially be forced into pregnancy if you didn’t have the resources to access abortion. So, I think that those are the challenges that we are facing here.
And I also think that, you know, just to tie it back to the other conversation you were having around healthcare, reproductive healthcare is healthcare. And the most immediate threat that we are facing in the time of a pandemic is the fact that the ACA, which has been one of the biggest advancements for women’s health across the board, is also under attack. And the threat of that, I think, in combination with the impact it could have on abortion access, is really significant with this judge.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, this is absolutely critical, because the ACA is going to the Supreme Court on November 10th — not clear whether Trump’s nominee will be seated at that point. But talk about the issues at stake, if Obamacare was struck down. We have just passed two crisis numbers: 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 and 7 million — over 7 million infections. We’re talking about how many more millions of people will be suffering from preexisting conditions alone. Can you talk about all of this?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Yeah. First of all, we don’t even know enough about coronavirus, right? We’re just trying to focus right now on how not to get it. But, I mean, we don’t know the long-term impact of that. So, coronavirus itself is a preexisting condition.
And, you know, the other things that ACA afforded us were Medicaid expansion; for women, it guaranteed birth control coverage; it guaranteed that there wouldn’t be discrimination, that women wouldn’t have to pay more for our healthcare than men; and for many of us, you know, who have been able to take advantage of our older children being able to stay on our health plans until age 26. There have been lots of ways in which that has actually created an expanded access to healthcare for many Americans. And what’s at stake is that almost 30 million Americans could lose health insurance, at a time, again, when we’re in a pandemic.
And so, I think when you look at the conversations that Americans are having right now, first of all, they’re saying this confirmation should wait until after inauguration. And they’re also saying, like, if you have this time to rush through a confirmation of a justice and hold these hearings as the Senate, why don’t you have the same amount of time to rush through COVID relief, to think about comprehensive COVID testing so that we can all actually restore a little bit more of a new normalcy around getting back to work and our schools?
AMY GOODMAN: And the issue of Roe v. Wade, exactly what is Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s record on choice and contraception?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Yeah, again, I think that Justice Barrett — Judge Barrett, rather, has been very critical of how Roe v. Wade was decided. She believes that abortion is always immoral. She has suggested that she would — from the bench, she would judge based on the Constitution and the law, but yet she writes one thing and says the other. We know that in her writings, particularly about the impact of what it means to be a Catholic judge, is that judges, when they don’t believe in the law because of their personal beliefs, that they should not uphold the law.
So, the real threat that we are seeing is the impact that she could actually use her personal beliefs to undermine rights for millions of people seeking abortion. And if Roe is overturned, we know that there will be 25 million women of reproductive age in states that would have to travel outside of their own states to access basic reproductive healthcare, to access healthcare.
We already saw it also, Amy, during COVID. You know, that, I think, was an important precursor for what could possibly happen, when a lot of these same states that have trigger laws would — you know, essentially, those governors created executive orders banning access to abortion, saying it wasn’t time-sensitive procedure. And so we saw people getting in their cars. We saw them driving upwards of 16 hours, from Texas to Colorado to California, just to get access, in some cases, just to medication abortion. So, we already know what it looks like, right? We know that people will not stop having abortions, that we’re just putting a much more significant burden on their ability to access one.
AMY GOODMAN: Alexis McGill Johnson, what do you think Democrats should do right now?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Look, I agree with the previous guest. I think that, you know, we need to put it all on the line for this judge. We have to ensure that we are pushing this nomination until the inauguration. That is what the majority of Americans want. And I think that the Senate Democrats should do exactly that, that they should not participate in the process. They should not give this legitimacy. And to the extent that we can push this to where the American people want this nomination to happen, I think that would be the most important thing right now.
AMY GOODMAN: And I know there’s a whole battle within the community, the pro-choice community — and we should say — and I wanted to ask you about this — the vast majority of people in this country are pro-choice. And that includes Catholics. But the Supreme Court and a number of legislatures around the country, to say the least, are not. What about this division?
ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Look, I think this is about, essentially, a power grab that has happened over the last decade, that really does thwart the will of the people, right? Since the 2010 Congress and the gerrymandering that happened subsequently, we have seen a number of state legislatures across the country where a vocal minority has the levers of power.
And there is no state — it’s not just the national numbers that 77% of Americans support Roe as the law of the land. You know, there is no state in the country where people don’t believe that Roe should be the law of the land. So, you know, the idea that we have all of these states that are not reflecting the will of the people, we now have a judiciary that has been remade under Mitch McConnell, where over 200 justices have been placed onto the court, and, you know, in incredibly conservative ways, some of them who don’t even believe in IVF, much less in access to abortion. And I think those are the things that we are very concerned about.
So, I think it’s really important to think about the kind of ultimate power grab of now trying to seat a justice on the Supreme Court who also does not believe that Roe was correctly decided, and believes that abortion is immoral, and how that will tilt the balance of the court completely out of sync with where the American people are.
AMY GOODMAN: Alexis McGill Johnson, we want to thank you for being with us, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
Next up, we look at new bodycam footage raising questions about the investigation into the police killing of Breonna Taylor. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-09-28--How "Extremist" Amy Coney Barrett Could Reshape the Supreme Court & Hand Trump the Election

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 .
President Trump has nominated the conservative federal judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat .
Barrett is a 48-year-old former Notre Dame law professor who clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia .
On Saturday , Barrett spoke alongside President Trump at the White House .
AMY GOODMAN : Senate Democrats have slammed Senate Majority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nomination so close to the election .
In 2016 , McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland , President Obama ’ s pick to replace Scalia , who had died nearly nine months before the election .
At the time , McConnell said , quote , “ The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice , ” unquote .
But now Republicans are racing to get Barrett confirmed at a time when early voting has already begun in some states .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s confirmation hearing on October 12th .
A full Senate vote could occur as soon as October 22nd .
If Barrett is confirmed by Election Day , she ’ ll immediately take part in a major case that could determine the future of the Affordable Care Act .
On November 10th , the oral arguments will be heard .
Three years ago , she wrote a law review article criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts upholding the ACA , writing , quote , “ Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” unquote .
Well , on Sunday , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden criticized Trump ’ s nomination of Barrett .
AMY GOODMAN : Amy Coney Barrett could also help decide who wins the presidential election .
Last week , Trump said he expects the election to end up before the Supreme Court , saying that ’ s why he ’ s pushing the Senate to rapidly confirm a replacement for Ginsburg .
Twenty years ago , Barrett worked with George W. Bush ’ s legal team on the contested Florida recount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time , John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh , also helped Bush ’ s team , which actively worked to stop a recount .
Amy Coney Barrett has a record of taking conservative stances on abortion , gun rights and immigration .
She once called abortion “ always immoral.
” The Human Rights Campaign has called her an “ absolute threat to LGBTQ rights.
” During her confirmation hearing , Senate Democrats are also expected to ask questions about her membership in a secretive Catholic group called People of Praise .
Members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oath to the group , which assigns each member a personal adviser , known as “ heads , ” for men , and , until recently , “ handmaids , ” for women .
In a moment , we ’ re going to Alexis McGill Johnson , president and CEO of Planned Parenthood , but we are staying with Elie Mystal for a few minutes right now , The Nation ’ s justice correspondent .
Elie , you wrote a piece that is headlined “ Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist — Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
ELIE MYSTAL : Yeah .
So , there are a lot of people who kind of started where you ended , Amy , where they have focused on her religious conservatism and her membership in this group , and the fact that she has written extensive law review articles about what Catholic judges should do and shouldn ’ t do while on the bench .
And so people have kind of focused in on the religious conservatism of her nomination .
And I just wanted to focus people on the issue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s extreme about her .
It ’ s her actual judicial opinions .
In fact , she only uses the religion card , the religion angle , when it serves her particular purpose in terms of policy against abortion rights or LGBTQ rights .
Overall , she does not use her religion to guide her through her decisions ; she uses her extremist conservative views to guide her through her decisions .
It ’ s not a religious position to deny people seeking public assistance a green card ; it ’ s Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
That ’ s her deal .
It ’ s not a religious position to ignore the deliberate indifference to human life when a prison guard shoots shotgun shells into a crowded cafeteria ; that ’ s Amy Coney Barrett ’ s position to ignore the deliberate indifference to human life .
So , she has a bunch of extreme conservative positions that make her a problematic nominee far beyond her religious affiliations and whatever .
Quite frankly , I don ’ t care about her religion .
I care about her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she can also weigh in on the election , if in fact the presidential election goes to the Supreme Court .
ELIE MYSTAL : Yes .
To be clear , Donald Trump could have nominated Atticus Finch , and I would oppose the nominee , because having a nominee to take office in the middle of an election — I mean , people are saying , like , “ Oh , right before the election.
” It ’ s not right before the election ; the election has started .
People are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is trying to do is pick his own judge in a contested election about his own presidency , that , as we talked about in the last second , he kind of has to win , or else he ’ s going to jail , right ?
So , that is not how the system of laws and government is supposed to work .
So , there is no person that I think Trump should be allowed to nominate in these circumstances , because of the election issue and because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett is — of the people that Trump could have nominated , Amy Coney Barrett is one of the most extreme people that he could have nominated , as opposed to a kind of moderate , middle-of-the-road person .
And so , obviously , I think there ’ s a lot of justified concern that if she gets to the court , she will be a fifth vote in favor of handing Donald Trump the presidency .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to talk with Alexis McGill Johnson , head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , about abortion and Obamacare , which is going before the Supreme Court on November 10th .
But I wanted to ask you , Elie , about one major case set to come before the court , Fulton v. Philadelphia , which involves religious freedom and gay rights , that could have much broader implications — the case brought by Catholic Social Services , a faith-based group , which refuses the placement of foster children to same-sex couples .
The group was one of 30 agencies that the city of Philadelphia contracted with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foster homes , but the city ended the contract after learning that CSS denied placement of children with same-sex couples .
And the charity then sued Philadelphia , citing a violation of free religious exercise and free speech if they were forced to provide services to LGBTQ couples .
Oral arguments scheduled for November 4th .
Explain the significance of this case .
ELIE MYSTAL : This is one of the most important cases on the Supreme Court docket , and it goes right to the heart of LGBTQ rights and LGBTQ adoption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heart of a new and , I think , dangerous trend in our First Amendment jurisprudence .
The First Amendment ’ s protection of freedom of religion is supposed to be a shield , right ?
It ’ s supposed to protect me , a religious observer , to allow me to act and support my faith in the privacy of my own home and in my public space , right ?
What the religious right is trying to do to the First Amendment is to change it from a shield to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after people who don ’ t agree with their preferred religion , right ?
Like , that ’ s completely flipping the First Amendment on its head .
And so , what the issue in this Fulton County case is , is the group who discriminates against gay people in adoption — that ’ s just what they do — and they ’ re allowed to do that because that ’ s — freedom of religion means freedom to hate people that you don ’ t like , and so they can hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to do is to force the city of Philadelphia to adopt that discrimination , to adopt that bigotry , and make it part of city policy by allowing them to continue to place foster children , who are wards of the state , based on the Catholic services ’ bigoted decision-making in terms of who is able to adopt .
Now , so it ’ s a critically important case for those reasons .
The problem is , and the reason why Amy Coney Barrett doesn ’ t , to me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that liberals were going to lose that case already .
There aren ’ t five votes against this kind of corruption of the First Amendment .
I don ’ t know that — with Ruth Bader Ginsburg passing away , I don ’ t know that there were two votes , because in the past , cases like this , this version of the First Amendment , both Justice Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan have joined the religious conservatives for this , again , I think , corruption of the First Amendment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ really think it ’ s going to be an 8-1 case with only Sonia Sotomayor standing opposed .
AMY GOODMAN : Elie , we just have 30 seconds .
What do you think Democrats should be doing right now ?
ELIE MYSTAL : Everything except for adding legitimacy to the process .
You can not go to these hearings .
You can not add your voice to these processes .
You have to do everything you can to delay , and then win the White House and win the Senate and expand the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only way that — that ’ s the only thing that you can do .

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. President Trump has nominated the conservative federal judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. Barrett is a 48-year-old former Notre Dame law professor who clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. On Saturday, Barrett spoke alongside President Trump at the White House.
JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT: I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate. His judicial philosophy is mine, too: A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.
AMY GOODMAN: Senate Democrats have slammed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for proceeding on Barrett’s nomination so close to the election. In 2016, McConnell refused to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, President Obama’s pick to replace Scalia, who had died nearly nine months before the election. At the time, McConnell said, quote, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” unquote. But now Republicans are racing to get Barrett confirmed at a time when early voting has already begun in some states. The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to start Barrett’s confirmation hearing on October 12th. A full Senate vote could occur as soon as October 22nd.
If Barrett is confirmed by Election Day, she’ll immediately take part in a major case that could determine the future of the Affordable Care Act. On November 10th, the oral arguments will be heard. Three years ago, she wrote a law review article criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts upholding the ACA, writing, quote, “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” unquote.
Well, on Sunday, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden criticized Trump’s nomination of Barrett.
JOE BIDEN: There’s no mystery about what’s happening here. President Trump is trying to throw out the Affordable Care Act. He’s been trying to do it for the last four years.
AMY GOODMAN: Amy Coney Barrett could also help decide who wins the presidential election. Last week, Trump said he expects the election to end up before the Supreme Court, saying that’s why he’s pushing the Senate to rapidly confirm a replacement for Ginsburg. Twenty years ago, Barrett worked with George W. Bush’s legal team on the contested Florida recount. Two other future Supreme Court justices at the time, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, also helped Bush’s team, which actively worked to stop a recount.
Amy Coney Barrett has a record of taking conservative stances on abortion, gun rights and immigration. She once called abortion “always immoral.” The Human Rights Campaign has called her an “absolute threat to LGBTQ rights.”
During her confirmation hearing, Senate Democrats are also expected to ask questions about her membership in a secretive Catholic group called People of Praise. Members of the group pledge a lifelong loyalty oath to the group, which assigns each member a personal adviser, known as “heads,” for men, and, until recently, “handmaids,” for women.
In a moment, we’re going to Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, but we are staying with Elie Mystal for a few minutes right now, The Nation’s justice correspondent.
Elie, you wrote a piece that is headlined “Amy Coney Barrett Is an Extremist — Just Not the Kind You Think.” Explain.
ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah. So, there are a lot of people who kind of started where you ended, Amy, where they have focused on her religious conservatism and her membership in this group, and the fact that she has written extensive law review articles about what Catholic judges should do and shouldn’t do while on the bench. And so people have kind of focused in on the religious conservatism of her nomination.
And I just wanted to focus people on the issue that her religious conservatism is not what’s extreme about her. It’s her actual judicial opinions. In fact, she only uses the religion card, the religion angle, when it serves her particular purpose in terms of policy against abortion rights or LGBTQ rights. Overall, she does not use her religion to guide her through her decisions; she uses her extremist conservative views to guide her through her decisions.
It’s not a religious position to deny people seeking public assistance a green card; it’s Amy Coney Barrett’s position to do that. That’s her deal. It’s not a religious position to ignore the deliberate indifference to human life when a prison guard shoots shotgun shells into a crowded cafeteria; that’s Amy Coney Barrett’s position to ignore the deliberate indifference to human life.
So, she has a bunch of extreme conservative positions that make her a problematic nominee far beyond her religious affiliations and whatever. Quite frankly, I don’t care about her religion. I care about her decisions.
AMY GOODMAN: Of course, she can also weigh in on the election, if in fact the presidential election goes to the Supreme Court.
ELIE MYSTAL: Yes. To be clear, Donald Trump could have nominated Atticus Finch, and I would oppose the nominee, because having a nominee to take office in the middle of an election — I mean, people are saying, like, “Oh, right before the election.” It’s not right before the election; the election has started. People are voting, right? So, what Trump is trying to do is pick his own judge in a contested election about his own presidency, that, as we talked about in the last second, he kind of has to win, or else he’s going to jail, right? So, that is not how the system of laws and government is supposed to work. So, there is no person that I think Trump should be allowed to nominate in these circumstances, because of the election issue and because of the timing of the nomination.
Amy Coney Barrett is — of the people that Trump could have nominated, Amy Coney Barrett is one of the most extreme people that he could have nominated, as opposed to a kind of moderate, middle-of-the-road person. And so, obviously, I think there’s a lot of justified concern that if she gets to the court, she will be a fifth vote in favor of handing Donald Trump the presidency.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to talk with Alexis McGill Johnson, head of Planned Parenthood, in just a minute, about abortion and Obamacare, which is going before the Supreme Court on November 10th. But I wanted to ask you, Elie, about one major case set to come before the court, Fulton v. Philadelphia, which involves religious freedom and gay rights, that could have much broader implications — the case brought by Catholic Social Services, a faith-based group, which refuses the placement of foster children to same-sex couples. The group was one of 30 agencies that the city of Philadelphia contracted with to place abused and neglected children in foster homes, but the city ended the contract after learning that CSS denied placement of children with same-sex couples. And the charity then sued Philadelphia, citing a violation of free religious exercise and free speech if they were forced to provide services to LGBTQ couples. Oral arguments scheduled for November 4th. Explain the significance of this case.
ELIE MYSTAL: This is one of the most important cases on the Supreme Court docket, and it goes right to the heart of LGBTQ rights and LGBTQ adoption privileges. But it also goes to the heart of a new and, I think, dangerous trend in our First Amendment jurisprudence. The First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion is supposed to be a shield, right? It’s supposed to protect me, a religious observer, to allow me to act and support my faith in the privacy of my own home and in my public space, right? What the religious right is trying to do to the First Amendment is to change it from a shield to protect people to a sword to go after people who don’t agree with their preferred religion, right? Like, that’s completely flipping the First Amendment on its head.
And so, what the issue in this Fulton County case is, is the group who discriminates against gay people in adoption — that’s just what they do — and they’re allowed to do that because that’s — freedom of religion means freedom to hate people that you don’t like, and so they can hate them or whatever. But what they want to do is to force the city of Philadelphia to adopt that discrimination, to adopt that bigotry, and make it part of city policy by allowing them to continue to place foster children, who are wards of the state, based on the Catholic services’ bigoted decision-making in terms of who is able to adopt. Now, so it’s a critically important case for those reasons.
The problem is, and the reason why Amy Coney Barrett doesn’t, to me, so much play into this, is that liberals were going to lose that case already. There aren’t five votes against this kind of corruption of the First Amendment. I don’t know that — with Ruth Bader Ginsburg passing away, I don’t know that there were two votes, because in the past, cases like this, this version of the First Amendment, both Justice Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan have joined the religious conservatives for this, again, I think, corruption of the First Amendment. So, with RBG gone, I really think it’s going to be an 8-1 case with only Sonia Sotomayor standing opposed.
AMY GOODMAN: Elie, we just have 30 seconds. What do you think Democrats should be doing right now?
ELIE MYSTAL: Everything except for adding legitimacy to the process. You cannot go to these hearings. You cannot add your voice to these processes. You have to do everything you can to delay, and then win the White House and win the Senate and expand the court, because that’s the only way that — that’s the only thing that you can do.
AMY GOODMAN: Elie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent.