Sunday School 5/8/22: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School had four perspectives on the Alito draft, the upcoming SCOTUS decision likely to overturn Roe, and what it means going forward. For your Extra Credit, I'm completely switching gears.

One of the non-abortion related discussions happened in the Face the Nation classroom, where Margaret Brennan chatted with former Obama AG Eric Holder. Holder's got a new book out - Our Unfinished March - and he's perhaps the only former pol-turned-author making the rounds who's not a former Trump administration anything.

Brennan asked him about his work on redistricting, through his National Democrat Redistricting Committee, and how some critics call his strategy "sue to blue," or say that it's completely partisan - in favor of the Dems, of course. He said that's not the case. Rather, 

... ours is a fight for fairness. And, yes, we've brought a lot of lawsuits -- successfully brought a lot of lawsuits in order to make sure that the process is done in a fair way and so that the American people actually pick their representatives as opposed to politicians choosing their voters. And so 'sue to blue', that's what they say when you're winning in court, which is what we have done at a whole bunch of levels.

He didn't necessarily agree with Brennan that the Dems have the edge going into the midterms, but he thinks they 

certainly stopped the Republicans when they said they wanted to secure a decade of power in this next decade based on the redistricting that they were going to do. We have blunted that effort and we certainly have more fair maps than we did coming out of the last redistricting cycle. The thing that really worries me, however, is that we have 40 percent fewer competitive seats than I think we should have as a result of what both parties have done.

Brennan asked why his organization hasn't challenged any of the Dems' gerrymanders, including the maps in Maryland and New York, both of which were thrown out by the courts. He said he's indicated his opposition to what happened in Maryland, and he agreed with the judge's decision there. And, he said, the maps the legislature drew in New York were not the maps he would have drawn. He things the final maps in NY will be "different, but no fundamentally different."

And, he said, 

I think you can't compare, however, what happened in New York and Maryland to what is going on in Texas, Georgia, potentially Florida, Wisconsin, where Republicans have really gone to town in terms of gerrymanders. Fundamentally different from what Democrats have done.

He said in Texas, they're picking up two seats "strictly as a result of the increase in the Hispanic population," but they've "created more majority white districts" and haven't "increased the power of Hispanics in Texas at all."  

The map that you see in New York reflects really a population shift, a hollowing out of the rural areas in New York, as well as an increase in the urban areas in New York. So there's a census bureau basis of what's happening in New York that does not exist in Republican states.

And what about Florida, and Gov. DeSantis saying he's being 'race-neutral' with his maps? Brennan said she knows Holder "strongly" disagrees, and asked if he's saying Florida's gerrymandering is rooted in racism.  "It's certainly race conscious," he said, and by getting rid of a traditionally black district, "race is a factor there." And, intentional disenfranchisement is part of it.

They're going after Democrats. And the fact that that -- the Democrats that they're going after happen to be black I don't think is necessarily a coincidence. The suit that we won in Alabama was -- where we said that you should have additional representation for the black inhabitants of Alabama, those districts were certainly drawn with the thought that they would disenfranchise African-Americans in Alabama.

Alabama's weird. They have maps, but the Supremes might hear a case on the maps if someone were to complain the new districts are racially biased or designed to, as Holder said, disenfranchise African-Americans. Brennan wondered about this year's election, and the chance that the maps might be invalidated, and what that does to the election outcome.  Here's Holder's take on it.

Well, they're going to have an election in November based on maps that judges, including two Trump judges, said were inappropriately, unconstitutionally drawn. The Supreme Court said too close to the election and so we're going to allow the election to go ahead on those maps that were found to be defective. Now, that the Supreme Court will ultimately do with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was the basis for the lawsuit in Alabama, will remain to be seen. But that's one of the things I talk about in my book, this notion of us getting to some structural changes, that we need to look -- we need to ban partisan gerrymandering. We need the structures of our democracy if we're going to try to -- if we're going to try to save it.

There was an interesting exchange when Brennan sort of twisted something Holder said in his book. Here's how it went.

MB: And the problem that you sketch out here, you say that the entire democratic system, essentially, is broken, as I understand it. Unrepresentative Senate, unnecessary anti-democrat Electoral College, gerrymandered House of Representatives, panoply of state legislatures, and a stolen Supreme Court. A stolen Supreme Court. You say every person having an equal say in our democracy, one person, one vote, is far from a reality.

EH: Yes, I think that's true.

MB: You're saying the entire system is broken. What -- so if Republicans win control of Congress in November, is that election -- does it not have integrity? Do you not accept the outcome of it?

EH: No, I think your premise goes a little far. I wouldn't say that everything is broken, but there is --

MB: I was reading from your book there.

Yes, she was reading from the book in the part where she read from the book, but to jump from there to asking whether the election has integrity is quite a leap, and very much putting words into Holder's mouth, IMO.  Here's his response.

No, what I'm saying -- I would say is, there is a substantial amount of our structure that needs to be repaired, that needs to be examined. And I think we should -- what I've tried to put out -- point out in the book is that we have faced these issues before and that we've had heroes and heroines in our history that have faced similar kinds of issues and through sacrifice, commitment, they have made a difference. And we have the capacity, I think, to make these kinds of changes.

And, specifically on the Supremes, where Brennan placed a lot of emphasis,  

If you look at the Supreme Court, we have two seats, one stolen from the Democrats that Merrick Garland should have now. That -- that seat was not filled because it was to close to an election. And then Amy Coney Barrett was placed into a seat while people were actually voting. I mean those are the kinds of things that I think need to be addressed. And what I talk about in the book is to say, look, we should term limit the justices, 18 years, and that every president should have an opportunity to nominate two justices per term and to try to take some of the pressure out of this -- the partisanship and the confirmation process.

He's absolutely right on the Supremes: Garland should have had his confirmation hearing, when he was nominated, and Coney Barrett should not have had her hearing when she was nominated. Many people - perhaps even most people - understand how egregious the Grim Reaper's actions were on the Garland pick, and how hypocritical they were on the other one as well. And, I think, even Republicans would be having a cow or three if the shoe were on the other foot in either one of these cases. 

Holder's got a lot of ideas; admittedly he's trying to get Dems elected, but in the end, if the people get to choose their elected officials, instead of them picking us, we'll all be better off. I might actually read this one.

See you around campus.  

Wondering on Wednesday 10/28/20

Ready... Set... Wonder!

You know, I was kind of bummed today when I saw that Miles Taylor, the former Chief of Staff to Kirstjen Nielsen at the Department of Homeland Security, announced himself the name and face behind 'Anonymous,' the author of the famed 2018 NY Times op-ed that began 

President Trump  is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

Like many others, I had wondered, not with any focus but sort of randomly, who in the administration might be the author (I had a favorite, I did.) And in 2019, when the book A Warning was published, I wondered again if perhaps it was  my pick, Kellyanne Conway. I thought she was the perfect person to have realized the error of her ways, going from getting him elected to now warning us that we shouldn't allow him back in the Oval after January 20, 2021. But no, it's Miles Taylor.

Now that I don't have to wonder about that any more, I've got time to wonder about a bunch of other stuff.

For example, what kind of person do you need to be to get a major city's District Attorney this mad? Well, you just need to be Donald Trump, that's all. Here's just a piece of what's in DA Larry Krasner's statement:

The Trump Administration’s efforts to suppress votes amid a global pandemic fueled by their disregard for human life will not be tolerated in the birthplace of American democracy. Philadelphians from a diversity of political opinions believe strongly in the rule of law, in fair and free elections, and in a democratic system of government. We will not be cowed or ruled by a lawless, power-hungry despot. Some folks learned that the hard way in the 1700s.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took another oath today at the Supreme Court; in an unusual celebratory note, she received her first recusal request, too. The election-related case is from Pennsylvania, a key battleground state that, according to the punditry, is a must win for both candidates if they want to get to 270 electoral college votes.  We know, of course, that the new Justice would not commit t recuing herself, and I don't think I have to wonder much what her answer will be - I suspect it's going to be a no, in her best firm mommy voice, but we'll see. 

Finally, I turn my wondering eye to these two articles, which arrived together in an email:

Republicans are on the verge of a spectacular upside-down achievement

Why Trump's re-election still seems likely 

It's hard paying attention to the wildly varying headlines and opinions. These two were similar to others I've seen recently, in which it's pretty clear that the president is going to win, and it's equally clear that the president's not going to win. It's also clear that the pandemic is the most important thing in the election, and equally clear that the economy is the most important thing in the election. It's clearly clear that no one really knows what's clear, and equally clear that everyone knows what's clear.

And all of that had me wondering what the oddsmakers say about the election. According to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal, 

The U.S. presidential election has officially become the most heavily bet event in the history of the United Kingdom-based Betfair Exchange, the company said in a release. A total of about $259 million in bets have been placed on the matchup between President Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, and former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic candidate. The handle breaks the record $258 million bet on the 2016 presidential election between Trump and Hillary Clinton. Betfair predicts that as much as $519 million could be bet on the election by Tuesday.

So, lots of money in play, but what are the odds? Biden is a -200 favorite to win the election at Betfair (Trump +200); that means that Biden is the favorite and Trump the underdog. 

A US oddsmaker (for entertainment purposes only, since it's illegal to bet on elections in the US) has Biden at -240 and Trump +220. And, the same guy has Kamala Harris at +800 to replace Biden before the 2024 election.

If it weren't illegal, I wonder how much Trump would put on that? After all, he's already suggesting Biden's only going to last three weeks if he wins... 

What are you wondering about?

PPOD 10/22/20: Chuck Schumer's Dems

The Senate Judiciary Committee moved the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett on to the next phase, to the full Senate, with a vote likely coming on Monday. I can't think of anything that will stop that from happening, barring some sudden urge to set her nomination aside and, I don't know, consider some legislation, or start another investigation, or something. 

The vote was unanimous, I guess. All twelve Republicans voted yes. All ten Democrats didn't bother showing up to vote.  

Oh, wait. Sorry Excuse me. All ten Democrats boycotted the vote. Sorry if I misrepresented what happened today. I'll let my very own Senator, Chuck Schumer, explain.

Democrats will not lend a single ounce of legitimacy to this sham vote in the judiciary... The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate, and her potential confirmation will have dire, dire consequence for the Senate, for the Supreme Court, and our entire country for generations to come. The Senate Republican majority is conducting the most rushed, the most partisan, and the least legitimate nomination to the Supreme Court in our nation's history.

Blah blah blah, wah wah wah, sis boom bah.

As a former Dem, I'm (still) embarrassed by what passes for leadership in the party. Between House Speaker Nancy 'Let me clap you back and tear up your speech and fill my quiver with lots of arrows' Pelosi, and Chuck 'I never met a camera I didn't like' Schumer (there are others, too), it's hard to look at the leadership of the party with any respect. (Pelosi herself has been a PPOD recipient in the past.)

Rather than skipping out on the meeting, the adult thing to do would have been to show up,  explain one more time for the record why it was the wrong thing for the Judiciary Committee to do, respond to whatever statements the Rs made (instead just reading their remarkably similar prepared remarks), and then voting against moving the nomination forward. 

Instead, they put pictures of people who benefited from the Affordable Care Act in their chairs, and hoped that their colleagues on the other side of the aisle would look at those, feel bad, and delay the vote. Not only that, but it seems they also thought that not showing up would mean the vote wouldn't happen. Schumer said "the rules require a quorum" and for the Judiciary Committee, that means at least 9 Rs and two Ds would have to be present to hold a vote. The thought that the rules would apply here, or on any other issue related to Mitch McConnell's relentless march towards as close to a 100% conservative federal judiciary as is humanly possible, is absurd.  (McConnell, too, is a previous PPOD recipient).

I hate to point out that this silliness, during an election where perhaps the highest priority is gaining the majority in the Senate, is not likely to be the kind of thing that's going to push an undecided voter to choose blue. Worse, it might be just the thing to embolden the red guys in the several very close Senate races that the Dems need to win to get the majority. Why feed the beast?

And, with a 17% approval rating for Congress as a whole - the lowest it's been in a year - why don't you at least show up?

For their childishness, for their ill-advised PR stunt, for failing to show up and do their jobs, for thinking the rules would apply, and for pulling this crap now, with so much hanging in the balance, Chuck Schumer and the Judiciary Committee Dems are my Pet Peeve of the Day.

Wondering on Wednesday 10/14/20

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Where to start with this week's wondering? Well, there's the Amy Coney Barrett hearings in the Senate, where (at least yesterday, anyway) many of the questions were silly (what's on your notepad, young lady? And whatever it was that Sen. Mazie Hirono was talking about, for example). Today, many of the questions from both sides were about the Affordable Care Act, which several Republican state Attorneys General sued to toss out. One of those states? Indiana, Barrett's home state. 

I mention that, because according to a few reports, she said she didn't know that Trump ran on, and continues to run on, getting rid of the ACA. I wonder how anyone in a state that's part of the suit to kill it can pretend to be unaware of his position, certainly not someone who was just appointed to the bench in 2017 - during, of course, the Trump administration... How stupid do they think we are, I wonder?

If you're of a certain age, you probably remember the threat of things being put on your permanent record...And today, with a particularly insane tweet from the president mocking the elderly, the infirm, residents of senior housing, nursing homes, rehab centers, and, of course, Joe Biden, I thought of the old 'permanent record' thing. And I wonder what it will be like for folks in the future to read through our history, from Bush to Obama to Trump, and wonder what the hell happened to our country? And I wondered how weird it would be to look at that permanent record, at some point in the future, and find out what happened to the person who added all this crap to it.  

 

I also have to wonder, only for about three seconds or so, why the powers that be on the peacock network decided to host a town hall meeting with IMPOTUS at the same time Joe Biden is doing a town hall on another network. Three, two, one, money. Simple, right?  I mean, it's not because they feel a compelling desire to have Americans hear from Trump, the man who never shuts up. It's not that they are at all interested in having people hear from Joe Biden, because they don't care about that, either. On the plus side?  Nah, there is no plus side. 

My Sweet Baboo and I went for our third and likely final fall foliage road trip of 2020 today, and there came a time when finding 'facilities' and food was more important than looking at pretty stuff. We stopped at a diner we've driven by without stopping at least a couple dozen times over the years. I don't have to wonder anymore about the food - it was delish. The facilities? Clean, well appointed and not in use when we arrived - a huge plus.  

Two gentlemen and  'face coverings required for entry' signs attracted my attention.  Gentleman A came in with who appeared to be his wife and two kids, fully and appropriately masked. However, his mask was tucked firmly against the underside of his nostrils. Gentleman B, one of two who arrived together on separate motorcycles, apparently didn't have a mask or doesn't wear one, but he tried to rise to the occasion today by holding his t-shirt in his teeth and tucking his nose down so it pointed into his shirt. 

And I wonder, first of all, why they thought what they were doing was appropriate and in keeping with the requirement? And secondly, why did the waitress allow them to come in when clearly the potentially dangerous parts of their faces were uncovered? And finally, specifically regarding Gentleman B, how on earth did I keep from busting out laughing? 

I wonder about other stuff too, like what a crushing blow it must have been to the president when Snitty Snitty Bill Barr's DOJ investigation into the 'unmasking' of Michael Flynn ended with no substantive findings and no charges - in effect, a highly awaited "October Surprise" that wasn't. Trump has repeatedly said that Barr is either "going down as the greatest AG in the history of our country, or he'll go down as just a regular guy." I doubt the latter will happen, after his shenanigans and statements and obfuscations and all that, but Trump can dream, I guess. I mean, clearly he does that, right? No need to wonder about that at all.

And finally, we learned today that Barron Trump also had tested positive for the coronavirus, but has since tested negative. I'm happy about that, I really am. I'd wondered about his health during the time that both his parents were infected with COVID. I'd also wondered about Melania's health as well, since we were not hearing about that. Today we learned that she has now tested negative for the virus, and I'm happy about that, too.  

When the president was asked about Barron, after Melania's note was published on the White House website, his answer? "Barron's fine. And Amy's doing a fantastic job, and we're heading out to Iowa, and we have a big rally, a lot of people, as always, but we have a lot of people and we look forward to it. Again, Amy I think is doing an incredible job." I can't help wondering what it feels like to be the person the question was actually about.

What's got you wondering tonight?

Sunday School 10/11/20

For tonight's Sunday School, I decided to start with Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth, who visited the Firing Line with Margaret Hoover classroom. Duckworth is a Purple Heart recipient, a mom,  and an Asian-American.  

They spent some time talking about the coronavirus, including on what might have been different if Democrats had led the response instead of Donald Trump.  

It's not even about a Democratic alternative. If the COVID response had actually even just followed any type of scientific recommendations you would see a much better response and fewer death rates and spread of the virus than it had under President Trump.

But, she added, it's more than that.

I've watched Republican administrations respond to pandemics, specifically as President Bush did. So I would think it's not just about Democrats or Republicans, it's about president Trump's failures. 

About the president's own bout of COVID, and his suggestion that he caught the virus from Gold Star families, Duckworth's comments were pretty forceful.

...I think it's shameful again that he'd blame others for catching this virus when we know he's been the one modelling very bad behavior, going to rallies not wearing masks. He's told people not to wear masks. And even now during a time when we know he's still contagious, he's still not wearing masks and subjecting those around him to this pandemic. Earlier he blamed military men and women and police officers for exposing Hope Hicks. He keeps trying to put the blame on others but he's the one not wearing a mask and prevents other people from wearing masks.

She was equally clear-headed on House Speaker Pelosi's talk about the 25th Amendment, saying she thinks it's not appropriate and that "we should be talking about the election," since people have already started voting.

On stimulus talks, she prefers a single comprehensive bill vs. standalone bills, saying that the former "is the art of compromise. Everyone gets a little something you want and there are things you don't want." 

I want protections for families and workers. I want another round of stimulus payments. I want money in there for municipalities who lost tax revenue and are right now facing severe financial distress. For me, compromise means coming together and putting something together. The president wants to cherry pick and I don't know that cherry-picking is good for our country as a whole... I think we could put something together. I'm not saying I would be opposed to doing something important (as a) standalone, but I think it's better to put it all together.

The second classroom I visited was CNN's State of the Union, where Jake Tapper talked with Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI); she's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and starting tomorrow will be participating in the hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. 

Tapper noted that Hirono has said the Rs have the votes, and he wondered what Hirono would be asking about. She said she'd be focusing on the Affordable Care Act and on a woman's right to choose. And, she added,

This nominee poses a clear and present danger. The immediate danger is to the health care of over 20 million Americans who have health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the over 100 million Americans who are protected under the Affordable Care Act because they have preexisting conditions, not to mention the seven million who have tested positive for COVID, who will be put into the category of those with preexisting conditions.

Tapper asked whether there's anything the Ds can do to stop the nomination from moving forward.

Well, if we can get two more brave Republicans to face up to the fact that they are going to be voting on -- for somebody who's going to take away the health care of hundreds of thousands of their constituents, if we can get two more Republicans to have that courage, we can stop her.

She also said that Barrett's religion is "immaterial, irrelevant," and that she's not going to be asking questions about that. 

Tapper moved on to the lack of a mandatory testing protocol on Capitol Hill, and whether she felt comfortable, as someone diagnosis with cancer, going to the Senate.

Well, the fact that Mitch McConnell and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee have not put in place appropriate protocols, that tells you the seriousness with which they regard this virus and its spread. So, for my own protection and that of everyone that I come in contact with, I will get a test after I do this interview with you.

Last question? Tapper wondered about Hirono's reaction to Trump referring to Sen. Kamala Harris as "a monster," noting that she and Harris are two of the four women of color in the Senate.  

It's typical Trump that he will attack anybody. He calls people names. So, when he can't come up with anything more substantive, he will just call somebody a name. And he's called me names. So, that's the president.

And then -- and there's a clear choice, by the way, in this election. Are we going to vote for this unhinged person of -- who is running around in super-spreader events, by the way?

The irony of a president who's going to spread the virus, and Republicans who want to put on the court a person who is going to knock out the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic, and Joe Biden, who actually wants to get control over the virus and move us forward, the -- people are already voting. I hope they made the right choice, based on the fact that this nominee is a threat to their health care, which is, by the way, the number one concern of Americans right now.

It's going to be an interesting week, for sure. And if you want to do some light reading, there's Barrett's statement to the Judiciary Committee. 

See you around the virtual campus. 

Sunday School 9/27/20

There were lots of folks making the rounds today, including the House Speaker, a bunch of senators, a comedian, the Secretary of Labor who's also the son of a late SCOTUS justice, and more. 

I decided to check in with the folks at Fox News Sunday, who missed out on all the fun last week because of a very late transcript posting. 

Chris Wallace was off preparing for Tuesday's debate, so Brit Hume sat in to lead the conversations. Among his guests were former appellate judge and Clinton independent counsel Ken Starr and Harvard emeritus professor Laurence Tribe, both of whom are considered experts on constitutional law. Hume wanted to talk Roe v. Wade with the experts.

Tribe went first and said the nomination should have waited until we had the results of the election, and that "we've never, never jumped the gun this quickly" and that people are already voting. And he compared that to the 400 days with an open seat after the nomination of Merrick Garland. 

The idea that we need to rush ahead with a lifetime appointment, that as Judge Barrett herself would readily acknowledge will make a huge difference in the tilt of the court on health care, on women's reproductive rights, on voting rights, the idea that we can't wait a few days is ludicrous. There's no reason for it.

And, although he said he thinks quite well of Amy Coney Barrett, "the issue is not the nominee, it's the nomination." The Rs aren't willing to wait, Tribe said, because "they really are nervous about what the American people believe the Constitution means and what they believe should be represented on the Supreme Court." 

When Hume asked, Tribe admitted it wasn't unconstitutional to move forward, "but a lot of things that are constitutional are stupid. This is not a good idea."

What is it that they're afraid of? That the American people don't want to re-elect this president? If they think he'll be re-elected, and that they will have a Republican Senate, then they can confirm Amy Coney Barrett then. But the idea that it has to happen now, one of the reasons the president has given is, he wants to have a majority on the court to uphold his decision not to count all the ballots. He's said, if we don't count the ballots, if we toss some of them aside, we won't have to worry about a transition, it will just be a continuation of my presidency. That's not the way democracy works. That's the way dictatorship works.

Hume turned to Starr, who confessed his respect and affection for Tribe, but said he views the nomination as the president doing his duty. 

There is a vacancy and it's tragic that we lost Justice Ginsburg, but, exactly, you ask the right question, what does the Constitution say? I don't think that the president, whoever the president is, should dillydally. And, in fact, Justice Sotomayor said in 2016, we really don't do well -- I'm paraphrasing, with eight members of the court. And Justice Ruth Ginsburg herself said at that same time.

He said that "the president doesn't stop being the president during an election year." (unless his name is Barack Obama, it would seem), and

...now, of course, it is up to the Senate to determine, are these considerations that Professor Tribe is articulating, are those weighty enough to say we're not going to go forward or we're going to wait until after the election and so forth.

He also said that Coney Barrett was a "superb nominee" and that no one questions "her abilities, her integrity, her temperament and the like" so the issues Tribe and others are raising should be addressed in the confirmation hearing. And, in response to Hume's question about the issues Tribe raised - abortion among others - where he said it was clear how Coney Barrett would vote, Starr said that thinking was "absolutely premature and wrong," and to predict what a judge would do is "folly." About Coney Barrett, he said

Does she have a judicial philosophy? Absolutely. She has said she is of the school of Antonin Scalia. And so that's a great insight. And that is a -- what I would call a traditionalist who treats the Constitution not as simply an aspirational document, but as law. And so I would say, hold off, let's hear the confirmation hearings and see if she says, as I think she will, I solemnly promise that I will go about my duties with an open mind, I will listen to all the arguments and I will assess them with great, great respect for both sides as well as the views of my colleagues.

Tribe responded that he's read her writings, many of her opinions, and "it's clear how she approaches the law." 

It's a perfectly respectable view. It was the view Justice Scalia held. And, of course, he said he thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. She's written that Roe v. Wade is not entitled to determinative weight as a precedent. She has also been explicit in saying she thought that Chief Justice Roberts was wrong in stretching what he understood the Affordable Care Act meant in order to uphold it. She's been admirably candid about her views --

And what did he think, from a constitutional lawyer's perspective, about how Chief Justice John Roberts ruled on the ACA? 

I made clear at the time that I thought that's what he would rule and that that's what he ought to rule in order to avoid a constitutional conflict. That is, interpret the law as a tax in order to use the broad taxing power in order to uphold it. And I think the lower court, which said that when the tax goes away, it's no longer possible to uphold the law and even the protection for people with pre-existing conditions goes away. I think, and most scholars think, that that went way too far.

Now, I'm not going to predict exactly what Judge Barrett will do on that, but what is clear is she is being rushed through in a confirmation process that will be faster than any in recent memory because they want to have six conservatives on the court - that will determine whether he is remaining president.

And, the last word is from Judge Starr.

Predictions are fallacious. Let's have a confirmation hearing. The history of confirmation shows that the Senate can move forward very, very quickly, especially when you have someone with a very good and solid record and a person of such great ability. So let's move the process forward and have a good, robust debate, which I think will be good for the country.

I'm sure the confirmation hearing will be robust, and there'll be a debate on any number of things, but good for the country? Not so sure about that, if recent history of hearings is any indication. I'm not sure how much we benefit from a bunch of partisans scowling and barking at each other, but we'll see. 

Wear your mask, please, and continue practicing good social distancing habits. It might not be mentioned in the Constitution, but it's the smart thing to do.

See you around the virtual campus.