Quick Takes (v54): How to Steal an Election

The eight justices of the US Supreme Court have been plowing through election-related cases at a fast and furious clip, announcing decisions almost exclusively without comment over the past several weeks. 

All that changed yesterday, and it's frightening what will happen now that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been sworn in at a socially-distanced ceremony at the White House.

In Democratic National Committee vs. Wisconsin State Legislature, decided yesterday on a 5-3 vote (Justices Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor dissented, with Kagan writing for the three), it seems to people more knowledgeable than me that the Court has started laying the foundation for putting now sixty collective fingers on the side of restricting votes, rather than counting them - and that they've done it blatantly, and shockingly. 

In the lower court, the judges decided that mailed-in ballots could be counted for up to six days after Election Day, provided that they were postmarked before Election Day. The decision, of course, was based on issues caused by the pandemic and by concerns about the US Postal Service's ability to process mail timely. The Supremes disagreed.

Here's an excerpt from Vox, talking about the majority decisions from Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, with a focus on the concept of 'dual sovereignty' - the premise that the SCOTUS should defer to state court decisions on issues of state law, and that the SCOTUS has the final word on issues of federal law. 

If the Supreme Court of the United States had the power to overrule a state supreme court on a question of state law, this entire system of dual sovereignty would break down. It would mean that all state law would ultimately be subservient to the will of nine federal judges... They also sent a loud signal, just eight days before a presidential election, that long-settled rules governing elections may now be unsettled. Republican election lawyers are undoubtedly salivating, and thinking of new attacks on voting rights that they can launch in the next week. (emphasis added)

And from the Washington Post, which began its analysis by pointing out that, according to Wall Street Journal map, it took an average of 10 days for a first-class letter to be delivered in Wisconsin back in September, we learn that Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence included this ridiculous and irrelevant statement.

Voters who, for example, show up to vote at midnight after the polls close on election night do not have a right to demand that the State nonetheless count their votes...Voters who submit their absentee ballots after the State’s deadline similarly do not have a right to demand that the State count their votes.

He further argued

For important reasons most States, including Wisconsin, require absentee ballots to be received by election day, not just mailed by election day. Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter. States that require absentee ballots to be received by election day still have strong interests in avoiding suspicions of impropriety and announcing final results on or close to election night.”

In the dissent, Kagan hit back on that argument.

Justice Kavanaugh alleges that ‘suspicions of impropriety’ will result if ‘absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election." But there are no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be more ‘suspicio[us]’ or ‘improp[er]’ than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process.

And that, of course, was the majority's intent. It's the president's intent, it's the GOP's intent, it's the Republican National Committee's intent, and it's the intent of Republican-controlled legislatures, perhaps especially where the governor is a Dem.

Back to the Vox article, this time to look quickly at the implications of what Justice Neil Gorsuch had to say in his concurring decision. He focused on the Constitution, which says that

the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.”

And in his "hyper-literal" interpretation, the word 'legislature' means exactly - and only - the body referred to as the 'state legislature, because the legislature - "not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.” 

The problem with that?

State supreme courts may lose their power to enforce state constitutions that protect voting rights. State governors may lose their power to veto election laws, which would be a truly astonishing development when you consider that every state needs to draw new legislative maps in 2021...

This is our future: uncounted votes, emasculated state courts, and more. Gerrymandering to rig state legislatures? Check. Other voter suppression tactics, such as restricting hours in urban areas? Check. Closing polling places that are accessible via public transportation? Check. 

We ain't seen nothing yet, folks. 

We ain't seen nothing yet.

Laughable Hypocrisy

NBC News photo

Brett Kavanaugh, president Trump's second Supreme Court nominee, has started making his courtesy calls on Republican senators (and, if he's smart, he'll call on some Democrats as well).

At the same time, lines are being drawn; full force and passion is being invoked by the likes of Chuck Schumer; studious review of Kavanaugh's lengthy record is being promised and people are being recruited for that effort.All that's pretty normal, except for the Deputy AG's request for help on the documents. 

Also normal is the left and right chest thumping, about how long the confirmation process should take, about the Merrick Garland nonconfirmation, and more.this. In short, we're headed for a battle and the ultimate winner will almost certainly be the president and his nominee, who will join Great Justice Neil Gorsuch on the bench.

Speaking of Great Things, here's a Great and Laughably Hypocritical Example of the what the folks on the right have to offer about this new SCOTUS battle. In an opinion published in the conservative Washington Examiner, we read that

As liberal fury over Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement continues to escalate, there's a clear mindset behind the Left's opposition tactics. "If we stop winning, we want to immediately change the rules."  In the week after Kennedy's retirement was announces, some Democrats have revived their calls to 'court pack' - increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court and fill those seats with justices sympathetic to their social agenda. 

Hmm.. "some Democrats"... I wonder who that is? Could it be Schumer? Dick Durbin? Patty Murray? Maybe Elizabeth Warren? Amy Klobuchar?  Nah, it's this guy: Ian Samuel.

Samuel, among other things, is a former clerk for Supreme Antonin Scalia (yes, you read that correctly). He is, by his own admission, a card-carrying socialist. You can watch the interview Samuel did with a laughing Tucker Carlson in the link above from the Washington Examiner to learn what "some Democrats" think. (Full disclosure: I laughed at some of it, too.)

Back to the article. The author notes that Dems don't even try to pretend there's a lofty goal here.

They aren’t even trying to hide that their agenda is simply focused on stopping conservatives rather than playing fairly and genuinely arguing policy... The Democrats’ rhetoric is a classic tactic to continue to move the goal posts and basically gerrymander favorability for one side.

Um, really? A politician acting simply to stop the other side? And using the  'gerrymander' term to describe this type of activity? Say it ain't so!

Oh wait, we can't say it ain't so, can we? Because this happened, and not so long ago, either.

After Democrats held together Thursday morning and filibustered president Trump's nominee, Republicans voted to lower the threshold for advancing Supreme Court nominations from 60 votes to a simple majority. 

Republicans changed the rules, after they lost. That's what that statement says.

In deploying this so-called nuclear option, lawmakers are fundamentally altering the way the Senate handles one of its most significant duties, further limiting the minority's power in a chamber that was designed to be a slower and more deliberative body than the House.

This move, once unthinkable among senators, is a testament to the creeping bipartisan rancor in recent years, after decades of at least relative bipartisanship on Supreme Court matters...

And before that, this happened: Mitch McConnell denied our duly elected president the opportunity to fulfill the duties of his office by refusing to allow Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to even come to the Senate floor. He did this, McConnell explained, because President Obama was a lame duck president, he said, and the people's voice needed to be heard.

Now, that's just applicable when we have a lame duck president; it doesn't apply when we have four lame duck Republican senators and it's a midterm election year, and certainly not when the Senate's Republican majority is 51 - 49 and when one of those 51, Arizona's John McCain, is not participating.

That stuff absolutely does not come into play at all. Because no Republican would ever do anything simply to advance their own agenda, certainly not Mitch McConnell.

I did find another reference to court packing, this time in Jacobin, "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives..." and so again, "some Socialist" who don't represent any voters or the views of most of the Democratic party, has an opinion on court packing.

Here's what we learn from the Jacobin article.

With Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling upholding Trump's Muslim ban, Wednesday's decision attacking public sector unions, and Justice Anthony Kennedy's announcement that he's retiring, it's time to push a once-maligned idea to the top of the agenda: pack the Supreme Court... 

Today, such ideas smell toxic to the average Democratic elected official - recall Al Gore's surrender following Bush v. Gore in 2000, despite later evidence that he was the rightful winner of that election. But such deference wasn't always the norm... 

Interesting. "Today, such ideas smell toxic to the average Democratic elected official" is a true statement - which is why it's kind of silly to suggest this is something that mainstream Dems support.

Even Bernie Sanders, the Independent-democratic socialist, the fake Democrat who just wanted to steal the party's money, data and spotlight, doesn't appear to be supporting court-packing. Speaking about Kavanaugh's nomination, he never mentioned it.

This is political. If you're concerned about health care, the environment, you need to understand that the majority of this Supreme Court is about working for the wealthy and the powerful against the needs of ordinary Americans. 

Sanders noted, focusing on how the Republicans got to this point, that people are going to become even more detached from the 'jousting' that goes on in these nomination battles.

The point now is to make people understand the real-life consequences of these decisions. I think if you frame it like that, you will be successful.

That's a significant uphill battle for Sanders, and for real Democrats, too. And what's also a significant uphill battle is fighting against the hypocrisy that flows so freely from both sides of every conversation. Neither party, neither side, has the high ground on this -- it's a tie in a race to the bottom. 

If we can frame it like that - that falling for this type of stuff has real-life consequences, and that it's not just bad actors from Russia and China and North Korea but our own homegrown talking heads and 'experts' maybe we'll be successful at turning the tide against all of the of the nonsense.

TGIF 9/29/17

Earlier this week, president Trump lost his first election since being elected last fall. And he lost his patience with just about everyone, it seems.

You'll remember, 'he' was successful in winning all of the replacement elections for the folks who left Congress to become cabinet members; the results of those elections I think were as much attributable to  Democrats struggling to get a message out vs. just throwing dollars from all around the country at the different races.

Over the past several weeks he had been running a full-bore Twitter campaign, and even held a rally in Alabama in support of Big Luther Strange, the 'loyal' candidate in the race against Constitution disregarder Judge Roy Moore.  Moore, with the support of Trump's former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, took the primary race.

The outcome for Trump? He started deleting his Big Luther tweets, although he may or may not have time to get all of them taken care of between his "we're doing great in Puerto Rico" messaging and his yelling at his cabinet members and his stumping for his once-in-a-lifetime tax reform for the rich program and threatening #NoKo with war and whatnot.  (In case you're wondering, here's some analysis on the legality of him deleting his tweets).

The outcome for Bannon? Tossed from the White House, reinvigorated at the helm of Breitbart news, and boldly defying his former boss. And oh -- attacking any candidate that has the support of Mitch McConnell (Strange had that, you see), even if it means going on the air against Trump to tell people the best candidate for Trump's agenda. Which, of course, is fascinating -- the guy who has the agenda doesn't even know who best will support it?  Or maybe the better question is, which agenda are we supporting, anyway?

Arizona Senator John McCain confirmed earlier this week his doctors say his prognosis is poor, which is not stopping McCain from doing his job in the Senate, nor is it stopping the president from continuing to bash him for his 'no' vote on the last best hope to make a mess of the Affordable Care Act while not repealing and replacing it.  Trump tweeted a montage of McCain saying the ACA needed to be r-and-r'd. And, according to Axios, Trump is physically mocking McCain's thumbs down vote in July.  Which simply can't be true, since he has never and would never mock anyone who has a disability, or, you now, serious injuries incurred as a POW.

One final note:  a while back, I expressed my dismay that SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch was going to be giving a speech - at Trump's Washington DC hotel - a few days before the start of the 2017-2018 court season. The speech, which was given yesterday at a luncheon for the Fund for American Studies, was met with a few dozen protesters trying valiantly to create the 'din of democracy' that Gorsuch mentioned. He also included this comment:

To be worthy of our First Amendment freedoms we have to all adopt certain civil habits that enable others to enjoy them as well.

Civility? That thing we're seeing none of from the White House these days?

The hotel, of course, is the subject of a number of lawsuits, many pointing at the Emoluments Clause forbidding a president from accepting foreign 'gifts' - and it's possible that these cases will end up before the Supremes at some point...along with all of the other Trump related cases that might be end up there... which is why I was not thrilled with Gorsuch participating in the speech there in the first place.

On the plus side? The president will be relentless in expressing his displeasure with "his" Supreme Court Justice should Gorsuch rule against him at any time -- so I'll hold out hope for that.

In the meantime, TGIF.

TGIF 8/18/17

I've been tinkering with a post all day long, without getting past my own objections to my writing, so I'm throwing in the towel for now on that, and instead will just noodle about some random things tonight.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's main accomplishment,will be speaking to a conservative group at the end of September.

At Trump's Washington DC hotel.

Now, I've always been squeamish with SCOTUS justices giving speeches to ideological organizations - regardless of the ideology in question; something about that just doesn't smell right. Gorsuch's address to the Fund for American Studies at Trump's hotel comes just days before the first Monday in October, when the Court's term kicks off; their docket includes Trump's travel ban. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to go along with the smell.

In contrast, some organizations are coming to the decision that holding big charity functions at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Winter White House and home of the 'Have Your Photo Taken with the Football' event. David Farenthold, a reporter for the Washington Post who has been focusing on Trump businesses and charitable acts (or the lack thereof), is reporting that seven organizations have moved from the 'yes we'll be back' column to the 'no, we won't' column. Groups include the Susan G Komen Foundation, the Cleveland Clinic, the American Cancer Society, the Salvation Army, and the Red Cross, which has cancelled its event all together.

So here's a question for you: how long before the president starts attacking these organizations on Twitter? We all know how he hates when people do mean things to him, and taking high profile events away from his beloved Mar-a Lago sure counts as mean.  This has to be way up there on his list of acts requiring retribution. And not only that, but will his base stop donating to these organizations?

On another topic, it seems historians and others have noticed a striking resemblance between monuments to Union soldiers and to Confederate soldiers.  The Washington Post has a story today that includes these two pictures. I know people have long said that the Civil War had brother fighting brother - can you tell who's Blue and who's Grey?

from the Washington Post

That's Union on the left as you look at the pic, and Confederate on the right. The difference? The belt buckles - US for the North, CS for the South. As the article notes,

To the Monumental Bronze Co. in Bridgeport, Conn., it was all just business. Union or Confederate, a customer was a customer, another $450 for a zinc statue that could mean whatever you needed it to mean. It was a business model that could appeal to president Trump - a highly profitable product that could dress up a drab little town and make many Americans feel great again.

One American who's not feeling great again is Susan Bro. The mom of Charlottesville terrorism victim Heather Heyer, Bro has said in an interview that she has received death threats sand that she's not interested in talking to the president.

It seems the White House has reached out a few times, including the first time which might have actually been during Heather's memorial service; there were others after that as well. Bro was too tired to watch the news, and when she did, her opinion changed dramatically - after all, she had thanked Trump earlier in the week for his kind words. But now?

I hadn't really watched the news until last night and I'm not talking to the president now. I'm sorry, after what he said about my child. It's not that I saw somebody else's tweets about him, I saw an actual clip of him at a press conference equating the protesters...with the KKK and the white supremacists. You can't wash this one away by shaking my hand and saying "I'm sorry." I'm not forgiving for that. 

She also offered some advice for Trump:

Think before you speak. 

And finally, one more touch on the #MAGA theme. Trump has been telling us that Foxconn, the foreign company that makes electronics (including Apple products) in Taiwan, was going to be opening a factory in Wisconsin. Jobs, jobs jobs, he told us - that'll keep us from treating each other like crap, quell the racism and white supremacy and whatnot.

For some reason, when I heard the president going on and on about these great Foxconn jobs, I wasn't thinking we were buying those jobs through a massive corporate welfare program, did you?
Well, that's exactly what happened.

The Wisconsin state Assembly reached a deal on the economic development package for Foxconn, which will be putting its new factory in House Speaker Paul Ryan's district. I kid you not. Anyway, the deal is worth $3B -- billion with a B - in mostly cash incentives. The plant will eventually employ 13,000 people (less than the 50K the company said they wanted to create here) and average wages will be around $54K for the first 3,000 hired.

Oh - those incentives? The break-even point on that investment is not expected to hit for at least 25 years.

TGIF.

Trump's Travel Ban

A whole lot of shaking going on, going on today,what with the SCOTUS decision on the president's Muslim ban, or Travel ban, or whatever you want to call it. The Supreme Court allowed the ban to go forward, with some exceptions. As we learned today,

The government's interest in enforcing (the ban), and the executive's authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.

 What constitutes a 'tie' between the traveler and the US?

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the Unites States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe's wife or Dr. Elshikh's mother-in-law clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO-2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid (the ban). For example, a nonprofit groups devoted to immigrant issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

The intent of the 'close relationship' part was to help eliminate much of the churn that happened when the original ban was implemented, which included keeping people in America as well as keeping people out of America.

In a statement issued by the White House, we were advised that

Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security. It allows the travel suspension for the six terror-prone countries and the refugee suspension to become largely effective. 

As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm. I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.

My number one responsibility as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe. Today's ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation's homeland. I am also particularly gratified that the Supreme Court's decision was 9-0. 

The Department of Homeland Security promised to think outside the box this time, and to consult with other agencies, including the Departments of  Justice and State, to come up with a plan.

The implementation of the Executive Order will be done professional, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry. 

Still, concerns abound. What constitutes a 'close familial relationship' for example; would a cousin count? A Joseph Greenwald and Laake civil rights attorney, Jay Holland, notes

There is absolutely a gray area. The issue of who has a bona fide relationship or familial relationship certainly appears to be an open and confusing question. 

The head of corporate communications for the International Air Transport Association,Perry Flint noted in the same article linked above,

It is absolutely imperative that airlines receive clear and concise information, as well as sufficient time, to enable them to comply with those portions of the executive order for which the injunction was stayed.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, which Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined, largely on the point of trying to define rules that meet the Court's requirement of a relationship.

Moreover, I fear that the Court's remedy will prove unworkable. Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding - on peril of contempt - whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country... The compromise will also invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine exactly what constitutes a "bona fide relationship," who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed "simply to avoid (section) 2C of Executive Order No. 13780...

It would be hard to imagine that the implementation could be worse this time around, but this is the government, after all (and no, that's not a comment on this particular administration). At least the people who have to make this work are talking to experts for assistance.

Now that a decision has been made, we should all hope for the best - and perhaps more importantly, hope that the efforts to "figure out what the hell is going on" which started earlier this month, are completed timely.

Wondering on Wednesday (v84)

It's Wednesday. You know what that means.

Let's start with Steve Bannon. Do you wonder what he's thinking, now that he's been booted from the National Security Council's Principals Committee by Donald Trump, or by HR McMaster, or by Jared Kushner - who even knows who actually pulled the strings, since Bannon has been considered by some as the string puller, the man behind the Big Boy desk as it were. Now, he's allegedly assigned to "working on health care" which seems like a demotion. I mean, national security plus everything else, to dealing with the petulant children in the House? Egads. I'd have skipped a press conference too, if I were him.  

And about those petulant children in the House, what on earth are we to think about them? Republicans fighting against Republicans, and Republicans fighting against the President, and the President fighting against Republicans. I wonder how they can possibly have the strength to fight Obamacare?

Yes, the sort of Repealish and Replacey bill that Speaker Paul Ryan tried to cram down everyone's throats in 17 days, with no success other than pitting R against R? We were told at the time that the best chance for fixing the failing health care plan was lost, and we were told by Trump that now we just had to wait for Obamacare to die and the Democrats, who owned the failure, according to Trump, to come crawling to him for help to save the darn thing.

I didn't wonder much last month when all of this played out which part of it was not true; I mean, the only thing we never really have to wonder about is whether Trump or anyone in his administration is lying. Last month, I was enjoying too much the Rs being at each others throats and all - but I should have been wondering.

For we now know that the part that was untrue was the part about, well, all of it.

Because Steve Bannon was too busy to attend a press conference - the only one he's missed, I read somewhere,  because he was "working on healthcare" and trying to salvage the mess that Paul Ryan got them into - and that Paul Ryan may not be able to get them out of.

Speaking with Norah O'Donnell, Ryan said this:

What I worry about, Norah, is if we don't do this then he'll just go work with Democrats to try to change Obamacare -- and that's hardly a conservative thing. If this Republican Congress allows the perfect to become the enemy of the good, I worry we'll push the president to working with Democrats. He's been suggesting that much.

Ah, there's nothing like the smell of House partisanship in the morning. Except maybe the stench emanating from the Senate, as they wring hands (wishing they were necks) over how, not if, Mitch McConnell's Republicans will confirm Neil Gorsuch as the next SCOTUS Associate Justice.

I mean, are the Dems desperately trying to snatch the title of the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight from the Rs, or what?

1. Gorsuch the best we can hope for from Trump/Pence. It was his first shot, and picked because he is about as mainstream as we're going to see. If he has another chance (sadly, that's likely even if he only serves one term), each successive nominee will be more distasteful than the last. That much, no wondering is required.
2. Merrick Garland deserved a vote - that's absolutely true. It also has absolutely nothing to do with Gorsuch. The Republicans were jerks, but that's water over under the bridge, over the dam, and in the basement already.  When, I wonder, will the Dems learn that being as bad as the other guys is not a feather in their cap?
3. Donald Trump, his transition team members, cabinet members, family members and Mar-a-Lago members, his business partners and bankers and dentist and hair stylists  and Trump Tower lease holders may currently have, or may have had, interactions with Russia - but that has nothing to do with Gorsuch.
4. Even if Trump is impeached or quits or falls into the mouth of an alligator during one of his million rounds of golf, Gorsuch is a legitimate nominee.

The Dems would be fools not to find a way to get to 60 votes. McConnell would owe them - bigly - if they were to do this. And even if he never properly thanked them for helping him out, he would know,  and we would know, and the world would know, and that should be enough. 

If, on the other hand, they force McConnell's hand and he changes the rules, the Dems will have no one to blame but themselves.  And we will have no one to blame but them. 

No wondering about that, at all.

Sunday School 4/2/17

We're going to spend some time in the Fox News Sunday classroom, as we did not have time to get to them last week.

Right off the bat, I was intrigued by the opening segment, reported by Kevin Corke from Washington, speaking to host Chris Wallace. I mean, who would have thunk that someone at Fox News other than Shepard Smith, would say this?

Chris, as usually is the case in Washington scandals, it's the cover-up and not the crime that usually ensnares. And there are legitimate questions about that with respect to the ongoing controversy over what House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes knows about possible surveillance of Trump aides and how he came about getting that information, Nunes you may recall claiming to have such compelling information he needed to rush to the White House and tell the president himself. But he did that without sharing what he found with fellow members of the Intelligence Committee, which is highly unusual. 

This as FOX News has confirmed that Nunes received key information from a pair of White House aides, calling into question no only his relationship with the administration, but his ability to be impartial.

Scandals? Cover up? Crime? Controversy? Claiming to have compelling information? Highly unusual? Calling into question the Republican's ability to be impartial?  Holy Horrors, Batman!

Also on the show today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who talked about why we don't need an independent investigator on Russia.

We've got a bipartisan investigation underway now. It's called the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Burr and Senator Warner had a joint press conference this week. I think they clearly laid out that they're going wherever the facts take them. We don't need another investigation We know the FBI is looking at it from their perspective. It's being handled appropriately and it will be handled well. 

He also promised we would see Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch confirmed this week -- one way or another.  Wallace questioned whether McConnell would use the nuclear option if he can't stop a filibuster.

Look, what I'm telling you is that Judge Gorsuch is going to be confirmed. The way in which that occurs is in the hands of the Democratic minority. And I think during the course of the week, we'll find out exactly how this will end.

He reminded us that even with the "most controversial Supreme Court nomination in history" (Clarence Thomas), "not a single senator, not one, not Ted Kennedy, not Joe Biden, no one said you had to get 60 votes." With that, McConnell threw the ball firmly in Chuck Schumer's court, pardon the pun.

The big deal of the show was EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who as we know is head of an agency with a suggested 31% cut in funding, who visited to talk about that environment thing. Wallace outlined some data presented during (or by) the Obama administration as the Clean Power Plan was being developed:

• there would be 90,000 fewer asthma attacks per year and
• 300,000 fewer missed work and school days and
• 3,600 fewer premature deaths a year
• half of all Americans - 166,000,000 people - now live in counties with unhealthy air
• carbon pollution from the power sector would be reduced by 2005, would be 1/3 lower than in 2005

In a nutshell, here's Pruitt's response:

• The president is keeping his promise to reduce overreach
• pro-jobs and pro-growth and pro-environment are not mutually exclusive
• the EPA and the federal government should not pick winners and losers
• fuel diversity is important
• we have shown leadership
• pro-jobs and pro-growth and overreach and tools in the toolbox

Wallace also challenged Pruitt on his comment about the interview during which he was asked whether he believed "that it's been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate." Pruitt's answer, in case you've forgotten:

No, I would not agree that it's the primary contributor to the global warming that we're seeing.

When pressed on this, Pruitt said

No, look, Chris - I said... in my confirmation process, to individual senators as well, that there's a warming trend, the climate is changing. And human activity contributes to the change in some measure.  The real issue is how much we contribute to it and measuring that with precision. But then also, what is the process as far as the response, what can we do about it, the tools in the toolbox to address the CO2 issue?

One last question from Wallace:

Under the president's new budget, the EPA is cut 31 percent, that is more than any other agency And I want to put up some of the cuts that are included in the president's budget. Here are some of the 56 programs that would be scrapped: Great Lakes restoration, water runoff control for farmers, pesticide safety. What does that say about the commitment of this administration and you to cleaning up the environment when you're making a 31 percent cut of in your agency and cutting things like that, water runoff for farmers?

Well, said Pruitt.

Well, part of -- part of the issue, Chris, is that over the last several years, there has been a lack of commitment to state partnership. You know, we have state Departments of Environmental Quality across the country have the resources and the expertise to deal with clean water and clean air issues and so, renewing that partnership -- 

I've met with several governors, in fact within the first week of being on the job, I met with 20-plus governors. And those governors across the country are committed to pro-jobs and pro-environment. They have to serve their people in those states as well.

And I will tell you this, Chris, this attitude in Washington, DC, that people in Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas and Colorado and the rest of the country don't care about the water they drink or the air they breathe and are not going to take care of the water locally and (in their) states, I just don't believe that. That narrative is something we reject and we look forward to partnering with states across the country to achieve good outcomes.  

So there you have it. Seems in the eyes of the EPA administrator, each state can handle things individually. Just like students in our Sunday School classrooms have to handle their work individually. Well, maybe not the same; the latter seems more logical than the former, doesn't it?

See you around campus.

Sunday School 3/26/17

Lots going on in Sunday School today.

Intelligence. Russia. Healthcare and health insurance. Trump. Ryan. Gorsuch. Let's see what's going on in a few classrooms, shall we?

On Face the Nation (CBS), for me, the highlight of the show was the commentary by John Dickerson at the end of the first half hour. They had talked about the health care debacle, and about the actions of the House Intelligence Committee, and about president Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan. I didn't see any really new ground broken there.

Talking about the president and the office of the presidency, Dickerson noted that Trump said President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower; we know now that the FBI has no evidence of that (which means that Trump lied, even though Dickerson didn't use those words); he talked about the difference between the president and the office of the presidency, and then he quoted one of Trump's favorite presidents, Andrew Jackson.

"I shall keep steadily in view the limitations of my office," said Andrew Jackson. Break the limits and you break the office. 

Nevertheless, President Trump compared his predecessor to Nixon and McCarthy, called him sick and bad. To break glass like that, a president must have a good reason and proof. President Trump had no evidence and no higher purpose. Tending the presidency is important for a disruptive president like Donald Trump, because it shows people he knows the line between renovating the office and demolishing it.

You measure twice and cut once. You don't cut without measuring at all.

On NBC's Meet the Press, Director of the Office of Management Budget Mick Mulvaney, a former member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, talked about the failure of the Rs to repeal and replace Obamacare. Chuck Todd asked Mulvaney about Trump pinning the failure on Mulvaney's caucus and on prominent conservative groups the Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation. Here's Mulvaney's response.

Yeah, and I think there's plenty of blame to go around. As we sat over the last two days and tried to figure out what happened, I think what happened is that Washington won. I think the one thing we learned this week is that Washington was a lot more broken than President Trump thought it was. So what you have is the status quo wins, and unfortunately the folks back home lost...

Todd pressed on:

So, the Republican party has not changed Washington after taking over the House in '10, taking over the Senate in '14, and taking over the White House now?

Mulvaney:

I think more importantly, we haven't been able to change Washington in the first 65 days. And I think if there's anything that's disappointing and sort of an educational process to the Trump Administration was that this place was a lot more rotten than we thought that it was, and than I thought it was, because I've been here for six years. I know the Freedom Caucus, I helped found it. I never thought it would come to this. 

Interestingly, Mulvaney is not the only one who thinks that way. Texas Representative Ted Poe announced today he is leaving the Freedom Caucus.

I have resigned from the House Freedom Caucus. In order to deliver on the conservative agenda we have promised the American people for eight years, we must come together to find solutions to move this country forward. Saying no is easy, leading is hard, but that is what we were elected to do. Leaving this caucus will allow me to be a more effective member of Congress and advocate for the people of Texas. It is time to lead.

CNN's State of the Union had the man who probably should have been President on, talking about the health care debacle. Yep, I'm talking about Ohio Governor John Kasich. Today's host Dana Bash asked about extreme partisanship, Republicans saying the old days are over and Dems being determined not to work with the Reps.

Well, that's pathetic. That's pathetic. First of all, it's not the old days anymore. If you don't have the old days back from the standpoint of people being Americans before they are Republicans and Democrats, nothing will get done. And if the Democrats don't want to reach out and be constructive, then call them on it. Talk about the fact that they won't help, because many of them will, if it's put the them...

And I understand that Donald Trump has said, maybe we should have done this more with Democrats. Right now, off the get-go, it's all partisan. The Democrats did it with Obamacare, and it's not sustainable. And the Republicans tried to do this with just Republicans. It doesn't work like that in our country. We're not a parliamentary system. And whenever you continue to operate like that what you pass will never be sustainable. And it will -- the people of this country, particularly the vulnerable, the mentally ill, the drug-addicted, the chronically ill, who will pay the price for politics. It needs to stop. 

Kasich took it one step further, when Bash suggested he was talking about a utopia that simply doesn't exist in DC.

Well, there's a way to improve all of this and to save money and to transform the system. And look, if you're on the extreme, whether you're on the right of whether you're on the left, you ought to be marginalized. And that's what happens when you bring reasonable Republicans with reasonable Democrats together, and then you see the extremes start to move a little bit to be more constructive. Right now, when you start with a deck that's only a limited number of cards, then you don't have a big hand to play. Frankly, if Republicans quietly over time will reach out to Democrats, find the constructive ones, you will begin to marginalize the extremes. 

He didn't win the Republican primary, but he won this argument hands down. Extremism is killing us, and both parties own that. 

And our last look into the classrooms today, This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC talked about the Gorsuch SCOTUS nomination, and a potential filibuster with NY's Chuck Schumer. They also talked about another comment Schumer had made regarding delaying consideration of Gorsuch, in light of the Russia investigations. Here's how George posed it:

But you also said this week that it would be unseemly to approve Judge Gorsuch as long as this FBI investigation is going on into the Russian interference in our election. That could take years.

Schumer's response?

Yeah, but we didn't say years. What we said is for months. Let's see where -- look, this is a very important appointment - lifetime, affects America in huge ways. Judge Roberts came on the court, now Justice Roberts. Citizens United dramatically changed America. Taking away voting rights changed America. Trying to get rid of unions... So, let's see where this investigation goes for a few months and delay. It's up to our Republican colleagues. I hope they'll accept that argument. If the investigation looks like it's (going) nowhere, fine. If it looks like it's really serious, yeah, we ought to consider what I said. 

Interesting, using the 'fruit of the poisoned tree' argument to oppose Trump's nomination of Gorsuch. And it seems Schumer is not the first to make it -- Charles M. Blow made it back in February.

See you around campus.

No, It's Not a Double Standard

White House Communications Director and Press Secretary Sean Spicer frequently gets himself all entwangled fighting off the press in the tiny White House briefing room. Like he did the other day, when speaking to comments made by the Trump SCOTUS nominee.

Neil Gorsuch, in a conversation with Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, said that "any criticism about a judge's integrity and independence" were "disheartening" and "demoralizing."
The comments were conveyed as being in reference to statements made by Trump regarding the "so-called judge" (that would be James Robart) who issued the temporary restraining order halting the Executive Order on Immigration.

Gorsuch confirmed the dis- and de- comments were his, even as Trump suggested otherwise (and, of course, personally attacked Blumenthal).  While others confirmed that Gorsuch was specifically referring to Trump's comments, Spicer offered this instead:

There's a big difference between commenting on the specific comments that have been made, and the tweet, and his general philosophy about the judiciary and the respect for his fellow judges. 

He literally went out of his way to say I'm not commenting on a specific instance. So to take what he said about a generalization and apply it to a specific is exactly what he intended not to do. 

And Spicer also noted that executive criticism of the judiciary was a time-honored tradition, and even Barack Obama did it in a State of the Union address.

I get it, but at some point is seems like there's clearly a double standard when it's how this is applied. When President Obama did it, there was no concern from this briefing room. When (Trump) does it, it's, you know, a ton of outrage. 

So, I checked to see what Obama said in his 2010 SOTU, where he made some very well-reported (and seriously wrong place, wrong time) comments, to see whether I could find a personal attack on one or more justices of the Supreme Court in Obama's remarks (emphasis added):

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

In 2015, on the fifth anniversary of the decision, Obama made a broader statement on the case, and I looked again for a personal attack against a SCOTUS justice (again, emphasis added):

Our democracy works best when everyone's voice is heard, and no one's voice is drowned out. But five years ago, a Supreme Court ruling allowed big companies - including foreign corporations - to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections. The Citizens United decision was wrong, and it has caused real harm to our democracy.  With each new campaign season, this dark money floods our airwaves with more and more political ads that pull our politics into the gutter. It's time to reverse this trend. Rather than bolster the power of lobbyists and special interests, Washington should lift up the voices of ordinary Americans and protect their democratic right to determine the direction of the country that we love. 

Unless I'm blind, I don't see Obama doing what Trump did to Judge Robart - including allocating blame directly to the judge, "should anything happen."  And, if there's nothing Robart-like in Obama's statements, there certainly isn't anything remotely close to Trump's comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the Indiana-born "Mexican" judge who was involved in the Trump University case.

Remember that one, when Trump was a candidate?  Let's all refresh our memories, by reviewing these comments from campaign appearances and media interviews (emphasis added):

...very hostile judge...because it was me... there's a hostility toward me by the judge, tremendous hostility, beyond belief...he happens to be Spanish... he is Hispanic... a judge who is very hostile... extremely hostile to me... he has been extremely hostile to me... a very hostile judge. Now he is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me. I said it loud and clear... A hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is not doing the right thing... judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that's fine... I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself... it's a disgrace that he's doing this... the judges in this court system, federal court... they ought to look into that Judge Curiel because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace... he's proud of his heritage, OK? I'm building a wall... we are building a wall. He's a Mexican.We're building a wall between here and Mexico... he is giving us very unfair rulings, rulings that people can't even believe... he is giving us unfair rulings Now, I saw "why?" Well, I'm building a wall, OK? And it's a wall between America and Mexico. Not another country. He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it... 

It makes me want to vomit all over again, just reading all of this hatred from the man who wanted to be - and now is - the president.

But - back to the point -- I'm STILL trying to find a similarity between Obama blasting a SCOTUS decision and Trump's comments about either Judge Robart or Judge Curiel. There is no double standard here, is there?

We might need some clarification from Sean Spicer on this one.

Wondering on Wednesday (v78)

Wow. As in Wondering on Wednesday, and as in wow!

First, I admit I wondered how far I should go with the so-called bit and I've decided that there's no more wondering. I will refer to the so-called President just as the so-called President referred to District Judge James Robart as the so-called judge who ordered a temporary halt to the executive order on immigration (EOI). I suppose after the whole "Mexican, we believe" crap about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, there should have been no surprise that the so-called president would stick his foolish neck out and make a rash statement about any other member of the judiciary who might see an issue with any of Trump's ideas.

What I am wondering about are the comments from Trump's SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch.

He called Trump's attack on the judiciary "demoralizing" and "disheartening" when he was meeting with legislators in advance of his confirmation hearings. Are these the comments of a man who's trying to show his independence by disagreeing with Trump in a venue that was sure to see the light of day? Or are these the comments of a many who's doing exactly what Trump wanted him to do, to appear independent and outspoken, a free thinker not tied to Trump's beliefs? And I wonder, what would the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia have done in these circumstances? Because from all I've seen, he's really the Gorsuch compass.

Except for the whole fascist thing, I guess.

I mean, was anyone really wondering if we were considering an admitted fascist, the Founder and President of the Fascism Forever Club in prep school, for a lifetime seat as a Supreme?

Of course not; and of course, we're  not considering any such person. Because there wasn't any such club, Gorsuch's yearbook entry notwithstanding.

And then, I'm wondering why Elizabeth Warren was silenced for impugning the reputation of another senator? Warren was being her usual fierce self expressing her opposition to the nomination of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as Attorney General (he was confirmed today by the way). At some point, she touched a nerve and was officially shut up by a Senate rule about being mean to your peers.

Somehow, reading a letter from the widow of a civil rights leader is impugnatory, but calling the Senate leader a liar is not. Elizabeth Warren was bad, but Lowell Weicker was not. Fun stuff here, for sure, but like many people, I have to wonder whether this move will backfire against lying Mitch McConnell. Warren went from a C-SPAN hearing to some 10,000,000 people watching her read the letter on various media.

And speaking of 10,000,000, that's probably the number of people the so-called President's daughter wishes was purchasing her branded merchandise over the past few months. Had that been the case, maybe Nordstrom wouldn't be dropping her. Now, there's no wondering how Daddy would react to that, right? Of course not!

A tweet here, a tweet there, and, well, we're right smack dab in the middle of a conflict of interest again, and right smack dab in the middle of yet another situation where the #MAGA man, and #BAHA man, is slamming an American company to suit his personal need -- and, oh just by the way, tweeting about it using the official @POTUS account, which we pay for. And having his press secretary blather on about it, spreading alternative facts on why the luxury department store did what they did. We pay for him, too.

Oh - if you were wondering, Nordstrom stock went up today, when they fought back against the Daddy in Chief. How cool is that!

But 10,000,000 is a piddly little number, one that pales in comparison to the $150,000,000 value placed on Melania Trump's multi-year gig as First Lady, and the associated business and branding opportunities she may have lost out on because some reporter suggested she was a call girl, or an escort, or some other term meaning hooker at the same time she was a model in the years before meeting her so-called husband.

Not that she was planning on capitalizing on her First Ladiness, for heaven's sake, who could even wonder such a thing?

As I said at the outset -- wow, this was one busy Wednesday!