msnbc--2020-10-26--Joe Biden needs to embrace FDR's actual plan for the Supreme Court

The Senate votes Monday to place Judge Amy Coney Bennett on the Supreme Court in a decision that will resonate for decades .
The railroading of her nomination through the confirmation process has sparked a broader discussion about Democrats ' `` packing the court '' with new justices .
But it 's a discussion that kicks off from a set of wrong assumptions .
Progressive Democrats argue that adding new seats is a necessity after Republicans blocked a vote on Judge Merrick Garland 's nomination in 2016 , in contrast with their warp-speed coronation of Barrett .
Even as big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have come out in favor of this rebalancing , the party 's standard-bearer avoided weighing in .
After weeks of dodging , saying he did n't want his answer to become a distraction , former Vice President Joe Biden said on CBS News ' `` 60 Minutes '' that he 'd appoint a bipartisan commission to look into the question .
Should Biden win and his commission assemble , it would have a host of possible reforms to study , including potential alterations to the structure of lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice for low-income and minority people .
It could well advise adding more seats to the court .
But more likely , it would wind up promoting what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted from the `` court packing '' imbroglio he kicked off — limits on how long the nine justices can stay on the court .
At the start of his second term , Roosevelt issued his threat via the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 .
Under its terms , the president would be able to add a new justice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 who had served more than 10 years — that could have led to as many as six new justices if the bill had passed and the Senate confirmed the justices .
As the political legend goes , Roosevelt was sick and tired of the more conservative justices ' striking down parts of the New Deal and wanted to appoint more favorable arbiters .
Even as backlash to the proposal kept him from following through , in this telling , the cowed justices began upholding the New Deal 's programs in legal challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article , Judge Glock laid out that rather than being about expanding the court forever , Roosevelt 's maneuvering was taking aim at justices who he 'd felt had stayed on the court for too long , depriving him of the ability to nominate new justices .
If they had just retired as Roosevelt felt they should , no new justices would have been added to the court , keeping the number at nine .
A major factor in the judiciary 's reluctance was n't ideological , Glock argued , but simply because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received after retiring were about half of their salaries if they stayed in office .
Roosevelt accordingly tied his threat of adding seats to a proposal that would have raised former justices ' pensions .
The term `` court packing '' itself was always intended to kneecap Roosevelt 's plans , reportedly having been coined by a controversial businessman and former newspaper publisher named Edward Rumely .
After having served as an economic adviser to FDR , Rumely had become disillusioned with the New Deal by the mid-1930s , seeing it as too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publishing giant Frank Gannett , and their National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government bombarded the public with anti-court-packing propaganda .
The framing worked — according to Gallup 's archives , a month after the proposal was introduced , 53 percent of Americans were against it .
( It 's worth noting how partisan the divide was — 70 percent of Democrats backed Roosevelt , while 92 percent of Republicans were opposed . )
Fast-forward to today : The pension hike FDR sought is in place , but as Glock points out , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can always be slashed by a vengeful legislature , unlike the salaries of justices still serving .
As it stands , according to the advocacy group Fix the Court , even with a fully funded pension guaranteed , justices are overstaying their welcome , clinging to their seats for an average of 28 years .
Some of that longevity , like that we saw from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg , has coincided with a rise in partisanship on the courts , a reflection of the other branches of government 's seeking more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In that environment , it makes sense that justices cling to seats to prevent an opposing-party president from filling vacancies .
Meanwhile , the average age of nominees is dropping , as the possibility of three decades or more on the court is understandably tantalizing for the parties .
A 2014 article in the Arizona State Law Journal found — even before accounting for President Donald Trump 's nominees , Brett Kavanaugh ( 53 ) , Neil Gorsuch ( 50 ) and Barrett ( 48 ) — that the average age of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been trending lower than for nominees from Democratic administrations since the 1970s .
That 's even truer in the lower courts , where the ages of Trump 's nominees for federal judgeships have recently plunged into the 30s and 40s .
That leaves two options to clear space on the Supreme Court : either stick with what Roosevelt was seeking , an age limit for justices , or choose the seemingly more palatable option : term limits .
It 's a proposal that has gotten backing from groups as varied as the liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cato Institute .
A 2015 Reuters-Ipsos poll found that at the time , 66 percent of Americans backed some form of term limits for justices .
And Chief Justice John Roberts himself has spoken favorably about limiting justices ' length of service .
There are a few variations among the proposals floating around out there , including how long such a term would be and whether it could be renewed .
One of the more popular options is for a single term of 18 years — literally a generation , by one definition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its version of the proposal like this : The language in Article III , Section 1 of the Constitution , which set up the Supreme Court , is at least a little fuzzy on length of service .
It says federal judges `` shall hold their Offices during good behavior , '' which has been interpreted to mean `` for their whole , entire lives unless they 're impeached . ''
That leaves wiggle room , in theory , for Congress to pass a law putting limits on the Supreme Court , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in September .
Their draft would , per SCOTUSblog , have appointees turn into `` senior justices '' after their terms end , with the most recently named senior justice `` able to temporarily rejoin the court in the event of an unexpected vacancy . ''
`` Although the current eight justices would be exempted , the two-year appointment cycle would take effect immediately , without waiting for them to retire , '' SCOTUSblog reported .
Congress ' giving it a shot could provoke a good bit of irony , though : Such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the courts , potentially allowing the Supreme Court itself to overturn it .
( When I asked my fellow MSNBC columnist Joyce White Vance via Twitter DM on Friday just who would actually have standing to bring such a challenge , she let me know that `` the standing issue would in practice , be construed quite broadly because of the court 's interest in hearing the challenge . ''
) That means a change would likely need a constitutional amendment to really stick .
The last time one of those was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendment about congressional pay that was proposed back in 1792 .
Before that , it was setting the voting age nationwide at 18 in 1971 .
So ... it 's been a minute .
It 's also worth noting the lack of immediacy of these plans , a major downside for proponents of expanding the court .
But that could be corrected if the term limit was made retroactive .
As it stands , only two justices stand to be affected by the 18-year range : Stephen Breyer , at 26 years on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has spent 29 years on the court .
Moving forward , the `` first and third year '' framework could then be put into place for the remaining justices , establishing the pattern moving forward .
Biden is due to travel to Georgia for the first time in the campaign cycle Tuesday .
He 'll hit up Atlanta , of course , as part of the Democrats ' increasingly less long-shot bid to win over the state next week .
But he 'll also stop at Warm Springs — where Roosevelt retreated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paralysis in his late 30s .
Biden is likely to speak about the New Deal 's impact on Americans ' lives .
And who knows ?
Maybe the spirit of FDR will inspire him about the Supreme Court , too , during his visit .
Hopefully you 're well rested after your weekend .
Here are some links to things you should read to help properly shatter that calm .
• The Wall Street Journal : In a story that is made all the more bananas in The Wall Street Journal 's extremely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group of Santa Clauses vaccinated against the coronavirus ahead of other Americans as a part of a ploy to boost spirits is under review at the Department of Health and Human Services .
• NBC News : Mark Meadows says there 's no way the Trump administration is going to get the coronavirus under control , and it 's like ... yeah , we know .
We 've been here since March , too .
• The Washington Post : At a private fundraiser before his second debate with Biden , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very hard for the GOP to keep control of the Senate , at least in part because he did n't want to campaign for some of the vulnerable members .
• Axios : Trump is reportedly eyeing firing FBI Director Christopher Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel if he wins re-election .
Which is n't that surprising , but then you get to this quote : • The Atlantic : And finally , this story came out last week , but it has stuck with me since then as an example of pristine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — in this case , the white parents using niche sports to get their kids into the Ivy League — to talk about a broader societal issue .

The Senate votes Monday to place Judge Amy Coney Bennett on the Supreme Court in a decision that will resonate for decades. The railroading of her nomination through the confirmation process has sparked a broader discussion about Democrats' "packing the court" with new justices. But it's a discussion that kicks off from a set of wrong assumptions.
Progressive Democrats argue that adding new seats is a necessity after Republicans blocked a vote on Judge Merrick Garland's nomination in 2016, in contrast with their warp-speed coronation of Barrett. Even as big names like Julián Castro, Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have come out in favor of this rebalancing, the party's standard-bearer avoided weighing in. After weeks of dodging, saying he didn't want his answer to become a distraction, former Vice President Joe Biden said on CBS News' "60 Minutes" that he'd appoint a bipartisan commission to look into the question.
Should Biden win and his commission assemble, it would have a host of possible reforms to study, including potential alterations to the structure of lower courts and methods to increase access to justice for low-income and minority people. It could well advise adding more seats to the court. But more likely, it would wind up promoting what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted from the "court packing" imbroglio he kicked off — limits on how long the nine justices can stay on the court.
At the start of his second term, Roosevelt issued his threat via the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Under its terms, the president would be able to add a new justice to the court for every member over age 70 who had served more than 10 years — that could have led to as many as six new justices if the bill had passed and the Senate confirmed the justices. As the political legend goes, Roosevelt was sick and tired of the more conservative justices' striking down parts of the New Deal and wanted to appoint more favorable arbiters. Even as backlash to the proposal kept him from following through, in this telling, the cowed justices began upholding the New Deal's programs in legal challenges.
But in a 2019 Politico Magazine article, Judge Glock laid out that rather than being about expanding the court forever, Roosevelt's maneuvering was taking aim at justices who he'd felt had stayed on the court for too long, depriving him of the ability to nominate new justices. If they had just retired as Roosevelt felt they should, no new justices would have been added to the court, keeping the number at nine. A major factor in the judiciary's reluctance wasn't ideological, Glock argued, but simply because at the time, the pensions justices received after retiring were about half of their salaries if they stayed in office. Roosevelt accordingly tied his threat of adding seats to a proposal that would have raised former justices' pensions.
The term "court packing" itself was always intended to kneecap Roosevelt's plans, reportedly having been coined by a controversial businessman and former newspaper publisher named Edward Rumely. After having served as an economic adviser to FDR, Rumely had become disillusioned with the New Deal by the mid-1930s, seeing it as too anti-business. He teamed up with the publishing giant Frank Gannett, and their National Committee to Uphold Constitutional Government bombarded the public with anti-court-packing propaganda. The framing worked — according to Gallup's archives, a month after the proposal was introduced, 53 percent of Americans were against it. (It's worth noting how partisan the divide was — 70 percent of Democrats backed Roosevelt, while 92 percent of Republicans were opposed.)
Fast-forward to today: The pension hike FDR sought is in place, but as Glock points out, the money is subject to congressional whim — it can always be slashed by a vengeful legislature, unlike the salaries of justices still serving. As it stands, according to the advocacy group Fix the Court, even with a fully funded pension guaranteed, justices are overstaying their welcome, clinging to their seats for an average of 28 years.
Some of that longevity, like that we saw from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, has coincided with a rise in partisanship on the courts, a reflection of the other branches of government's seeking more ideological purity from their parties' picks. In that environment, it makes sense that justices cling to seats to prevent an opposing-party president from filling vacancies.
Meanwhile, the average age of nominees is dropping, as the possibility of three decades or more on the court is understandably tantalizing for the parties. A 2014 article in the Arizona State Law Journal found — even before accounting for President Donald Trump's nominees, Brett Kavanaugh (53), Neil Gorsuch (50) and Barrett (48) — that the average age of Republican nominees to the high court had been trending lower than for nominees from Democratic administrations since the 1970s. That's even truer in the lower courts, where the ages of Trump's nominees for federal judgeships have recently plunged into the 30s and 40s.
That leaves two options to clear space on the Supreme Court: either stick with what Roosevelt was seeking, an age limit for justices, or choose the seemingly more palatable option: term limits. It's a proposal that has gotten backing from groups as varied as the liberal Center for American Progress and the libertarian Cato Institute. A 2015 Reuters-Ipsos poll found that at the time, 66 percent of Americans backed some form of term limits for justices. And Chief Justice John Roberts himself has spoken favorably about limiting justices' length of service.
There are a few variations among the proposals floating around out there, including how long such a term would be and whether it could be renewed. One of the more popular options is for a single term of 18 years — literally a generation, by one definition. The Brennan Center for Justice framed its version of the proposal like this:
First, Supreme Court appointments should be regular. Every president, in the first and third year of each term, would nominate a Justice, subject to Senate confirmation. Second, each new Supreme Court justice would serve a single 18-year term — still “during good behavior.” (This term limit would not apply to current justices.) And if a new justice did not serve a full term due to retirement or death, his or her successor would be nominated only to complete the remainder of the 18-year term. The successor would not get a new 18-year term. Regular appointments work only if accompanied by term limits — which have independent benefits as well. Without a term limit, regular appointments, coupled with increasing longevity, would lead to a court that was huge. Moreover, an 18-year limit fits with a 9-member court. Eventually, two justices will end their 18-year term in each four-year presidential term, just as two new justices are appointed.
The language in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which set up the Supreme Court, is at least a little fuzzy on length of service. It says federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good behavior," which has been interpreted to mean "for their whole, entire lives unless they're impeached." That leaves wiggle room, in theory, for Congress to pass a law putting limits on the Supreme Court, as in a bill several House Democrats introduced in September. Their draft would, per SCOTUSblog, have appointees turn into "senior justices" after their terms end, with the most recently named senior justice "able to temporarily rejoin the court in the event of an unexpected vacancy."
"Although the current eight justices would be exempted, the two-year appointment cycle would take effect immediately, without waiting for them to retire," SCOTUSblog reported.
Congress' giving it a shot could provoke a good bit of irony, though: Such a law could then likely be challenged in the courts, potentially allowing the Supreme Court itself to overturn it. (When I asked my fellow MSNBC columnist Joyce White Vance via Twitter DM on Friday just who would actually have standing to bring such a challenge, she let me know that "the standing issue would in practice, be construed quite broadly because of the court's interest in hearing the challenge.")
That means a change would likely need a constitutional amendment to really stick. The last time one of those was ratified was in 1992 — for an amendment about congressional pay that was proposed back in 1792. Before that, it was setting the voting age nationwide at 18 in 1971. So ... it's been a minute.
It's also worth noting the lack of immediacy of these plans, a major downside for proponents of expanding the court. But that could be corrected if the term limit was made retroactive. As it stands, only two justices stand to be affected by the 18-year range: Stephen Breyer, at 26 years on the court, and Clarence Thomas, who has spent 29 years on the court. Moving forward, the "first and third year" framework could then be put into place for the remaining justices, establishing the pattern moving forward.
Biden is due to travel to Georgia for the first time in the campaign cycle Tuesday. He'll hit up Atlanta, of course, as part of the Democrats' increasingly less long-shot bid to win over the state next week. But he'll also stop at Warm Springs — where Roosevelt retreated for rehabilitation when he was struck with paralysis in his late 30s. Biden is likely to speak about the New Deal's impact on Americans' lives. And who knows? Maybe the spirit of FDR will inspire him about the Supreme Court, too, during his visit.
Hopefully you're well rested after your weekend. Here are some links to things you should read to help properly shatter that calm.
The Wall Street Journal: In a story that is made all the more bananas in The Wall Street Journal's extremely formal tone, a plan to have a group of Santa Clauses vaccinated against the coronavirus ahead of other Americans as a part of a ploy to boost spirits is under review at the Department of Health and Human Services.
NBC News: Mark Meadows says there's no way the Trump administration is going to get the coronavirus under control, and it's like ... yeah, we know. We've been here since March, too.
The Washington Post: At a private fundraiser before his second debate with Biden, Trump told the attendees that it'll be very hard for the GOP to keep control of the Senate, at least in part because he didn't want to campaign for some of the vulnerable members.
Axios: Trump is reportedly eyeing firing FBI Director Christopher Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel if he wins re-election. Which isn't that surprising, but then you get to this quote:
A win, no matter the margin, will embolden Trump to ax anyone he sees as constraining him from enacting desired policies or going after perceived enemies.
The Atlantic: And finally, this story came out last week, but it has stuck with me since then as an example of pristine storytelling, using a very niche subject — in this case, the white parents using niche sports to get their kids into the Ivy League — to talk about a broader societal issue.
CORRECTION (Oct. 26, 2020, 10:30 a.m. ET): A previous version of this article misstated the publication date of Judge Glock's Politico Magazine article. It was published in 2019, not 2015.


msnbc--2020-10-25--How Trump's Twitter promises to U.S. troops hurt national security

Even prior to running for president , Donald Trump was a critic of the deployment of American troops abroad .
During the 2016 campaign , he frequently promised to bring U.S. forces home and end what he believed to be the unnecessary burden of overseas commitments .
In his 2019 State of the Union address , Trump noted that it was time to stop fighting endless wars .
During a subsequent Cabinet meeting he announced , “ I got elected on bringing our soldiers back home.
” Consequently , in the closing weeks of his 2020 re-election campaign , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not he has lived up to this promise , how he has attempted to do so and if this effort has made the nation safer .
The size and deployment of American forces is a key element of the nation ’ s military strategy , and many of his senior advisers have described Trump ’ s approach to policy as transactional .
The president views it as a balance sheet that should be evaluated as a matter of financial profit and loss .
He believes American forces perform a quasi-mercenary role that primarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , in Trump ’ s view , the United States should expect significantly higher levels of compensation for keeping troops abroad , and he has repeatedly threatened American allies for not paying enough .
For example , Trump has argued the United States gets “ practically nothing compared to the cost ” of keeping forces on the Korean peninsula and suggested he might withdraw the U.S. from NATO .
He does not accept that U.S. forces abroad are often in the vital interests of the nation .
They are the clearest demonstration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence serves as a deterrent to conflict and helps preserve global stability .
Wise policymakers realize that sudden decisions in one part of the world may cast doubt on the nation ’ s willingness to fulfill promises elsewhere .
This can encourage enemies and alienate allies .
Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and other administration officials attempted to explain to the president the value of U.S. commitments and alliances .
Mattis pointedly informed Trump that America ’ s forward military deployment in Korea was intended to avert World War III , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these efforts have been to no avail , and Trump ’ s treatment of American allies was cited by Mattis as a primary reason for the general ’ s resignation .
Even senior Republicans have recently suggested that under his leadership “ the United States now regularly sells out our allies.
” But as Americans vote this fall , Trump ’ s promise of a dramatic reduction in American troop presence abroad has not been achieved , nor has he dramatically shifted costs to U.S. allies .
In fact , the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last several years by nearly $ 140 billion , from $ 611 billion in 2016 to $ 750 billion in 2019 , Foreign Affairs reported .
When Trump settled into the Oval Office in January 2017 , the United States had a little under 200,000 troops deployed overseas .
Best estimates are that number has been reduced slightly , but this may largely reflect a difference in accounting .
Since 2017 , the Department of Defense has excluded troops deployed to Afghanistan , Iraq and Syria from its official reports , arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combat theater violated operational security .
Consequently , the actual total on Election Day 2020 will be roughly equivalent to the number Trump inherited following his inauguration , according to Foreign Affairs .
Trump has , however , made sudden decisions on numerous long-standing American troop deployments .
These were frequently made without consultation , contrary to long-established policy , and often made via Twitter .
They left both American allies as well as his own administration surprised , confused and bewildered .
Often , they rewarded American opponents .
For example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced that the United States would remove its forces from the northern border of Syria , opening the door for a Turkish offensive against the Kurdish troops who had been considered American allies .
The president then boasted about this decision on Twitter.Trump made this sudden shift in policy despite recommendations from his senior military and State Department advisers .
Brett McGurk , former special envoy to the global anti-ISIS coalition , described it as a “ gift to Russia , Iran , and ISIS.
” This pattern of a “ Twitter strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-election and his prospects appear increasingly difficult .
In June , he directed the Pentagon to remove roughly one-third of American troops in Germany by September .
This announcement was a surprise to many senior administration officials and criticized by senior Republicans .
German officials described it as “ unacceptable , ” since no advance discussions had been conducted or warning provided .
Others saw it as an attempt to punish German Chancellor Angela Merkel for her refusal to attend a planned G7 summit in Washington due to the ongoing pandemic .
NATO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian President Vladmir Putin , who delights in any sign of NATO disunity .
National security adviser Robert O ’ Brien made a surprise announcement on Oct. 7 that the U.S. would reduce its presence in Afghanistan to 2,500 by early next year .
This completely dumbfounded the Pentagon and top military commanders .
The confusion was compounded a few hours later by the president ’ s tweet that all forces “ serving in Afghanistan ” would be “ home by Christmas !
” Also blindsided were our Afghan allies in Kabul , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taliban about an overall peace settlement .
The president ’ s tweet was , however , endorsed by the Taliban .
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley quickly attempted to limit the damage .
He stated that the United States-Taliban agreement and associated drawdown plans were all conditions-based .
“ The key here is that we 're trying to end a war responsibly , deliberately , and to do it on terms that guarantee the safety of the U.S. vital national security interests that are at stake in Afghanistan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively small deployments have not been spared presidential scrutiny .
Trump recently told his top advisers that he wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Somalia as it would further allow him to fulfill his campaign pledges .
Currently , American forces number roughly 650 to 800 troops , including special forces that are training the Somali army .
This decision comes even though the president of Somalia believes his country is on the brink of defeating the al-Shabab insurgents , according to Bloomberg .
Many senior military and counterterrorism officials think a precipitous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s largest and most active global affiliate while benefitting both China and Russia geostrategically .
An effective national military strategy is critical to the security of the nation .
It requires careful analysis by administration experts that includes both the direct and indirect consequences of major policy shifts , as well as discussions with allies to coordinate efforts and mitigate risk .
Trump 's tweeting can not be brushed off as simply diplomatic malpractice .
There are real operational consequences for allies whose troops serve alongside U.S. forces — and often depend on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — in difficult places like Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan and Somalia .
Conducting such a process in an erratic or chaotic manner can have disastrous consequences .
It undermines confidence in U.S. readiness and deterrence .
Allies may begin to believe that the United States will not stand behind its global commitments and seek out alternative alliances , encourage conventional arms races and even consider the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction .
On the other hand , resources are not endless .
The American people have every right to expect their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand that our allies share common burdens .
Rising government deficits and the most serious economic challenge the nation has faced since the Great Depression make this even more imperative .
Adjustments in the size and deployment of American military forces may be required .
But they should be done responsibly and not in 280 characters .
Consequently , the nation ’ s military strategy should be a major topic of the ongoing presidential campaign .
So far it has not been .
In October 2016 , I was quoted in The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know a damn thing about military strategy.
” In an interview a few days later , Trump strongly disagreed and said he was going to teach me a couple of things .
His actions during the past four years and recent uninformed , erratic and precipitous decisions about vital questions of American security suggest to me , at least , that sadly he has not learned anything since .
I am still waiting for my lessons , and the nation is less safe .

Even prior to running for president, Donald Trump was a critic of the deployment of American troops abroad. During the 2016 campaign, he frequently promised to bring U.S. forces home and end what he believed to be the unnecessary burden of overseas commitments. In his 2019 State of the Union address, Trump noted that it was time to stop fighting endless wars. During a subsequent Cabinet meeting he announced, “I got elected on bringing our soldiers back home.”
It would seem appropriate to consider whether or not he has lived up to this promise, how he has attempted to do so and if this effort has made the nation safer.
Consequently, in the closing weeks of his 2020 re-election campaign, it would seem appropriate to consider whether or not he has lived up to this promise, how he has attempted to do so and if this effort has made the nation safer.
The size and deployment of American forces is a key element of the nation’s military strategy, and many of his senior advisers have described Trump’s approach to policy as transactional. The president views it as a balance sheet that should be evaluated as a matter of financial profit and loss. He believes American forces perform a quasi-mercenary role that primarily benefits the host nation.
As a result, in Trump’s view, the United States should expect significantly higher levels of compensation for keeping troops abroad, and he has repeatedly threatened American allies for not paying enough. For example, Trump has argued the United States gets “practically nothing compared to the cost” of keeping forces on the Korean peninsula and suggested he might withdraw the U.S. from NATO.
He does not accept that U.S. forces abroad are often in the vital interests of the nation. They are the clearest demonstration of America’s commitments. Their presence serves as a deterrent to conflict and helps preserve global stability. Wise policymakers realize that sudden decisions in one part of the world may cast doubt on the nation’s willingness to fulfill promises elsewhere. This can encourage enemies and alienate allies.
Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and other administration officials attempted to explain to the president the value of U.S. commitments and alliances. Mattis pointedly informed Trump that America’s forward military deployment in Korea was intended to avert World War III, according to reporting by Bob Woodward. But these efforts have been to no avail, and Trump’s treatment of American allies was cited by Mattis as a primary reason for the general’s resignation. Even senior Republicans have recently suggested that under his leadership “the United States now regularly sells out our allies.”
But as Americans vote this fall, Trump’s promise of a dramatic reduction in American troop presence abroad has not been achieved, nor has he dramatically shifted costs to U.S. allies. In fact, the Trump administration has increased U.S. defense spending in the last several years by nearly $140 billion, from $611 billion in 2016 to $750 billion in 2019, Foreign Affairs reported. When Trump settled into the Oval Office in January 2017, the United States had a little under 200,000 troops deployed overseas. Best estimates are that number has been reduced slightly, but this may largely reflect a difference in accounting. Since 2017, the Department of Defense has excluded troops deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria from its official reports, arguing that providing the number of troops in a combat theater violated operational security.
Consequently, the actual total on Election Day 2020 will be roughly equivalent to the number Trump inherited following his inauguration.
Consequently, the actual total on Election Day 2020 will be roughly equivalent to the number Trump inherited following his inauguration, according to Foreign Affairs. Trump has, however, made sudden decisions on numerous long-standing American troop deployments. These were frequently made without consultation, contrary to long-established policy, and often made via Twitter. They left both American allies as well as his own administration surprised, confused and bewildered. Often, they rewarded American opponents.
For example, in October 2019, the White House announced that the United States would remove its forces from the northern border of Syria, opening the door for a Turkish offensive against the Kurdish troops who had been considered American allies. The president then boasted about this decision on Twitter.Trump made this sudden shift in policy despite recommendations from his senior military and State Department advisers. Brett McGurk, former special envoy to the global anti-ISIS coalition, described it as a “gift to Russia, Iran, and ISIS.”
This pattern of a “Twitter strategy” has accelerated as the president approaches re-election and his prospects appear increasingly difficult. In June, he directed the Pentagon to remove roughly one-third of American troops in Germany by September. This announcement was a surprise to many senior administration officials and criticized by senior Republicans.
German officials described it as “unacceptable,” since no advance discussions had been conducted or warning provided. Others saw it as an attempt to punish German Chancellor Angela Merkel for her refusal to attend a planned G7 summit in Washington due to the ongoing pandemic. NATO experts saw this as a gift to Russian President Vladmir Putin, who delights in any sign of NATO disunity.
National security adviser Robert O’Brien made a surprise announcement on Oct. 7 that the U.S. would reduce its presence in Afghanistan to 2,500 by early next year. This completely dumbfounded the Pentagon and top military commanders. The confusion was compounded a few hours later by the president’s tweet that all forces “serving in Afghanistan” would be “home by Christmas!” Also blindsided were our Afghan allies in Kabul, who had just begun negotiations with the Taliban about an overall peace settlement. The president’s tweet was, however, endorsed by the Taliban.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley quickly attempted to limit the damage. He stated that the United States-Taliban agreement and associated drawdown plans were all conditions-based. “The key here is that we're trying to end a war responsibly, deliberately, and to do it on terms that guarantee the safety of the U.S. vital national security interests that are at stake in Afghanistan,” he told NPR.
We should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2020
Even relatively small deployments have not been spared presidential scrutiny. Trump recently told his top advisers that he wants to withdraw U.S. troops from Somalia as it would further allow him to fulfill his campaign pledges. Currently, American forces number roughly 650 to 800 troops, including special forces that are training the Somali army. This decision comes even though the president of Somalia believes his country is on the brink of defeating the al-Shabab insurgents, according to Bloomberg. Many senior military and counterterrorism officials think a precipitous American withdrawal would bolster Al Qaeda’s largest and most active global affiliate while benefitting both China and Russia geostrategically.
An effective national military strategy is critical to the security of the nation. It requires careful analysis by administration experts that includes both the direct and indirect consequences of major policy shifts, as well as discussions with allies to coordinate efforts and mitigate risk.
Trump's tweeting cannot be brushed off as simply diplomatic malpractice. There are real operational consequences for allies whose troops serve alongside U.S. forces — and often depend on American intelligence, logistic and medical support — in difficult places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.
Conducting such a process in an erratic or chaotic manner can have disastrous consequences. It undermines confidence in U.S. readiness and deterrence. Allies may begin to believe that the United States will not stand behind its global commitments and seek out alternative alliances, encourage conventional arms races and even consider the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.
On the other hand, resources are not endless. The American people have every right to expect their leadership to review defense costs carefully and demand that our allies share common burdens. Rising government deficits and the most serious economic challenge the nation has faced since the Great Depression make this even more imperative. Adjustments in the size and deployment of American military forces may be required. But they should be done responsibly and not in 280 characters. Consequently, the nation’s military strategy should be a major topic of the ongoing presidential campaign. So far it has not been.
In October 2016, I was quoted in The New York Times saying then-candidate Trump “doesn’t know a damn thing about military strategy.” In an interview a few days later, Trump strongly disagreed and said he was going to teach me a couple of things. His actions during the past four years and recent uninformed, erratic and precipitous decisions about vital questions of American security suggest to me, at least, that sadly he has not learned anything since. I am still waiting for my lessons, and the nation is less safe.


msnbc--2020-10-26--Trump says his administration is working “very hard” to reunite parents and children separated at th

'The ACA is very much in play , ' says senator on Barrett nomination

Trump says his administration is working “very hard” to reunite parents and children separated at the border. But is it?
Lawyers for the Trump administration say they cannot find the parents of 545 migrant children separated from their caregivers after crossing the southern border. NBC News Correspondent Julia Ainsley explains how White House policy led to this devastating reality and what comes next.Oct. 26, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-26--Democratic Senate Candidate Jon Ossoff on the election momentum building in Georgia

Jon Ossoff says the possibility of two Democrats being elected to represent Georgia in the U.S. Senate “is a culmination of a decade of work in [the state],” crediting both Stacey Abrams for her work, and the growing diversity of the electorate in the state.Oct. 26, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-29--Breaking: Trump crashing as his 2016 voters switch to Biden

'Make America rage again : ' Jack Black on 'rocking ' Trump out of office

Pres. Trump's re-election may turn on holding his 2016 coalition, which is now fraying according to polls in key states and interviews with former Trump supporters. MSNBC’s Ari Melber interviews three voters from key states with one thing in common -- each one backed Trump in 2016 and are now backing Biden. The voters recount their rationales for backing Trump, ranging from the views of a lifelong Republican in Florida to Sanders primary voters in Wisconsin and Michigan, where one voter compares Trump's stubbornness to her ex-husband.Oct. 29, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-29--Trump campaign Comms. Director defends rallies despite spiking Covid cases

Trump campaign Communications Director Tim Murtaugh joins Andrea Mitchell to discuss the state of the race, the president's handling of the pandemic, and react to polling that shows the president's campaign rallies are unpopular with voters due to the potential health risks. Murtaugh argues the rallies show that "the president represents moving forward as a country," despite the rise in Covid cases, and adds that they provide masks and hand sanitizer to attendees.Oct. 29, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-29--Trump's bonkers rally playlist is a perfect metaphor for his campaign

As we finally — finally !
— hit the homestretch of the presidential campaign , we 're soon going to say goodbye to one of the most baffling things in politics right now : the Trump Rally Playlist — the music blared from giant speakers at the beginning and the end of each of President Donald Trump 's campaign events .
I truly believe that there 's no better metaphor for the campaign or the man it 's being used to get re-elected .
In a strange way , the campaign playlist may be the most on-the-nose part of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heady mix of misplaced nostalgia and infectious feel-good energy .
And to the campaign 's credit , it works .
It gets the people going .
The crowds , for all their mean-spirited energy ready for Trump 's cue , are genuinely having a good time listening to it .
The actual lyrics , words and themes that the songs are crafted around , they do n't matter .
Like the diatribes the president launches during each rally 's set — his toxic , free-form jazz , spiked with seemingly random phrases and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unified in its self-promotional foundation — it 's not about what 's said in these songs .
It 's about the vibe they inspire .
If you 're somehow unfamiliar with the oeuvre of the Make America Great Again ( Again ) rallies , fear not .
The Trump campaign has uploaded the full list onto Spotify , so you can feel as though you 're surrounded by a crush of unmasked people in red hats or stranded 3 miles from your car , all from the comfort of your home .
Scrolling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ songs that to the untrained eye make absolutely no sense when lined up together .
Everything you learned about making mixtapes from building the perfect flow of songs for your friends or your crush ?
Out the window here .
In its place is an aural experience that would n't be given a second thought at the most innocuous event you can imagine that would still have a DJ — your most straitlaced friend 's wedding , maybe , or a 40th-year high school reunion .
And yet this list still manages to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of sync with the tenor , tone and message Trump wants to project .
The most frequently mentioned song that fits this description — given its title alone — is the Rolling Stones ' `` You Ca n't Always Get What You Want . ''
It 's been a mainstay on Trump 's campaign trail for his entire political career , often played as a closer after he 's finished speaking .
BuzzFeed News ' Katherine Miller , in a piece written shortly after the song followed Trump 's acceptance of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , noted this affinity even then : '' That song is a hallmark of the Trump rally — maybe a screw-you to conservatives , maybe just a song that Trump likes , or maybe just one he knows you like , since that 's what Trump 's playlist is all about .
At Trump rallies , they play Motown .
They play jock jams .
They play 'Tiny Dancer . '
'' It 's not surprising that the same preference for a confused combination of feel-good songs has continued as the re-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same beats as four years ago .
That devotion has led to some truly surreal moments this time , as well , like when Trump first learned of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's death as Elton John gently sang about the seamstress for the band in the background .
As the rallygoers wait to hear Trump 's latest recollection of whatever he 's watched on Fox News that day , they 're treated to the campaign 's best impression of an oldies radio station , playing hits that everybody knows and loves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Petty ; `` Paradise City '' by Guns N ' Roses ; Sinatra crooning `` My Way '' — and Richard Wagner 's `` Ride of the Valkyries '' ?
That last one seems a bit out of place , as do the Beatles ' `` Revolution , '' `` The Music of the Night '' from Andrew Lloyd Webber 's `` The Phantom of the Opera '' and the delightfully homoerotic energy of the Village People 's `` YMCA '' and `` Macho Man . ''
That 's not to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Clinton administration .
You 'll also find crowd pleasers like the Backstreet Boys ' `` I Want It That Way '' and `` Do n't Stop the Music '' by Rihanna , neither of which really have anything to do with the rallies ' substance .
And , for some reason that I ca n't quite understand , Linkin Park 's `` In the End '' is near the top of the playlist .
That one may be the most sonically strange choice they 've made , but not nearly the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clearwater Revival 's classic song `` Fortunate Son , '' which really , truly epitomizes how little the campaign cares about the message a song is trying to convey .
It has become a favorite in the last few months , and it was even blaring as Marine One flew in low over the crowd at Florida 's largest retirement community last week .
Far be it from me , who has no real experience running political campaigns , to second-guess the choice to let a song railing against the privileged children of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them from their parents and managed to dodge the Vietnam draft — be played within 5 miles of Trump .
But it seems like something you 'd want to reconsider if you thought your audience would care about the connection .
As with many of the songs on the playlist , its use is not exactly cleared with the musicians .
Which is to say the musician who wrote the song has issued a cease-and-desist order , which the campaign has ignored entirely .
Actual veteran John Fogerty went in on Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement that he tweeted out Oct. 16 .
The preference for a glossy , surface-level aesthetic over any deeper meaning that the songs on the playlist represent matches the president 's energy in a way that absolutely tracks .
He is the dense , dead star that catches all that drifts into its orbit , consuming them and rendering what was once discrete matter part of his mass .
Because he is who he is , it 's impossible for any part of the campaign — including the rally playlist — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truism seen from top to bottom .
Trump 's well-documented habit of leaving people on the hook for goods and services provided to him — including $ 380,000 owed to a Las Vegas drapery factory and $ 83,600 to a New Jersey cabinetry business ?
The campaign follows suit there , as Politico reported in August that at least 10 cities had n't been reimbursed for nearly a million dollars of work put in by local police and fire departments .
Stiffing lawyers for the legal fees he owes them ?
Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
And now it appears that his campaign has n't been paying up there , either , as a delinquent $ 52,000 payment in the case against former White House staffer Omarosa Manigault Newman shows .

As we finally — finally! — hit the homestretch of the presidential campaign, we're soon going to say goodbye to one of the most baffling things in politics right now: the Trump Rally Playlist — the music blared from giant speakers at the beginning and the end of each of President Donald Trump's campaign events. I truly believe that there's no better metaphor for the campaign or the man it's being used to get re-elected.
In a strange way, the campaign playlist may be the most on-the-nose part of a truly chaotic campaign. It's a heady mix of misplaced nostalgia and infectious feel-good energy. And to the campaign's credit, it works. It gets the people going. The crowds, for all their mean-spirited energy ready for Trump's cue, are genuinely having a good time listening to it.
Greetings from cold and rainy Lansing, Michigan where Trump supporters are keeping warm dancing to Laura Branigan hit Gloria while waiting for start of 2pm @POTUS @realDonaldTrump rally. pic.twitter.com/508i6YR1Dv — Kristinn Taylor (@KristinnFR) October 27, 2020
The actual lyrics, words and themes that the songs are crafted around, they don't matter. Like the diatribes the president launches during each rally's set — his toxic, free-form jazz, spiked with seemingly random phrases and motifs, improvisational in its details but unified in its self-promotional foundation — it's not about what's said in these songs. It's about the vibe they inspire.
If you're somehow unfamiliar with the oeuvre of the Make America Great Again (Again) rallies, fear not. The Trump campaign has uploaded the full list onto Spotify, so you can feel as though you're surrounded by a crush of unmasked people in red hats or stranded 3 miles from your car, all from the comfort of your home.
Scrolling through the playlist yields a collection of songs that to the untrained eye make absolutely no sense when lined up together. Everything you learned about making mixtapes from building the perfect flow of songs for your friends or your crush? Out the window here. In its place is an aural experience that wouldn't be given a second thought at the most innocuous event you can imagine that would still have a DJ — your most straitlaced friend's wedding, maybe, or a 40th-year high school reunion. And yet this list still manages to be chockablock with songs that are absolutely out of sync with the tenor, tone and message Trump wants to project.
The most frequently mentioned song that fits this description — given its title alone — is the Rolling Stones' "You Can't Always Get What You Want." It's been a mainstay on Trump's campaign trail for his entire political career, often played as a closer after he's finished speaking. BuzzFeed News' Katherine Miller, in a piece written shortly after the song followed Trump's acceptance of the Republican nomination at the GOP convention in 2016, noted this affinity even then:
"That song is a hallmark of the Trump rally — maybe a screw-you to conservatives, maybe just a song that Trump likes, or maybe just one he knows you like, since that's what Trump's playlist is all about. At Trump rallies, they play Motown. They play jock jams. They play 'Tiny Dancer.'"
It's not surprising that the same preference for a confused combination of feel-good songs has continued as the re-election effort has done its best to capture the same beats as four years ago. That devotion has led to some truly surreal moments this time, as well, like when Trump first learned of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death as Elton John gently sang about the seamstress for the band in the background.
As the rallygoers wait to hear Trump's latest recollection of whatever he's watched on Fox News that day, they're treated to the campaign's best impression of an oldies radio station, playing hits that everybody knows and loves: "Free Fallin'" by Tom Petty; "Paradise City" by Guns N' Roses; Sinatra crooning "My Way" — and Richard Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries"? That last one seems a bit out of place, as do the Beatles' "Revolution," "The Music of the Night" from Andrew Lloyd Webber's "The Phantom of the Opera" and the delightfully homoerotic energy of the Village People's "YMCA" and "Macho Man."
That's not to say the playlist features only songs from before the Clinton administration. You'll also find crowd pleasers like the Backstreet Boys' "I Want It That Way" and "Don't Stop the Music" by Rihanna, neither of which really have anything to do with the rallies' substance. And, for some reason that I can't quite understand, Linkin Park's "In the End" is near the top of the playlist. That one may be the most sonically strange choice they've made, but not nearly the most dissonant.
That honor belongs to Creedence Clearwater Revival's classic song "Fortunate Son," which really, truly epitomizes how little the campaign cares about the message a song is trying to convey. It has become a favorite in the last few months, and it was even blaring as Marine One flew in low over the crowd at Florida's largest retirement community last week.
Far be it from me, who has no real experience running political campaigns, to second-guess the choice to let a song railing against the privileged children of the elites — who get everything handed to them from their parents and managed to dodge the Vietnam draft — be played within 5 miles of Trump. But it seems like something you'd want to reconsider if you thought your audience would care about the connection.
As with many of the songs on the playlist, its use is not exactly cleared with the musicians. Which is to say the musician who wrote the song has issued a cease-and-desist order, which the campaign has ignored entirely. Actual veteran John Fogerty went in on Trump's use of "Fortunate Son" in a statement that he tweeted out Oct. 16.
The preference for a glossy, surface-level aesthetic over any deeper meaning that the songs on the playlist represent matches the president's energy in a way that absolutely tracks. He is the dense, dead star that catches all that drifts into its orbit, consuming them and rendering what was once discrete matter part of his mass. Because he is who he is, it's impossible for any part of the campaign — including the rally playlist — not to match the man, a truism seen from top to bottom.
Trump's well-documented habit of leaving people on the hook for goods and services provided to him — including $380,000 owed to a Las Vegas drapery factory and $83,600 to a New Jersey cabinetry business? The campaign follows suit there, as Politico reported in August that at least 10 cities hadn't been reimbursed for nearly a million dollars of work put in by local police and fire departments.
Stiffing lawyers for the legal fees he owes them? Trump has been sued by multiple lawyers over the years. And now it appears that his campaign hasn't been paying up there, either, as a delinquent $52,000 payment in the case against former White House staffer Omarosa Manigault Newman shows.
Because he is who he is, it’s impossible for any part of the campaign — including the rally playlist — not to match the man.
The campaign has also followed the president's lead in its lies and reneging on contracts — even those related to public safety in the middle of a pandemic. The Washington Post says Duluth, Minnesota's local government had gotten the campaign to sign an agreement limiting its Sept. 30 rally to 250 people. The campaign broke the agreement, letting 2,500 people onto the airport tarmac. Documents The Post obtained showed that "local officials suspected the campaign would violate the agreement but shied away from enforcing public health orders for fear of provoking a backlash."
The owner of an orchard in Maine likewise said in a note on its website Tuesday that the campaign had misled it about how many people would be attending an event on its property. Instead of the "small, unpublicized, surprise, private, photo op which gave us no cause for alarm," about 3,000 people showed up for the event, according to the Bangor Daily News. Treworgy Family Orchard said that while it normally enforces mask-wearing and social distancing, it had to turn over those functions to the Secret Service at Sunday's campaign stop.
And much as Trump has shown himself to be a financial garbage disposal, grinding through loan after loan without repayment and several trips to bankruptcy court, so, too, has his campaign laid waste to a $1 billion financial advantage in the lead-up to Election Day. "You could literally have 10 monkeys with flamethrowers go after the money, and they wouldn't have burned through it as stupidly," Republican consultant Mike Murphy told The Associated Press on Oct. 20.
There's not much that we're going to miss when this campaign season is finally wrapped. It's been a weird and wild one, even by presidential race standards. But I think one of the few things I will think back fondly on is this absolutely bonkers playlist. Much like the campaign that designed it, it is mendacious, glib, vacuous and aimed at the lowest common denominator — but at least you can dance to it.


msnbc--2020-10-29--How Trump's attacks on the FBI trickle down to the police

The week before Election Day , we learned that if President Donald Trump wins re-election , he reportedly plans to immediately fire FBI Director Christopher Wray , along with the heads of two other agencies .
If this sounds familiar , it ’ s because Trump also fired the previous FBI director , James Comey , when he drew the president ’ s ire after declining to pledge his loyalty to Trump and then revealing in public congressional testimony that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for allegedly colluding with Russia .
As with Comey , Wray ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears unwilling to take in the service of Trump , have placed him high on the list of potential presidential pink slips .
In other words , since the head of the FBI refuses to bend the truth , Trump plans to break the FBI as punishment .
In September , Wray publicly testified to facts that contravene false Trump narratives in three key areas : the ongoing Russian threat to the November election ; which groups are really behind much of the violence in America ’ s streets ; and the lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the president ’ s firing of one FBI director and his threats to fire another ( his own appointed replacement ) for lawfully testifying against him gets at an even larger problem : The president is politicizing the police .
While the president ’ s son Donald Trump Jr. claimed on Fox News that his father must break up FBI leadership and that the bureau ’ s rank-and-file “ door kickers love us , ” the truth is that the FBI career employees are fed up with the politicization of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI Agents Association issued a letter to Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden asserting their support for Wray and for allowing him to serve out his 10-year term , a tenure deliberately established to avoid partisan policing .
While Trump may appear to be penalizing the FBI and praising law enforcement as two separate measures , his institutional attack on the FBI is in fact an attack on the police officers he purports to rally behind .
Largely as a result of the 9/11 terrorism attacks and the growing threat of domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connected with local , county , state and federal police agencies more than ever before .
To walk through an FBI field office is to bear witness to progressive police-FBI partnerships in action .
Whether it ’ s the Crimes Against Children squad , the Organized Crime program , the Public Corruption team , or the Joint Terrorism Task Force , chances are that you wouldn ’ t be able to distinguish between FBI agents and city police detectives , the county sheriff ’ s deputy or the state patrol sergeant .
Working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agents from the Department of Homeland Security , U.S .
Marshals Service , IRS , Postal Inspectors , ATF and more — all under one roof .
According to the FBI , the bureau leads 86 Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Forces , including over 850 task force officers representing more than 400 state and local police agencies .
There are Joint Terrorism Task Forces in each of the 56 FBI field offices with over 4,000 investigators working both international and domestic terrorism cases .
This also comes down to a money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to infringe on .
FBI task forces come with federal money .
Overtime pay for the local police team members flows through the FBI .
The bureau picks up the tab for costly undercover , surveillance and wiretap operations , and those initiatives dismantle gangs , terror cells and child trafficking rings .
When the president fires and threatens to terminate consecutive FBI directors for not doing his political bidding , he doesn ’ t erode only one agency ’ s credibility and trust , he jeopardizes the public perception of American law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Trump and his administration have accused Democrats .
If the president will fire a director who won ’ t take a partisan approach to law enforcement , it ’ s logical to assume that he ’ ll pick a replacement who will .
Would a Trump lackey installed as FBI director permit a field officer to investigate a corrupt Republican or friend of the president ?
Will a director who is pressured to please the president launch unmerited inquiries into the president ’ s opponents ?
Might a political partisan at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursue evidence of Russian wrongdoing because it would make the president look bad ?
And for all those local , county and state police , would their investigations and related federal funding be stymied in what the president calls “ Democrat cities ” ?
Police chiefs and sheriffs understand the critical role that a nonpartisan , politically neutral FBI plays in securing their communities and the funding that allows them to function .
As one senior FBI official confirmed to me , “ Major law enforcement associations representing current and former FBI agents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departments across the country have consistently expressed their full support of Director Wray 's leadership of the bureau.
” On Oct. 21 , the International Association of Chiefs of Police , the world ’ s largest professional association of police leaders , with over 30,000 members , held its annual conference .
Wray was invited to speak , and it ’ s no surprise that the theme of his address was partnership .
Police partners are already dealing with the Trump administration ’ s unwanted attempts to co-opt cops and turn them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Armed officers with the power of arrest who become blindly allegiant to a personality aren ’ t just unprofessional , they ’ re dangerous to our democracy .
When an officer is willing to risk his job or paycheck out of allegiance to a politician , that ’ s what detectives call a “ clue ” that something is amiss .
This past weekend , an NYPD patrol officer was captured on video proclaiming “ Trump 2020 ” from over the loudspeaker in his cruiser .
While he was promptly suspended for violating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in performance of their duties , Trump has called for that officer to return to work .
In San Antonio , officers faced discipline for wearing MAGA hats while in uniform , and a Minneapolis police lieutenant praised Trump at a campaign rally while wearing a “ Trump for Cops ” shirt .
At his August speech accepting his party ’ s nomination , Trump acknowledged the attendance of a group of Border Patrol union members who cheered wildly in the back of the White House lawn crowd .
This luring of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and protect everybody in their communities , regardless of politics , isn ’ t just happenstance ; it ’ s part of a formal effort .
“ Cops for Trump ” is an official Trump campaign initiative .
All over the country , well-attended Cops for Trump rallies are staged , often led by Vice President Mike Pence .
A political ploy for police is troubling enough , but the fact that police are falling for it should concern us all because of the damage it ’ s doing to the legitimacy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cult-like club that undermines their public service mission increases the chance that they will be emboldened to do the wrong thing .
And threatening to fire yet another FBI director decreases the odds that we ’ ll have a top cop who is empowered to do the right thing .

The week before Election Day, we learned that if President Donald Trump wins re-election, he reportedly plans to immediately fire FBI Director Christopher Wray, along with the heads of two other agencies. If this sounds familiar, it’s because Trump also fired the previous FBI director, James Comey, when he drew the president’s ire after declining to pledge his loyalty to Trump and then revealing in public congressional testimony that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign for allegedly colluding with Russia.
Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin’ James Comey, a total sleaze! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2019
As with Comey, Wray’s actions, as well as actions he appears unwilling to take in the service of Trump, have placed him high on the list of potential presidential pink slips. In other words, since the head of the FBI refuses to bend the truth, Trump plans to break the FBI as punishment.
As with Comey, Wray’s actions, as well as what he appears unwilling to do in the service of Trump, have placed him high on the list for potential presidential pink slips.
In September, Wray publicly testified to facts that contravene false Trump narratives in three key areas: the ongoing Russian threat to the November election; which groups are really behind much of the violence in America’s streets; and the lack of historical evidence of mail-in ballot fraud. But the president’s firing of one FBI director and his threats to fire another (his own appointed replacement) for lawfully testifying against him gets at an even larger problem: The president is politicizing the police.
While the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. claimed on Fox News that his father must break up FBI leadership and that the bureau’s rank-and-file “door kickers love us,” the truth is that the FBI career employees are fed up with the politicization of their agency.
A very animated Don Jr. is on Fox whining out the same talking points that got his father dunked on during the debate pic.twitter.com/aZoxENeqxJ — Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) October 23, 2020
On Oct. 28, the FBI Agents Association issued a letter to Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden asserting their support for Wray and for allowing him to serve out his 10-year term, a tenure deliberately established to avoid partisan policing.
While Trump may appear to be penalizing the FBI and praising law enforcement as two separate measures, his institutional attack on the FBI is in fact an attack on the police officers he purports to rally behind. Largely as a result of the 9/11 terrorism attacks and the growing threat of domestic terrorism and violence, the FBI is connected with local, county, state and federal police agencies more than ever before.
To walk through an FBI field office is to bear witness to progressive police-FBI partnerships in action. Whether it’s the Crimes Against Children squad, the Organized Crime program, the Public Corruption team, or the Joint Terrorism Task Force, chances are that you wouldn’t be able to distinguish between FBI agents and city police detectives, the county sheriff’s deputy or the state patrol sergeant. Working elbow to elbow with those officers are agents from the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service, IRS, Postal Inspectors, ATF and more — all under one roof. According to the FBI, the bureau leads 86 Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Forces, including over 850 task force officers representing more than 400 state and local police agencies. There are Joint Terrorism Task Forces in each of the 56 FBI field offices with over 4,000 investigators working both international and domestic terrorism cases.
When an officer is willing to risk his job or paycheck out of allegiance to a politician, that’s what detectives call a “clue” that something is amiss.
This also comes down to a money trail that Trump should know better than to infringe on. FBI task forces come with federal money. Overtime pay for the local police team members flows through the FBI. The bureau picks up the tab for costly undercover, surveillance and wiretap operations, and those initiatives dismantle gangs, terror cells and child trafficking rings. When the president fires and threatens to terminate consecutive FBI directors for not doing his political bidding, he doesn’t erode only one agency’s credibility and trust, he jeopardizes the public perception of American law enforcement writ large — an offense of which Trump and his administration have accused Democrats.
If the president will fire a director who won’t take a partisan approach to law enforcement, it’s logical to assume that he’ll pick a replacement who will. Would a Trump lackey installed as FBI director permit a field officer to investigate a corrupt Republican or friend of the president? Will a director who is pressured to please the president launch unmerited inquiries into the president’s opponents? Might a political partisan at the bureau’s helm decide not to pursue evidence of Russian wrongdoing because it would make the president look bad? And for all those local, county and state police, would their investigations and related federal funding be stymied in what the president calls “Democrat cities”?
Police chiefs and sheriffs understand the critical role that a non-partisan, politically neutral FBI plays in securing their communities and the funding that allows them to function.
Police chiefs and sheriffs understand the critical role that a nonpartisan, politically neutral FBI plays in securing their communities and the funding that allows them to function. As one senior FBI official confirmed to me, “Major law enforcement associations representing current and former FBI agents as well as police and sheriff's departments across the country have consistently expressed their full support of Director Wray's leadership of the bureau.” On Oct. 21, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the world’s largest professional association of police leaders, with over 30,000 members, held its annual conference. Wray was invited to speak, and it’s no surprise that the theme of his address was partnership.
Police partners are already dealing with the Trump administration’s unwanted attempts to co-opt cops and turn them into a band of politically driven loyalists. Armed officers with the power of arrest who become blindly allegiant to a personality aren’t just unprofessional, they’re dangerous to our democracy.
When an officer is willing to risk his job or paycheck out of allegiance to a politician, that’s what detectives call a “clue” that something is amiss. This past weekend, an NYPD patrol officer was captured on video proclaiming “Trump 2020” from over the loudspeaker in his cruiser.
How the NYPD rolling up in Black communities these days (on my block): “Trump 2020. Put it on YouTube. Put it on Facebook...”
Aight MFers... it’s on TWITTER TOO! BI-DEN! 👋🏿😂#Vote #nypdfinest #bidenharris2020 pic.twitter.com/hmXdY8ivbM — Brandon K Hines (@thumpio) October 25, 2020
While he was promptly suspended for violating standards requiring officers to be politically neutral in performance of their duties, Trump has called for that officer to return to work. In San Antonio, officers faced discipline for wearing MAGA hats while in uniform, and a Minneapolis police lieutenant praised Trump at a campaign rally while wearing a “Trump for Cops” shirt.
At his August speech accepting his party’s nomination, Trump acknowledged the attendance of a group of Border Patrol union members who cheered wildly in the back of the White House lawn crowd.
This luring of law enforcement away from their oath to preserve and protect everybody in their communities, regardless of politics, isn’t just happenstance; it’s part of a formal effort. “Cops for Trump” is an official Trump campaign initiative. All over the country, well-attended Cops for Trump rallies are staged, often led by Vice President Mike Pence. A political ploy for police is troubling enough, but the fact that police are falling for it should concern us all because of the damage it’s doing to the legitimacy of law enforcement. Recruiting cops into a cult-like club that undermines their public service mission increases the chance that they will be emboldened to do the wrong thing. And threatening to fire yet another FBI director decreases the odds that we’ll have a top cop who is empowered to do the right thing.


msnbc--2020-10-28--Losing the war on Covid-19 sounds a lot like losing the War on Terror

America hates losing .
In life , the lies we tell ourselves are among the most effective .
In war , the same is true about the lies we tell ourselves as a country to avoid admitting defeat .
As yet another surge in Covid-19 cases spreads across the United States , the commander-in-chief has turned to old habits to deflect from that reality .
President Donald Trump 's Covid-19 denialism has been well-documented over the last eight months , but lately it has taken on a twist : insisting that the media is the only force interested in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
In other words , it 's our fault for wanting to talk about how people are dying , when the country has moved on .
Trump has been using one phrase in particular , `` rounding the turn , '' and slipping it into his coronavirus commentary since all the way back in March .
If you want to take a trip down memory lane , `` The Daily Show '' has you covered : This pandemic has left politicians around the world struggling to adequately convey the seriousness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landed on comparing the situation to a war or a battle — something violent and brutish that requires noble sacrifice for the virtuous to vanquish it .
We 've had a raft of commentary as to just why that framing is ineffective , and possibly harmful , given its countervailing tendency to `` breed fear , which can in turn drive anxiety and panic , '' as Yasmeen Serhan wrote in The Atlantic .
In mid-March , stay-at-home orders around the country had just begun to take effect .
Trump was asked at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. `` to be on a wartime footing , in terms of fighting this virus . ''
He answered that yes , he absolutely did .
And what 's more , he said , `` I view it as a , in a sense , a wartime president .
I mean , that 's what we 're fighting .
I mean , it 's — it 's a very tough situation .
You 're — you have to do things . ''
But today we find ourselves with the government writ large having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned away from war and into a resignation from the top administration officials that mitigation is a fool 's errand .
But the president continues to insist that things are going just fine as that promised victory comes ever nearer .
Trump 's rosy optimism in the face of harsh reality is , in a sense , the logical extension of framing the coronavirus response as a war to be won : America ca n't allow itself to envision a world in which it has lost , and so it 's willing victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @

America hates losing. In life, the lies we tell ourselves are among the most effective. In war, the same is true about the lies we tell ourselves as a country to avoid admitting defeat. As yet another surge in Covid-19 cases spreads across the United States, the commander-in-chief has turned to old habits to deflect from that reality.
President Donald Trump's Covid-19 denialism has been well-documented over the last eight months, but lately it has taken on a twist: insisting that the media is the only force interested in, and therefore distorting the threat of, the virus. In other words, it's our fault for wanting to talk about how people are dying, when the country has moved on.
Until November 4th., Fake News Media is going full on Covid, Covid, Covid. We are rounding the turn. 99.9%. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2020
Trump has been using one phrase in particular, "rounding the turn," and slipping it into his coronavirus commentary since all the way back in March. If you want to take a trip down memory lane, "The Daily Show" has you covered:
Wait how many corners does this thing have pic.twitter.com/z1VX6lgEmm — The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) October 25, 2020
This pandemic has left politicians around the world struggling to adequately convey the seriousness of Covid-19 to their constituents. Many have landed on comparing the situation to a war or a battle — something violent and brutish that requires noble sacrifice for the virtuous to vanquish it. We've had a raft of commentary as to just why that framing is ineffective, and possibly harmful, given its countervailing tendency to "breed fear, which can in turn drive anxiety and panic," as Yasmeen Serhan wrote in The Atlantic.
In mid-March, stay-at-home orders around the country had just begun to take effect. Trump was asked at his then-daily briefing whether he considered the U.S. "to be on a wartime footing, in terms of fighting this virus." He answered that yes, he absolutely did. And what's more, he said, "I view it as a, in a sense, a wartime president. I mean, that's what we're fighting. I mean, it's — it's a very tough situation. You're — you have to do things."
But today we find ourselves with the government writ large having abandoned that thinking — the rhetoric has turned away from war and into a resignation from the top administration officials that mitigation is a fool's errand. But the president continues to insist that things are going just fine as that promised victory comes ever nearer. Trump's rosy optimism in the face of harsh reality is, in a sense, the logical extension of framing the coronavirus response as a war to be won: America can't allow itself to envision a world in which it has lost, and so it's willing victory into existence by sheer blind faith.
America can’t allow itself to envision a world in which it’s lost, and so it’s willing victory into existence by sheer blind faith.
The beginnings of the so-called War on Terror in the early 2000s were filled with promises of swift military successes. The most technologically advanced country in the world had set itself on a course of action, so what could go wrong? That line of thinking played into the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as the conventional military engagements were easily won.
Operation Iraqi Freedom launched in March 2003. By that August, after disbanding the Iraqi army and promising to de-Baathify the government, U.S. forces found themselves under attack in what would turn out to be a lengthy insurgency. The guerrilla forces would go on to define the whole of the U.S. experience in Iraq — but right then? Well, things were going to be just fine, Lt. Col. Steve Russell told CNN.
"We're seeing us turn the corner with these Fedayeen-type attacks," Russell said. "Our soldiers here have done fantastic work, in either killing them or capturing them — going after their leadership."
President George W. Bush was eager to highlight the progress the Iraqi army had made against the insurgents two years later, in 2005, when he quoted an "Iraqi first lieutenant named Shoqutt," who describes the transformation of his unit this way: "I really think we've turned the corner here. At first, the whole country didn't take us seriously. Now things are different. Our guys are hungry to demonstrate their skill and to show the world."
Vice President Dick Cheney saw similar cause for optimism when he spoke with a Marine corporal a month later. "I think we've turned the corner, if you will," Cheney said. "I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq."
Fast-forward another two years, to 2007. By then, at least 3,000 U.S. personnel had been killed fighting Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq, the latter of which formed in response to the American occupation. The "surge" had sent as many as 160,000 U.S. forces to finally achieve security so the Iraqi government could take control. Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer wrote this about the bountiful achievements that were piling up:
Only last fall, the Marines’ leading intelligence officer there concluded that the U.S. had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaida. Yet, just this week, the Marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we “have turned the corner.”
Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, admitted to Congress the very next year that "we haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel," despite still having more than 145,000 U.S. forces in Iraq.
It's a line of rhetoric that knows no party, though, and the inertia of the wars has managed to pull along multiple administrations since then. "I think with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, we've turned a corner," President Barack Obama's second defense secretary, Leon Panetta, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2011. "We're in the process of beginning to draw down in Iraq; we're — you know, we're in the process of drawing down, as well, in Afghanistan."
As we know, three years later, the U.S. would be back in Iraq, this time fighting the Islamic State terrorist group, the latest iteration of the insurgents whom we had turned the corner against back in 2003. Even as the never-ending grip of the Forever War continued to drive U.S. policy, the "turned the corner" thinking carried on through the second Obama term and into the Trump administration.
It was apparent to anyone who’d been watching for half as long that no corner had been turned — instead, to paraphrase HBO’s “True Detective,” time was a flat circle when it came to Afghanistan.
Army Gen. John Nicholson was the head of American and NATO forces in 2017 when he said that the U.S. and Afghanistan "have turned the corner" and that "momentum is now with Afghan security forces."
By that point, the war had been going on for 16 years. It was apparent to anyone who'd been watching for half as long that no corner had been turned — instead, to paraphrase HBO's "True Detective," time was a flat circle when it came to Afghanistan.
We've already lost more lives to the coronavirus in this last year — 227,000 as of Tuesday — than in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Military families, for better or for worse, have found themselves set apart from the rest of society as the volunteer-only model has limited the number of people who've served in uniform. Even with the war making front-page news, it was possible for many Americans not to know a single person who'd served in active-duty combat.
Today, in contrast, an estimated 1 in 50 Americans has contracted the coronavirus. The latest rise in case numbers across the country means that it has become harder than ever not to know someone who's had Covid-19. The evidence is plain that no corner has been turned, no matter how much the president wishes it were the case. But his refusal to admit defeat — is that not, in its own horrible way, one of the most American things about his time in office?
While you let that settle in your brain, here are links to help you start your morning:
The Atlantic: Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer wrote about the far-right kidnapping plot against her (which the president said Tuesday may not have been a problem):
Every time the president ramps up this violent rhetoric, every time he fires up Twitter to launch another broadside against me, my family and I see a surge of vicious attacks sent our way. This is no coincidence, and the president knows it. He is sowing division and putting leaders, especially women leaders, at risk. And all because he thinks it will help his reelection.


msnbc--2020-10-28--Kavanaugh's 'heads we win, tails you lose' voting rules could destroy decades of progress

As we make our way to the polls , either in-person or via mail , we need to remember that in addition to sending elected officials to Washington , D.C. , we are voting for governors , state legislators , mayors and , in some states , judges .
We don ’ t talk about it nearly often enough , but our votes in these races are just as important as the ones we cast in the presidential race .
The Supreme Court ’ s decision Monday night in a case involving Wisconsin ’ s election drives home the importance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for state legislative seats .
Voters should make sure that the people they elect to their state legislatures will protect their right to vote .
This Supreme Court will not , and it has become far less likely to permit the lower federal courts to do so , either .
The court , especially following the confirmation of its newest justice , Amy Coney Barrett , seems increasingly likely to defer to state legislatures decisions regarding what protections their state constitutions provide — or don ’ t — to voters , even in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current pandemic .
In Wisconsin , the issue involved extending the period for mail-in ballots to be received past Election Day .
With more people relying on mail-in ballots given the risks of in-person voting , Wisconsin residents , like so many U.S. voters , worried their absentee ballots wouldn ’ t be counted if they voted by mail because of Covid-19-related delays in both the delivery and processing of their ballots .
So , Democrats asked a federal judge to permit ballots to be counted as long as they were postmarked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six days .
The judge authorized the extension , but the 7th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court ’ s decision , ruling that ballots had to be received by Election Day in order to count .
Democrats petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case .
Although the Supreme Court declined to take the case , Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh each wrote to explain why they would permit the decision that ballots must be received by Election Day to stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor , to explain that the Constitution required the federal courts to step in and protect the rights of voters during the pandemic .
According to Kagan ’ s dissent , with the pandemic worsening in Wisconsin , about half of the state ’ s voters had applied for mail-in ballots and more were expected to do so before the Oct. 29 deadline .
The district judge found that the surge in demand and “ unusual postal delays ” meant many voters who fully complied with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the mail by Election Day , let alone in time to return them .
As Kagan pointed out , this meant as many as 100,000 votes would not count without additional time .
The conservative justices were willing to set aside the exigencies of the pandemic to avoid , in the words of Roberts , “ federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes.
” Kavanaugh noted that “ it is one thing for state legislatures to alter their own election rules in the late innings and to bear the responsibility for any unintended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a federal district court to swoop in and alter carefully considered and democratically enacted state election rules when an election is imminent.
” Even though the Wisconsin Legislature , which has barely met since the start of the pandemic , has not considered whether the threat posed by Covid-19 warrants changes to its election procedures , Kavanaugh argued “ the Constitution principally entrusts politically accountable state legislatures , not unelected federal judges , with the responsibility to address the health and safety of the people during the Covid-19 pandemic.
” Kavanaugh had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a response to problems “ fraught with medical and scientific uncertainty , ” the court should give “ especially broad ” latitude to their decisions in an Oct. 5 ruling in a South Carolina case .
In that case , the court left in place a requirement that voters have a witness certify each absentee ballot , despite the burden that imposed on those most at risk in the middle of the pandemic .
Kavanaugh added that decisions made by state legislators should not be “ subject to second guessing by an unelected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , competence , and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the public.
” One can only wonder what Kavanaugh ’ s brothers and sisters on the bench , who routinely decide complex cases that require them to render decisions based on the testimony of expert witnesses , must make of his lack of confidence in their abilities .
Regardless , there is no doubt that under this view , federal judges are largely out of the business of protecting the right to vote .
Kagan ’ s dissent had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the need for federal courts to engage in limited intervention to protect the right to vote , as was the case in Wisconsin , where a narrow remedy was tailored to address problems that arose due to the pandemic .
Gorsuch had expressed concern that “ last-minute changes to longstanding election rules risk … inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes.
” Kagan responded , “ It is hard to see how the extension of a ballot-receipt deadline could confuse citizens about how to vote : At worst , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadline would ( if she could ) put her ballot in the mail a few days earlier than needed.
” And while Kavanaugh speculated some would be “ suspicious of impropriety ” if ballots that came in after Election Day reversed the fortunes of an early leader in the results , Kagan pointed out there were “ no results to ‘ flip ’ until all valid votes are counted.
” Kavanaugh ’ s view likely represents where the Supreme Court is headed , not because it is right , but because it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This approach would vest broad power in state legislatures and make the views of the people who hold those offices all the more critical to the future of the right to vote .
Before the court refused to extend the period for Wisconsin ballots to be received , the Supreme Court reinstated state laws in Alabama and South Carolina requiring witness signatures on absentee ballots , rules that lower federal courts had rescinded during the pandemic .
This is why now , more than ever , it is incumbent upon voters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves about the views of state and local candidates on election law .
Since the 1965 Voting Rights Act was enacted , the federal courts have extended protection to many previously disenfranchised voters .
We all know far too well what happened before those protections existed .
Under Kavanaugh ’ s “ heads we win , tails you lose ” rules for voters , progress will recede .
Any voter who wishes to retain their voting rights would do well to heed the Wisconsin ruling for the warning that it is and make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local officials who are committed to protecting the right to vote .

As we make our way to the polls, either in-person or via mail, we need to remember that in addition to sending elected officials to Washington, D.C., we are voting for governors, state legislators, mayors and, in some states, judges. We don’t talk about it nearly often enough, but our votes in these races are just as important as the ones we cast in the presidential race. The Supreme Court’s decision Monday night in a case involving Wisconsin’s election drives home the importance of these down-ballot races, especially those for state legislative seats.
Biden: "I'm gonna go vote. There's a lot of people on that ballot – not just me but the downballot as well – that are gonna change things for us, make it better." — Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) October 28, 2020
Voters should make sure that the people they elect to their state legislatures will protect their right to vote. This Supreme Court will not, and it has become far less likely to permit the lower federal courts to do so, either.
The court, especially following the confirmation of its newest justice, Amy Coney Barrett, seems increasingly likely to defer to state legislatures decisions regarding what protections their state constitutions provide — or don’t — to voters, even in the middle of a crisis like the current pandemic.
In Wisconsin, the issue involved extending the period for mail-in ballots to be received past Election Day. With more people relying on mail-in ballots given the risks of in-person voting, Wisconsin residents, like so many U.S. voters, worried their absentee ballots wouldn’t be counted if they voted by mail because of Covid-19-related delays in both the delivery and processing of their ballots. So, Democrats asked a federal judge to permit ballots to be counted as long as they were postmarked by Nov. 3 and received within the following six days.
The judge authorized the extension, but the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, ruling that ballots had to be received by Election Day in order to count. Democrats petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Although the Supreme Court declined to take the case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh each wrote to explain why they would permit the decision that ballots must be received by Election Day to stand. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, to explain that the Constitution required the federal courts to step in and protect the rights of voters during the pandemic.
Voters should make sure that the people they elect to their state legislatures will protect their right to vote. This Supreme Court will not, and it has become far less likely to permit the lower federal courts to do so, either.
According to Kagan’s dissent, with the pandemic worsening in Wisconsin, about half of the state’s voters had applied for mail-in ballots and more were expected to do so before the Oct. 29 deadline. The district judge found that the surge in demand and “unusual postal delays” meant many voters who fully complied with the rules wouldn’t receive their ballots in the mail by Election Day, let alone in time to return them. As Kagan pointed out, this meant as many as 100,000 votes would not count without additional time.
The conservative justices were willing to set aside the exigencies of the pandemic to avoid, in the words of Roberts, “federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes.” Kavanaugh noted that “it is one thing for state legislatures to alter their own election rules in the late innings and to bear the responsibility for any unintended consequences. It is quite another thing for a federal district court to swoop in and alter carefully considered and democratically enacted state election rules when an election is imminent.”
Even though the Wisconsin Legislature, which has barely met since the start of the pandemic, has not considered whether the threat posed by Covid-19 warrants changes to its election procedures, Kavanaugh argued “the Constitution principally entrusts politically accountable state legislatures, not unelected federal judges, with the responsibility to address the health and safety of the people during the Covid-19 pandemic.” Kavanaugh had previously noted that when state officials craft a response to problems “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainty,” the court should give “especially broad” latitude to their decisions in an Oct. 5 ruling in a South Carolina case. In that case, the court left in place a requirement that voters have a witness certify each absentee ballot, despite the burden that imposed on those most at risk in the middle of the pandemic. Kavanaugh added that decisions made by state legislators should not be “subject to second guessing by an unelected federal judiciary, which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the public.”
Under Kavanaugh’s “heads we win, tails you lose” rules for voters, progress will only continue to recede.
One can only wonder what Kavanaugh’s brothers and sisters on the bench, who routinely decide complex cases that require them to render decisions based on the testimony of expert witnesses, must make of his lack of confidence in their abilities. Regardless, there is no doubt that under this view, federal judges are largely out of the business of protecting the right to vote.
Kagan’s dissent had the better of the argument, reflecting the need for federal courts to engage in limited intervention to protect the right to vote, as was the case in Wisconsin, where a narrow remedy was tailored to address problems that arose due to the pandemic. Gorsuch had expressed concern that “last-minute changes to longstanding election rules risk … inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes.” Kagan responded, “It is hard to see how the extension of a ballot-receipt deadline could confuse citizens about how to vote: At worst, a voter not informed of the new deadline would (if she could) put her ballot in the mail a few days earlier than needed.” And while Kavanaugh speculated some would be “suspicious of impropriety” if ballots that came in after Election Day reversed the fortunes of an early leader in the results, Kagan pointed out there were “no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted.”
Kavanaugh’s view likely represents where the Supreme Court is headed, not because it is right, but because it is where the votes are on the court. This approach would vest broad power in state legislatures and make the views of the people who hold those offices all the more critical to the future of the right to vote. Before the court refused to extend the period for Wisconsin ballots to be received, the Supreme Court reinstated state laws in Alabama and South Carolina requiring witness signatures on absentee ballots, rules that lower federal courts had rescinded during the pandemic. This is why now, more than ever, it is incumbent upon voters to take the down-ballot races seriously and educate themselves about the views of state and local candidates on election law.
Since the 1965 Voting Rights Act was enacted, the federal courts have extended protection to many previously disenfranchised voters. We all know far too well what happened before those protections existed. Under Kavanaugh’s “heads we win, tails you lose” rules for voters, progress will recede. Any voter who wishes to retain their voting rights would do well to heed the Wisconsin ruling for the warning that it is and make sure they focus on electing state and local officials who are committed to protecting the right to vote.